SEXUAL HARRASSMENT:

IT'S NOT NICE TO FOOL MOTHER NATURE

 

By Bill Dobbins

 

Feminism, and the ongoing "Women's Movement" that began in earnest in the 1960s, has on on the whole been a good thing. Women have been granted more opportunity to do whatever they are capable of, to receive equal pay for equal work, and strides have been made in areas such as pregnancy leave and child care services that make it possible for women to have careers and start families as well. Along with these changes, we've seen a difference in how men and women relate to each other across the board. A lot of women work outside the home nowadays. They are wage earners. They expect to express their preferences in a relationship and to share in the making of decisions. Married women help support the family. So expecting them to also take care of all the household chores, to be the one primarily responsible for taking care of the kids and to defer in all important decisions to their "lord and master" husbands would be unreasonable. Even those women who don't work outside the home are recognized for the contribution they make to the family's standard of living and economic well-being.

Nor are women expected to be totally available at all time to their husband's or boyfriend's sexual appetites. Women have always had to be courted; nowadays, so do wives. We accept that women like sex as do men, but we realize that sometimes they don't like it, don't feel like it and have the right to make their feelings on the subject known.

As part of this more modern consciousness, laws have been passed to protect women. For example, the law severely limits the ability of an opposing lawyer to bring up a rape victim's past sexual behavior. And juries have been told over and over that a woman always has the right to say no---no matter the circumstances. She's drunk, she's been making out, she's taken off her clothes but if she changes her mind and decides she doesn't want to have sex, well that's it. But granting the obvious benefits to society from these changes in custom and practice (which also free men from thinking they have to act like hairy-chested Neanderthals all the time), the question remains as to just how much women really need to be protected. This is, after all, not the Victorian age. Women don't faint away when the hear "bad words." They aren't ignorant of the facts of life. It wouldn't be appropriate as we approach the 21st century to treat females as frail vessels to be insulated as much as possible from the harsh realties that only the tougher male of the species can handle.

Unfortunately, one of the less desirable spin-offs of the Age of Feminism has been the myth of "woman as victim." For example, Andrea Dworkin, one of the more extreme of the feminist sisterhood, has suggested that all sex between men and women is essentially rape, even between husband and wife, because women are in such a subordinate position in society (physically, economically, politically) that they have no real choice when it comes to consenting to sex. If this is so, then men have been wasting an enormous amount of time courting and dating women, seducing them, buying them presents, taking them to dinner, flattering them, even marrying them. Why go through so much if whatever you do is the moral equivalent of rape? After all, real rape is so much faster and easier!-

Of course, this "all sex is rape" position is obviously ridiculous. But there is a more subtle version of it at loose in the land, which has surfaced in the form of a variety of dubious "sexual harrassment" laws, rules and policies. Certainly, nobody should be forced to put up with repeated, offensive, unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. Any reasonable person would agree that sexually offensive behavior and remarks are inappropriate when you're trying to do a day's work. Any company that condones such things is asking for trouble. Any manager or supervisor who allows this to continue once it has been brought to his or her attention is not doing their job. It shouldn't take an act of Congress to get that point across.

And, hey, a boss who demands sex from an employee as a condition of a raise---or continued employment? What a rat! String him up. And any company who knowingly allows this kind of behavior to continue deserves what it gets.

But it still remains to be determined what the difference is between "making advances" and engaging in what is clearly sexually offensive behavior. Men come on to women all the time---whether at social occasions, in bars or clubs, on the street or at work. We've heard a lot about "family values" the past few years. Well, where do you think families come from? Obviously, from men courting women, winning women, marrying women and having children with women. And once you get out of high school and college, the easiest place for men and women to get to know each other is on the job.-

