Phrases that make you mad.

[benenglish]

Did you learn that you can sexually harass another man?

I was a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) trainer in a large federal agency back in the 1980s and 1990s. I learned many things, such as how easy it is to sexually harass another man without even knowing it. It was an eye-opening experience.

 

[Texasgordo]

I was a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) trainer in a large federal agency back in the 1980s and 1990s. I learned many things, such as how easy it is to sexually harass another man without even knowing it. It was an eye-opening experience.

How is that possible? It seems weird to not know.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[AustinN4]

The non-word anywho in place of the word anyhow.

 

[benenglish]

How is that possible? It seems weird to not know.

An example:

Mike goes to work. He's significantly better dressed than normal because he has an interview scheduled that day that may get him a better position. A male co-worker greets him that morning with "Lookin' sharp today, Mike!"

Mike was gay, interpreted the greeting as flirting, did not appreciate being flirted with, took offense, and made a formal complaint. The person who spoke the greeting didn't know Mike was gay and had absolutely no clue how his greeting was interpreted.

I could cite dozens of other examples because miscommunications happen all the time. People frequently consider themselves to be sexually harassed when the harasser has absolutely no clue they've done anything wrong.

I was a POSH trainer during the transition period when the definition of of sexual harassment had changed from "What would a reasonable person decide?" to "What does the victim feel?" The abandonment of most "reasonable person" criteria caused more problems than I can possibly recount. While it did solve some problems (and I can discuss that if you like), my ultimate conclusion is that abandoning any "reasonable person" criteria when judging whether or not sexual harassment has occurred was, overall, a mistake. The federal government made that change in the 1980s. From what I'm hearing, it's since been abandoned in private industry.

I think that is the major reason that sexual harassment cases are so much messier than they once were. I saw how it happened and I don't allege any bad motives on the part of the people who instituted the changes but, holy cow, the unintended consequences have been severe and negative.

 

[Dawico]

TaT won't let me quote part of what you said Ben but yes, we want you to discuss everything.

 

[benenglish]

I know some modern linguists don't think it's a big deal but subjunctive mood errors that arise when mixing up "was" and "were" are still nails on a chalkboard to me.

A statement contrary to fact calls for "were", not "was".

"If I was skinnier, I could wear nicer clothes" is wrong. "If I were skinnier, I could wear nicer clothes" is right.

Plenty of people get tripped up by subjunctive mood. I like to help people remember by quoting songs everyone knows. Zero Mostel sang "If I were a rich man..." because he was not rich. The jingle goes "If I were an Oscar Meyer weiner..." because the singers are not weiners. If people keep those in mind, they'll generally get it right.

 

[Moonpie]

I didn’t actually get called to HR.
Have seen a few who have tho.
At my employer being called to HR is the end of your employment.
Its not always over sexual harrasment. Sometimes its disciplinary. Sometimes lay-off. Etc.
One time I saw a big dog get the axe.
He had been happily firing people to make his numbers look good. Well when they came for him he got upset. Started throwing computers across the room and other very professional behavior. He almost got arrested.
It was awesome. Hahahaha

 

[Moonpie]

Did you learn that you can sexually harass another man?

 

[satx78247]

"Honey, we need to talk".

Bozz10mm,

The interesting thing is that USUALLY what she means is: I don't want your opinion OR a solution, I just want to talk about it.
(I handle that one with the women in my life by listening quietly to her comments & then continuing what I was planning anyway OR just letting her talk.)

yours, satx

 

[Bozz10mm]

Bozz10mm,

The interesting thing is that USUALLY what she means is: I don't want your opinion OR a solution, I just want to talk about it.
(I handle that one with the women in my life by listening quietly to her comments & then continuing what I was planning anyway OR just letting her talk.)

yours, satx

You got that right.

 

[Moonpie]

Bozz10mm,

The interesting thing is that USUALLY what she means is: I don't want your opinion OR a solution, I just want to talk about it.
(I handle that one with the women in my life by listening quietly to her comments & then continuing what I was planning anyway OR just letting her talk.)

yours, satx

 

[benenglish]

Note for longtime readers - this is a repost.

