trumptman
09-09-2007, 09:44 AM
MSNBC (http://allday.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/07/348617.aspx)
Wikipedia - Sexual Harassment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment)
Sexualized environments (aka environmental harassment)
Sexualized environments are environments where obscenities, sexual joking, sexually explicit graffiti, viewing Internet pornography, sexually degrading posters and objects, etc., are common. None of these behaviors or objects may necessarily be directed at anyone in particular. However, they can create an offensive environment, and one that is consistent with “hostile environment sexual harassment." For example, in the case of Morse v. Future Reality Ltd. in the United Kingdom(1996), the female complainant was awarded compensation after her superiors ignored her complaint that her office mates spent much time studying sexually explicit images downloaded from the Internet, and creating a “general atmosphere of obscenity” in the office. EOC: Sexual Harassment: case decisions Sexualized environments have also been shown to create atmospheres that encourage more serious and direct sexual harassment. For example, when obscenities are common in the workplace, women are 3 times more likely to be treated as sex objects, and be directly sexually harassed than in environments where profanity is not tolerated. And when sexual joking is common, sexual harassment is 3 to 7 times more likely. (Boland, 2002)
This is an example of a type of strange double standard that I would like to bring up and discuss here that shows basically how no matter what, certain parties are bound to lose in the area of sexual harassment.
The video, when you watch it blurs at the inappropriate time but to put it bluntly, if the woman wasn't crossing her legs while sitting, you would have no choice but to see her underwear.
At schools we get into this with camisole tops, and out in public I'm sure we've all encountered the low cut jeans with the g-string riding out the back.
Now here is where the confusion and double standard comes to play. We are told as a society it is wrong to judge, limit or tell women they cannot wear clothing such as this. The woman in this video clearly has a lawyer at the ready to likely "settle" for something from Southwest Airlines.
Is it never possible for a woman to create a sexualized environment that is inappropriate with her clothing, and that the rest of us, who don't desire to be subjected to it, have a right to limit?
To me the best way to illustrate the double standard is to show what I, as a man, would be subject to as an employee if I simply posted a picture, poster or sent an email of any female in the same clothing in my work environment/cubicle. (Assume an office environment because clearly someone would go ballistic in a school)
In other words, if I took a picture of this girl sitting with her legs, not sprawled, and simply uncrossed and her underwear showing for the world to see, and had it posted in my office, sent it via an email, used it as the butt of a sexual joke, etc. I have no doubt it would be construed as creating a hostile and sexualized work environment. Why is the woman sitting there in the exact same clothes not considered the same thing ?
I say this as someone who, regardless of what you may believe or have been socialized to believe, does not have some ridiculous urge every 60 seconds, does not think of women in only one capacity nor do I desire to see them presented as such even when it is their own choice. It is entirely possible to be a man and not desire a sexualized work environment.
Thoughts?
Nick
Wikipedia - Sexual Harassment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment)
Sexualized environments (aka environmental harassment)
Sexualized environments are environments where obscenities, sexual joking, sexually explicit graffiti, viewing Internet pornography, sexually degrading posters and objects, etc., are common. None of these behaviors or objects may necessarily be directed at anyone in particular. However, they can create an offensive environment, and one that is consistent with “hostile environment sexual harassment." For example, in the case of Morse v. Future Reality Ltd. in the United Kingdom(1996), the female complainant was awarded compensation after her superiors ignored her complaint that her office mates spent much time studying sexually explicit images downloaded from the Internet, and creating a “general atmosphere of obscenity” in the office. EOC: Sexual Harassment: case decisions Sexualized environments have also been shown to create atmospheres that encourage more serious and direct sexual harassment. For example, when obscenities are common in the workplace, women are 3 times more likely to be treated as sex objects, and be directly sexually harassed than in environments where profanity is not tolerated. And when sexual joking is common, sexual harassment is 3 to 7 times more likely. (Boland, 2002)
This is an example of a type of strange double standard that I would like to bring up and discuss here that shows basically how no matter what, certain parties are bound to lose in the area of sexual harassment.
The video, when you watch it blurs at the inappropriate time but to put it bluntly, if the woman wasn't crossing her legs while sitting, you would have no choice but to see her underwear.
At schools we get into this with camisole tops, and out in public I'm sure we've all encountered the low cut jeans with the g-string riding out the back.
Now here is where the confusion and double standard comes to play. We are told as a society it is wrong to judge, limit or tell women they cannot wear clothing such as this. The woman in this video clearly has a lawyer at the ready to likely "settle" for something from Southwest Airlines.
Is it never possible for a woman to create a sexualized environment that is inappropriate with her clothing, and that the rest of us, who don't desire to be subjected to it, have a right to limit?
To me the best way to illustrate the double standard is to show what I, as a man, would be subject to as an employee if I simply posted a picture, poster or sent an email of any female in the same clothing in my work environment/cubicle. (Assume an office environment because clearly someone would go ballistic in a school)
In other words, if I took a picture of this girl sitting with her legs, not sprawled, and simply uncrossed and her underwear showing for the world to see, and had it posted in my office, sent it via an email, used it as the butt of a sexual joke, etc. I have no doubt it would be construed as creating a hostile and sexualized work environment. Why is the woman sitting there in the exact same clothes not considered the same thing ?
I say this as someone who, regardless of what you may believe or have been socialized to believe, does not have some ridiculous urge every 60 seconds, does not think of women in only one capacity nor do I desire to see them presented as such even when it is their own choice. It is entirely possible to be a man and not desire a sexualized work environment.
Thoughts?
Nick