Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Well, yeah, the real wild Weinstein and Richardson stuff is theirs, but like the Halperin and Trump **** is bog standard. I've seen that with mine own two eyes.
The reason I'm making the distinction was to defend DVaut1's ideas against those who are saying they wouldn't prevent harassment.
I think a generally less permissive attitude toward dating in the workplace would have some effectiveness regarding what I called "normal" harassment, but I should really probably call "soft" harassment or something like that, basically stuff like:
- occasional comments that make people uncomfortable
- occasional inappropriate sexual jokes/banter
- repeated requests for dates (a few repetitions).
where there is no implied threat/reward for compliance/noncompliance, it's just really annoying/awkward etc.
This is basically stuff where socially inept people can "harass" by "accident" and if those people were less likely to try dating in the workplace in the first place, I think the incidence of those problems would decrease.
Above that is what I would actually call "sexual harassment" which would be like the non-physical stuff Halpein is accused of, basically explicit offers to trade sex for workplace advancement or jobs, constant/incessant commentary on someone's looks, constant/incessant sexual jokes/banter, etc. This stuff is a much bigger deal but less common, although still far too common. Also this pretty much has to be intentional.
The actual physical grabbing of private parts is sexual assault.
I think "frown on dating in the workplace" would help with category 1, maybe a tiiiiiny bit with category 2, and obviously have no effect on category 3.