TaT won't let me quote part of what you said Ben but yes, we want you to discuss everything.

OK, I'll try to make it short...by my standards.

The problem with the old (1970s and prior) "reasonable person" criteria for sexual harassment was that it required the victim to stand up for themselves. The "perception of the victim" criteria to define sexual harassment does not. In some cases, that's good.

Everybody agrees that "Sleep with me or you won't get the promotion" is sexual harassment under any criteria. However, what if you say something you truly believe is innocuous? Worse, what if you understand that you're being harassing but you carefully, cynically avoid any one statement that a reasonable person would consider harassment?

I've seen poor secretaries desperate to hold their jobs and unwilling to make waves who endured bosses leering, effusively complimenting their clothing, etc. By themselves, no one act was more than just tone-deaf and mildly inappropriate. None of them rose the the level of actionable harassment. In total, though, they were enough to make the recipient of all those compliments absolutely cringe at the thought of having to show up at work tomorrow.

In olden days, she'd stand up for herself, scream at him to keep his eyes on hers and not down her blouse, and that would be the end of it. He'd respect her for standing up for herself. She would have cured the source of her stress. At worst, he'd help her go to work somewhere else and they'd both be happier.

What happens, though, when the victim doesn't unilaterally stand up for herself because she doesn't want to risk being cited for insubordination? What happens when she seeks help from management? The harasser hasn't committed any single identifiable foul that a reasonable person would identify as harassment. In those cases, throwing out the reasonable person criteria and letting the victim say "These actions, in total and in my opinion, constitute harassment" enables management to formally deal with a harasser.

I've known plenty of a-hole managers who treated females as if their only function was to be his personal eye candy. They were often masters of saying just enough to creep out their subordinates without crossing any bright lines. They were also toxic to the work environment and we would be better off if they either changed their behavior or just left.

The change in definition of harassment from "reasonable person" to "perception of the victim" was a great way to address those guys. (Yes, they were mostly guys and there were far, far too many of them.)

That's (mostly) the case for defining sexual harassment as being whatever the victim decides it to be. In some cases, it's great.

Unfortunately, over the long term and in most cases, it has given a terrible power to ruin careers to idiots who often deliberately and maliciously misinterpret a compliment or a simple greeting as something nefarious. Those bad actors can now succeed at playing victim and, quite literally, make a federal case out of it.

Overall, the change in definition was a mistake. I understand why that change was made and the intentions involved were good. I don't fault the people who set us down that path; their hearts were in the right place.

But what's that expression about how the road to hell is paved?

We would have been much better served to have kept the "reasonable person" definition of sexual harassment and then focused our efforts on training victims of low-level harassment how to properly (without insubordination) stand up for themselves.

Under that older criteria, all a victim needed to do was politely and professionally send a memo to the harasser, with a cc to the harasser's boss, informing him that his constant attention and emphasis on her looks was unprofessional, created a toxic work environment, and interfered with the business of the bureau. Once that notice was given, the reasonable person criteria could kick in. The harasser would get a pass on all previous activity but if they continued to act like a perv, the reasonable person criteria would hold that "You had been explicitly informed that your behavior was a problem and you didn't change it. Thus, in the judgement of any reasonable person, you are deliberately engaging in an actionable pattern of sexual harassment." Disciplinary action could then follow.

We needed to teach victims to stand up for themselves and write those complaint memos. All their problems could then have been handled. To modern SJW ears, this sounds like victim-blaming. It's not. Heck, under the old "reasonable person" criteria, an employee being harassed could have gone to HR and had HR put the harasser on notice.

That's the path we should have gone down. We didn't. I can understand why we didn't. I was there, I saw it, and I believe the people that started it had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, as history has repeatedly shown us, granting to victims the right to define the crimes committed against them is a strategy that, while initially efficient and effective, inevitably winds up as a tool of abuse that causes more damage than it mitigates.

 

[satx78247]

You got that right.

