# The Hipocritcal Standard of Harassment



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2012)

This has long been an issue with me and well last night at work it got me to thinking again.  
First off, sexual harassment is wrong. Of that I won't argue. A woman doesn't need the unwanted attentions of a co-worker (or anyone else) to cloud up her life/work. Men need to understand that "I'm not interested" or "I'm married/in a relationship", is the same as "No". 
Now maybe it's a personal issue with me and perhaps I don't understand the term as completely as I think I do. I dunno, what I do know is what I see and what I see is an abuse of the law by those it's trying to protect. 
I've lost several jobs based on "harassment" (including my most recent one after TWO YEARS of acting as I've always done... suddenly I'm fired because one isn't comfortable in spite of working with me for two years running... more on that later). Others were just plain outright lies that was my word against hers. 
But when I say the "abuse of the law" is this. Last night during work I was asked to assist a female co-worker, we got along fine. I helped best as I could and she appreciated it. Yet, I was mindful of what/how I was speaking to her. When I made a mistake on something (still being new at the job -- 2nd day) and admitted it, she simply said: "Oh that's alright baby, you're fine." then later when we were done, she showed her appreciation with, "you were a big help sweetheart, thank you."  
Now, if I had said exactly the same thing to her... with matching tone and intent.... I'd probably be fired! Simply because I'm a man. Just for that reason! So it seems to be a double standard or two definitions of the same thing. A woman can toss out casually a term of endearment "honey, baby, sweetheart, sweetie, et al" and not be thought ill for it. If a man does the same thing, it's harassment. It's illegal, it's grounds for termination... and mostly... it's just bull-s***! 
I've known a guy that had a disagreement with his female superior and was fired though witnesses say that he did not use language or anything of that. He disagreed vehemently as she did on an issue related to a job they were working on. She later filed harassment and he got fired without question. 
Oh sure he could've fought it and gone through this and that and this lawyer and that dept. of labor and on and on. But that isn't the issue. He (from my understanding) won the "argument" and was shown to be right yet a week later a male superior was forced to fire him to prevent a harassment litigation against the company. His word against hers. She won. 
Granted you can't (always) tell intent right away from an off hand remark, or a compliment.  But it _seems_ that most women take it for granted that the guy is hitting on her or has her walking around wearing nothing but victoria secret clothing in their minds. This is likely when she turns around and sees him watching her while she working or he says something nice about her hair or dress. Of course his tone and sincerity has NOTHING to do with his intent. He's immediately a lecherous bastard and will rape her the first opportunity if she doesn't complain to the management and get him fired from the job. 
I understand that a woman has the right to work in an comfortable environment, free from such things going on because they are a distraction and could hurt her production as an employee. A man is responsible for his actions 100%. Yet a woman IMO, has the *equal* *responsibility* to make it known to the man personally and directly that she doesn't like this or that particular form of attention. If she's intimidated to do it alone then she can ask a co-worker to be witness. Instead usually she'll go to HR or management and complain... which forces management to either call the guy in for a "talk" or simply hand him his walking papers. 
Being called baby, sweetie, hun, hunny is alright with me and doesn't bother me because I know SHE doesn't mean it THAT way! But I'll be damned if I cannot do the same thing just because SHE thinks I DO mean it THAT way, and doesn't bother to clarify it by asking me straight out if that is how I'm coming across. Oh right, since all men are liars, nothing I say will nullify the fact that I'm lying my *** off and want to jump her bones at the first opportunity. 
If I thought I had a REAL chance of taking it to court myself and coming out ahead (i.e. getting my job back or at least compensation for lost time/wages) I'd done something. Why don't I complain myself when I'm being "harassed" because it doesn't bother me and I like to think that I'm intelligent enough to understand that it wasn't meant that way. 
It's an abuse of the system IMO and it sucks. 
Oh on the lying part... she said that I fondled her ***. I stated to the managers that "interviewed me" (both women, btw), that I'm not that stupid and that my hands never ever touched her below the waist. Friendly pat on the shoulder maybe and returning a hug that was REQUESTED! (she having a tough day and asked for a hug, which was freely given... A frame style too). Never the less, "have to let you go because they have a right to work in a comfortable work environment." 
(rant off) 
I put off posting this until my give a crap meter broke and I just don't care anymore. It saddens me that we live in such a cold world.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2012)

If you've lost several jobs due to harrassment....... I'd have to say you may want to have a good look at the way you think of women. You have trotted out several fallacies about women and seem to carry a chip on your shoulder. I know from some of your posts aimed at me you can be very judgemental and actually downright wrong in understanding what was said.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If you've lost several jobs due to harassment....... I'd have to say you may want to have a good look at the way you think of women. You have trotted out several fallacies about women and seem to carry a chip on your shoulder. I know from some of your posts aimed at me you can be very judgemental and actually downright wrong in understanding what was said.



I carry the chip because I've been lied about and lied to... costing me a job for no viable reason. One company fired me simply on hearsay from a woman that called them up and so as soon as I walked in the door it was bye bye without so much as asking my side of it, as if I had NO defense worth speaking. So don't go laying chips on my shoulders without knocking the ones off your own.

YOUR reaction is exactly what I thought it would be by the way.  No wait, I'll take that back... your reaction is the exact type that gets me fired unjustly! 
How I think about women is not as gawd-awful as you might think. Reading past posts on MT should speak for themselves loudly and clearly.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2012)

Are you getting your 'posters' right, Tez?  It's one of those moments where I think either I missed the 'action' (the posts you refer to) or didn't read something in the same way.

Leaving that aside, Caver, are things really like that over in America?  If so, remind me never to go there in search of employment as I'd be fired within a week!  

Whilst I am not one to get physically 'touchy' in the workplace, I am pretty free with my compliments to my colleagues.  Indeed, with my female workmates I can be downright flirty once I get to know them well.  But there is always that question of knowing when a woman in the work-place does *not* like such things (or when it would be unseemly) and behaving accordingly.  Of course, as you say, it would be best if they gave you a chance to learn this rather than have you beheaded out-of-hand.


----------



## granfire (Jan 25, 2012)

I had a lengthy reply typed out, but the cyber gremlins ate it.

Yep, the situation is pretty much that way in the US. The mere hint of impropriety can get you canned. 
hubby is in lower management and the union rep is his best friend in the never ending task of avoiding trouble. Accidental contact was reported as assault at one time, a write up about foul language...and the man is not a cussing man, really. 

Yes, I dare say, the harassment option can be abused. I am sure there are a few people in the shop with Hubby, 'ladies' who owe their advancement to the fact that they could cry foul at any given time, and while they are slow to hand out pink slips, the manure hits the fan at maximum velocity over at that place at the drop of a hat (heck, even dead people suit the place over discrimination charges...I wonder if the dead people know they were discriminated against)

Depending on the shop you are at, yes, a 'she said' can get your behind on the street in no time flat.
I think the technical term for the offense is 'creating a hostile work environment' 
Sadly that charge is pretty much a one way street...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 25, 2012)

Oh my!  That is a clear case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

By the way, Gran, the improved board software saves a copy of posts in preparation.  If you 'lose' one due to a connection glitch or a mistaken click you can get it back by using the recover button (which is in the bottom left corner of the post-writing window I think).


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If you've lost several jobs due to harrassment....... I'd have to say you may want to have a good look at the way you think of women. You have trotted out several fallacies about women and seem to carry a chip on your shoulder. I know from some of your posts aimed at me you can be very judgemental and actually downright wrong in understanding what was said.



That's something that occurred to me, as well.  There is and can be a double standard, absolutely, and many employers, especially on the lower end of the pay scale, will simply terminate the accused with minimal investigation rather than actually look into it unless the case is clearly unfounded (like the accused was demonstrably somewhere else).  

But it's not as one-sided as all that.  Generally, harassment is is unwanted or offensive actions AFTER being asked to stop or when you know (or should have known) they are unwanted/offensive.  It's not harassment to ask a coworker out; it is to ask him or her out after being told to leave them alone, for example.  I worked at a job where the policy was that any comments on attire were to be done by a supervisor of the same sex.  So, if a male supervisor had a female employee come into a job site literally wearing a g-string and pasties, the most he could say was "go home" and he'd have to call in a female supervisor from another site if necessary to explain why.  If that female supervisor had a male come in wearing a banana hammock... yep, she'd have to call a male supervisor from elsewhere to address it.  Some places are so paranoid, employees won't complement each other's appearance...  And women HAVE gotten in trouble for phrases and endearments like Caver's talking about.  Here's one opinion piece talking about that mentions some of those cases...  (I'm not endorsing the source; I don't know enough about it to have a comment one way or the other, though this piece seems OK.)  I've seen schoolteachers go through almost comical measures to avoid touching a student while leaning down over a desk to help them with their work...

I don't think that Tez was saying that Caver has any sort of disrespectful attitude by intent.  But it is possible that something he is doing without intent is being misinterpreted.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Oh my!  That is a clear case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
> 
> By the way, Gran, the improved board software saves a copy of posts in preparation.  If you 'lose' one due to a connection glitch or a mistaken click you can get it back by using the recover button (which is in the bottom left corner of the post-writing window I think).



You seem to have to be in the "Advanced" reply view to get to the saved draft; just click that "Go Advanced", then look for the "Restore Saved Content" button.


----------



## granfire (Jan 25, 2012)

It was a mega glitch...when I clicked 'reply' nothing happened, when I left the reply page the forum was busy....Bob's minions were out in full force! 

But I remembered the essence of my post.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> But it's not as one-sided as all that.  Generally, harassment is is unwanted or offensive actions AFTER being asked to stop or when you know (or should have known) they are unwanted/offensive.


 Agreed here. My argument to my managers on my last job, was that the ones accusing me (oh and of course I was denied the right to face my accusers...likely on the probability that I might hunt them down and slice them to little pieces and feed them to the cat fish in the river  ) that they did not say by words, actions or even body language that they didn't appreciate it. They argued back (vehemently -- like Tez is wont to do) that it was not *their* responsibility! The effort it took for me to supress my outrage at this was monumental at best. I did mentioned that I was asked by at least two coworkers to "don't touch me", one of them politely explained why (prior childhood abuse, which I understood and respected her reasons) the other loud and indignant,... guess what? I never did again. Still talked friendly and joked and worked on projects with them but that was it. _Those_ women I'll admire and respect because they put on their big girl panties (read: being MATURE) and took responsibility for themselves instead of cowering behind management and pointing fingers and spicing it up with things that I didn't do. 
I am by nature very affectionate to EVERYONE, man, woman, child. I do not however have an urge to sleep with them or even get a quick thrill by mere physical contact however appropriate it is. 
I'm trying very hard at this next job to be a cold shoulder, heartless type of bastard that corporations seem to want their employees to be. Leaving behind my warm, caring human being interior at home. Hard to do when a fellow (female) employee uses a term of endearment fearlessly, where as I gotta watch what the hell I say. I guess I really am missing the big picture here. 



jks9199 said:


> It's not harassment to ask a coworker out; it is to ask him or her out after being told to leave them alone,


Correct! You're never going to know what a person will respond until you ask. But "no" does mean "no!" and that should be the end of it. If it's repeated then yeah, go to supervisor/management. Yet many companies have a no fraternization policy that inhibits that. 
Basically just wanting workers to be drones. 



jks9199 said:


> for example.  I worked at a job where the policy was that any comments on attire were to be done by a supervisor of the same sex.  So, if a male supervisor had a female employee come into a job site literally wearing a g-string and pasties, the most he could say was "go home" and he'd have to call in a female supervisor from another site if necessary to explain why.  If that female supervisor had a male come in wearing a banana hammock... yep, she'd have to call a male supervisor from elsewhere to address it.


 That is just too extreme for my tastes. Too anal. Wouldn't care how much they paid me... couldn't get me to work there. I'm a human being not an autonomous drone. 



jks9199 said:


> Some places are so paranoid, employees won't complement each other's appearance...  And women HAVE gotten in trouble for phrases and endearments like Caver's talking about.


Like I said I could very easily go up to my managers and do the same thing... but I'm not an ***. I know that there are a lot of single mom's out there who need their jobs. Am I going to be an arsehole and get them in trouble/written up/fired just because they called me baby, hunny, sweetie? No, I let it roll off because I know they don't mean it THAT way! So, that is the source of my frustration and rant. How is it that they don't mean it and I do ??  



jks9199 said:


> I don't think that Tez was saying that Caver has any sort of disrespectful attitude by intent.  But it is possible that something he is doing without intent is being misinterpreted.


 No, Tez reminds me of several women (who apparently have issues with men who complain about women) who have imagined my view-point of women in general as misogynistic when in fact that it's quite the opposite. What I hate is hypocrisy by _anyone_! That (if she had taken the time to read the thread title more closely), is what I'm talking about!


----------



## Steve (Jan 25, 2012)

I've found that being professional is a very easy way to avoid this kind of thing.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2012)

Steve said:


> I've found that being professional is a very easy way to avoid this kind of thing.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Yeah sure... define professionalism.. because I haven't seen it with ANY company that I worked for. And there has been a lot of companies of various types that I've signed paychecks from.


