Talk:Sexual harassment/Archive 1

Seperate Articles
I was reading some of the comments bellow and it occured to me many be it would be better if instead of having a single page on sexual harassment it should be split up into different pages for each country.

In this way infomation on sexual harassment could be specific to people within that country. Furthermore more specific examples (court cases could or law) could be brought into the article in order it give a better understanding.

This would allow an indepth examination of sexual harassment on a country by country basis rather than having a general article that contains infomation that is essentially irrelavent to a person. i.e. I live in the US why do I want to know about laws and cases in the France. Conversly if I live in France why do I want to know about the laws in the USA. As in different countries there are different culture, laws etc.

Digmores (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough to improve the sections for various countries or make separate articles for them. But I did at least give them their own section titles and place in the index.  I presume it would be best for them to be alphabetical but for now it seems perhaps pragmatic to leave the most extensive description (for the US) first, then make the rest alphabetical.  --NealMcB (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL, NPOV
First, this article completely omits the point that the verbal aspects of sexual harassment law can very easily be in the conflict with the basic right of free speech. A woman could complain just because she "feels" that the speech was too suggestive, too lewd, or too uncomfortable. Essentially, SH laws give prospective victims (women in 99% of cases) the retaliatory power to prevent men from saying certain things. In a verbal argument, a woman could call a man, say, a "stupid asshole", but he couldn't call her back a "dumb bitch" - not without the threat of sexual harassment complaint. In such a scenario a woman could intentionally (just out of being, well, a bitch) provoke a man into what would qualify as harassing behavior.

Second, false accusations are precisely the problem with sexual harassment and that is precisely the reason why they should be discussed here, in this article. Right now, there is not a word about them. I guess that would mean that they don't exist.

Third, and this was brought up more than once, why does Catcall redirect here? If you have a right to be provocative in your dress, why doesn't someone else have a right to be provocative in their words? Oh, that's because you can slap them with a complaint if you deem their words too provocative for you. Well then, should someone else be able to slap you with a complaint if they deem your dress too provocative for them?

Lastly, dear women, who feel so passionate about (verbal) SH, it's funny how you describe the same words as harassing or not depending on the attractiveness of the man saying them. Just admit that this is one more legal mechanism to enable your power trip over men, serving to remove "unwelcome" attention while attracting "welcome" attention - based solely on whether or not you like said attention. Equality or Hypocrisy? Anyone?


 * I think a lot of people will agree with you on this one, and rightly so. The creators of this BS should get back to the kitchen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.178.154 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about "sexual harassment", not about false accusations of sexual harassment or "alleged" sexual harassment or "claims" of sexual harassment
False accusations do happen, but as this is a different problem, and should be discussed in it's own article. And while concerns about so-called heterophobia and regulating sex are important to mention, they should be discussed in-depth in their own articles (with links to the SH article).

Also, there is a difference between "common" and "normal." While many believe that some sexual harassment is "normal," I would argue that many things in human nature may be common, but it does not make them okay. Ultimately, sexual harassment has nothing to do with sex, it is a form of bullying and an abuse of power and authority. It is a way of treating people with disrespect and a lack of dignity. Few would dare to argue that racist remarks or actions are "normal," and yet sexual harassment is no less serious, and no less harmful. 70.142.154.57 23:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(This was originally at the bottom, but I'm placing it at the top so that no one misses it.)


 * What evidence is there that sexual harassment is purely about power? Not everyone accepts the feminist axioms about the asexuality of sexual harassment and rape. They need to be explained and justified, not taken for granted. Qvkfgmjqy 13:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its also important to note that feminism assumes a complete asexuality of any sexual advance. In other words, the feminist theories that define sexual harassment as a power-play... are the same theories that say that any sexual advance by a man is entirely rooted in power-seeking. EveryDay example, anytime you see a man approaching a woman, or asking for a date, he's "keeping up the patriarchy and repressing women"... not trying to get laid (no i'm not kidding, they actually believe that men who hit on women aren't trying to get laid, EVER, but trying to "enforce the repression of women"). Again, this is not a joke. They really believe this stuff.


 * Feminist definition of Sexual harassment is left so vague that there is no way to determine ahead of time whether an act is sexual harassment, its only defined as such after-the-fact, when the "victim" decides she's not interested. If the right man approaches a woman, then its romantic. If the wrong man approaches a woman, then its sexual harassment. Except, the only way he can know if he's the right man, is by making a move. So its a catch 22. Therefore... the definition is completely insane (and I'm using a moderate word to describe it here)... A moral wrong-doing can not be defined as something for which the person can not if he's doing it UNTIL he's done it.

Perhaps a mention on same-sex harassment?
Perhaps there should be a specific mention of cases involving same-gender sexual harassment? In the United States, such instances in the workplace are generally considered to be in jest (that is, as a joke).

Good idea. The "as a joke" harassment is one end of the scale. But then there are cases such as Oncale Vs. Sundowner where a male employee was severely and chronically harassed by his male co-workers, and even sodomized with a bar of soap. There is also the problem of harassment of/by homosexuals, which is almost always same-gender harassment so it should be included. Aine63 17:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

It should also be remembered that much conduct which is not homosexually motivated but involves men sexually humiliating other men (as in various initiation rituals) would meet the legal definition of sexual harassment in many jurisdictions. Metamagician3000 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Cultural bias
This is a good article in an American or perhaps European context. However it is not really applicable as drafted too much of the world where other mores apply. Could somebody perhaps adderss this cultural issue?PaddyBriggs 12:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read literature on sexual harassment in cultures with different mores you will find that the perspectives depends on who you are talking to. In a culture that has not outlawed sexual harassment, you will find that most women (who remain the primary targets of sexual harassment) will agree completely with most of the content of this article.  The real problem is that they are not the ones in power, nor the ones who draft the laws that supposedly reflect the mores. 66.142.141.220 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * an example, please study up on the phenomena of chikan in Japan. Groping is such a huge problem, that men are being banned altogether not just from certain train cars, but from stores, restaurants, spas, etc.  Maybe if they enacted some sexual harassment laws there, they might not have to go to these extremes. It is the same issue in Africa and Russia where sexual harassment laws are non-existent, yet sexual harassment is a huge, huge problem in these countries.  That the laws of a country do not acknowledge a problem does not mean that the problem does not exist.  Just ask the women there. Aine63 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * why don't you link to some examples of this? Qvkfgmjqy 14:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree completly with what was said here. As an imigrant I lived in two different cultures, an eastern european one and a western type culture, and I have to say that ceratain behaviors percieved in the west as sexual harassment (sexual jokes for example) were not perceived as such in the eastern european culture. There is change in the last years but it goes hand in hand with a general tendency (as elswere in the world) of indiscriminantly imitating/adopting western values. I think that much of the sexual harassment issue as it is seen today is a feature of the modern western culture. There is also worth mentioning that the phenomen received no atention during the known pre-modern history while men and women were frequently in situations like this for thousands of years.

