Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?

Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?

At one extreme, some say it should be solely up to the person being harassed. At the other extreme, some feel it shouldn't even exist as a concept. People should toughen up. Others feel it should be in the middle.

Generic question, not specifically about any current situation or situation from the past.

radcen said:

Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?

At one extreme, some say it should be solely up to the person being harassed. At the other extreme, some feel it shouldn't even exist as a concept. People should toughen up. Others feel it should be in the middle.

Generic question, not specifically about any current situation or situation from the past.

Click to expand...

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good legal definition. Seems like two things must be present: unwanted and persistent contact. The "unwanted" is up to the individual and "persistent" speaks for itself. Pretty clear.

MaggieD said:

That's a pretty good legal definition. Seems like two things must be present: unwanted and persistent contact. The "unwanted" is up to the individual and "persistent" speaks for itself. Pretty clear.

Click to expand...

I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.

radcen said:

I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.

Click to expand...

What if your personal opinion coincides with the legal defination? The definition that MaggieD gave nails my opinion of it on the head.

The legal version sounds almost like extortion. Or harassment followed is usually followed by blackmail. I have scenario for you if you really want to test your theories. What if a woman accuses a man of harassment but blackmails for money if they don't play along, would you pay them, or are they right? I am saying this because because women these days tend to accuses innocent men of rape when they had consensual sex, and juries buy it. Everyone these days are looking for ways of making a quick buck by doing absolutely nothing!

MaggieD said:

That's a pretty good legal definition. Seems like two things must be present: unwanted and persistent contact. The "unwanted" is up to the individual and "persistent" speaks for itself. Pretty clear.

Click to expand...

radcen said:

I wasn't searching for the legal definition. I was searching for each person's individual opinion.

Click to expand...

I think MaggieD reduced the lengthy definition down to something I agree with, too. Unwanted and persistent contact. Once it's been made reasonably clear (by a specific voice or by general social will) that a particular form of contact with an individual is unwanted and it persists, it's harassment. I can come into contact with 2 different people in the very same way. If one of those people asks me to stop, and I repeat the action to both. I've harassed the one who asked me to stop. If it's in the workplace, I may have harassed others as well because it may affect those around me who can't avoid seeing/hearing the behavior.

I'd take it further and say that if my name's Abraham, and you consistently call me Abe even after I've asked you to stop - it's harassment. Intimidation doesn't just have to be sexual.

stsburns said:

I have scenario for you if you really want to test your theories. What if a woman accuses a man of harassment but blackmails for money if they don't play along, would you pay them, or are they right? I am saying this because because women these days tend to accuses innocent men of rape when they had consensual sex, and juries buy it. Everyone these days are looking for ways of making a quick buck by doing absolutely nothing!

Click to expand...

Let me see if I've got this straight:

#1 Woman accuses a man of harrassment.
#2 Blackmails for money (if they don't play along with what?)
#3 Somehow leads to this woman accusing him (an innocent man) of rape
#4 Man is convicted

You're questions are: "Would you pay them?" and "Are they right?"

Never pay a blackmailer. The blackmail will never stop, and, by paying, you've made yourself look guilty. Go to the authorities, tell them the whole story, and ask them to help you set up a sting. Anyone who threatens blackmail is wrong.

If you're right that "women these days tend to accuse innocent men of rape," then I'd say that a lot of men are hanging around with the wrong crowd.

Remember, rape is a criminal offense. The DA isn't going to charge someone with rape when: there's no proof beyond "she says"...woman didn't go to the hospital for a rape kit...didn't immediately tell her friends...has no evidence of physical harm (i.e., photos)...and later, demands money not to bring the charge...combine that with a guy who goes straight to the authorities as soon as the words pass her lips and the one in trouble is her. IMO.

Edit: Not sure where harrassment comes in, though.

MaggieD said:

Let me see if I've got this straight:

#1 Woman accuses a man of harrassment.
#2 Blackmails for money (if they don't play along with what?)
#3 Somehow leads to this woman accusing him (an innocent man) of rape
#4 Man is convicted

You're questions are: "Would you pay them?" and "Are they right?"

Never pay a blackmailer. The blackmail will never stop, and, by paying, you've made yourself look guilty. Go to the authorities, tell them the whole story, and ask them to help you set up a sting. Anyone who threatens blackmail is wrong.