----------



## granfire (Jan 25, 2012)

Tez has not encountered the crap that flies over here. 

Any place else she'd be right, too. 
But she's a straight shooter, she'd probably be the first to tell one of these females in question what a tart they are and to give it up. 


But sadly, once cannot compliment a person's appearance anymore without fear of being thought of as harassing. 
Good grief, it's been well over 15 years in the making. I remember  myself calling a kid on the job 'hey handsome' and taking it back immediately, not because the guy minded, but of all the ruckus around being PC about such things.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 25, 2012)

granfire said:


> Tez has not encountered the crap that flies over here.
> 
> Any place else she'd be right, too.
> But she's a straight shooter, she'd probably be the first to tell one of these females in question what a tart they are and to give it up.
> ...


Well, if it starts happening that women are getting into trouble over it on an increasing basis, then it's likely I'm not the only one disgruntled with the hypocrisy over it. 
I've seen the movie "North Country" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395972/ and while it's a fictionalized account, it wasn't far from the truth as I remember the case over as it happened. So I'm not wholly insensitive, nor ignorant.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2012)

Steve said:


> I've found that being professional is a very easy way to avoid this kind of thing.
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



I agree.  That's really the big thing; if everyone, whatever their gender or sexual interest, treats the workplace as a professional environment and acts like it, problems seldom happen.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 25, 2012)

When you say you have been asked at least twice by 2 different woman not to touch them I think I see a pattern.  Where are you touching people and what environment are you working?  I just don't see a reason to touch anyone at the work place.  I don't shake hands I don't pat people on the back I just don't touch people.


----------



## Steve (Jan 26, 2012)

Professionalism is pretty easy to define.  It's being friendly without the presumption of familiarity, recognizing that we're there to get work done.  Work is NEVER an inappropriate topic of conversation at work.  

I can see a person being victimized by an unscrupulous opportunist once.  But, if you're running into this as a pattern... dude.  You need to examine your behavior.  You're doing something innappropriate.  At the very least, you are having trouble recognizing the depth and nature of the relationships you have at work.  At worst, you're doing things that are creepy and blaming the victims.  Or it could be anywhere in between.  But I cannot believe that you've just had such bad luck that you run into women out to get you for no reason at all.

Tez, to answer your question, NO, it doesn't work like this.  Sexual Harassment has to be either sexual favors as a condition of employment or a "the conduct has purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment."

The first situation is very cut and dry.  "Hey, I've got a vacancy open in accounting.  That would be a promotion for you.  Right?  {insert proposition here}."

The second is actually more commonly talked about, but much harder to document.  Typically, the investigators look at things like length of the behavior, frequency, whether it's actually interfering with work or just humiliating, severity of the behavior and just generally all of the circumstances surrounding the complaint.  Usually, any grievances are filed with some CREO or EEO component, are kept confidential, and are acted on only if there's some merit to the complaints.  And if there is merit and it's determined that a hostile work environment exists, the company is well within its right to protect itself by terminating the employee with cause.

The point is, "Hey, nice shirt," isn't necessarily sexual harassment.  A casual touch isn't necessarily harassment, either, although it's pretty unnecessary. Calling someone sugar or honey or sweetheart isn't necessarily harassment, although it's unprofessional.  And the truth is, embarrassing, humiliating or otherwise torturing employees and being  crappy boss isn't necessarily creating a hostile work environment.  

All of this to say in conclusion, there's WAY more to this story that we're being told, and I see several red flags that make me dubious.  At the very least, there's a lack of personal accountability in that MA Caver says that this has happened before, but hasn't yet acknowledged that he's the one variable that's been consistent.  New companies, new positions, new women involved, and yet somehow he runs into women who are gaming the system?  That doesn't wash with me.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 26, 2012)

Steve said:


> Professionalism is pretty easy to define.  It's being friendly without the presumption of familiarity, recognizing that we're there to get work done.  Work is NEVER an inappropriate topic of conversation at work.
> 
> I can see a person being victimized by an unscrupulous opportunist once.  But, if you're running into this as a pattern... dude.  You need to examine your behavior.  You're doing something innappropriate.  At the very least, you are having trouble recognizing the depth and nature of the relationships you have at work.  At worst, you're doing things that are creepy and blaming the victims.  Or it could be anywhere in between.  But I cannot believe that you've just had such bad luck that you run into women out to get you for no reason at all.
> 
> ...


I admitted that I am an affectionate person. 
I shall say no more as I've pointed out that I do not target specific people. I do not target ANYONE! ...unless I honestly intend to do them harm. I've had enough of remaining silent about it. I use my personal experiences as an example. But, again I do not think I'm ALONE in this. I've known others who have been unjustly terminated because of this. I've never denied that it does not exist either. If I am doing something and not aware that it is causing discomfort or harm, and discover otherwise then I'll stop, as I've mentioned before. Some I know just don't care one way or the other. They know where their lines are crossed at and will speak up for themselves when it is crossed. 

Women have asked for equality and they've gotten it. So by god ... USE IT... speak for yourself first and foremost then seek help if you're unable to resolve the matter. Own up to the phrase "I'm my own woman" because if that's true then no-one speaks FOR YOU ahead of you. Self defense isn't always about physical contact!


----------



## Big Don (Jan 26, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Leaving that aside, Caver, are things really like that over in America?


Yes, well, no, actually, Caver understates the problems. I happen to be a white guy. Therefore, I am always suspected of being a bigot, I happen to be straight, therefore, I am always suspected of being a homophobe. I'm a single dad with sole custody. Single MOMS get all kinds of respect, Oprah couldn't go a month without the plight of some poor single mom, abandoned with her children by some ruthless deadbeat... My son's mom has paid a total of $400 in child support in 14 years... When she had custody, she could refuse to let me see him on a whim, violate the custody agreement with impunity, but, I was 2 days late on a payment, when she had refused to let me see him, they suspended my driver's license and threatened to jail me. Minority groups in this country, and somehow, without any real reason, women qualify as a minority, have only to hint they have been oppressed by the evil man, and especially the evil white man, and the doors of the legal system fly open, people fall all over themselves to "Help the oppressed" whether or not they actually are oppressed or not.
Should a woman start smacking her husband, and or pelt him with dishware and he responds by pinning her arms to her sides and her *** to the floor until she seemed reasonable, at which point he released her and left the room. If she called the cops and claimed to be battered, no matter what her husband said, no matter how much crockery lay on the floor in pieces, he goes to jail overnight, at least.
Equal justice under the law is a nice pat phrase, but, like most pat phrases, it isn't true in word or deed.
One needs look no further than Lorena Bobbit to see the huge double standard in action. She cut OFF her husband's penis!!! Had a man, done anything remotely similar to his wife he would have been pilloried in the media, almost as badly as John Wayne Bobbit was, based on the wholly unsubstantiated story of his attacker.
Yeah, it IS that Friggin bad.


----------



## Jenna (Jan 26, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> I admitted that I am an affectionate person.


..Oops... I would have to say MA-C that a statement like that in this context will not serve your cause well.

In my experience though, I do know that there are one or two women who can dish it out and but then cannot take it back.  Personally, I think I have become very acutely aware of the comments and motivations of work colleagues both male and female.  I think it is all well and good to have a little back-and-forth banter especially with those colleagues we trust.  I think I have learned that the more important mindset though is _never _to completely trust any colleague.  

As Steve has concisely reported, maintain professionalism and you will be way less likely to get a rep for certain kinds of behaviour, subsequently it will be much more difficult to ever be believably accused of inappropriateness.  You must begin to build trust somewhere.  Forego your affectionate personality in the workplace and simply act right and be professional.

That is just my opinion based upon a mix of the above discourse and personal experience.  I wish you well


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

I have never argued that everything 'isn't my fault' and yes I do say things straight, it does no good to pussyfoot around somethings. I have got my 'poster's' correct btw. 
I've investigated sexual harrassment cases not just where a woman has complained, also where a man has complained. It's not about being called 'dear, love' or anything like that though I agree that is unprofessional, it's not harrassment. It's about comments, touching and in some cases bullying often along the lines of women being unable to do the job because they are women etc. Much along the lines that MA Caver has complained about women being nasty scheming creatures out to get him, sorry I don't buy that. 

In my experience very few women will allege sexual harrassment unless they feel it's true and then never for trivial reasons, going through an investigation isn't easy for anyone. I doubt I'm unusual in knowing women who act professionally at work. 
I will say though everyone who's been sacked is always innocent, it was always someone elses fault never theirs. Now some may be innocent but really if you are doing your job, are a valuable employee why would they sack you just for calling someone sweetheart? 

In being sacked from several companies for the same thing, as I said, look to how you perceive women, think about how a persons behaviour affects others and look to see how professional people work. I agree with Steve there's far more to this that what's here.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jan 26, 2012)

Typically, harassing incidents must be documented and the offending party is notified and requested to stop. Getting fired is usually a result of not adhering to the warning(s). I know this might not always be the case, but most companies, especially larger ones with HR departments, follow a protocol for termination based on sexual harassment. Woman are held to the same standard, but someone must report the incident in order for action to be taken.


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

But there are also women out there that don't know the difference between a casual flirtatious comment and an all out harassing one.
Hubby had a young woman come in his office a little while back. Can't quiet remember what he said she wore, it was very girly, something form fitting and not too much coverage. One of the guys had commented on it. now mind you, he works in a work shop, not an office, so the clothes were in themselves only borderline practical.

He had to gingerly explain about her attire, and the fact that the fellow had only once commented on her dress and not made a habit of it. 

The situation could have very well turned out differently if she had gone straight to HR.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

There are women who may takes things the wrong way everywhere but for one person to find so many of them, in so many jobs, in so many companies must be exceedingly unlucky...or something.

Common practice these days is usually to log a complaint as it takes more than one to constitute harrassment.
I'm fond of and respect my shift partners, we spend a lot of time together, sometimes in situations where we have to watch each others backs, we chat a lot but we aren't affectionate, that's inappropriate. We'll bring sweets, bisquits etc in, my Ghurkha shift partner brings curries, that's how we show appreciation for each other. I work with soldiers, depending on where they comes from in the country I get called, love, dear, sweetheart, hinny, petal, flower, duck and some more, in the West country they call both sexes 'my lover, men are 'my ansome' ( handsome!), it's never a bother. sometimes a man will be insulting and start a rant with 'look darlin' in a tone of voice that leaves you no doubt he's insulting not sexual harrassment mind you, insulting, you have to take it in context.

Sometimes when dealing with drunks, they will try to drape themselves over you, probaly more to do with needing something to lean on rather than anything else. A lot of the soldiers are female, they take everything in their stride, if they allege sexual harrassment you can be 99.9% sure it's serious and true, I've had a female solider come on to me when she was a bit drunk, I politiely declined, it was no big deal. Most women do know when someone is hitting on them and when they aren't, most women do tell someone if they find what they are saying/doing uncomfortable, however if they feel threatened they find it hard to do so and that's when they will complain to someone above them. In some situations expeically if it's mostly male or in a masculine environment some women do find it hard to know how to take what's said to them. it can also be like that in a mostly female workplace. Lads often make sexual remarks to each other, they get crude and women sometimes don't know how they are supposed to respond. Some women don't know how to respond to men as some men don't know how to respond to women. However training and thought into how you say things and how you behave towards other usually solves much of the problems, many companies here as well as the Civil Service and military, police etc have course on Equality and Diversity. Professionalism is the key to good working relationships.
this is our policy.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/A...Intelligence/MDPGA/MdpgaDiversityEquality.htm


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 26, 2012)

First, I want to put on the record that sexual harassment is wrong and should not be tolerated.  But, sometimes I think there are cases of "it's not what is said, it is who said it" that leads to confusion.  I know people who say outrageous things to women at work and the women think it's funny and always talk about how funny so and so is, and then I'll here another person say something not that bad and the women will act offeneded.  This sends mixed messages, and goes back to what Steve said. "Act professional"

Quick story of how things can be very twisted.  I had a friend who worked for a big distributor, that shall not be named but might rhyme with BallFart.  This was at one of their distribution centers and not a store, anyways, there was a group of guys and girls standing around talking and making crude jokes.  A supervisor walks by and makes a general comment to the group about watching the jokes so no one gets offended.  About a month later a supervisor position comes up and my friend gets it, a group of three women thought that it should have been one of them that got the job.  They complained to a higher up about sexual harassment, that higher up yanks in the supervisor and starts grilling him about why this was going on and nothing had been done about it.  This supervisor now claims that he had already "counsellled" my friend on this behavior and they fire him over it.  There was no sit down meeting with him at anytime or a one on one conversation to let him know he offended someone.  Just a general walk by announcement to a whole group (including the 3 women) and then nothing else.  Stories like this also make people upset when sexual harassment is claimed.

Again, to reiterate, no one should have to deal with being uncomfortable in a work environment and harassed at work, but with so many people crying wolf the legit ones seem to get lost in the shuffle or ignored.