Sexual harassment is not about Feminism
I removed the link to Feminism today. It's been bothering me for awhile, and I finally pulled it out. The reason for this is that sexual harassment is not about gender, it's about the abuse of power. Since men are also targets of sexual harassment, and women are also harassers--of both men and women--Feminism is not an appropriate "see also" link, at least not to me. (Feminism has yet to touch on the increasing problem of abuses by women who are now stepping into positions of power.) If anyone disagrees with this, go ahead and put it back. I don't mean to be vandalizing. I just think that both genders need to feel they are on the same side of the discussion.(Aine63)

I disagree, sexual harassment awareness is a result of feminism, and therefore relevant.Emmett5 04:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, on mature consideration, I realize that you were right, Aine63. I appologize for returning Feminism to the link list, and will remove it immediatly.Emmett5 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aine Said: ""The reason for this is that sexual harassment is not about gender, it's about the abuse of power.""

The idea that its about abuse of power is a FEMINIST notion. If you choose to dissociate feminism from sexual harassment, then you need to change its definition as well, because the current definition is a feminist definition, and not a widely-accepted fact.

The current definition is so vague that any sexual advance is sexual harassment, because of the feminist notion that sexual advances are based on quest for power (not libido and physical urges for sex). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.252.5 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On the extensive edits
I restored most of my material that was edited out by metamagician. First, many of the edits were simply rewordings, and were frivolous at best, often making the paragraphs even more wordy and less concise. Second, all content that was edited to meet meta's approval was already backed up with references. Meta included no references at all to his assertions or to justify his changes. He simply reworded things to satisfy his own point of view.

I removed the "new" reactions of women section because the content was pulled from Retaliation and Backlash, and reworded to fit Meta's point of view. The reactions discussed belong under backlash and retaliation because the types of responses discussed consitute backlash and retaliation. (BTW: simply disagreeing with what consitutes sexual harassment is never an excuse for retaliation or backlash against a victim. Never.  Actually, few women disagree about what consitutes sexual harassment.  The difference is the degree to which someone is bothered by certain types of behavior, and this varies enormously. This fuzzy area is already touched upon at the top of the article.)

Also, I don't think an entire section on the reactions of women is not appropriate because men are also sexually harassed. This article should be about the problem of sexual harassment in general, not the problem of sexual harassment of women by men. (The brief mention of women's reactions in the backlash section is interesting because most people would be surprised by them.)

I moved meta's rant on career destruction as it was a major tangent in the backlash section. I do think these were good points, and placed them at the top, under the paragraph discussing the controversy around sexual harassment. This is a more appropriate placement, topic-wise. However, I reworded it to include both victim and harasser as either party's careers can be destroyed by allegations.

I removed the sentence about extending the quid pro quo category as it didn't make sense at all. Quid Pro Quo is purely "you do something for me and I'll do something for you." It is the only "neat" category when it comes to sexual harassment. Everything else is Hostile Environment, and is messy as hell. Also, I removed the sentence about behavior being sexual harassment even if the overall environment isn't hostile. It was long and merely states the obvious.

Wikipedia is a serious research tool and not a forum for an individual rant. If you want to rant, do it here, on the discussion page.Aine63 06:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, my edits that got wiped out were based on legal experience in this field which I could have backed up with sources (though perhaps not always easily available ones) as well as my own experience. I've even written a book on this subject myself (though it was one those things that you have to pay big money for from a publisher targeting the corporate market; it is not available through bookshops and it is now out of date; I don't count it as one of my publications for most purposes, but it shows I do know what I'm talking about - I have some expertise in this area of law).

I also find it odd that my edits were called a "rant", but led to the very long post above, which does indeed look like a rant (as does this reply, but I plead provocation :) ).

The rewordings were improvements in my view, and I have a certain amount of professional writing and editorial experience, so I don't think I was merely being petty. I do wish people would assume good faith. However, I'm grateful that at least some of my edits were retained. I've put some back and I may need to put back others. The claim above about quid pro quo is clearly wrong, and I think something needs to be said that is more sophisticated than what is currently there. The idea has indeed been extended beyond the original neat category if American law does actually include the third point as coming under "quid pro quo" (btw the emphasis on American law is another problem with the article). Note that the list of three points has an "or" not an "and". However, if it is only the third that is met there is not necessarily any straightforward quid pro quo. In Australia at least, straightforward quid pro quo claims are not all that common - most claims would fall under the third point, but not under "hostile work environment". The latter class of claims relate to things like pervasive sexism. As someone who has had to litigate cases about this, I am offended at being told I don't know what I am talking about on a point like that.

However, I will not simply revert all my edits. Some may have gone too far in attempting to rebalance the article by including the defendant point of view (which seemed very much to be missing) as well as the complainant point of view, and may not be easily verified. I'm not interested in a verification war. However, I do wish people would talk before simply wiping out edits that took a fair bit of time and work. Metamagician3000 07:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You made signifigant changes to the article without discussion, and anyone would be irritated about it. Some would be furious. (It's called "vandalism" in Wikipedia-land.) Regarding "talk before simply wiping out edits," you are supposed to discuss on the Talk page before you make such huge changes. (What you deem my own rant is my doing what contributors are supposed to do--justify their changes.) Most people who have contributed to this page have professional experience in this area, not to mention writing experience. You cannot rewrite the words of others, or restructure the article, to suit your own needs, particularly when the existing assertions are already backed up with references and experience. (Also, you can't change something just because it's viewed differently in Australia.)

BTW: this article is about sexual harassment, not "alleged" sexual harassment which is a different topic. If you want, just begin another article on "false accusations of sexual harassment." But do this on another page. (I removed your sentence about women being hostile because they may be more objective about the behavior as it is a ridiculous assertion--retaliation is never objective and never OK, not under any circumstances, and it is *always* illegal, even if the harassment was not proven.)

I'm not trying to silence you. The accused's point-of-view is welcome, and I take it that your personal experience is as an accused sexual harasser. However, this does not discount the experience of the victims. (I can promise you that many, many more victim's lives and careers are destroyed than are the lives of accused harassers--many more, as most harassment is never reported.) The accused's perspective would be best placed under it's own section called "Point of view of the accused?" Place this beneath "Effects of sexual harassment." Say what you will as long as you include references to back it all up. Personal opinion is not universal truth.

You can revert all the "undoes" that you want, but I will simply revert it all back again unless you discuss the issues here first. Considering the disrespect you have already shown to those who have contributed here, why should I or anyone else show you any faith?Aine63 15:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I made it quite plain that my experience is as a lawyer.


 * As it happens, I have professional experience in representing the interests of both complainants and defendants in cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, so I know a fair bit about the effects on both and can write about this subject objectively. (As I clearly stated above, I even had a book published on the subject for the corporate market in Australia (though I was only credited as "editor" and I have various reasons for not making too much of this publication).)In my opinion, the article was not objective when I initially read it but weighted to the viewpoint of complainants.