Click to expand...

well that's pretty standard corporate policy in alot of places. cheaper to pay the woman than pay the lawyer.

If you're right that "women these days tend to accuse innocent men of rape," then I'd say that a lot of men are hanging around with the wrong crowd.

Click to expand...

hmm, turn this logic around and point out that real rape victims shouldn't have been hanging out with the wrong guys...?

Remember, rape is a criminal offense. The DA isn't going to charge someone with rape when: there's no proof beyond "she says"...woman didn't go to the hospital for a rape kit...didn't immediately tell her friends...has no evidence of physical harm (i.e., photos)...and later, demands money not to bring the charge...combine that with a guy who goes straight to the authorities as soon as the words pass her lips and the one in trouble is her. IMO.

Click to expand...

one would hope so. but sympathy is a powerful thing, and tends to go straight to the woman whereas the man is assumed guilty.

Kal'Stang said:

What if your personal opinion coincides with the legal defination? The definition that MaggieD gave nails my opinion of it on the head.

Click to expand...

Then so be it. Nothing wrong with that. Sometimes a legal definition mirrors my opinion, also. Just say so, so that you don't appear to be one of those people who blindly thinks that the law is always right.

GreenvilleGrows said:

I think MaggieD reduced the lengthy definition down to something I agree with, too. Unwanted and persistent contact. Once it's been made reasonably clear (by a specific voice or by general social will) that a particular form of contact with an individual is unwanted and it persists, it's harassment. I can come into contact with 2 different people in the very same way. If one of those people asks me to stop, and I repeat the action to both. I've harassed the one who asked me to stop. If it's in the workplace, I may have harassed others as well because it may affect those around me who can't avoid seeing/hearing the behavior.

Click to expand...

You make a good point. Upon further thought I am glad that she provided the legal definition as it adds to discussion, but still would like to hear people's individual opinions as to what they think the standard should be.

As far as the legal definition goes, "unwanted and persistent" almost says option #1 in the poll, "whatever the harassee says it is". "Persistent" being the only saving grace

GreenvilleGrows said:

I'd take it further and say that if my name's Abraham, and you consistently call me Abe even after I've asked you to stop - it's harassment. Intimidation doesn't just have to be sexual.

Click to expand...

The question is generic in nature. It can be ANY kind of harassment, i.e. sexual, racial, whatever.

MaggieD said:

Let me see if I've got this straight:

#1 Woman accuses a man of harrassment.
#2 Blackmails for money (if they don't play along with what?)
#3 Somehow leads to this woman accusing him (an innocent man) of rape
#4 Man is convicted

You're questions are: "Would you pay them?" and "Are they right?"

Never pay a blackmailer. The blackmail will never stop, and, by paying, you've made yourself look guilty. Go to the authorities, tell them the whole story, and ask them to help you set up a sting. Anyone who threatens blackmail is wrong.

If you're right that "women these days tend to accuse innocent men of rape," then I'd say that a lot of men are hanging around with the wrong crowd.

Remember, rape is a criminal offense. The DA isn't going to charge someone with rape when: there's no proof beyond "she says"...woman didn't go to the hospital for a rape kit...didn't immediately tell her friends...has no evidence of physical harm (i.e., photos)...and later, demands money not to bring the charge...combine that with a guy who goes straight to the authorities as soon as the words pass her lips and the one in trouble is her. IMO.

Edit: Not sure where harrassment comes in, though.

Click to expand...

The way that I read his post wasn't that he said harassment leads to bogus rape charges if no money is forthcoming, but rather that rape is sometimes a false claim at other times so you cannot always simply rely on the accuser to be honest. More of an analogy.

I think a better analogy would be the fact that some women, out of the blue and with no previous indication whatsoever, will accuse men of abuse in family/child custody cases hoping it will strengthen their argument for getting full custody of the kids.

radcen said:

Who should decide what standards for things like harassment, etc.?

At one extreme, some say it should be solely up to the person being harassed. At the other extreme, some feel it shouldn't even exist as a concept. People should toughen up. Others feel it should be in the middle.

Generic question, not specifically about any current situation or situation from the past.

Click to expand...

I have been sexually harrased twice by the legal definition but I never did anything about it b/c I didn't feel ''threatened''. However not every woman will ''toughen up'' the way I did. Where I see it as a simple annoyance, they may see it as a potential threat.