----------



## granfire (Jan 26, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> There are women who may takes things the wrong way everywhere but for one person to find so many of them, in so many jobs, in so many companies must be exceedingly unlucky...or something.
> 
> Common practice these days is usually to log a complaint as it takes more than one to constitute harrassment.
> I'm fond of and respect my shift partners, we spend a lot of time together, sometimes in situations where we have to watch each others backs, we chat a lot but we aren't affectionate, that's inappropriate. We'll bring sweets, bisquits etc in, my Ghurkha shift partner brings curries, that's how we show appreciation for each other. I work with soldiers, depending on where they comes from in the country I get called, love, dear, sweetheart, hinny, petal, flower, duck and some more, in the West country they call both sexes 'my lover, men are 'my ansome' ( handsome!), it's never a bother. sometimes a man will be insulting and start a rant with 'look darlin' in a tone of voice that leaves you no doubt he's insulting not sexual harrassment mind you, insulting, you have to take it in context.
> ...




I so envy you living with normal people!

And you work with people who have more pressing concerns, like not getting killed on the job.

Did I mention I envy you?

Around here, especially in the south, girlyness is king - or queen?
Girls are still treated and trained to believe that looks are everything, their purpose in life is to get married, preferably the day after graduating high school, and have babies. If you don't have one at least before age 20, you are an old made. I am so seriously not kidding here.

The whole of society is revolving so a sick extend around sexuality. But noting a healthy way.
Why we are bombarded with it on every turn (not to mention that manners are eroding fast) while being told that it's sinful (unless you are married and working on a dozen kids, of  course) 

PCness has put a bubble over the situation. While it was a necessary step to equal the playing field, it has indeed become a weapon. And like the actual criminal transgression, you will find few women being accused of it. It's like racism, if you are a certain ethnicity, no way you can be racist, no way can women harass men in the work place in this way </sarcasm> 

We in the US have come to a point were we do not face problems head on anymore, like telling people to sod off when need be. 


As to whether or not Carver has a habit of getting too up close to his female coworkers, I don't think I could venture a guess.
However, many times employers do check up on past jobs. So when the new boss calls the old one as to why they had to let him go, the answer might very well be something like 'He's a good worker, but the women complained' which in turn could be the red flag that send him on his merry way the first hint a women 'feels uncomfortable' around him.


----------



## Steve (Jan 26, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> I admitted that I am an affectionate person.
> I shall say no more as I've pointed out that I do not target specific people. I do not target ANYONE! ...unless I honestly intend to do them harm. I've had enough of remaining silent about it. I use my personal experiences as an example. But, again I do not think I'm ALONE in this. I've known others who have been unjustly terminated because of this. I've never denied that it does not exist either. If I am doing something and not aware that it is causing discomfort or harm, and discover otherwise then I'll stop, as I've mentioned before. Some I know just don't care one way or the other. They know where their lines are crossed at and will speak up for themselves when it is crossed.
> 
> Women have asked for equality and they've gotten it. So by god ... USE IT... speak for yourself first and foremost then seek help if you're unable to resolve the matter. Own up to the phrase "I'm my own woman" because if that's true then no-one speaks FOR YOU ahead of you. Self defense isn't always about physical contact!


Here's the thing.  If you want to stop losing your jobs for this, you need to understand that you can be affectionate outside of work, but obviously your brand of "affectionate" is destructive.  

You say that you don't target anyone... but I wonder.  Are you as "affectionate" toward the men in your office or is it just the women?  

And you say that you don't intend to do them harm, but how are they perceiving your behavior?  Your intentions are irrelevant.  

You say that you're not aware that it causes discomfort, and yet you freely admit that this isn't the first time this has happened.  

Come on.  Listen to yourself.

Edit to add:  One more thing occurred to me.  Your management team must have seen the questionable behavior, and if they didn't talk to you about it or make it clear that it wasn't acceptable, particularly after receiving complaints, then they're not doing their jobs well, either.  The goal is to stop the crap before it infects the workplace.  I've had to have some pretty tough conversations with employees over the years, but while uncomfortable, it saved their jobs.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm not sure about the 'normal' bit to be honest. Soldiers can be crude beyond belief and have a sense of humour that can shock you rigid sometimes though it is very funny! they also say what they mean, which isn't a squaddie thing but on the whole a UK thing, I suspect that's why many here find me a bit acerbic for their tastes.   I'm actually quite tactful, Northerners and the Scots tend to be very outspoken, call a spade a spade type of people.
 In the country as a whole we have the ladettes, trust me no one harasses them, they do the harassing, the drinking, the pinching of bums etc. We have the 'Essex girls' all fake tan, boobs and little clothing but they are strong in their own way, they take life on their own terms. While we have the teenage mothers...no husbands or even boyfriends usually, we have gone the other way in many respects in pushing women into careers. Sometimes stay at home mothers can feel they are the odd ones.
British women have always been a strong breed, the two world wars showed everyone what we always knew, that we can do anything we put our minds to. The fifites were a bit girlie but even then the need to earn money probably came before anything else, women were expected to work until the married. here the fifites were a time of great austerity, there was still food rationing, bomb sites and shortages. The sixties I think put a stop to all that, that's when women really started coming into their own. Perhaps the difference in our incomes to average Americans meant that women couldn't be seen to be just pretty, working women have always been a norm. My mother worked as did all my friend's mothers. Only the very rich women didn't work.




As for sex, I think we're quite earthy really and don't really have the guilt these days about sex not that I'm sure we really did have guilt only fear of geting pregnant which went away with the pill, we don't have the hellfire religion either. Women these days expect to have the same sex lives that men have always had, when and how they want. There's a lot of strong women that act as role models here though we do have a subculture of people who are going to make it big on X Factor if only Simon Cowell could believe they can sing...they can't. We've always had a sub culture of criminals too, most of the recent rioters were criminals. I know an MMA fighter who's stuck in a north African country because he and his gang stole £54 Million, he was a good fighter too but obviously can't come back lol. 



. He took over the Kray's territory, you'll need to look them up.


I've known of women to be charged with sexual harassment as well as men. These are rarely cases of people taking what was said the wrong way but more of a sustained campaign of what is basically bullying. Hardly anyone thinks they are guilty however, it's always 'unfair' even when it's blatently obvious they are guilty. There's also plenty of hearsay going around 'I know a man who.....' etc what people know is only one side of the story, that of the teller.It's a common myth that you will be sacked for calling a woman dear, I find men who tend to be bitter hawk this story around, often it's because they feel they've been overlooked for promotion etc. It also happens to ethnic minorities  'they only got the job because they are black and they have to fill the quotas' when rarely is that the case. It's the same with crime figures, everyone will tell you here that crime is up when in fact it's down, it's all about perception and what people hear from others. Immigrants are another subject people are vocal about...they are taking all our jobs..well actually no, employers say that they will take on people who turn up for interviews, if that happens to be the immigrants and not the natives well there you are. 


Granfire, you are going to have to move here, that's all I can say.


----------



## Steve (Jan 26, 2012)

I'd love to spend a couple years there.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 26, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'd love to spend a couple years there.



Well you have a standing invitation! be nice to argue face to face rofl!


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Articl.../?SiteId=cbmsnhp42911&sc_extcmp=JS_2911_home1

The hug. It's a simple gesture that can make a happy situation happier or help someone overcome with sadness feel a little better. Studies have shown that hugs can actually make a difference in one's health; research out of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill found that a hug can lower blood pressure and reduce the harmful physical effects of stress.

Hugs are thought to be so beneficial, there's even a day dedicated to celebrating the gift of a hug. Jan. 21 has been deemed "National Hugging Day," and according to the organizer's website, the day was "created for family and friends to hug often and freely with one another."


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 27, 2012)

Yep, the first thing that happens when me and the missus get back from work is a long hug, a kiss or two and some endearments.  Makes the tensions of work fall right out of the shoulders.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 27, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> http://msn.careerbuilder.com/Articl.../?SiteId=cbmsnhp42911&sc_extcmp=JS_2911_home1
> 
> The hug. It's a simple gesture that can make a happy situation happier or help someone overcome with sadness feel a little better. Studies have shown that hugs can actually make a difference in one's health; research out of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill found that a hug can lower blood pressure and reduce the harmful physical effects of stress.
> 
> Hugs are thought to be so beneficial, there's even a day dedicated to celebrating the gift of a hug. Jan. 21 has been deemed "National Hugging Day," and according to the organizer's website, the day was "created for family and friends to hug often and freely with one another."



Worth reading the whole article; it makes it quite clear that you have to be sure that hugs are acceptable and welcome in the workplace.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 27, 2012)

Is this proper hugs or 'man hugs' the one where two men lean into each other and give a quick slap on the back then move apart sharpish?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 27, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Yep, the first thing that happens when me and the missus get back from work is a long hug, a kiss or two and some endearments.  Makes the tensions of work fall right out of the shoulders.



First is fine, but it's what happens AFTER that really matters. 

To the OP, I'm going to echo something others have said. If this has happened more than once, then you really need to take a good look at yourself. "They're all out to get me" isn't going to cut it. You clearly have a pattern of behavior that is resulting in these complaints. Regardless of your intention or your interpretation of your actions, it's offending women. Change it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 27, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> First is fine, but it's what happens AFTER that really matters.
> 
> To the OP, I'm going to echo something others have said. If this has happened more than once, then you really need to take a good look at yourself. "They're all out to get me" isn't going to cut it. You clearly have a pattern of behavior that is resulting in these complaints. Regardless of your intention or your interpretation of your actions, it's offending women. Change it.



Next time I start a thread about a controversial subject of which I have direct knowledge/experience in ... I'm just going to say " a friend of a friend of mine" instead of using myself as an example... which is what I was trying to do... not talking directly about myself but about the OVERALL problem that exists. It's not JUST ME that is having this problem.. I know what I've been doing wrong and have been taking steps to correct it best as I may... but it's still part of my personality and personal make up that makes me who I am. Obviously I cannot work in such environs being MYSELF without pissing or offending people inadvertently or indirectly so I'm trying to refocus my jobs to where I don't have to interact with any other employees irregardless of their sex and personal spaces. 
This thread has never been "all about me" but about the observations that I've made in over 30 years of working in various jobs. I'm not the only one... and it's not what I intended the focus to be upon. I'm not one who seeks spotlights or pity parties or anything like that. I will use myself as an example to help illustrate a point. 

It is a problem out there, not just with me and that is what I wanted or hoped that the thread and discussion would focus on. I could still learn more things about myself by reading about others and making the (honest) comparisons and seeing where I need to focus on correcting these apparent defects that are getting me (and hundreds of others) fired!


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Next time I start a thread about a controversial subject of which I have direct knowledge/experience in ... I'm just going to say " a friend of a friend of mine" instead of using myself as an example... which is what I was trying to do... not talking directly about myself but about the OVERALL problem that exists. It's not JUST ME that is having this problem.. I know what I've been doing wrong and have been taking steps to correct it best as I may... but it's still part of my personality and personal make up that makes me who I am. Obviously I cannot work in such environs being MYSELF without pissing or offending people inadvertently or indirectly so I'm trying to refocus my jobs to where I don't have to interact with any other employees irregardless of their sex and personal spaces.


This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I mentioned a complete lack of personal accountability.  You presume that your situation is both normal and universal.  It is neither.  You expect us to believe that you are being victimized and that your recurring issues are unavoidable.  I don't buy it.  


> This thread has never been "all about me" but about the observations that I've made in over 30 years of working in various jobs. I'm not the only one... and it's not what I intended the focus to be upon. I'm not one who seeks spotlights or pity parties or anything like that. I will use myself as an example to help illustrate a point.
> 
> It is a problem out there, not just with me and that is what I wanted or hoped that the thread and discussion would focus on. I could still learn more things about myself by reading about others and making the (honest) comparisons and seeing where I need to focus on correcting these apparent defects that are getting me (and hundreds of others) fired!


This is where you're wrong.  If you started this thread expecting a chorus of people to rail against the sexual harassment laws in the country and how unfair everything is, I hate to tell you, but for most people, they work just fine.  The vast majority of people in this country have no problem at all discerning the line between appropriate and inappropriate.  And when they've crossed the line, they have done so knowingly and understand completely when you let them know that it's not okay.  And usually, that's exactly what happens:

Manager:  "Bob, look.  I need to talk to you.  That joke you told yesterday.  I'm not okay with that and I'd like for you to avoid any sexual jokes while at work.  Okay?"
Bob:  "But, no one was offended.  What's the problem.  Even you laughed?" 
Manager:  "No one seemed offended, and that's great.  But it's still riding the line of our EEO policies and I'd hate for you to get in trouble over something so silly.  You're a good employee, Bob.  Just watch the jokes and keep it professional."
Bob:  "Sure.  I get it.  Thanks."

That's it. 

But more importantly, in an economy like this one, where jobs are harder to come by... dude.  Come on.  Just do your work.  Think about what you say before you say it.  Keep things professional.  Don't touch your coworkers unless it's required by the job.  Don't tell jokes.  Avoid telling personal stories.  Pretend you're a working machine and get as much done as you can.  If you've got enough work to do, you won't have the time to get into trouble.  

To be clear, MOST people won't have to go to such extremes, but if you can't see the lines, better to stay well away from them.  Have friends when you're not at work.  Get paid so you can eat while you're at work. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 30, 2012)

Yeah... well, funny how one line seemed to go past everyone's eyes.  