 * The difference between my initial edits on this article and your subsequent edits is that I did not wipe out anyone's material. I rephrased some of it to say better what I thought the article was trying to say, and I built on it to add to some other points which people could then work with. That is not what is meant by "vandalism", and I am offended at your use of that word. However, I've also been known to accuse people of vandalism in the heat of the moment, so I initially let it go. Now that you've repeated the accusation after we've discussed it, I really am ofended, and I want an apology.


 * There are a lot of claims in the article as I encountered it that are controversial opinions, not facts, and I would have been within my rights to edit the article far more ruthlessly. However, I left the substance of everything you and others had written, allowing you the chance to work with my edits constructively.


 * I am done with this for the moment. Given the way you distort things, jump to false conclusions, and refuse to compromise, you are obviously an unreasonable person, so it's difficult dealing with you. I'll worry about this article another time. For now, I just remind you that you don't own the article and that we are all warned not to write unless we are prepared to be edited ruthlessly. Accordingly, you had no right to make accusations of vandalism merely because of legitimate edits. (I did not edit the article very ruthlessly, as it happens, but merely rephrased some things and made some additional points. None of your points were lost.) I didn't revert your edits yesterday, but tried to work with them in a constructive way after you'd made them. Even my response to your first rant here was measured in its tone. I tried to get along with you. However, you seem unwilling to reciprocate.


 * If you were at all reasonable, you'd at least acknowledge that I have a legitimate point about the "quid quo pro" issue, which I explained to you quite nicely. Metamagician3000 23:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, "vandalism" is not my term, it is Wikipedia's term and created as a point of netiquette and protocol. Also, having "legal experience" does not automatically label anyone a lawyer. Neither does writing a book. Both can mean anything. (Sorry if I made you feel insulted as I did not mean that being an "accused harasser" meant that someone is an harasser; the "accused" was deliberate, and was actually meant to validate the specific point of view you have been pushing.)this is a way to not get inot alotzzzzzzzzZZZZzzzz of troble

My tone has been at least as measured as yours, and I certainly haven't resorted to personal attacks and insults. Asking you to discuss before you make your changes is hardly uncompromising. Again, my rant, as you call it, is once again my simply making the justifications for the reverts--part of Wikipedia protocol. (If you hadn't made so many changes without justification, I wouldn't have had to justify so many reverts. ;) )Besides, I encouraged you to add a section covering the perspective of the accused, which you stated was lacking and I agree with you. Again, hardly being uncompromising.

Of course you should be expected to be edited here. It happens every day. But it is part of Wikipedia protocol to justify most changes on the Talk page. If you make signifigant changes without justification, particularly to sections which are supported with references and/or concrete evidence, you *will* be called on it. (If it is any consolation, I learned about this the hard way myself.)

Final justification--the quote about backlash, since it is a comment about experiencing backlash, belongs below all the examples of backlash. Placing it in the middle makes little sense. Aine63 23:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked the definition of "vandalism" used here and I strongly deny that anything that I did fell into that definition. However, to your credit, you've changed the heading to this section. I thank you for that, and I'll take that as a conciliatory gesture/sign of good faith.


 * Having "legal experience" can mean only one thing where I come from: it means experience as a lawyer in professional practice. If someone used the term in any other way, it would be a bitter joke. But let's just take that as an honest misunderstanding on both sides.


 * At this stage, you've retained some of my material (with minor changes that I actually agree with), changed the heading (as mentioned), and agreed with me that the article lacks the defendants' point of view. I'm pleased with all those things, and I'm not trying to make an enemy here. Also, it's not that I think the work done so far is terrible, and I meant no disrespect to anyone by starting some heavy editing on it. I just think that the article can be improved, and I was acting in good faith to try to do when we got into this discussion.


 * If you're prepared to work with me to improve the article I'll tell you some of the other things that I think could be improved (including some of my specific disagreements with your "justifications"). Even setting them out would take me some time - time that I could spend simply editing the article. But let's see if we can cooperate. Metamagician3000 04:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the acknowledgement of my trying to work with your edits, and I had done so before your earlier post that was full of personal attacks. The only new change I made was to the above heading.

All we ask is that you justify changes before you make them, particularly if it alters material that is supported, changes the meaning of what is already written, or changes the structure of the article. It's deemed good netiquette at Wikipedia and not simply my being difficult or uncompromising, nor is it my thinking I "own" the article. On pretty much any article, if you edit without justification, your edits will be reverted. Aine63 14:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Metamagician3000 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Issues
I've created this heading as a place where people can list issues with the article in its current form. Here's a random list of problems that I see. It is not meant to be exhaustive. Feel free to add to it. If you think these points have merit, feel free to address them in the article itself.

1. The introduction is now far too long. The material in it is okay, but most of it after the first para needs to be taken out and given a new heading, something about the complexities, etc.

2. It really needs significant material that more precisely captures the widespread criticisms of the concept as it has developed. References to such writers as Wendy McElroy, Helen Garner, and Daphne Patai are needed. This does not mean I necessarily agree with these writers, but there is a POV that says the concept has developed in a way which is unnecessarily expensive to administer, unfair to defendants, and offensive to women. Some people talk about "the sexual harassment industry".

3. However, if there are references any such criticisms, the point should also be made that no one reputable defends sexual assaults in the workplace/on the campus, the use of supervisory power to coerce people into sex, or the creation of working environments that women experience as pervasively hostile. There is well-documented evidence that women in particular have suffered from these things in shocking ways. The difficulty that critics of the concept (as it has developed) face is that they can be thought to be defending this.

4. The criticisms relate to the way the definitions of sexual harassment have been extended well beyond the above situations to dubious, frivolous, inappropriate (as where there was an assault which was not really sexual but could be interpreted that way with some ingenuity), and opportunistic charges. Moreover, the concept arguably blurs serious conduct such as those described in point 3 with minor issues such as flirting and "dirty" jokes, while many publications simultaneously describe all behaviour that can be counted as sexual harassment as if it were extreme and amounted to a form of violence (especially against women).

5. The criticisms also include extreme and disproportional economic and psychological effects on defendants, both men and women, in such cases. Cases are sometimes cited of such responses as suicide. Another criticism made by some feminists is that the breadth of the concept suggests that women are too frail to handle quite mild sexual behaviour that is slightly offensive at worst - not actually intimidating or demeaning.

6. None of this is demonstrates that the criticisms are correct. (From my experience I do actually think there is some truth in them, but that's not the point.) The criticisms are out there, partly expressed in the popular culture by writers like Michael Crichton, partly in jocular and disrespecful discussion of sexual harassment law that pervades the culture, but also in the work of many writers who claim to be feminists. This POV should be acknowledged, even if it is identified as being a minority view among scholarly commentators.

