**It was not the brightest thing he could have done but because he didn't know his audience there was no sexual harassment. How can you sexually harass a woman you don't even know is there?**
Actually, his actions do constitute sexual harassment. It does not matter if he didn't know that the gunner was female. It does not matter that he may have thought that when he was told the gunner was offended that it was just more banter. It does not matter that in all probability she knew that he was not making a request or demand of her. It does not matter that if the gunner had been a straight male the most that would have happened to this soldier is that his direct supervisor would have counseled him that in the future, if told to knock it off, knock it off. What matters is that she felt uncomfortable, she brought it to his attention, through a third party but that is actually the correct procedure, and he continued with the comments. That makes it sexual harassment. Her perception, her feelings of discomfort are what makes it sexual harassment, not his intent.
I really don't have too much of a problem with "crude language" coming from guys, but I also think that if someone is asked to stop, whether one thinks that person is joking or not, it is always best to err on the side of caution and stop.
As for the sexual harrassment charge, that is a little more iffy in my book.
What was described "as best as I can recall without looking" was some good natured ribbing among men. It didn't sound like anger or stress relief. It sounded like joking around.
But Oh the outrage! It's really silly. Especially coming from women who haven't been in that environment before and must be imagining a quite different environment to be so offended.
But that's exactly what it is. When you apply a charge of sexual harrassment against a man who had no way of knowing what he was saying was being overheard by a woman it is applying a very liberal interpretation of the meaning of sexual harrassment.
You surely know the definition of the term "liberal". Therefore you can completely understand the appropriateness of my answer.
Pages
**It was not the brightest thing he could have done but because he didn't know his audience there was no sexual harassment. How can you sexually harass a woman you don't even know is there?**
Actually, his actions do constitute sexual harassment. It does not matter if he didn't know that the gunner was female. It does not matter that he may have thought that when he was told the gunner was offended that it was just more banter. It does not matter that in all probability she knew that he was not making a request or demand of her. It does not matter that if the gunner had been a straight male the most that would have happened to this soldier is that his direct supervisor would have counseled him that in the future, if told to knock it off, knock it off. What matters is that she felt uncomfortable, she brought it to his attention, through a third party but that is actually the correct procedure, and he continued with the comments. That makes it sexual harassment. Her perception, her feelings of discomfort are what makes it sexual harassment, not his intent.
Sheri
I really don't have too much of a problem with "crude language" coming from guys, but I also think that if someone is asked to stop, whether one thinks that person is joking or not, it is always best to err on the side of caution and stop.
As for the sexual harrassment charge, that is a little more iffy in my book.
LOL! I agree as you'd suspect.
What was described "as best as I can recall without looking" was some good natured ribbing among men. It didn't sound like anger or stress relief. It sounded like joking around.
But Oh the outrage! It's really silly. Especially coming from women who haven't been in that environment before and must be imagining a quite different environment to be so offended.
>> How can you sexually harass a woman you don't even know is there?<<
By applying a very LIBERAL interpretation of the definition of course!
By applying a very LIBERAL interpretation of the definition of course!
Must the conversation be drug down by this tripe?
I forgot. You don't joke.
But that's exactly what it is. When you apply a charge of sexual harrassment against a man who had no way of knowing what he was saying was being overheard by a woman it is applying a very liberal interpretation of the meaning of sexual harrassment.
You surely know the definition of the term "liberal". Therefore you can completely understand the appropriateness of my answer.
Edited 5/29/2009 9:31 am ET by happycamper09
Pages