She lied ... but of course the fact that I have a penis and she a vagina makes me the guilty party no matter what. 

I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> Yeah... well, funny how one line seemed to go past everyone's eyes.
> 
> She lied ... but of course the fact that I have a penis and she a vagina makes me the guilty party no matter what.
> 
> I'm done with this thread.


I just hope you figure this out before it costs you another job.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 30, 2012)

Wow, misogny at it's best. She's a woman therefore she's wrong, I'm a man I'm right. Caver *you said yourself *you have been told *not to touch* women more than once in different workplaces by different bosses so why is does that make her wrong?


----------



## Carol (Jan 30, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Worth reading the whole article; it makes it quite clear that you have to be sure that hugs are acceptable and welcome in the workplace.



Its also dancing around the fact that it is not considered professional behaviour.  

There has been lots and lots and lots of material written about managing one's career.  Harvard Business Review, Forbes, HR Journals, MSN Careers, countless others....I can't remember any that said hugging and touching in the workplace is a positive thing for one's career.  Especially as jobs have gotten harder to come by.  The Career Builder article talks about the physical benefits of a hug being stress relief and all that.   Personally I think having the folks around you disciplined to focus on their job and excel at it is far better workplace stress relief than any of the touchy-feely stuff.

Yes, in some environments you may be able to get away with hugging, but IMO a far better career decision would be to choose excellence over mediocrity (or worse).


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 30, 2012)

Carol said:


> Its also dancing around the fact that it is not considered professional behaviour.
> 
> There has been lots and lots and lots of material written about managing one's career.  Harvard Business Review, Forbes, HR Journals, MSN Careers, countless others....I can't remember any that said hugging and touching in the workplace is a positive thing for one's career.  Especially as jobs have gotten harder to come by.  The Career Builder article talks about the physical benefits of a hug being stress relief and all that.   Personally I think having the folks around you disciplined to focus on their job and excel at it is far better workplace stress relief than any of the touchy-feely stuff.
> 
> Yes, in some environments you may be able to get away with hugging, but IMO a far better career decision would be to choose excellence over mediocrity (or worse).



Sorry, time was short and I wanted to draw out that the article wasn't a ringing endorsement of hugging in the workplace.  Personally, as a general rule, hugs are inappropriate in most workplaces, and unprofessional.  Yes, there can indeed be times where a hug or comforting touch is simply the human gesture to make.  But generally, that implies a relationship further than mere professional colleagues, as well.  In the workplace, the safe answer is always to remain professional -- which generally means no hugging.


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Wow, misogny at it's best. She's a woman therefore she's wrong, I'm a man I'm right. Caver *you said yourself *you have been told *not to touch* women more than once in different workplaces by different bosses so why is does that make her wrong?



Again, I am sure he does not hold this position in all aspects of life.
However, the cards are indeed stacked against the guy in terms of work place harassment (or even the further reaching criminal conduct).

At least here in the US. 
In a lot of places - not all of them. And THAT has turned the umbrella of workplace sensibility into a deadly weapon.


And reading through the responses in regard of professionalism and hugging....it is a sad state of affairs when there is no more distinction between a transgression and a human interaction.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2012)

granfire said:


> And reading through the responses in regard of professionalism and hugging....it is a sad state of affairs when there is no more distinction between a transgression and a human interaction.


Could you explain this statement to me?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  I'm also interested to know how you define "human interaction" because I'm not sure I would agree.  

While we're at it, can you outline a situation that would be considered routine (ie, doesn't involve tragedy) in which you think that hugging a coworker in a professional setting would be appropriate?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> I just hope you figure this out before it costs you another job.



Well, just like everyone else... I doubt it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> Could you explain this statement to me?  I'm not sure I understand what you mean.


 Really?



Steve said:


> While we're at it, can you outline a situation that would be considered routine (ie, doesn't involve tragedy) in which you think that hugging a coworker in a professional setting would be appropriate?



We wouldn't because she is German and I am English and there is a degree of Teutonic/Saxon reserve that we both grew up with; as to you American's tho', with all your Latin influences and flamboyant displays of emotion ...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 30, 2012)

If it were a pair of guys... they'd probably be arrested.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Really?


Yeah.  It seems self apparent to me that behavior that is welcoming and even comforting amongst close friends could also be clearly inappropriate with a co-worker, whether peer or subordinate.  





> We wouldn't because she is German and I am English and there is a degree of Teutonic/Saxon reserve that we both grew up with; as to you American's tho', with all your Latin influences and flamboyant displays of emotion ...


Haha.  Well, remember, we're a melting pot.  I'm a Norwegian/German, pretty much half and half with a smackering of some older, "American" mash up on my mom's side.  So, we're pretty uncomfortable with public displays of affection and such.

My wife, on the other hand, is almost exclusively Irish.  She's way more... flamboyant... than I am.


----------



## Steve (Jan 30, 2012)

MA-Caver said:


> If it were a pair of guys... they'd probably be arrested.


If those two were at work, they'd probably be fired.  That's the real key takeaway here.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 31, 2012)

Steve said:


> If those two were at work, they'd probably be fired. That's the real key takeaway here.



They are also giving implicit permission for hugging to take place.

There remains though that old adage that you can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be. To constantly see youself as a victim will do no good, to see yourself as being constantly persecuted will also do no good. There must be millions of men who work in America despite whatever PC type of environment there is who do not get sacked for sexual harrassment, there must be a good many male martial arts instructors who do not get banned so whatever is going on doesn't seem to affect the majority.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> They are also giving implicit permission for hugging to take place.
> 
> There remains though that old adage that you can only be a victim if you allow yourself to be. To constantly see youself as a victim will do no good, to see yourself as being constantly persecuted will also do no good. There must be millions of men who work in America despite whatever PC type of environment there is who do not get sacked for sexual harrassment, there must be a good many male martial arts instructors who do not get banned so whatever is going on doesn't seem to affect the majority.


The only thing I'd like to clarify is that the issue here isn't political correctness.  That's the smokescreen.  The issue is one of simple respect and professionalism.  That's the bottom line.  People who are unable to figure it out call it PC in order to imply that it's not their issue.  

We spend more waking time with our coworkers than with our families, in most cases.  So, some people want it all.  They want their workplace to be a giant family, where they can "let their guard down" and "be themselves."  But, as with most things, you can't have it all.


----------



## KELLYG (Jan 31, 2012)

I personally do not like people touching me period especially at work.  I however would not hesitate to tell you that you crossed a line with me.   Some females do not feel comfortable doing that and will go to managment instead.  I do not need to be hugged and comforted or told every aspect of your life to get my work done.   For the most part I am a private person and do not share a lot with people I work with.  Don't get me wrong I do get along well with the people I work with and don't mind shooting the breeze from time to time. Work is work it is a place I go everyday to earn money.  I think that your "friendly mannor"  may be confusing to some.  You don't have to be cold hearted but allow greater distance between yourself and the people that you work with.    Don't get me wrong I know that some females will make a fuss just cause they can.   I remember that there was a calender on the wall in the shop.  It was a Men's calender, the women were in bathing suits in suggestive poses.   It was not obsene in any way and was in a back area that is usually occupied only by the guys in the shop.  Well a female "coworker" came in, for the first time in her 5 years of employment, saw it  and then told managment that she was offended. It was removed immediately.  Now this calender was on the wall and the only thing that changed in years, decades even,  was the yearly change.  The female that was offended, it came down.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 31, 2012)

:nods: That last story indeed shows an over-sensitivity and a sense of entitlement that we would not normally tolerate in others.  A similar thing was in the news today where ONE woman complained to a bus company because the driver called her "babe" or somesuch and now there is official policy that the drivers should not use familiar terms to their passengers - it's a load of ... well, you can imagine what it is a load of.

Here's the article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16808941


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 31, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> :nods: That last story indeed shows an over-sensitivity and a sense of entitlement that we would not normally tolerate in others. A similar thing was in the news today where ONE woman complained to a bus company because the driver called her "babe" or somesuch and now there is official policy that the drivers should not use familiar terms to their passengers - it's a load of ... well, you can imagine what it is a load of.
> 
> Here's the article:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16808941



I think sometimes the problem is people looking for an excuse to file complaints and file lawsuits.  They try to go out of their way to play the victim card.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> There must be millions of men who work in America despite whatever PC type of environment there is who do not get sacked for sexual harrassment....



For real.  Not only have I never been fired or even talked to for harassment, i've never even seen it happen to anyone else.  In one case I can think of, the man should have gotten a talking-to, and never did.  And I have worked for or been a student in 6 universities or research institutes over the past 15 years, and 4 service jobs in the previous years as well.  All of this, in liberal institutions in liberal states, the epicenter of "political correctness".  Really, this stuff isn't that hard to figure out, which makes this thread more than a little mystifying.  I guess it explains how harassment does happen.


----------



## Steve (Jan 31, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> For real.  Not only have I never been fired or even talked to for harassment, i've never even seen it happen to anyone else.  In one case I can think of, the man should have gotten a talking-to, and never did.  And I have worked for or been a student in 6 universities or research institutes over the past 15 years, and 4 service jobs in the previous years as well.  All of this, in liberal institutions in liberal states, the epicenter of "political correctness".  Really, this stuff isn't that hard to figure out, which makes this thread more than a little mystifying.  I guess it explains how harassment does happen.


While I've never been talked to about any kind of harassment issue, I've had to have three conversations.  One was with my (at the time) direct supervisor regarding his treatment of one of my employees.  But, to be clear, there was never any real issue because I acted as soon as I saw it, BEFORE it was any kind of a problem. 

As EH says, it's not that hard to figure out.


----------



## Brian King (Jan 31, 2012)

Interesting topic MA-Caver. Why we post what we do is not always obvious to us or to others at that moment, but everything happens for a reason. I applaud your courage in posting honestly in what you would know would be a controversial thread and a subject that is both personal and painful to you. 

A really profitable tool in gauging where a person is in their life journey and where they are going is for a person to take a honest look and assessment of their past. Just reminiscing is not what I am taking about. What I am talking about is looking for and seeing patterns, look for both positive and negative patterns. Patterns in how we deal with conflicts, patterns in how we deal with challenges, patterns in how we deal with relationships. Once patterns are recognized an honest assessment should be made. Is the pattern working and leading to positive actions? 


*MA-Caver wrote;*


> Yeah sure... define professionalism.. because I haven't seen it with ANY company that I worked for. And there has been a lot of companies of various types that I've signed paychecks from.



We cannot worry about what others are doing or not doing. I find it hard to believe that no-one at the many companies that you have worked at modeled professional conduct. Be that as it may be, if others are not being professional is no excuse for unprofessional behavior on our own part. If no one else is professional, great. That will make the professional stand out all that much more, it might allow a person to make a much greater impact when they stand out professionally.  Seeking betterment is always worthwhile even if often painful. 


Back to the the original topic of the thread as I am reading it or into it. Caver seems to be upset that women are getting away with behavior that he and others suffered negative consequences for, even just the accusation of such a type of behavior can bring negative consequences. Its true but so what? Life is not fair and the sooner people get over the naivety of thinking that it is supposed to be fair the better. Things do not easily change but we can change if we truly desire to. We cannot easily control how others act and behave towards us but we can control how their behavior and actions effect us.  A big step is to find someone willing to be a mentor. Find a professional and model that behavior you admire. Start from where at and move onward. 


Regards
Brian King


----------



## Carol (Jan 31, 2012)

Well, since we're talking stats....I have been working nearly 20 years in an environment that is 90% male. Telecom engineering simply doesn't attract a lot of women.

I would not put up with sexual harrasment, inappropriate touching, or any of the sort in the workplace.  

I haven't had to.  Never had to deal with inappropriate touching or language at the work place.   Never dealt with inappropriate touching.  Never filed any sort of complaint of the sort.   I haven't had to.  I believe very strongly that the more respect you show your colleagues, the more respect is returned to you.

Personally I have been part of one potential harrasment investigation.  It involved an off-color greeting card sent anonymously to the complainants work e-mail.  The card was sent from some hotmail account outside the company.   The complainant was my report.  I talked to HR who asked if I could figure out who the sender was.  I ran some magic network traces,  determined the sender was another employee -- also my report.  Oh joy.  I asked the sender about the card, the sender admitted sending it. 0000The story -- the two people were long-time buddies outside of work.  The sender sent the card using a hotmail account that they primarily use for spam.  The complainant didn't recognize the address the address.  When the complainant found out who the sender was, the complainant insisted on withdrawing the complaint, stating they never would have complained had they known who the card was from.  

I relayed this to HR, my director and I agreed that this was not a harassment issue.  I brought the sender in to my office for a butt-kicking lecture about web surfing on company time.  Sender was immediately contrite and admitted they did something stupid.