7. In its current form, the article is very US-centric. The concept may have developed in other ways in other countries. For example, in Australia and New Zealand the categories of "quid pro quo" and "hostile working environment" are not that important (though they are recognised). Most cases are simply based on an attempt to prove the elements of sexual harassment. Depending on the jurisdiction, these elements are something like (1) that the conduct was of a sexual nature; (2) that the complainant was actually offended, humiliated or intimidated by it (or some similar formula); and (3) (in most jurisdictions) some requirement to the effect that it was reasonable and/or reasonably foreseeable that the behaviour would offend, humiliate, or intimidate. The third element is meant filter out mere flirting between friends and workmates, respectful, non-persistent requests for dates, limited sexual banter to which no one was objecting, etc., and the controversy tends to be about whether this element is adequate as a filter. Also, some jurisdictions seem not to have this filter at all, or have it in only a very weakened way. It would be interesting to reflect some experience from those countries/jurisdictions.

8. The article plunges straight into quid pro quo harassment and hostile working environment harassment. Though the elements are listed, there is no initial explanation of the theory behind these (e.g how they were developed in early feminist theory and case law on the subject). It seems very disjointed.

9. There is no acknowledgement in the article that many (most?) acts that meet the elements of sexual harassment set out in 7. above involve neither a pervasively hostile working environment nor any "quid pro quo". These acts are currently covered in the article by the third dot point under "quid pro quo" harassment, which extends that concept well beyond the clear idea of a "quid pro quo". I doubt that the extension of "quid pro quo" harassment has been done in this way in jurisdictions outside the US. It is unnecessary in any jurisdiction where claimants merely prove a set of statutory elements without worrying about categories. However, it would be interesting to know.

10. The claim in the article that many more people have been sexually harassed than have a good legal case is ambiguous. It is stated in the context that there are legal and colloquial concepts of sexual harassment. If it means that people have been sexually harassed in the colloquial sense (which needs to be defined) but not the legal sense, this may well be true, but it should be stated in so many words. Colloquially, someone may claim to be "sexually harassed" merely by unwanted sexual conduct that was not even offensive, and I have seen social scientists use this definition. Alternatively, if the statement means that people have been harassed in the legal sense, but do not have a good evidentiary case, this needs to be stated in so many words and the relevant sentence should appear in a different, less confusing contex. If this is the meaning, it is really speculative - we cannot know that anyone was harassed if he/she did not have the evidence to prove it. If it is based on surveys, all we can know is that people claim to have been sexually harassed. It should be made clear that this sentence is someone's opinion.

11. The article currently confuses the issue of backlash/retaliation with the issue of hostility to the claimant/sympathy for the defendant. They are two different things, as merely feeling hostile to a party, or sympathetic to the other party, may be expressed in quite legitimate ways, such as giving evidence in court to support one party ... or it may not be expressed at all. As it stands, the article seems to suggest that whenever women are hostile to the claimant or sympathetic to the defendant there is some pathological reason for this (e.g unconscious sexism against their own sex). That is speculative. The obvious reasons why a woman in a particular case may be sympathetic to a defendant (and thus may give evidence for the defendant, for example) are that she finds the defendant more credible or she considers the alleged conduct to be minor. To suggest otherwise is insulting to women and it is speculation rather than fact. Of course, none of this justifies anyone taking part in retaliation or backlash. However, the article needs to distinguish between merely "siding" with the defendant (giving emotional support, witness testimony etc, or merely feeling that the defendant is in the right) and actually retaliating against the complainant. At the moment, these different things are run together. I previously tried to deal with the problem by creating a new heading, but this got changed back, re-introducing the confusion.

12. The article also seems to confuse the experience of many complainants that they feel violated just from having to run their case, give evidence, etc, with the experience of retaliation etc. No doubt many complainants suffer retaliation. However, the article currently misses the important point that many complainants who have suffered very serious kinds of sexual harassment feel violated simply by what they have to go through to prove their case and even if there is no retaliation. (Rape victims often report this, too.) The quote in the article seemed to be making the latter point, but was under the heading to do with retaliation. Hence I moved it, but it got moved back. Someone needs to check just what the context and meaning of the quote was. If it really was about retaliation, then the point I'm making in this para should be covered elsewhere. Despite the criticisms that can be made of the way the concept of sexual harassment has developed, blatant sexual harassment is obviously psychologically destructive, and this point is an important one to get clear.

That will do for now. Metamagician3000 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

For the third time(or is it the fourth), the quote at the end of the retaliation article is expressly commenting on retaliation and backlash. It was taken from an article on sexual harassment, from the section on retaliation--I should know, as I put it there. The point you are making should be covered elsewere. I'm really tired of this. Also, the section on backlash does not at all suggest that hostility is pathological. You are reading into this.

The intro is fine. It is a group effort and reflects the perspectives of the most frequent contributors/participants here. While I don't agree with everything there, and would write it differently myself, I would certainly not pull anything out simply because it's not perfect. It's clear, and every point is valid. Each article at Wikipedia has it's own community that grows up around it. That is what is so great about it. Including everyone's point-of-view or input can make things a little long, (your additions will make things even longer), but this is what makes Wikipedia such a rich tool, and a rich experience to participate in.

Why not quit worrying about what you don't like about other people's work for awhile. (Again, your perspective is NOT the correct one; it's just another perspective.) Go ahead and begin a new section that discusses the criticisms of sexual harassment policy, or the point of view of the accused. These would be rich contributions indeed. Aine63 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, some of what I wrote here seems to have gone missing. Lost in the edit conflict maybe. Anyway, I've listed most of my objections to the article in its current form.


 * As I now look at the sources, I find that a lot of what is here is simply cutting and pasting from sources on the internet that have been written to advise potential complainants. Meanwhile, one link no longer works. Will it bother people if I remove it? Another link is actually misused: I've been saying throughout that there is something wrong with the definition of quid pro quo harassment, and it turns out that I am right. The relevant source from which it is copied verbatim does not use these three point as its definition of quid pro quo harassment. It lists these points. Then it adds that the first two are quid pro quo harassment. Why not acknowledge that I was essentially right about this? The third point would extend quid pro quo harassmment far beyond the original meaning of the concept. When I made a remark about this it was removed. Can I please fix this without the change simply being reverted. I won't do it yet. I'll give you a chance to look at the links and satisfy yourself that I'm correct and not merely trying to make trouble.


 * I'd rather not do a huge editorial job addressing all the points I've made. Even writing a major new section, as you suggest, without tweaking anything else is going to be difficult since it would probably mean challenging at least some things that have been stated as facts elsewhere in the article. Is that going to cause a problem? Metamagician3000 06:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Meta, I no longer care about your point of view of what is already there. Since you clearly don't care about the perspective of the other contributors, I will simply revert any of your edits to those sections. (Some of the pages that you say were "pasted from" were written by people who have contributed here.) There is a community "voice" here, and it should be respected. Please know that you can be banned from editing altogether if you don't.