And it's not a myth---bosses do marry their secretaries. It happens all the time. My grandfather wed his secretary, and as far as I know he, she and the company they worked for all thought it was a fine idea. If you had told her she was being sexually harrassed the first time he asked her out socially she would have thought you were crazy. But if you accept the idea that women are always and inevitably victims of men, then "courting" itself can be easily construed as being offensive and any advances can be viewed as sexual harrassment. And a discussion in an office of a recent sexually-oriented episode of "Seinfeld" or having a copy of "Playboy" in the office can lead to legal action. Say, what?-

This kind of nonsense is not confined to the workplace. We recently saw Paula Jones sue Bill Clinton because he allegedly made sexual overtures to her. Thankfully, the court recognized that sexual harrassment was not involved (although he paid her off anyway, go figure that one out). Or how about the university campus that instituted a policy which said that men had to get explicit permission before taking any physical "liberties" with the opposite sex? "May I kiss you?" "May I touch your breast?" "May I take off your bra?" Now doesn't that sound like a fun, sexy kind of date!

The result of all this had been considerable. Men nowadays are increasingly unsure as to how to approach women. So more and more often, they don't. Working women spend 40 hours or more a week in business offices, where they used to be able to look over the available men for prospective boyfriends and husbands. But nowadays it is increasingly company policy to forbid social relationships between male and female employees to avoid any potential liability from a sexual harrassment suit. Men might be attracted to a woman at work but he can often be fired for expressing any interest.

Add to this mix the free-floating sexual anxieties created by the HIV epidemic and you end up with a cultural view of sex that makes the 1950s look light-hearted. Want to know why the porno industry is thriving? Because having sex with yourself is the safest sex of all. No disease, no rejection. Wonder why people are marrying younger and in greater numbers than they did 10 or 20 years ago? Because dating is viewed as so difficult, confusing and potentially life-threating that you might as well take what you can get and settle down. At least that way you can get laid. Of coure, this doesn't mean those marriages are actually lasting any longer than in the recent past. What we are really getting is the lowering of the average age of the first divorce.

What can be done about this situation? One remedy might well be a sobering dash of common sense. Let's face the fact that women are not helpless victims. They can pretty much take care of themselves, and decide what male advances to encourage and which to reject. If unwanted, overly-aggressive or inappropriate advances persist, they should be dealt with as what they are---unacceptable. Businesses should be responsible for creating a corporate culture in which it is made clear that objectionable behavior is objectionable and to act upon serious complaints when they are lodged. At the same time, there are inappropriate complaints as well as inappropriate behavior. Not every offensive remark should be the subject of legal action. Men should recognize a woman's freedom of choice, but shouldn't be encouraged to stop before they hear a very clear"no." Any man can tell you that women don't always mean it when they say no, so while you shouldn't continue on when you are not welcome you should at least make sure. That's been the nature of courting most probably since we first came down from the trees. -

The bottom line is that sexual harrassment should only be an issue when there is consistent, persistent, objectionable behavior or language, when the "powers that be" make no effort to correct the situation (or worse condone it), and especially when you can demonstrate actual economic or career damage. Protecting women's "sensibilies" over and above the considerations we give to men doesn't make sense in most cases. If a woman were to sue because certain kinds of behavior "made her feel uncomfortable," that's not necessarily enough. Some very straight-laced men might disapprove of women in the workplace wearing low cut blouses or short skirts. Would the courts entertain a lawsuit on those grounds? (Nowadays, they probably would, but that's another issue.) Would an Hassidic Jew or a born-again Christian be able to sue because their own cutural, sexual sensibilities were offended by some workplace displays or behavior? Are we to go back to a time in which sex itself is considered dirty and offensive and not to be discussed or alluded to in mixed company?

Let's face it, sex is one of those irrational, ungovernable drives (like eating) that will not allow itself to be repressed too much or too long. If it could be, people would have stopped having children every time major unheavels in the world occurred, the race would have died out and you and I wouldn't be here. When it comes to sex, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature---and it's useless. You can't keep men and women from getting together, but it's clear from the recent sexual harassment cases in the courts that you can institute a lot of unreasonable rules and silly laws that help make them miserable while they are doing it.

 

 

.