Both got back to work....and they continued to do a fine job for the entire time I was their manager.    Not everything is a horror story.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> :nods: That last story indeed shows an over-sensitivity and a sense of entitlement that we would not normally tolerate in others. A similar thing was in the news today where ONE woman complained to a bus company because the driver called her "babe" or somesuch and now there is official policy that the drivers should not use familiar terms to their passengers - it's a load of ... well, you can imagine what it is a load of.
> 
> Here's the article:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16808941





I think there's two things here, the first is that this happens rarely, so rare in fact that they made it a news item. The second is something we have people complaining about here... that when you see the word 'babe' or as you say something similiar in writing it sounds innocuous enough but what we can't tell is the way it was said, the context it was said in and the expression of the driver as he said it.  It could have been something or nothing. I'd hold my judgement on it until I heard all the story. My instructor does the doors in Newcastle and he can make 'darlin' sound like a terrible insult and even a bit threatening.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 1, 2012)

I was investigated for Sexual Harassment once.  When I was a Retail manager, one of my Employees complained to me that my Assistant manager was creeping him out... hovering around, always asking what he was doing after work, etc... So I asked her what was up with that.  She said "nothing" and I asked if she wanted to go out with him or what the story was.  She said "No I don't want to go out with him, I just want to F*** him."  So... I told her she was creeping him out and she should chill.  She did.

Fast forward about 2-3 months... the behavior started again, with a different employee, who also complained... this time I was direct... I said "Ok, so now what is with you and Johnny?  Do you want to F*** him?"   

And she reported me for Sexual harassment.   Of course, when the regional manager heard the story they dropped the complaint against me.  I find it an amusing story to tell now, but, yeah... I can maybe see a double standard there.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 1, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> And she reported me for Sexual harassment.   Of course, when the regional manager heard the story they dropped the complaint against me.  I find it an amusing story to tell now, but, yeah... I can maybe see a double standard there.



What double standard?  A complaint was made, it was investigated, and then dismissed by your superior when all the facts came to light.  What _wouldn't _be a double standard to you, if your regional manager had simply ignored the complaint?  If any complaint is made by a woman it must be ignored?  I'm really struggling to connect the claim and the facts here.


----------



## granfire (Feb 1, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> What double standard?  A complaint was made, it was investigated, and then dismissed by your superior when all the facts came to light.  What _wouldn't _be a double standard to you, if your regional manager had simply ignored the complaint?  If any complaint is made by a woman it must be ignored?  I'm really struggling to connect the claim and the facts here.




The woman was basically doing the harassing by oogling her male coworkers. I suppose the direct approach did not sit well with her? Or she got mad at being called on it?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> The woman was basically doing the harassing by oogling her male coworkers. I suppose the direct approach did not sit well with her? Or she got mad at being called on it?




Exactly and I think it proves too that the premise 'only men are pulled for sexual harrassment' is false, sexual harrassment is not just women complaining maliciously about men because they called them 'dear'.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 1, 2012)

Can sexual harassment charges be falsified? Sure. Are they? Suree. Are the standards low, and set against men?

Sure. *Are there ways to avoid it?* Absolutely.

Sucks that it feels like this is what's happened to you, 'Caver, but there are a couple of things that stick out.

If a female coworker, or, in my case, _subordinate_, asked me for a hug, I'd politely decline.

I don't touch _anyone_ unless it's necessary for the job-as in keeping them from doing something dangerous, like removing their hands from controls.

If someone calls me "sugar," or "sweetheart,"  or anything like that,*at work*, I tell them that it's inappropriate, and immediately. Socially is another story-if we're at the bar, or some other event, I let it slide, but I don't reciprocate-*ever*.

I try not to be alone with women coworkers and subordinates for too long, except in the field when necessary.

As you can tell, I've danced this dance in my career before-been accused of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior before, but I've never lost a job from it, or had it held against me later.


----------



## granfire (Feb 1, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Exactly and I think it proves too that the premise 'only men are pulled for sexual harrassment' is false, sexual harrassment is not just women complaining maliciously about men because they called them 'dear'.



I never meant to say it does not happen. But it is certainly not assumed that women do it. It is basically a situation that has been set up to protect the female. 

However, in this particular situation, the woman was the transgressor, but still filed against the _man_ asking her about her actions.
Brass ones, if you ask me.


However, aside the real or assumed frequency of which Carver loses his job due to harassment charges, I think we have moved light years away from his original point: When 2 people do the same thing it's still not the same? 

Which I think it an important point to ponder. If the situation was reversed, how would it play out? Not just in terms of sexual harassment, but in general.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> The woman was basically doing the harassing by oogling her male coworkers. I suppose the direct approach did not sit well with her? Or she got mad at being called on it?



Yes, she was, which means *she *has a double standard.  No surprise, plenty of people are hypocritical dicks who can dish it out but don't want to take it, in all kinds of arenas.  That doesn't mean that a general double standard exists.  If one person was all it took, then a man who harasses but doesn't want to be harassed would be all it takes to establish a "double standard" in the opposite direction.  Meaningless, in other words.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 1, 2012)

elder999;[URL="tel:1458150" said:
			
		

> [/URL]]
> Sucks that it feels like this is what's happened to you, 'Caver, but there are a couple of things that stick out.



And, to be fair, when 'Caver says he's "affectionate," we have to remember that 'Caver is _deaf_. Having several deaf relatives, dated a deaf woman, and taught at a school for the deaf in Santa Fe, I have to point out that the deaf community's predominant communication and socializations styles contain a fair amount of touching that might seem inappropriate to those unfamiliar with them.

Not an excuse, just a reason, and maybe something for you to look at, 'Caver.

I also should point out that "sexual harassment" is legally defined as "any unwelcome behavior that can be construed as sexual in nature that makes anyone uncomfortable." It's ridiculously broad-my own personal sexual harassment stories are great examples.

There was a secretary in my group that I was dating. She'd been in a car wreck, had a bad back, and enjoyed my occasionally rubbing her shoulders. One day she told me that I couldn't do it anymore. It made the other men in the group uncomfortable, you see, and they were going to file harassment charges against both of us if it persisted.

This was nearly 16 years ago.Since then, I don't touch _anyone_ unless it's necessary for the job.

It was also one of my duties at one of the facilities that I ran to annually escort a security person and a contractor with a drug/explosive search dog through my facility. On one occasion, the contractor was a woman, who, like most dog handlers, was totally focused on her dog. In a welders area, we had to open one of several cabinets the welder kept fitting in-one of them had a Snap-On calendar in it (Snap-On tools used to give out calendars with bathing-suit clad "Snap-On" girls) The security guy asked me if I was going to take it down, "for the female," who hadn't even looked at it, and was focused on her dog. He took it down, and wrote me up for sexual harassment. It made him uncomfortable, you see.

I have another story, that's actually funny, but it's a little off-color, so I won't be telling it.......

Most recently, I had to fire a young lady for absenteeism-she promptly tried to accuse me of sexual harassment. We were having none of that, though.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 1, 2012)

granfire said:


> ...I think we have moved light years away from his original point: When 2 people do the same thing it's still not the same?
> 
> Which I think it an important point to ponder. If the situation was reversed, how would it play out? Not just in terms of sexual harassment, but in general.



I am flabbergasted that members of a context driven, socially based species ask a question like this in all seriousness.  Of *course* 2 people can do the same thing, and have it perceived differently.  Context matters!  *We all know this*.  If my boss asks me to account for my time, and my subordinate does, the "same" action will be taken very differently.  If my friend Steve who I work with wants to tell me about his marital issues, and so does the head of my department, the "same" action will be perceived very differently.  If two men ask the same woman out, one is friendly and charming and never mentions it again when he is turned down, the other demanding and creepy and won't take "no" for an answer, the "same" action will be perceived differently.

None of us are children here, it's disingenuous to wonder why the "same" actions can have different outcomes depending on who is doing it.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2012)

I think it is hard for some people to see physical contact however innocent between others, it could be the way they were brought up, their religious beliefs or perhaps it sparks off a memory of something bad, we can't know but I think rather than laugh/pour scorn on these people because they aren't the same as us we could actually be more thoughtful sometimes. Likewise with things like the 'girlie' calender, pics etc, I see plenty of them if we have to enter the male accomodation (officially and never alone I'll add) it doesn't bother me nor any of my female colleagues but it does bother some of the men, they are embarrassed by them. Again it may be upbringing, religion or perhaps older men with daughters, I don't really know but it's easier to respect them than make an issue out of it I've found. it's quite rare these days though to find people bothered by calenders, pics etc, I think we are all used to the Page Three girls and nudity on the television. The only time we really complain when they are real mingers!


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 1, 2012)

Am I glad that i never touch a female, other than my wife. 

OTOH, I've been accused of being anti-social for refusing to shake the hand of a female colleague, or stepping back as a woman moves in for a hug.

Some days, you just can't win.


----------



## granfire (Feb 1, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Am I glad that i never touch a female, other than my wife.
> 
> OTOH, I've been accused of being anti-social for refusing to shake the hand of a female colleague, or stepping back as a woman moves in for a hug.
> 
> Some days, you just can't win.



Most days actually.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Am I glad that i never touch a female, other than my wife.
> 
> OTOH, I've been accused of being anti-social for refusing to shake the hand of a female colleague, or stepping back as a woman moves in for a hug.
> 
> Some days, you just can't win.



Obviously that's something I understand but because I often work with Gurkhas it's something they do as well. We use the traditional greeting of hands together with them, it's actually a very pleasant and uncomplicated way of greeting people. While very polite they are also very undemonstrative in public, we have no misunderstandings or ambiguities to worry about.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 1, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> Am I glad that i never touch a female, other than my wife.
> 
> OTOH, I've been accused of being anti-social for refusing to shake the hand of a female colleague, or stepping back as a woman moves in for a hug.
> 
> Some days, you just can't win.


By doing the above two things, I believe you *have won* and *will consistently win*.  Whether she knows these things of you or not, by acting this way with such a consistent professional approach, you give a great respect to your wife.  I think that is a wonderful thing.

If I had a penny for every married or long-term-partnered man that had doled out workplace banter in such a way that if I were his wife I would be cored and gutted, well I would be weighed down with pennies now.  Although it is just idle foolishness and it is all in a lighthearted context, I think conversations, gestures or actions with sexual overtones or undertones do nothing but undermine trust in mixed workplaces.  Anyway, maybe I am prudish.  Sometimes I am glad I do not have the worry of being married and but to read your approach and imagine your integrity would change my mind 

 If all men (and women) took your transparent and consistent approach and respected that this is how it should be in a workplace then there would be far fewer false accusations and far fewer bona fide across-the-line indecent situations at all levels.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 1, 2012)

Jenna said:


> By doing the above two things, I believe you *have won* and *will consistently win*.  Whether she knows these things of you or not, by acting this way with such a consistent professional approach, you give a great respect to your wife.  I think that is a wonderful thing.



Shaking hands is not a sexual gesture, and refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex does nothing to show your spouse respect.  No more than refusing to make eye contact or be in the same room with the opposite sex would.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Shaking hands is not a sexual gesture, and refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex does nothing to show your spouse respect. No more than refusing to make eye contact or be in the same room with the opposite sex would.



I'll let Canuck explain this one.


Going back to what Jenna said it may be a matter of honesty, I work with people, men and women who are very up front especially about sexual matters, however a lot of civilians don't get what they are about. On the basis that if you don't ask you don't get soldiers will often ask if you are up for a shag, say no, you'll get a grin and no hard feelings, say yes you'll probably get a good time, entirely up to you. Its honest, not subtle, not harrassing, it's just the way they are. If you say no, you won't get bothered, they'll make you a brew and get on with whatever needs getting on with. We do sometimes get civilian females who work on the camps thinking they are far more popular than they are, the truth is a squaddie will go with anything with a pulse, well, actually anything that's still warm. Does it show a lack of respect for women, not really, not by their lights. They are just honest. They don't touch you up, they tell jokes that would get a comedian who told them banned from ever performing again but they don't actually harrass you, the cases of harrassment we get are usually among the civilians who work for the MOD. Often it's a boss taking advantage of their position, sometimes it's literally a 'dirty old man'. Once we have a woman complain three weeks after she claimed she saw a security officer sat with his todger out when she came into work one morning, he said he was eating a sausage roll. No one else who came in at that time saw anything amiss, the case was dismissed through lack of evidence, the woman was honest in what she thought she saw, she wasn't being malicious, she's fretted about it for a long time, told her boss who then reported it.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 1, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Shaking hands is not a sexual gesture, and refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex does nothing to show your spouse respect.  No more than refusing to make eye contact or be in the same room with the opposite sex would.



It's actually respect for the woman. I also do not touch my wife while in public. It's part of a religious restriction.

A woman having her periods and for a while after is ritually impure. Not unclean, just a ritual state. The state is passed by contact. I will not make contact with a woman I do not know, so as not to touch a woman that is ritually impure. I also refrain to touch my wife in public because doing so or not would clue an observer as to her ritual state, information that does not need to be shared. I show respect to my wife by not broadcasting her state.

And before someone tries to pick on the issue of ritual impurity, or cleanliness as it is usually mistranslated, first, men are subject to that as well. And one of the bestt way to understand it is this:

You come home after a vacation an find a dead, decompose squirrel in your fridge. Throw away the food, clean the inside of the fridge with bleach. By all standards, the fridge is clean. Would you still use it? One is cleanliness, the other is a state.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 2, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> Shaking hands is not a sexual gesture, and refusing to shake hands with the opposite sex does nothing to show your spouse respect.  No more than refusing to make eye contact or be in the same room with the opposite sex would.