Again, worthwhile additions would be new sections on the topics you have mentioned that interest you. Aine63 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Aine63 07:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you please stop the person threats etc. Neither you nor anyone else owns the article. I am going out of my way to try to be conciliatory, having raised all the points in justification of what parts of the article I believe need to be edited. I am not impressed by the idea that people here are using their own work from elsewhere on the internet as source material (and that one of sources, in turn, cites the wikipedia as source material). That hardly makes the article more authoritative.


 * Through this whole discussion which you initiated, you have taken the attitude that you have a right to control whether legitimate, good-faith edits are made by others. Your initial claim was that they should not be made without justification, but I've now given elaborate justification of the kinds of edits I have in mind (and had started making), and you are still complaining. I have taken on board some of your points, and of course I won't make any changes that would be incorrect, based on what you've told me. OTOH, I've given you numerous chances to be constructive about working on this article, but you don't seem willing to look at criticisms of the article on their merits.Metamagician3000 07:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have to agree with a lot of these criticisms. This article is solid, but it is only solid from a single point of view. Other points of view, such as the idea that some cases of sexual harrasment are false and used only for monetary gain, have not a single mention. If the elder contributors here think that's good, that's nice for them. But by suppressing new ideas and edits into the article just firmly establishes the biasim of this article. 70.251.229.231

Quid pro quo problem
''Why not simply address my point about quid pro quo, for a start? I've told you that your own source has been quoted inaccurately. This is simply a fact. You have not confronted the issue but threatened to revert any change I make, even if it is factually correct and has my rationale set out on this page. I have refrained from making any change to give you a chance to confirm that I am correct - I can't get more conciliatory and consultative than that. It seems to me that if anyone here is acting against the spirit of the wikipedia enterprise it is not me.'' ''I'll even save you the work. Here's what the article currently says:''

'''Prima facie case for sexual harassment, quid pro quo To establish a prima facie case for sexual harassment of the quid pro quo variety, you must show that there were unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: [2]

1. Submission to such conduct was made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,

2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual was used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or

3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.'''

Here is what the source says:

''' In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission produced a set of guidelines for defining and enforcing Title VII (in 1984 it was expanded to include educational institutions). The EEOC defines sexual harassment as:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

(1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, academic status or progress or

(2 submission to or rejection of that conduct is used as a basis for employment or academic decisions affecting such individual. or

(3)such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work or education environment.

(1) and (2) are called quid pro quo (Latin for "this for that"). They are essentially "sexual bribery:" promising of benefits and "sexual coercion. threatening consequences. To be quid pro quo it must be proven that "the employee's reaction to the harassment complained of affected tangible aspects of the employee's compensation or terms, conditions or privileges of employment" (emphasis mine). This was originally the only recognized form of sexual harassment.

Type (3), known as "Hostile work environment," is by the far the most common form. This form is less clear cut and is more subjective; the legality of behaviors must be determined on a case by case basis. It focuses on the working conditions which must be endured by the victim as a condition of employment, rather than tangible job changes. To establish whether the situation is "actionable," the "totality of circumstances" must be weighed with an eye to determining "that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment in that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condition of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment" (emphasis mine; Peiliciotti, 1988).'''

''I hope this makes clear that the third point is not part of the definition of quid pro quo harassment, according to the source. Thus, the third point should be removed from this section. The material from this point could be included, with a comment, in the hostile working environment part.''

''I do not see how spotting problems like this, and wanting to fix them (and giving justification) can be said to show lack of respect for other people working on the article. My first attempt to fix the problem may not have been perfect, but it was made in good faith, and I hope you now understand why I think it is a genuine problem. The other problems I see may not be as a clear-cut, but I am simply trying to address problems, not to show disrespect to you or anyone else. Again, please assume good faith.'' Metamagician3000 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have justified the reasons why some of your suggestions, and certainly your approach, are inappropriate. Again, some of the pages you say have been "pasted from" were written by the people who put the material here. (BTW, the large chunks of material that you deleted last night were contributed by the real owner of this page, who is also a lawyer, I understand. You will note that these pages have been restored.)

Personal? I have never seen anyone at Wikipedia get more personal that you. (You are the first I've ever seen resort to attacks when disagreed with.)

Your attitude would not inspire faith in anyone. Your point of view is not the correct one, it's just another point of view. You are not a better writer than anyone else, just another writer. You seem to prefer to take a destructive route, and rip apart/out what others have contributed, rather than take the constructive route and add to, clarify, or enrich what in most cases is already sound and fact-based. Again, this is not my "owning" the article, anyone will give you the same response about it on any page that you contribute to at Wikipedia, if the article has active contributors. (And yes, what you are doing is "vandalism" and can get you banned from editing.)

Frankly, I don't see why you don't build your own website devoted to the subject of sexual harassment. There are not that many really good ones out there. It would be incredibly comprehensive, I am sure, and then you don't have to worry about bothering with other people's ideas.

I, now, am the one who is finished with this. In me, you have lost your audience. I have told you what my response will be to your continued approach. Aine63 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why have I been accused of deleting large chunks of material? If someone did this it wasn't me. I didn't touch the article, as I explained above. I intend to work on this article gradually when I get around to it, having explained my concerns at length for people to consider. Meanwhile, I object to the bullying that I have received since I turned my attention to improving this article in what I thought was a routine way. Metamagician3000 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

why "sexual jokes" put back where it was and other changes removed
Sexual jokes are, by law, considered sexual harassment if they are offensive to people in the environment. This does not mean this would win any lawsuits. Still, these are the facts and Wikipedia is not the place to impose one's own personal point of view and pass that off as a fact.

Also, most professionals who study sexual harassment and the causes agree that "sexualized environments" lead to more serious and chronic sexual harassment. A sexualized environment is one where there are sexual jokes made, or graffiti or sexual objects(such as posters)displayed. Environments like this have greater occurrences of extreme sexual harassment (the kind that truly ruins lives)than environments that are not sexualized. (I am going to add this to the article when I've got the reference for it--there are so many of them that I'll have to pick from a pile.) 71.143.134.238 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not going to quibble about this right now. Your edits seem okay. :)


 * However, I may have some issues later on when I've thought about it. Many people would dispute that such actions as flirting, telling jokes with sexual content, etc., are in themselves objectively offensive, even if some people are subjectively offended (and it is objective offensiveness that is required in most jurisdictions; as you yourself note, this is not the sort of thing by itself that normally wins lawsuits ... but many employers and educational institutions try to suppress it). Also, many people (McElroy, Patai, Katie Roiphe, and other critics) would say that it is dehumanising to try to take this sort of interaction out of the work environment, which is now such a large part of professional people's lives, let alone the campus environment. That point is in addition to the freedom of speech issues that you have raised and associated with Dershowitz.


