My Word's Worth: a weekly column by Marylaine Block

vol.3, #47, June 1, 1998

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Somewhere between Anita Hill and Kathleen Willey, the law about sexual harassment became exceedingly murky, and the only people who claim to understand it don't agree with each other. Perhaps this is what comes of legislating good intentions without worrying about how the law will be applied--it has left both men and women feeling bruised, confused, and victimized. It hasn't done a whole lot for working relationships between the genders, either--we are supposed to be yin and yang, after all, not World War III waiting to happen.

It's not that you can't understand why people wanted this law. Who could defend a boss who demands sexual favors from employees and makes their careers depend on their compliance? Most of us would probably agree that people should be able to do their work in peace, and be judged on how well they perform.

But general principles are the easy part. The details are messy, and when they get filled in on an ad hoc basis by administrative rule-making and court decisions, the resulting body of law does not necessarily make sense.

For instance, what exactly IS sexual harassment? What if the boss asked once, took no for an answer and made no reprisals (the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones scenario, as best we can tell). What if there were no direct sexual invitations, but only continuous innuendo? What if there were sexual overtures from co-workers or customers, rather than bosses? What if victim and perpetrator were of the same sex?

What if no sexual favors were demanded, but the woman was subjected to constant insults? This is the doctrine that says women can sue over a "hostile work environment" if they face catcalls and putdowns and hate mail, and find tampons and centerfolds fastened to their lockers or desks.

Now that would indeed be unpleasant. On the other hand, a lot of us face a hostile work environment. Whether we are females, males, blacks, Hispanics, Jewish, fat people, nerds, hippies, or members of any other group not dominant in our workplace, we could be the butt of jokes, slurs, and nasty pranks. Think of how the homely geeky kids in your high school were treated by the popular crowd--now THAT's a hostile environment. So if we only outlaw gender-based bullying, are we not making women a privileged protected class?

Another flaw in the law is this: for a law to work, people have to know when they're violating it. If we go through a red light, we know perfectly well we broke a law--not only is the law clear, but so is the nature of the proof--eyewitness testimony and maybe videotape.

Are we all clear on what we can and cannot do in the workplace when dealing with the opposite sex? I have some questions for my male readers. When you're at work,

• do you feel comfortable telling a female co-worker she's looking especially attractive?
• do you feel safe asking a female co-worker to join you for lunch or for a drink?
• do you refrain from telling dirty or sexist jokes when women may overhear?
• would you feel safe hugging a female colleague to comfort or congratulate her?
• do you feel nervous if alone with a female co-worker in an office with the door shut?
• do you know how your female co-workers would react to any of these things?

And I ask my female readers, how WOULD you react in these circumstances?

Now, this is where I think a number of the problems between the sexes arise. Because I think men want a hard and fast rule--no, you should never compliment a woman on her dress. I believe men generally are most comfortable when the rules are clear. They may not follow them, but they want to know precisely what they are.

Whereas I think most women's answers to all of the above situations would be a rousing "That depends." What it depends on can include:

• The power relationship--such actions from somebody with power over us could be seen as threatening;
• The nature of our relationship with the man (or what we would like it to be);
• Whether the overture is unwanted (The puzzled male says, how do we know it's unwanted? If she reacts negatively once, assume it's unwanted and stop.);
• Our reading of the man's body language;
• The pattern of the man's previous actions and words.

Which is to say, a woman may treat a personal compliment from a man she trusts with a smile and a joke, while she may find the exact same remark unsettling when made by a man who has been leering at her, and respond frigidly or not at all.

The sexual harassment law is such an ungodly blunt tool for dealing with a genuine problem--it has no nuances. It does not allow for subjective interpretation of potentially threatening behavior or remarks. And while court cases do take into account specific circumstances, those decisions become part of a patchwork of precedents to judge future cases by.

That's how good intentions turned into a law that doesn't make women feel noticeably more secure in the workplace, and that makes men feel like anything they say or do may be used against them. Do you notice a lot of people walking on eggshells these days?

And yet, there is this problem of bullying. Like we said in the first place people at work should not be subjected to slurs and taunts, temper tantrums, public humiliation, hate mail, vicious practical jokes, or unwanted sexual invitations. We could maybe even agree there should be limits on the power of bosses to terrorize employees, male or female. But unless that terrorizing borders on assault or felony, this is not a question law is good at dealing with.

The solution we should perhaps have tried first is manners. By making the assumption that people do not intend to offend, but lack awareness of how their actions and words are perceived, manners offer a gracious way of pointing out the offense and chastising the offender. (Yes, that's a generous view of human nature, but far more people are thoughtless than are actively malicious--and if we give people credit for trying to do the right thing, sometimes it shames them into doing it.)

How can we know when we have stepped over the line, unwittingly offended? By paying attention to people's reactions when we talk to them or touch them--the expression on the face, a change in the posture or distance, a frostiness in the tone of voice, an abrupt termination of the conversation. And by paying attention to what the person tells us. If she, or he, says, "That makes me feel uncomfortable," whatever it was we did or said, we shouldn't do it again. Better yet, we can apologize and explain ourselves.

Rodney King asked, plaintively and eloquently, "Can't we all just get along?" We can, and a lot better, if when someone offends us, we tell him that directly, instead of expecting some third party to step in and protect us. If we all pay a lot more attention to what happens after we open our mouths. And if the rest of us don't tolerate this kind of tacky behavior.

NOTE: My thinking is always a work in progress. You could mentally insert all my columns in between these two sentences: "This is something I've been thinking about," and "Does this make any sense to you?" I welcome your thoughts. Please send your comments about these columns to: marylaine at netexpress.net. Since I've written a lot of these, some of them many years ago, help me out by telling me which column you're referring to.

I'll write columns here whenever I really want to share an idea with you and can find time to write them . If you want to be notified when a new one is up, send me an e-mail and include "My Word's Worth" in the subject line.