I was referencing the refusal to hug. Apologies.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> On the basis that if you don't ask you don't get soldiers will often ask if you are up for a shag, say no, you'll get a grin and no hard feelings, say yes you'll probably get a good time, entirely up to you.


Wow, and I thought the environment I worked in was forthright in sexual matters! 

I have to say, I would find that kind of openness uncomfortable Tez. I know it is (generally) meant in a lighthearted spirit and but Tez I would worry that this kind of acceptance of sexual propositioning could lead to indecent and/or criminal behaviours do you not think?  In the situation you outline (and others likek it in other workplace environments) you are trusting relying on a guy taking your no for a no.  I know military rely upon very tightly knit camaraderie and teamwork and but still I think relying upon a guy to stop when you say stop that is not a place I would want to be.  Throw in a few beers and... 

I know you are tough Tez.  I just hope that you and other women in your unit keep aware and safe.  My wishes to you, Jenna


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> Going back to what Jenna said it may be a matter of honesty, I work with people, men and women who are very up front especially about sexual matters, however a lot of civilians don't get what they are about. On the basis that if you don't ask you don't get soldiers will often ask if you are up for a shag, say no, you'll get a grin and no hard feelings, say yes you'll probably get a good time, entirely up to you. Its honest, not subtle, not harrassing, it's just the way they are. If you say no, you won't get bothered, they'll make you a brew and get on with whatever needs getting on with. We do sometimes get civilian females who work on the camps thinking they are far more popular than they are, the truth is a squaddie will go with anything with a pulse, well, actually anything that's still warm. Does it show a lack of respect for women, not really, not by their lights. They are just honest.



Realize that things are different here-if you ask someone at work on a "date," and they say "no," and you don't ask again, it's not harassment,.

If you keep asking, and they report it, it is.

If you ask them if they're "up for a shag," once, and they report it, it's harassment. 

In any case, it's inappropriate.


Touch someone once, and if they report it, it might be harassment.. Do it after they've told you not to, even on the wrist or shoulder, and it's harassment.



			
				Tez3 said:
			
		

> they tell jokes that would get a comedian who told them banned from ever performing again but they don't actually harrass



This is inappropriate behavior-if someone tells you they don't want to hear it, and you do it again, it's actually harassment.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Wow, and I thought the environment I worked in was forthright in sexual matters!
> 
> I have to say, I would find that kind of openness uncomfortable Tez. I know it is (generally) meant in a lighthearted spirit and but Tez I would worry that this kind of acceptance of sexual propositioning could lead to indecent and/or criminal behaviours do you not think? In the situation you outline (and others likek it in other workplace environments) you are trusting relying on a guy taking your no for a no. I know military rely upon very tightly knit camaraderie and teamwork and but still I think relying upon a guy to stop when you say stop that is not a place I would want to be. Throw in a few beers and...
> 
> I know you are tough Tez. I just hope that you and other women in your unit keep aware and safe. My wishes to you, Jenna




It's not sexual propostioning as such, it's just being honest, there's nothing false, nothing faked about them, you're chatting, you get on, do you want to shag, no, then that's fine. It leads to nothing else as I said. It doesn't lead to criminal and/or criminal behaviour because everything is in the open, it's not secret, it's not about being tough at all and don't think its the men who are the only ones doing this, it's equal ops in every sense, the female soldiers are no different. There's no pressure on anyone, to be honest it's no different from being offered something to eat or drink, if you don't want anything you say so and that's the end of it. When they are out drinking it's gernerally the lads that come off worst, we have a certain type of female that traps soldiers, they see their life style, their postings and the fact they get houses when they marry as being very attractive so they go all out to trap the lads into getting married. We also get girls who will travel a long way just to sleep with soldiers. considring how many men we have here I can't remember the last time we had an accusation of rape or even sexual harrassment, the lads even when drunk tend not to force anyone, they wouldn't not when there's so many girls laying it on plates for them anyway. 

The jokes aren't innapropiate they just aren't understood by civvies for example a well known comedian here went to visit injured servicemen including amputees, they had t shirts on that said 'I survived a suicide bomber' and they told him 'amputee jokes' like the one on the thread here where a single amputation was known as a 'papercut'. They told him jokingly that Team GB would have a good team in the Para Olympics this year with all the amputees, he repeated this on one of his shows and there was an uproar among certain types. The public gets embarrassd by the injured, they want them to be silent heroes, all saintly instead of being what they always were. We had some amputees here who had come up for the Afghan medal ceremony, their mates took them out and they all got roaring drunk. there were having wheelcahir races in the road and shouting things like 'you can't catch me you haven't got a leg to stand on'/ People were saying that it was awful doing that, why?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...sity-of-those-professing-outrage-1809954.html

Jenna, I think you are going to have to come up and meet the lads, they are nothing like what I think you imagine. With the soldiers trust is more than a word, you trust your very life to them, they trust each other implicitly, there are no secrets between them. I often find that civvies think soldiers are rough, tough, ignorant and you don't let your womenfolk near them, you probably shouldn't, not because they will ravage them but they will probably charm them into bed, no force needed, no force applied. Some may seduce your sons as well don't forget we have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals as well in the forces. All are accepted, the only criteria is how well you do your job.

I'm not in the least tough, I don't have to be, don't need to be, I've never felt with any troops ( apart from when the Kuwaitis were here training and they spat at the females...funnily enough they seemed very accident prone though, always bumping into doors and falling downstairs, must be the British rain) that I had to be on my guard or felt unsafe. The most danger I've ever been in was probably having an overdose of tea with an Irish regiment, the stereotype was true so much tea brewed and drunk! I can honestly tell any woman who wants to join the army that she's be fine, sexual harrassment is far less than civvie street, do your job and you'll be respected. Mess up you will be ragged, that's the same for men and women. Women are proving their worth in Afghan along side the men, doing an amazing job, the men know this and with their usual straight to the point attitude anyone who harrasses you will be thumped, though the likelihood is that the female will probably have thumped them anyway. Our squaddies aren't just guys, they are THE guys! :ultracool


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:
			
		

> Jenna, I think you are going to have to come up and meet the lads, they are nothing like what I think you imagine. With the soldiers trust is more than a word, you trust your very life to them, they trust each other implicitly, there are no secrets between them. I often find that civvies think soldiers are rough, tough, ignorant and you don't let your womenfolk near them, you probably shouldn't, not because they will ravage them but they will probably charm them into bed, no force needed, no force applied. Some may seduce your sons as well don't forget we have gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transexuals as well in the forces. All are accepted, the only criteria is how well you do your job.



Or not.



> *Sexual harassment rife in armed forces*
> 
> *· *1 in 4 women reports offensive male behaviour
> *· *Defence chief admits urgent action is needed
> ...



Seen here

ANd here

Of course,those stories, and the other ones I found like it, are at least 6 and sometimes 7 years old-it's entirely possible the "action plan" the British military was discussing in the articles got this little problem squared away.....though there is no follow up article to be found that says as much., and , "THE GUYS," being, well....._guys`_  I kind of tend to doubt it.

I won't even get into what a "British armed forces, *rape*" search turned up: Search About 21,400,000 results  (0.20 seconds)


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2012)

Bear in mind what Tez does for a living ... I reckon she counts as a reliable source for a boots-on-the-ground view on that sort of thing.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Sukerkin said:
			
		

> Bear in mind what Tez does for a living ... I reckon she counts as a reliable source for a boots-on-the-ground view on that sort of thing.



Or has blinders on about such things. Or simply hasn`t seen them. I mean, a survey of British military women, conducted by the military, offered the damning statistic that 25% of them felt they were subjected to offensive behavior-that sounds suspiciously like a "boots on the ground" view to me.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2012)

Whatever - not in the mood for internet claptrap so I'll shut up and go away.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

Sukerkin said:
			
		

> Whatever - not in the mood for internet claptrap so I'll shut up and go away.



Somehow the BBC, two major British papers, and your own "chief of Defence staff" at the time constitute "internet claptrap" on my part?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I was answering Jennas specific post, the squaddies aren't angels but to assume they will all take no for yes isn't true. 
Sexual harrassment... surveys are done every couple of years, like most surveys only those who feel strongly about something will fill them in. These surveys aren't the views of the majority of women in the services who can't be bothered with filling forms in, so what does 1 in 4 women mean when only a half dozen bother ticking boxes? (You could do a survey on here asking who was right wing/left wing, you couldn't take the answer as being true for America as a whole could you?)  If it were compulsory and contained the views of all females it would be a worthwhile survey. Incidentally we get surveys on everything and most chuck them in the bin, the MOD thinks if it surveys something and 'acts' on it, they appear to be doing something, like Sir Jock Stirrup saying they take it seriously etc etc etc. It's jobs for the Civil Servants, the Equal Opportunities Commision pushes these things and the MOD has to be in there looking as if they care. What it actually does is make women look like victims, that they need protecting, they do it with ethinc minorities as well.   Those who feel there's a lot of sexual harrassment or who feel they have grounds for getting out of the military will fill them in so like all statisitics you will get an end result that doesn't tell all the truth. Undoubtedly there is sexual harrassment, if it gets reported it will be investigated and action taken. There's bullying as well, of course there is, there's women who do both as well as men.

There are 196,650 women in the Armed Forces, in 2007 the survey was sent to 5286 of them, less than 2000 replied. I have read that and the 2005 report. 

Rape...the most common complaint is by women who go back to a soldier's room (his bedroom) and then say afterwards they are raped. First of all why would you go with a complete stranger to his room? It's not his house, there's no coffee available, no cocoa and no bikkies so yes they go back for sex. Now if they change their mind half way through? that's an issue that many have views on. I'll leave that for now.
We do have bad apples, we do have cases of rape, we even have cases of women raping women but a good many of the 'rapes' on that Google list are political allegations. I don't know if we saw the same list but a lot of that stuff wasn't even about the army or even rape, a fair few stories about the American forces as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2012)

It would seem allegations of sexual harrassment complaints made by men are going up in the USA.
http://www.hrmreport.com/news/male-sexual-harassment-claims-rising/


Views on Sir Jock Stirrup. do read the posts under the article.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5698578/military-manoeuvres.thtml


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 2, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Somehow the BBC, two major British papers, and your own "chief of Defence staff" at the time constitute "internet claptrap" on my part?



Apologies - very bad day.  What I was 'blunderbussing' was that facet of Net interaction in which everything seems to be an argument rather than exchange of information.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Or has blinders on about such things. Or simply hasn`t seen them. I mean, a survey of British military women, conducted by the military, offered the damning statistic that 25% of them felt they were subjected to offensive behavior-that sounds suspiciously like a "boots on the ground" view to me.




Well not 25% of the women in the forces, 25% of those who replied to the survey. That would be 196150 women who have no complaints.  I don't have a blinkered view of it at all, it would be hard to when one has to investigate and deal with the complaints wouldn't it. Hard to ignore when it's your job to look into these things.

It is actually claptrap, this is the chief of staff, RAF at that who wanted to shut down the RAF, he was is commonly known as a right plonker, who was in the Labour Party's pocket, he was absolutely hated for his so called leadership. If he couldn't be trusted to run the military why would you think his PC survey actually means anything. Ask *all *service women and get a proper opinion. the survey is not done by the MOD but by the Equal Opportunities Commission, a questionable body at the best of times, it sees discrimination everywhere. 

Been called out will come back to this


----------



## elder999 (Feb 2, 2012)

I wasn't arguing, mark-I was only exchanging information.Lest anyone misunderstand, I'm not implying that sexual harassment is or isn`t a"British thing," or anything of the like. I started out by pointing out the cultural and legal differences-what Irene sees as acceptable behavior in the workplace *is not* here in the U.S., though it does occur, and probably more than we know-that's why there are laws against it. What she sees as acceptable behavior in the military *is not* in the U.S. military, though it does occur, and probably more than we know.http://www.hrmreport.com/news/male-sexual-harassment-claims-rising/ Considering the statistic about the percentage of rapes that get reported vs. those that actually occur, I'd say there's probably an entire abyss of things that we're blissfully unaware of in that regard-things that she's likely just as blissfully unaware of.

Most people who aren't part of the major corporate world, or government employment in the U.S. probably don't go through the nonsense I do, of having to take training on what constitutes sexual harassment _every *goddam* year_-not only so that I don't engage in such behavior, but so that I recognize my obligations if an employee complains to me as their supervisor about such behavior-as well as my organization's liabilities and obligations. Getting back to Caver's original post, it is a very simple default action for an employer to simply dismiss the one complained about out of hand-having been involved in conducting fact-finding investigations for complaints like these-once as the one complained against, and three times as a supervisor-I can say that the process is onerous-and that there are some people who, if such an accusation were made against them, while I would have to  go through the required investigation process, I'd probably rather just fire them and get it over with, if that were even an option for me.