 * At the moment, the article still leans towards the more puritanical POV. However, as I said, I'll leave it for the moment. I'm mainly trying to get facts in there. Metamagician3000 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have no problem at all with people editing my material in a civil way, even undoing specific edits that might be arguable. The process of getting articles right is an iterative one, and like everyone else I may, from time to time, inadvertently take steps that don't stand up well, at least without further support. I try to follow NPOV but what seems just obviously and uncontroversially correct to me may sometimes actually be contestable. The main thing is to keep improving the article. As long as civility prevails this all part of the process. :) Metamagician3000 02:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk of gender superiority...
I don't think that saying "men are better than women" or "women are better than men" is sexual harassment unless there's something that actually connects it to the act of sex, such as a lewd joke or anything like that. If a woman jokingly says "I figured this out because women are smarter than men", I don't think the men would be quick to sue her and vice-versa.
 * LOl good point 70.142.154.57 22:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hostile environment sexual harassment
The article on "Hostile environment sexual harassment" mentions that higher standards apply for claims of hostile environment sexual harassment when the enviroment is sexual by nature such a strip club. I think their should be at least a brief mention of this in this article too. --Cab88 00:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that all the legal discussion and burdens of proof should remain under the Hostile environment article, and be removed from the SH article except for a brief paragraph. Also, a SH Quid pro quo article should be created to house that info and discussion of burdens of proof.  (See suggestion below).68.89.42.198 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed some extra references and others that were out-dated or not necessary
Two of the books/articles listed in the references were not cited anywhere in this article, so they have been removed. There were three citations for the very minor fact of the source of the term "sexual harassment" which is overkill for trivia. I removed two, and left the Patai since she is cited elsewhere. 68.91.114.175 02:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed definition reference that SH usually happens in the workplace
SH happens anywhere--at work, at school, on the street, even at home. To keep lumping it into employment law isn't accurate. 68.88.13.169 20:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a section discussing the power that the accuser has in a sexual harrasement case?
Something talking about the law bias when a case is first brought to the attention of authorities. I dont know how else to say what im trying to say but refer to USC QB Mark Sanchez to better understand what im trying to say.
 * In most cases, an accused harasser is in some position of authority, and they have the advantage, and may even be protected by the institution. Is this what you mean? Or is it that you think that it is the "accuser" who has all the power, which is a fallacy. See the retaliation section of the article for what usually happens when a SH victim speaks out.(BTW, the case against Sanchez was dropped becuase the medical exam was "inconclusive" not becuase it was proven to be a false accusation.) 68.88.13.169 03:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Burdens of proof and non-U.S. jurisdiction
I removed the list for Australia because it was uncited, and because it isn't necessary for an entire section on Australia. The section will be stronger with a list of differences of how a number of other cultures define the burdens of proof, or if they have even out-lawed sexual harassment. Also, it would be good to add info on how the populace of those cultures view these guidelines (i.e. women in Middle Eastern cultures are not likely to be fans of the guidelines, where/if they exist, in their countries.) I'll try to collect this info and add it to the article. I left the short, but uncited paragraph about non-US jurisdictions to justify leaving the section for the time being until it can be filled out--with cited material. 70.239.51.24 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a lot of non-US law and descriptions of govt. agencies today. Note that many of them have been pasted as is from other articles or legal documents and have not been revised or re-written.  The reason being that they are laws or official policies, and I don't feel justified in doing much rewording of them.  It seems that they should stand as is.  Still, if this is a violation of Wiki copyright, anyone who has the appropriate expertise to reword them should pleas do so as long as they don't change the meaning of each description, law, or policy.  70.239.50.33 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * China recently outlawed sexual harassment, but I can't find the definitions they have adopted. If anyone has access to this, please add it to the list. (Please be sure to include the source.)70.239.50.33 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed weak/unreliable citations
I removed the citations for McElroy and Patai. Patai because the page for the latter was created exclusively to back up the point for this article. The McElroy source was also Wiki, and the point was added to the existing page on McElroy without any source to back it up, and added only to use as a citation for this SH article. This does not mean that these crtics should not be included, they should. But they should be included with citations to books/articles/reliable Internet documents. Simply creating Wiki documents or points on other pages, particularly if they are not cited, doesn't cut it. 69.154.163.109 20:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Propostion to move burdens of proof to their own, corresponding articles
This article is getting very long, and there are still many useful points that can be made--for example, good addtions would be the causes of SH, and discussion of the evolution of SH law and how other cultures are following suit. There is already an article about hostile environment sexual harassment. Perhaps it would be better to move the burdens of proof info to that page, and a new Quid Pro Quo page with links to the SH article. Or, perhaps they should both be housed together under a "Sexual harassment burdens of proof" article. Either way, then the contributors interested in the specific legal questions can "go to town" with whatever debates and legal-ease they want to include. 68.89.42.198 23:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the move of the "hostile environment" material. Will make a new article for Quid pro quo if no one else does Aine63 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On recent deletes
Do not delete information without discussing it here first--particularly when the information is backed up with references. Also, many of the deletions involved information from non-U.S. sources. It has already been discussed and agreed upon by the editors of this article that non-U.S. source material should be included. Aine63 22:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Jenson v. Eveleth
Jenson v. Eveleth Mines was important as it was the first class action sexual harassment case, but it did not change the law, as it stood, so it does not belong in the "Evolution of sexual harassment law" section. It is mentioned in other sections of the article Aine63 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * after a little further research, I found that J v. E did set precedents for what the "discovery" process (investigating complainants) and how far lawyers can go with it, and cemented the concept of "litigation injury" which is psychological damage from depositions by lawyers. So, I've added it to the list with these points. But the reference to the movie is down in the Media and Lit section, and does not belong with the laws. Aine63 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Panda
It's with regret I deleted this Sexual Harassment Panda from the Sexual harassment in media and literature. I'm a fan of South Park, and am a HUGE fan of good satire. But good satire is only good if if satirizes the truth, and this episode does not honestly present the issue of lawsuits and sexual harassment in schools. No sexual harassment victim just goes out and sues right after being harassed. They must ALWAYS go through the school's grievance procedure first-and it is usually very painful and humiliating for the victims, and adds to the already existing damage from the harassment. Lawsuits only arise after the school has ignored the complaint, or has not done anything to remedy the harassment. But if the South Park episode has included this fact, then it would have wrecked the entire premise for their spoof. I'm still a fan of South Park, but this episode is not appropriate as a listing in this article. Aine63 18:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * lol butthurt victim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.178.154 (talk) 06:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures...
This article needs a picture of sexual harrassment lol. All the other (sometimes perverted) sex-related articles have accompanying pictures, including pedophilia, coprophilia, and child pornography. 205.188.116.131 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Harassment article used to point to Image:Harassment.jpg, which was of a middle-aged white man with his hand on the shoulder of a younger black woman in an office. He is smiling and she is frowning and they are both looking at his hand.  The reference to the then-dead image was removed with this edit:


 * 21:58, 4 January 2006 205.188.116.202 (Talk) (edited bad code)
 * but the comment is in reference to some HTML div that was there. The image looked posed and I assume that the people were models. The image was deleted in December 2005 as a copyvio. -- PinkCake 23:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted extensive info on sh in India
I deleted the extensive additions on sh in India as this country is already listed earlier with definitions (redundancy). Plus, none of the info is cited, and is largely a discussion of the Vishaka case. So much in depth info on the Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan case is not appropriate here. It should have it's own article, like Jenson v. Eveleth, or Ellison v. Brady do. (Also, the case is already mentioned in the "evolution of harassment law section."--more redundancy.) Koala06 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted silly INSISTANT request for citation in definition
Because the article focuses on so many of the countries that deem sexual harassment to be an illegal form of discrimination (indeed, this is discussed throughout, and there is a list at the bottom), insisting that a discussion of all the places it is deemed illegal in the definition, too, is ridiculous and redundant. If you want a discussion of the places that it is not illegal, feel free to add this in an appropriate place--probably in a section at the end, below the discussion of where is IS illegal. Koala06 17:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request photos
This article has no pictures to illustrate the subject. Perhaps some can be added?-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think there can be any picture that can be used in this article. It might possibly be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Kirbytime, please note that if you make one more request for inappropriate pictures, you may be blocked. --Matt57 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Street harassment merger
Due to discussed lack of encyclopedic merit, I've redirected the article here. Below is the stuff from the "further reading" section, which may need to be incorporated into the article:

Articles:

* "A Black Feminist Critique of Same-Race Street Harassment" * "Situating legal consciousness: Experiences and attitudes of ordinary citizens about law and street harassment" * "Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women"

Books:

* "License to Harass: Law, Hierarchy, and Offensive Public Speech (Princeton, 2004)" * "Passing By: Gender and Public Harassment" --CA387 09:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Catcall
Why exactly does "catcall" direct here? As I've always understood it, catcalling in itself (whistling, "Hello-o-o-o-o nurse!," etc.) is not harassment under proper circumstances. For comparison, "groping" directs to an article on frotteurism, as well as an article on non-penetrative sex. Obviously, groping a coworker would be considered harassment, but the presence of a separate article acknowledges that that particular behavior has its own proper place. Redirecting "catcall" here implies that to engage in that behavior is also to harass, and nothing else. After looking it up, I've also found that "catcall" can refer to calls of disapproval, jeering, etc., such as at a sporting event. This, also, is not sexual harassment in itself. If there is no separate article on this, all well and good - that can be remedied - but it seems inappropriate to apply such a broad label to it. If there was a particular reasoning behind this redirect I'm definitely open to hearing it, but if not then it should probably be taken care of. intooblv 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the wrong term got used here by mistake; should be "wolf whistle," not "cat call." I'm changing this here and elsewhere. Rousse 06:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wolf whistle" *was* the term I was looking for to describe the actual rising/descending whistle, but "catcall" is often used (at least around here; maybe it's a regional thing) to describe calls of approval directed towards an attractive man/woman. After looking around, I've noticed that the negative definition ("call of disapproval, jeering, etc.") seems to be the prevailing one, which just seems odd to me since the nocturnal yowling of cats is often mentioned, which would seem to support the usage I am accustomed to. Like I said, maybe it's a regional thing. intooblv 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Catcalls
Catcall currently redirects here. That doesn't make any sense because neither the word nor the meaning is used only in the context of sexual harassment. Apart from that, the article doesn't even mention it. I'm not sure where it should redirect, but if it's not changed, I'll ask for its deletion, so there's at least a chance that a reasonable article or redirect will be set up in the future. Thanks. --Ibn Battuta 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I obviously hadn't seen the entry above. All the more: Let's change it. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reminder: Redirect is still in place as of 30 Aug 2007. Could someone do something? I would do it myself, but I'm not a native speaker and I'm not familiar with the term. --193.99.145.162 20:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I was disappointed with the redirect because this article here does not even mention the term. I was hoping to find examples to use for a translation [Polish u-la-la]. The link to this article stifles the development of at least a stub/definition of catcall. If the term is not even mentioned, much less defined, in this article, what good is the redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.199.54.218 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

short-sighted article ?
I'm surprised not to see any reference to Seung-Hui Cho in this article. Sexual harassment was said to be in the background of his massacre in a big way. Isn't this an article in the sociology category ? Perhaps someone could go further than say harassment is evil and discuss how these cases are handled in reality. My point is that they may be handled in a brutal way in some cases in North America, contrary to Europe. Christopher Lims 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

How Is Sexual Harrassment Discrimination?
I can see how it's wrong and why it's illegal, but it says in the article it's considered illegal discrimination. I suppose if someone is only sexually harrassing one sex or the other that's discrimination in some sense, but not really any more discriminatory than only dating one sex or the other. It certainly wouldn't be discrimination in all cases, since a bisexual person could sexually harrass without any regard to the sex of the people they are harrassing. Still wrong and still should be illegal, but that wouldn't technically be discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.31.229 (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"sexual harassment" is not illegal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.157.148 (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Rituals and Initiation
Under the heading "Rituals and Initiation," the following statement is made:

"For example, as women’s sports become more widespread, some have begun to mimic the hazing and other practices characteristic of traditional men’s sports in order to try to be accepted by men in sport.[17]"

The citation refers to an web page created by an organization in the U.S. called Women Sport International.

The source at that reference states, and I paraphrase, that because sports are dominated by males, and because coaches, instructors and the like are usually male, females in sport then, are driven to accept male oriented ideas about how sports should be conducted.

My criticism here is that 'whomever' Women Sport International is, they have not cited any references of their own to support such a statement. One would assume that acceptable references would point to a study, however, the web site and organization do not site any references. Furthermore, the piece referenced on the site in question is written as a manifesto or mission statement. Therefore, it seems that the weight of the Wikipedia statement relies entirely on its reference to the Women Sport International web site, and because its statements are unsupported, this is can only be conjecture and should either be removed or should contain some indication that the statement in question is conjecture.

My suggestion is that the authors either attempt to find a legitimate source for the assertion, such as a study. From a purely commen sense tradition however, such a study would first have to confirm that it is important for purveyors of women's sports to be accepted by men, then a second study would need to be conducted that addresses the proposition: If it is true that women's sports seek to be accepted by men in sports, then what are some of the behaviors or actions women's sports undertake in order to do so?

Thanks for your consideration,

Charlie Monoxide Morriss, B.Ph. Brewery Gulch, Bisbee, Arizona 85603 USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info@charliemorriss.com (talk • contribs) 06:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing Question
under Bully, should "...making the harasser feel insecure...." read "...making the harasseE feel insecure...." ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.76.186 (talk) 07:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnes v. Train (1974)
The article states: "Barnes v. Train (1974) is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term "sexual harassment" was not used." Rochon, Culture Moves: Ideas, Activism, and Changing Values, p.68 discusses another case from 1972 (Newark, secretary vs. boss of Scholl Manufacturing Company), with a similar claim.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article seems to be very pro-litigation, pro-speech regulation. Gtbob12 (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Oar in the Water
I like to think of Wikipedia as an on-line source for reasonably accurate and objective information. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a big political advocate, I don't work for a think-tank. I decided to go out and read a little bit on the subject, having known several people terminated for sexual harassment, some who have filed complaints and other who have had complaints filed against them. I read the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's little web-blurb about sexual harassment and it differed in tone and statistics from other people who have participated in this discussion.