The standards for harassment should be determined by an uninvolved third party, such as a judge. There is definitely such a thing as harassment, but letting the 'victim' decide what constitutes harassment is just ridiculous. You could say anything is harassment then. Hell, I could call the cops and tell them you are harassing me by posting this poll.

I think only ugly people should decide what is harrassment. They would be flattered to get the attention that beautiful people spit at.

"Harassment" should be decided by the victim, except for contact necessary for the performance of job duties. "Hostile work environment" should be determined by a judge, but the standard needs to be considerably more forgiving than it is now.

Loose guidelines should be set by the legislature. It should then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a judge and/or a jury, based on whether the plaintiff could have reasonably felt that the actions were causing a hostile work environment.

Kandahar said:

Loose guidelines should be set by the legislature. It should then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a judge and/or a jury, based on whether the plaintiff could have reasonably felt that the actions were causing a hostile work environment.

Click to expand...

Well I really believe the laws "loose" intentionally so that by being so they perpetuate the legal field (just too many lawyers lol).

I think there is a couple of flaws here (not judging, just pointing out)

All IMHO

First and most importantly it is not possible to put harassment and sexual harassment together as one since they are very different.

Far as harassment is concerned this is something that really needs to be addressed better by law so that it is more clear and more easily understood by everyone, and anyone etc. (same would apply to sexual harassment, but differently)

While calling Abraham "Abe" may be something that would be able to be interpreted as harassment it would require certain attributes of the exact situation and conditions surrounding such to make it something that would actually make this act to be harassment IMO, but with the way law can be so "open" in general I have found that there is actual intent of causing the need for an attorney and even possible trial to decide just when an act such as this warrants compensation etc.

So if a customer or co worker etc calls you by your short or nick name it is not necessarily harassment, but if you correct them and they continue, and there is a motive to cause you some kind of loss or create an uncomfortable situation (they can not have just not known you found it offensive and thought it was proper way to address you etc) then it can be very different.

From training on harassment I have found that there are very different conditions that may exist. An example is that there is a distinct difference between someone looking up at your name tag and saying hello Kathy when it obviously says Kathrine etc than your immediate supervisor referring to you as "ferret face" as if it was your real name. The issues of intent and motive seem to play heavily into this as well, and if you only started being referred to differently after some kind of change such as a negative review, or a supposed confidential discussion with HR about the harassing person etc this would normally be strong evidence of harassment.

The thing that makes this all even more confusing is that laws are different in many states, and even though what you or I would consider to be harassing or not harassment etc (what the OP was really looking for lol) has little to no bearing on what the laws have been twisted to allow or dismiss.

Like the poster who like most (myself included) just blew it off as it was not intimidating to her who may have very well been legally harassed there are many others who feel just the same way until they find an uncomfortable change like termination or downsizing etc that makes them re think what happened and suddenly it is harassment to them.

One thing that is for sure is that almost everyone has a different way of looking at harassment after they have had to endure a bad experience with being harassed, and on the opposite side of things those who thought they were just being friendly or teasing etc get a wake up call when they find that their actions were perceived as harassment and then find a total new outlook on it all.

My personal opinion on what harassment is would be very inline with what the intent of the law seems to be, and that is when your actions are intending to make someone uncomfortable and even if not when they do and you continue to do so after they make you aware they find your actions uncomfortable or harassing. Does not matter if you continue to call Kathrine Kathy after she asks you not to, or if you thought "ferret face" was a compliment and refused to stop after being asked to it still is the same.

While on opinions I have to add that I agree that pretty much everyone is way tooooo sensitive, but we have been being conditioned to be that way, and it is a whole other subject.

On the other hand just what level of sensitivity should one be expected to have against being harassed?

When is enough enough, and when is it just too much?.
.
I know this is getting long, but an entire office I had worked at in the past was harassed intentionally by one unhappy worker who would purposely neglect bathing, and eat food that would cause foul odors both while eating it and then while it exited (what seemed to be every pour of his body) in various gases states. Fish, onions, beans, garlic, more beans, and so on until the entire office smelled like death. I knew of the intent from his comments and he planned it all out etc, and humorous as that all may sound it is about the most unusual form of harassment I have ever heard of.

So go ahead call him Abe or Cathy, or even stinky, but then your committing harassment.