Bottom line., *in the U.S.*, professional behavior just does not include touching beyond that required for the job, and minor social interaction like shaking hands-or respecting those that decline to do so for religious or hygenic reasons. That includes touching beyond that that is welcomed by both parties, and may be of the most innocent of character, like my massaging the secretary's shoulders: she liked it, I liked it, but it made others uncomfortable, and it had to stop, or we were "sexually harassing" them, by force of law.

*In the U.S.*, while social interactions outside of work are acceptable for coworkers, and one can ask a coworker out, professional behavior does not include asking a coworker if they'd _like a shag, a roll in the hay, to step outside, meet at the Motel 6, _ or *anything* of that nature-you might get away with it once, but once _anyone_ told you to cut it out, you better, because the next time you do it makes it a persistent pattern of behavior _unwelcome behavior_ that is grounds for dismissal, if documented,_by force of law._Naturally, this does not apply in the case where such queries are welcomed-no one is likely to complain about those, but why it's better not to risk it _at work_

*In the U.S.*, professional behavior does not include telling jokes of a sexual nature "where they are unwelcome." While you might get away with such jokes, or even find a welcome audience for them for a time, the instant they make anyone uncomfortable, they become _unwelcome behavior_, and to persist in them is "sexual harassment."

I started my career in nuclear power in 1982, in a power plant, in N.Y. Many of my fellow employees were ex-Navy men. The language and behavior that were socially acceptable in that environment at the time were already becoming "illegal"-the EEOC had recognized and defined sexual harassment in 1980, and the Supreme Court's first case recognizing it as a violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took place in 1986- it has taken a lot of changes, both culturally  and in my own personal behavior, to get on board with this-as a shop steward and assistant business agent, the then evolving law on "sexual harassment" was part of my labor law education,and that's just the way it is. I had a coworker comment to  a  young, pretty secretary about her modes of dress-something about her wearing earth tones most of the time, instead of more bright colors-as innocent as that seems, complaints were made, and our boss had to tell him,_ "Jimmy, cut it out. In these days, that's worse than drugs: with drugs you get rehab and to come back to your job, *twice*-here, with this stuff, we'll just have to fire you."_

In Caver's possible situation, where he might well not think anything of touching someone, male or female, on the shoulder or arm as a way of getting their attention-the equivalent of saying "Hey," he might never have been told that such behavior was unwelcome, or given the opportunity to address it-he was just given the boot the first time someone he'd made uncomfortable said that he touched them on the butt, as they knew he would be.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 2, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's not sexual propostioning as such, it's just being honest, there's nothing false, nothing faked about them, you're chatting, you get on, do you want to shag, no, then that's fine. It leads to nothing else as I said. It doesn't lead to criminal and/or criminal behaviour because everything is in the open, it's not secret, it's not about being tough at all and don't think its the men who are the only ones doing this, it's equal ops in every sense, the female soldiers are no different. There's no pressure on anyone, to be honest it's no different from being offered something to eat or drink, if you don't want anything you say so and that's the end of it. When they are out drinking it's gernerally the lads that come off worst, we have a certain type of female that traps soldiers, they see their life style, their postings and the fact they get houses when they marry as being very attractive so they go all out to trap the lads into getting married. We also get girls who will travel a long way just to sleep with soldiers. considring how many men we have here I can't remember the last time we had an accusation of rape or even sexual harrassment, the lads even when drunk tend not to force anyone, they wouldn't not when there's so many girls laying it on plates for them anyway.
> 
> The jokes aren't innapropiate they just aren't understood by civvies for example a well known comedian here went to visit injured servicemen including amputees, they had t shirts on that said 'I survived a suicide bomber' and they told him 'amputee jokes' like the one on the thread here where a single amputation was known as a 'papercut'. They told him jokingly that Team GB would have a good team in the Para Olympics this year with all the amputees, he repeated this on one of his shows and there was an uproar among certain types. The public gets embarrassd by the injured, they want them to be silent heroes, all saintly instead of being what they always were. We had some amputees here who had come up for the Afghan medal ceremony, their mates took them out and they all got roaring drunk. there were having wheelcahir races in the road and shouting things like 'you can't catch me you haven't got a leg to stand on'/ People were saying that it was awful doing that, why?
> 
> ...


Tez, thank you for your kind reply and goodness I hope I do not come over as casting any aspersions on squaddies as these are just working folk like any other only in a military situation.  

What I would be worried about is the frankness with which sexual conversations are broached in the workplace.  I am not being critical because that is just how it is in that situation and I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps I am a little too Jane Eyre and but even outside of work I would find that kind of directness uncomfortable and would be similarly concerned no matter what the vocation.  

I think the issue is that this kind of frank and open workplace sexuality (and any of its lesser variants) is indicative of the increasing exposure to, and openness towards sexuality in our societies as a whole.  I think that is fair enough and perhaps not a bad thing and but the problem I think is among those who cannot differentiate between the verbal sexual freedoms they might exercise in the workplace or outside it and the physical sexual freedoms which they of course cannot exercise in the same way.  This is my point that I would worry about over these two aspects becoming confused for each other perhaps especially -though not exclusively- in a more boisterous androgenic military environment.  I am just glad you can report that this is not the case. I hope it continues that way.

FWIW, I work with an ex-army man though I do not ask about it, he is the most trustworthy among everyone there and but that is exactly because, as the only female on the floor, he treats me with both respect and manners and is sensitive to the boundaries.  

Referencing the OP, I think empathy is vital.  If you can empathise with a colleague then you will better appreciate their sensibilities and avoid unwelcome situations.


----------



## granfire (Feb 2, 2012)

Yeah, those Army guys can turn it on and off.

I think i would have to pick my jaw off the floor a couple of times. But then again, I am not a prude and have heard most of the bad jokes.

But it's just not for everybody, that is true.


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Actually I was answering Jennas specific post, the squaddies aren't angels but to assume they will all take no for yes isn't true.
> Sexual harrassment... surveys are done every couple of years, like most surveys only those who feel strongly about something will fill them in. These surveys aren't the views of the majority of women in the services who can't be bothered with filling forms in, so what does 1 in 4 women mean when only a half dozen bother ticking boxes? (You could do a survey on here asking who was right wing/left wing, you couldn't take the answer as being true for America as a whole could you?) If it were compulsory and contained the views of all females it would be a worthwhile survey. Incidentally we get surveys on everything and most chuck them in the bin, the MOD thinks if it surveys something and 'acts' on it, they appear to be doing something, like Sir Jock Stirrup saying they take it seriously etc etc etc. It's jobs for the Civil Servants, the Equal Opportunities Commision pushes these things and the MOD has to be in there looking as if they care. What it actually does is make women look like victims, that they need protecting, they do it with ethinc minorities as well. Those who feel there's a lot of sexual harrassment or who feel they have grounds for getting out of the military will fill them in so like all statisitics you will get an end result that doesn't tell all the truth. Undoubtedly there is sexual harrassment, if it gets reported it will be investigated and action taken. There's bullying as well, of course there is, there's women who do both as well as men.
> 
> There are 196,650 women in the Armed Forces, in 2007 the survey was sent to 5286 of them, less than 2000 replied. I have read that and the 2005 report.
> ...



This post struck me as odd.  After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism.  I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

I find a lot of women do take the liberty of using pet names. I find it patronizing when a man or woman uses them, especially in the work place. Maybe it was the way I was raised, but I expect children and pets to have pet names. Competent adults shouldn't be referred to this way and I expect more respect than this. I don't see why MA-caver doesn't ask the woman to not to call him by pet names. She's being unprofessional.


----------



## Monroe (Feb 3, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> This post struck me as odd.  After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism.  I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.



I take issue with her statements just as much as I would a man. I just don't want to wade through that word vomit.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> This post struck me as odd. After reading it I was left with the distinct impression that if a man had made the comments downplaying the stats or saying that the rapes weren't really rapes, but after sex guilt there would be a huge outcry of sexism. I think this is a good example of the double standard that started this thread.



Aftr sex guilt? No I didn't say that, didn't even hint it. I didn't 'downplay' the stats I was pointing out that the view put forward in the survey wasn't taken from servicewomen as a large group but from a very small group. You don't get the views of the majority by looking at the views of a few.

In the bases in Germany there are a good many single servicemen, these are often targeted by girls who wish to marry and gain a British passport. Trapping a soldier in marriage this way is actually common, has been for a long time in many other countries. I believe the American forces had the same problem at the end of the last war when British girls were seeking the bright lights in America.  The MOD scrapped soldiers asking for permission to marry quite a while ago, that tended to weed out those who were marrying for the wrong reasons. When things don't go to plan, the girl will often say that sex was not consensual because of the compensation. the MOD pays a lot of compensation for a great many things. If a soldir is found guilty of rape or sexual assault he will be punished but compensation will be paid out. The chances are that in court the woman will be believed rather than the man, another sad fact I'm afraid. (In Germany there is a department which deals with just that, property damaged, livestock killed, strees and distress will all be paid for by the British Forces Germany.) Harsh, certainly but factual none the less. It's very rare for a rape to take place in a barrack block as to get the female there the soldier has to take them through the access control etc. due to soldiers being killed in Northern Ireland through girls who have gone back to the blocks with soldiers and leaving bombs there, getting into camps with unknown females is actually quite hard. The threat of suicide bombers has added to the security.
 Rapes certainly do happen, perpetrated by soldiers, there's no doubt about that. I do know that all the forces police take very seriously allegations of rape, they don't assume anything but investigate thoroughly. All the proper procedures are followed, often the senior officers are women who will certainly not assume the girl is either lying or suffering 'post sex guilt'.

What you gain by marrying a British soldier as well as a fully furnished house and MOD allowances.   http://www.aff.org.uk/army_family_life/foreign_commonwealh/fc_in_uk/while_you_are_in_uk.htm

After a three year investigation by the RMP British soldiers were cleared of rapes of Kenyan women, that case carried a potential compensation bill of over £30 million. Now many are saying well that's what you would expect but the RMP have investigated other rapes and they have found, charged and sent to courts martial other soldiers accused of rape. Were some of the Kenyan women raped, undoubtably but proving that after several years is going to be difficult, as well as the fact that since the Afghan war because of the climate in Kenya and the willingness of locals to act as insurgents for training there have been a lot of NATO troops from many countries including Americans who have trained in Kenya. The army takes the troops going out there seriously, we have a regiment for here out there at the moment, there are lectures on sexual 'hygiene' as AIDs is widespread and there are a lot of prostitutes who work the camps, condoms are given by the boxful to the unit medics to be given out when wanted. No, it isn't ideal, but it is practical. The thought of prostitution is unpalatable to most of us but facing facts, this has happened with armies since armies first formed. Every army has had followers, I don't know how to deal with this other than prosaically, these young men will leave Kenya, go to Afghanistan and face whatever. It's what armies do and all the moralising and breast beating in the world isn't going to change it. We have wars, we have armies and we can sanitise things as much as we like but it will still be there. We in Europe need a hot weather place to train for as long as we are in Afghan and the Kenyan government as well as the locals receive generous payments for use of their land and labour.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/15/kenya.military


3 Para in Kenya. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D.../3ParaTrainInKenyaAheadOfAfghanDeployment.htm. they lost a lot of their soldiers in the subsequent tour of Afghan. Regiments do take pride in their discipline, soldiers don't regard rape as something to be shrugged off or something to indulge in, for soldiers a willing partner is what they are looking for not a rape vistim. There are bad apples of course there are but justice for the victim is gained as many times as is possible. Even in civvy street treatment of alleged victims isn't ideal, everyone can try their best to help but there's always going to be problems, all we can do is try as hard as we can to resolve things.

This is from an American site, of course they have a bias but their premise that the military are taking to trial rape suspects without proper evidence because of political considerations cannot be dismissed lightly.
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/11/military-charges-more-and-more-men-with.html


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Monroe said:


> I take issue with her statements just as much as I would a man. I just don't want to wade through that word vomit.



Then you clearly don't understand the situation. You certainly haven't understood a word I wrote so if insulting me is the best you can do, I'm sorry. As I said you can't take the view of a few to be the view of many. The survey was flawed, if I take the view of a thousand Americans should I take that as the view of millions of Americans? Punisher has read something in my posts that's not there, you seem to have followed that view.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> The survey was flawed, if I take the view of a thousand Americans should I take that as the view of millions of Americans?



If the sample was random?  Yes.  Statistics is a well-established and proven science.  The uncertainty lies in obtaining a random sample, not that a random sample represents the population - we know it does and within what confidence intervals and errors.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

The survey, an explanation and why I'm not 'downplaying it.

Imagine instead of women being sexually harrassed the survey was on whether Scotland should have independence, I chose this subject because it's non contentious for non Brits. A survey is sent out asking if Scotland should have independence from the UK to ten thousand people in Scotland, the population is around 5.2 million, about half of those sent surveys are known members of the Scottish National party who's aims are Scottish independence. Six thousand people return the surveys of whom 25 % are in favour of independence, is this representative of the Scottish peoples views on this subject or should you as they plan to do have a referendum for all to have their say?