Bozz10mm,

I'm BLESSED that when my beloved Darla says that, that I can generally trust her to work through her thoughts to the correct (or at least an acceptable) conclusion.
(IF she really wants my advice, she then finally says, "Honey, which one do you want to do??")
I cannot remember the last time that she made a BIG decision W/O asking my advice.

Fwiw, I pity men who picked their wife on something other than their ability to THINK & work together cooperatively. = I made a SERIOUS mistake in marrying my 1st wife mostly based on her being "arm candy" & spent the six years that we were together cleaning up the messes that she made.
(BEAUTIFUL AIRHEAD described her perfectly.)

yours, satx

 

[benenglish]

"Honey, we need to talk".

If we're going to explore phrases that make us mad that come to us from the distaff side, the possibilities are endless.

I hate "You know what you did."

No, I don't know. If I knew, I wouldn't have asked. If I knew, I'd fix it. If you'll just tell me, I'll fix it.

PS - A book I suggest every mating-age man re-read every few years is "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen. It's about the different conversational styles of men and women. Everything in it seems obvious but everything the author says is something we need to be reminded of on a semi-regular basis.

 

[easy rider]

Note for longtime readers - this is a repost.
OK, I'll try to make it short...by my standards.

The problem with the old (1970s and prior) "reasonable person" criteria for sexual harassment was that it required the victim to stand up for themselves. The "perception of the victim" criteria to define sexual harassment does not. In some cases, that's good.

Everybody agrees that "Sleep with me or you won't get the promotion" is sexual harassment under any criteria. However, what if you say something you truly believe is innocuous? Worse, what if you understand that you're being harassing but you carefully, cynically avoid any one statement that a reasonable person would consider harassment?

I've seen poor secretaries desperate to hold their jobs and unwilling to make waves who endured bosses leering, effusively complimenting their clothing, etc. By themselves, no one act was more than just tone-deaf and mildly inappropriate. None of them rose the the level of actionable harassment. In total, though, they were enough to make the recipient of all those compliments absolutely cringe at the thought of having to show up at work tomorrow.

In olden days, she'd stand up for herself, scream at him to keep his eyes on hers and not down her blouse, and that would be the end of it. He'd respect her for standing up for herself. She would have cured the source of her stress. At worst, he'd help her go to work somewhere else and they'd both be happier.

What happens, though, when the victim doesn't unilaterally stand up for herself because she doesn't want to risk being cited for insubordination? What happens when she seeks help from management? The harasser hasn't committed any single identifiable foul that a reasonable person would identify as harassment. In those cases, throwing out the reasonable person criteria and letting the victim say "These actions, in total and in my opinion, constitute harassment" enables management to formally deal with a harasser.

I've known plenty of a-hole managers who treated females as if their only function was to be his personal eye candy. They were often masters of saying just enough to creep out their subordinates without crossing any bright lines. They were also toxic to the work environment and we would be better off if they either changed their behavior or just left.

The change in definition of harassment from "reasonable person" to "perception of the victim" was a great way to address those guys. (Yes, they were mostly guys and there were far, far too many of them.)

That's (mostly) the case for defining sexual harassment as being whatever the victim decides it to be. In some cases, it's great.

Unfortunately, over the long term and in most cases, it has given a terrible power to ruin careers to idiots who often deliberately and maliciously misinterpret a compliment or a simple greeting as something nefarious. Those bad actors can now succeed at playing victim and, quite literally, make a federal case out of it.

Overall, the change in definition was a mistake. I understand why that change was made and the intentions involved were good. I don't fault the people who set us down that path; their hearts were in the right place.

But what's that expression about how the road to hell is paved?

We would have been much better served to have kept the "reasonable person" definition of sexual harassment and then focused our efforts on training victims of low-level harassment how to properly (without insubordination) stand up for themselves.

Under that older criteria, all a victim needed to do was politely and professionally send a memo to the harasser, with a cc to the harasser's boss, informing him that his constant attention and emphasis on her looks was unprofessional, created a toxic work environment, and interfered with the business of the bureau. Once that notice was given, the reasonable person criteria could kick in. The harasser would get a pass on all previous activity but if they continued to act like a perv, the reasonable person criteria would hold that "You had been explicitly informed that your behavior was a problem and you didn't change it. Thus, in the judgement of any reasonable person, you are deliberately engaging in an actionable pattern of sexual harassment." Disciplinary action could then follow.