It is entirely possible to send a survey to every servicewoman and while you can't make them fill it in you would get a far better idea of their views than just sending it to a small proportion of whom an even smaller proportion reply especially when sent specifically to women who have complaints either investigated or pending. That's not downplaying a survey that's common sense. If there's a problem that needs sorting we need to see what the problem is, not just ask the victims and assume it's widespread. It may be far more widespread than we would hope, it may not but proper, honest information is needed first and foremost. Statistics are fine however we want a proper view from *all* service women, it's not as though there's that many.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> If the sample was random? Yes. Statistics is a well-established and proven science. The uncertainty lies in obtaining a random sample, not that a random sample represents the population - we know it does and within what confidence intervals and errors.




If you ask however all those that belong to churches and organisations that are anti abortion whether abortion should be legally available what will the view be then? Does that represent all American views? You can survey all MT posters asking if they think martial arts should be made illegal is that a representative view of Americans?


----------



## punisher73 (Feb 3, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Rape...the most common complaint is by women who go back to a soldier's room (his bedroom) and then say afterwards they are raped. First of all why would you go with a complete stranger to his room? It's not his house, there's no coffee available, no cocoa and no bikkies so yes they go back for sex.



Sorry, if that was not the intent.  I read this statement and made that inference since every other time I have heard someone make this statement it is followed by the reasoning that they only went for sex and no other reason so therefore it was after sex guilt because they did sleep with the guy.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> Sorry, if that was not the intent. I read this statement and made that inference since every other time I have heard someone make this statement it is followed by the reasoning that they only went for sex and no other reason so therefore it was after sex guilt because they did sleep with the guy.




I daresay there are girls who do feel guilty or get found out by boyfriend/husband/family so claim rape though tbh it would be hard to claim that most times as all concerned know so it's rare I've found that rape is claimed in these cases. The circumstances are that going to a soldiers accomodation block you can't say you were going for coffee or somewhere to sleep for the night as you missed the bus, females aren't allowed in male accomodation, you have to be 'smugggled in'.  I do find it strange sometimes that a female would go to the lengths of undressing and getting into bed with a man only for them to say no but each to their own, I can imagine though plenty of times when sex seemed attractive but something put them off at the last moment, some men's idea of foreplay ie shouting 'brace yourself Sheila' isn't to everyone's taste and you wouldn't know until the last minute. Most men I've heard talking about this say it's would be frustrating but they'd have to go along with want the women wanted because they aren't into forcing the however frustrating it would be. Sensibly they also think they could be prosecuted so most times the brain takes over. Of course there will always be exceptions and those execptions if reported will be treated as rape.

It's not just abroad that girls target servicemen, we get it a lot here, if you have a poor or none existant homelife marriage to a squaddie looks attractive, it gives you a home, a man and possibly a nice tour in Cyprus, the squaddies are young, many have bad backgrounds themselves, the idea of a family and living out of the block is also attractive. Many young wives find themselves however stuck in a married quarter with young children while their husband is on deployment. It's hard so not all marriages survive. 

British and American husbands are popular with many who have left their own countries for whatever reasons, I believe the American Forces do warn their troops of this including about British girls I'll add. Like the people who hide in the wagons coming across the Channel, some die due to lack of oxygen or because they are in the refrigerated wagons, many are desperate to get into the UK, if a threatened rape case can blackmail someone into marriage or they can get enough money from compensation to enter or hoping the authorities will allow them in, they will try it. The internet is full of sites that show foreign women looking for British and American husbands.



That women are raped there is no doubt, we all hope that every allegation is treated seriously and investigated properly with integrity. However after investigation we also have to accept that some allegations are false, we can't go from the awful position of the past where 'women were asking for it', 'you can't rape a prostitute' and 'well he couldn't stop', to a situation where all men are rapists. Each case must be taken on it's merits and proof, open minds must be kept, if we do our best hopefully justice will be done, nothings perfect but as long as we keep trying to do the right thing I have hopes that we do the best for victims.

Coming out of the army doesn't protect you either if you are guilty. This ex soldier was tried by court martial and sent down twenty four years after he committed his crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-15680757


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2012)

A lot is being made about sample size.  According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101. 

The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results.  If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error.  Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Steve said:


> A lot is being made about sample size. According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.
> 
> The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results. If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error. Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.



But if you only sent the survey to people who had a vested interest in the results, what would that say then? If you send the survey on sexual harrassment to those who have a complaint of sexual harrassment made already are you going to get a result that expresses the feelings of those not asked?

If it were sent to a totally random number of servicewomen in all three services, I can see that it would come back as being representative but to load it by sending it to those who have complaints or strong feelings and a few others doesn't give a true picture.


----------



## ballen0351 (Feb 3, 2012)

I know nothing of stats I do have a question if you or anyone else might know.  When determining a sample size is there a min % of people you need to ask to make the results accurate?  For instance in tez post how many females must be asked to make the results correct.  And how do you count the people that don't respond.  For someone to take the time to respond they would have a vested interest in the topic so that would change the results.  You would need to count the nonresponce as what?  For example if they did a survey on coffee drinkers I wouldn't answer because I don't drink coffee.  So if I didn't answer would that count on the don't drink coffee side?  You would prob get a better responce from the pro coffee crowd which would make your stats wrong.   Or maybe im thinking to much into this and. Should get back to work.  Stats are always kind of interesting to me.  Especially around election time.






Steve said:


> A lot is being made about sample size.  According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.
> 
> The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results.  If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error.  Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.


----------



## granfire (Feb 3, 2012)

Steve said:


> A lot is being made about sample size.  According to the information given regarding those studies, the margin of error would be less than 2% based upon that sample size and the rate of response... if I'm accurately dusting off my 20 year old skills learned in Statistics 101.
> 
> The point, though, is that you don't need to survey everyone in order to have confidence in results.  If the questions are clear, and the sample is inclusive, surveying 10,000 people with a 50% rate of response is more than sufficient to get results that are reliable and repeatable within a margin of error.  Truth is, a sample size of 10,000 for a population of 250,000 is very large... much larger than necessary.




Ah, but only if the 10.000 people are polled as actual representation of the population and if those 50% don't have a special interest.
#1 lesson in statistics: never trust one you have not fudged, erm, compiled yourself.

I mean I am guilty...I always complain about never being asked, but I never have the time wen they call me to ask....


Also, the way the questions are worded also has a lot to do with the resulting answers. 

While the numbers don't lie, they don't tell the whole truth either.


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2012)

Well, first, I hope it's clear that I'm not an expert.  But I'm also not completely ignorant on the matter... so, I'll tell you what I believe to be true, and if someone knows better, I'll welcome correction.  I'm also going to keep it very simple.

Essentially, there are several factors that go into determining how confident you can be in a survey.  Sample size (ie, 10,000 surveys sent), population size (10k out of a total of 250k), acceptable margin of error (+/- 2% or 5% or what have you), response percentage (in this case about 50%) and confidence in the results (if we repeat this survey to another sample group, we're 99% confident the results will be within the margin of error).  And given any four of these, you can calculate the fifth.  

I even found a quick calculator:  http://relevantinsights.com/research-tools

The over arching point is that you can skew a survey by rigging the sample, but there's nothing to suggest that this was done in these surveys.  If they were sent out to a random sample, the margin of error on the results is likely VERY low, and the results of the surveys is very likely to be pretty darned accurate.  

And provided that the survey was done correctly, the rest is spin.  "Well, the sample was too small.  The women who responded had an agenda.  My dog was at the vet.  Jupiter was out of phase with Venus.  Men are from Mars."


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I know nothing of stats I do have a question if you or anyone else might know. When determining a sample size is there a min % of people you need to ask to make the results accurate? For instance in tez post how many females must be asked to make the results correct. And how do you count the people that don't respond. For someone to take the time to respond they would have a vested interest in the topic so that would change the results. You would need to count the nonresponce as what? For example if they did a survey on coffee drinkers I wouldn't answer because I don't drink coffee. So if I didn't answer would that count on the don't drink coffee side? You would prob get a better responce from the pro coffee crowd which would make your stats wrong. Or maybe im thinking to much into this and. Should get back to work. Stats are always kind of interesting to me. Especially around election time.



I think this is a very important question especially when it concerns things like sexual harassment, racial harassment etc. Based on these statistics companies make policies about how these things are perceived and treated, laws are made, If the information is weighted in favour of one side of the argument you will end up with unfair policies and more than likely unfair dismissals affecting peoples lives.

These particular surveys, the last being in 2009, point to there being a 'huge' problem in sexual harassment among the forces, so the powers that be demand 'action', that action is an absolute zero tolerance of anything that might even conceivably regarded as sexual harassment such as calling some one 'dear', people are disciplined, fined, given custodial sentences ( yes in the forces you can 14 days in the cells for such things), you create an atmosphere of terror basically, where everyone is scared to say anything, there's suspicion of women, suspicion of each other, lack of morale and people basically wanting to leave because these draconian measures. It's a situation that does no one any good. 

There's a school of thought, popular here during the Labour parties stint in power that we have to understand that all men are potential rapists and all women are victims, I believe there was a period where the saying was that every woman had been raped at some point in her life. They said that every time a woman had sex with her partner and didn't really want to but said yes anyway that was rape. It became quite strident and many men felt under attack. Things have quietened down a little from that thank goodness but there still is that reaction now which has boomeranged from people not believing women to believing women are victims. 

Something we are struggling with is the current problem of binge drinking, women who drink so much they can't stand, who pass out and find they have had sex with a man they don't know. This is causing a lot of debate, did she consent and doesn't remember, or was she taken advantage of while passed out cold? Is she responsible for whatever happened because she drank herself senseless? It is against the law to have sex with someone who is incapacitated by drink, however it's hard to prove unless the accused is sober and there was a witness or solid proof. It's one of the problems we have to solve, it can be that drunken female who will allege rape by a soldier. She's got paralytic, agreed to come back to his block, passed out on his bed and woke up to find she'd had sex. Sometime later she's told her friend or even read it somewhere, could be days later, weeks even and has been told that she was raped so it gets reported to the police. Now what to do? Military camps are in the middle of nowhere, there's very little on them to amuse civvies in an evening, there used to be NAAFIs but no more, they closed them as the squaddies go out now they have money. There's no reason for girls to be there unless they want to be, you can't drag a female in pass the security on the gate, it's rare these days for soldiers to guard their own camps so mates won't be there. Taxi's aren't allowed on camp, the guards can see who's in cars, soldiers often have to sign on at gate. Mostly they get dropped off by taxi at camp gates and walk in because they are as drunk as skunks, members of the opposite sex can be allowed in the UK accomodation, the army provide double beds in the new single man accomodation. So has that girl been raped? How do the police investigate when both parties were drunk and can't remember in the morning never mind weeks later. What ever though this rape allegation is logged and goes onto the statistics, what does that say? That we have a problem with rape or a problem with people drinking or both?
 All allegations of sexual harassment are logged and they too become statistics, does that mean there's a problem of harassment in that organisation if it's then found there's no case to answer?
Many police forces have a similiar problem when allegations are made against them people look at that not how many times the allegations have been unfounded.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2012)

Steve said:


> Well, first, I hope it's clear that I'm not an expert. But I'm also not completely ignorant on the matter... so, I'll tell you what I believe to be true, and if someone knows better, I'll welcome correction. I'm also going to keep it very simple.
> 
> Essentially, there are several factors that go into determining how confident you can be in a survey. Sample size (ie, 10,000 surveys sent), population size (10k out of a total of 250k), acceptable margin of error (+/- 2% or 5% or what have you), response percentage (in this case about 50%) and confidence in the results (if we repeat this survey to another sample group, we're 99% confident the results will be within the margin of error). And given any four of these, you can calculate the fifth.
> 
> ...




and you know that how? Have you read the surveys? I have, all of them when they came out. It was also sent to a few servicemen btw not just women. In the Mail it says 1 in 7 women claimed harassment, as opposed the Guardians 1 in 4. Both newspapers claim that it was sent out to nearly 9000 service women, neither said how many replied or how many men it went to. This is also several years old, 8 years in fact.


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 9, 2012)

i agree, nothin wrong with sweety. when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 11, 2012)

Blade96 said:


> when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.



Yeah... now that you mention it, my bartender hugs me goodbye every Wednesday. 

But, It's only sexual harassment if I don't like it.


----------



## Steve (Feb 12, 2012)

Blade96 said:


> i agree, nothin wrong with sweety. when i spent time at a hotel the bartender called everyone 'my sweet' I thought it was very cute.



It's not sexual harassment until you ask him to stop and he doesn't AND it creates in environment that is hostile, the definition of which was posted here in this thread back on page one.   

In other words, chances are good that if you asked him to stop and he doesn't, it's still not harassment.  It's much more likely that it would be workplace bullying, which is very common and a completely different thing.  And also not against the law.  

From a manager's perspective, managing workplace bullying is the lion's share of what you'll be doing in these situations.  Just as common is a manager who is a bully.  Setting people up to fail, embarrassing them in front of their peers, setting unrealistic deadlines so that you can document poor performance, assigning work for which a person is not trained, assigning work well above or below a person's pay grade, demeaning nicknames... all symptoms of workplace bullying.  

I'm only pointing this out because when we talk about sexual harassment, it's important that we all stay on the same page regarding what IS harassment and what isn't.  





Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------