We needed to teach victims to stand up for themselves and write those complaint memos. All their problems could then have been handled. To modern SJW ears, this sounds like victim-blaming. It's not. Heck, under the old "reasonable person" criteria, an employee being harassed could have gone to HR and had HR put the harasser on notice.

That's the path we should have gone down. We didn't. I can understand why we didn't. I was there, I saw it, and I believe the people that started it had the best of intentions. Unfortunately, as history has repeatedly shown us, granting to victims the right to define the crimes committed against them is a strategy that, while initially efficient and effective, inevitably winds up as a tool of abuse that causes more damage than it mitigates.

You do realize that much of the programs the government has pushed were and probably still are based off of political correctness. I saw (mainly) women advancing, not due to their knowledge, but using things such as "he was ogling me". Now I certainly don't agree with sexual harassment, but when our sexual harassment training got to the part where we were told that not only can you be held liable for what you say to a person, but also what could be overheard. I found that very problematic in that many things could be said that are quite innocuous in context, but taken out of context could sound the opposite. As a supervisor I at times felt I had to walk on eggshells and that was very frustrating.

 

[orbitup]

you be held liable for what you say to a person, but also what could be overheard. I found that very problematic in that many things could be said that are quite innocuous in context, but taken out of context could sound the opposite.

Sounds like an episode of Three's Company.

 

[orbitup]

Him: What's wrong?

Her: Nothing.

 

[benenglish]

when our sexual harassment training got to the part where we were told that not only can you be held liable for what you say to a person, but also what could be overheard. I found that very problematic

I fully agree. That's why ended with saying that the good intentions of the people who chose that newer path to fighting sexual harassment had made a mistake and created a system that would be perverted and used to accomplish bad things.

Just as an aside, I volunteered to become a Prevention of Sexual Harassment trainer because I was the first person in my post of duty who was formally cited for sexual harassment under the new definitions. I figured by working from the inside I could accomplish two things -

• understand what was going on and
• evade further disciplinary actions since I would know better how to avoid them.

Yeah, I know that sounds contemptibly manipulative but at the time I viewed it as a justifiable self-defense strategy to protect my career.

 

[AustinN4]

....I was the first person in my post of duty who was formally cited for sexual harassment under the new definitions.

What did you do?

 

[benenglish]

What did you do?

Remember, this was under the new definition, right after the "reasonable person" criteria had been thrown out.

I got on an elevator with two women. One was a group secretary, roughly at my level in the agency. The other was a Division Chief, about 6 levels above me on the org chart. I said hello. They said hello. The Division Chief asked "How are you today?"

I replied "Well, lessee. It's a beautiful Friday afternoon, I'm about to get off work, and in the meantime I'm locked in a small room with two beautiful women. How could I possibly be doing better?"

The Division Chief said that was inappropriate language and a direct violation of our recent sexual harassment training. I was gobsmacked and didn't say anything while she got off the elevator at her floor. The secretary and I traveled to a different floor, during which she asked me "What the hell's her problem?"

The Division Chief filed a formal complaint that afternoon. The next Monday, I was called in and formally counseled for sexual harassment.

A few notes:

• That Division Chief was a very handsome woman. She was also 6'4" or more and built like a linebacker. If she was really offended by me, she could have easily kicked my ass. There was no physical harassment component that would have worked in my favor under the previous reasonable person criteria.
  
• I had no organizational power over her but with the abolition of the reasonable person criteria, that was also no longer a mitigating factor in my favor.
• The abolition of the reasonable person criteria also made the testimony of the secretary meaningless. It didn't matter that she would testify that what I said was harmless. The definition of sexual harassment had been changed to be whatever was in the victims mind.

No matter how you slice it, I lost that one. Becoming a trainer and working the system from the inside enabled me to thereafter stay out of trouble.