Before I go too much further, I agree with the first opinion that there should be separate pages for sexual harassment for each country. I have some friends in the United Arab Emirates who told me that in their country, a man who is found to be a sex-offender will have his picture put in the newspaper. Of course, they can be found to be a sex-offender for asking for a girl's phone number. Since the UAE is considered to be a "moderate" country in terms of the Middle-East, this gives one pause to try to understand this cultural perspective. Well, at least in terms of my being from the United States. Where in the same countries, a man beating his wife would be considered normal or acceptable in any degree. To say that sexual harassment or sexual conduct could be covered in one article seems questionable at best.

Regarding the general tone of the first part of the article, I found it to be insinuating or leading at best, not objective. Here are the parts I thought could be cleaned up to make the article more objective:

Overall, the article lacked significant "cons" that is criticisms or counter-examples or negative viewpoints. I don't see a weighing of alternate viewpoints, I see a particular viewpoint, which I largely agree with, but no counter-balance.

Sections 2-5 are not footnoted nor referenced. I would think some footnoting would be appropriate, moreover, some of these things seem counter-intuitive, but are probably quite reasonable, but I would think some discussion between opposing viewpoints on these items would be appropriate. I get the sense I'm hearing "One side of the Story". As a quick example, a sexual harasser can be, according to this article "unaware" that their actions constitute sexual harassment, whereas murder requires intent. I'm not saying its not true, but a cornerstone in law is that intent is necessary...how is that not the case here, why does the law vary, at least in US terms, with that point...is it in other countries that this statement is true?

"Varied Behavior" (I will abbreviate using Sexual Harassment SH hereafter) The passage presupposes that an SH-er knowingly SH somebody. It says something to the effect that "One of the difficulties in understanding SH"...which presupposes motive. While in the previous section, it says that an SH-er may not know that their actions are SH. Motives are never mentioned or discussed in the article, which I think would be necessary to give this article sociological significance. For instance the article on "Rape" has a section on motivations, I think Sexual harassment should have one too.

"Behavioral Classes" is extremely biased, it presupposes malevolent intent, damage, harm or hostility. That is indeed one perspective, but should other perspectives be discussed as well? For objectivity's sake, I think it should.

Most of "Types of Sexual Harassment" also presupposes malevolence re:"serial harasser" and goes into bashing sexual harassers (which is fine by me), but lacks objectivity. The language and descriptors are not consistent with sociologically neutral terms, but loaded terms like "Socially inept", "Pest", "Eyes and Hands begin to Wander", etc. The type "Inadvertent" needs to be placed more in terms of a discussion regarding each type and perhaps the motivations for each type.

5. Types of sexual harassment also refers to "cures" in the first sentence, but I don't find material to this point.

6. "Retaliation and Backlash against a victim are common." is not referenced. I think that adding the point that people who file SH clams are often accused of protecting their own jobs or poor performance is an important point/myth that should be explored. The rest of the section seems quite good, with a few grammatical corrections.

7. "Common Effects" seems to be, as one observer in this section put it, a list for "pro-litigation" minded people. I think calling it "Effects of" would be quite sufficient, perhaps with any available statistics (do any exist? If not, that should be mentioned and why)

10.2.1 EEOC Definitions. At no point does the article mention, at least from my reading, that SH-er's conduct has to be unwelcome, according to the EEOC.

The first part of your debate section is quite good, as is most of the article, but the first five or so sections could be made more objective, spreading criticisms of different areas around. In the debate section, I'm sure a company would say "We think it should be handled internally." Which could be a matter of debate or the government shouldn't have the right to regulate free speech on private property, as opposed to government property or government contractors. One of your points "Some observer's feel that it should be zero tolerance-must report..."etc. There is no counter to that discussion point.The last part puts a blob of refrences down that could be moved to further reading or discussed in some degree (or is it work in progress? :) ).

You mention one EEOC statistic, 2007 filings for sexual harassment cases as 12,510, this statistic is quite loaded as 67.7% were either resolved by "Administrative closure" or "no reasonable cause".

I might be biased, but the overall tone also kind of points to a "pointlessness" to SH complaints and an "Hostile" environment. Perhaps some positive examples or promising statistics, maybe encouraging people who feel like they're being sexually harassed to act?

I don't believe 'prospective victims are 99% Women', EEOC statistics state that men represent roughly 12-16% of all reported cases 1999-2008.Sonthert (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire article starts with an unacceptable definition
The point of the entire article is lost in debates on the talk page, because the article actually starts off with the most vague, scientifically and judicially unacceptable definition ever. It's a definition that is so vague, that contributors can be fighting over what should and shouldn't be in this article forever and never reach a consensus.

Putting a concise, precise and concrete definition should be a priority. The current definition is taking from the "victim feminism" movements. The entire article is preceeded with a definition that ONLY a very small part of feminists agree with, and no one outside of feminism.

"Sexual harassment is unwelcome attention of a sexual nature, or gender based harassment."

To quote a russian judge making fun of this definition "If there were no sexual harassment, the human race would have long been extinct"


 * Its also important to note that this type of feminism assumes a complete asexuality of any sexual advance. In other words, the feminist theories that define sexual harassment as a power-play... are the same theories that say that any sexual advance by a man is entirely rooted in power-seeking. EveryDay example, anytime you see a man approaching a woman, or asking for a date, he's "keeping up the patriarchy and repressing women"... not trying to get laid (no i'm not kidding, they actually believe that men who hit on women aren't trying to get laid, EVER, but trying to "enforce the repression of women"). Again, this is not a joke. They really believe this stuff.


 * Feminist definition of Sexual harassment is left so vague that there is no way to determine ahead of time whether an act is sexual harassment, its only defined as such after-the-fact, when the "victim" decides she's not interested. If the right man approaches a woman, then its romantic. If the wrong man approaches a woman, then its sexual harassment. Except, the only way he can know if he's the right man, is by making a move. So its a catch 22. Therefore... the definition is completely insane (and I'm using a moderate word to describe it here)... A moral wrong-doing can not be defined as something for which the person can not know if he's doing it UNTIL he's done it.

(and I'm using he as the perpetrator and she as the receiver, because I'm talking about the currently used definition in this article, which does relate to mostly men) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.240.230 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree the lead section needs to be clarified. We should stay away from discussions of what sexual harassment should or shouldn't be, and instead rely on published, reliable sources, and indicate disagreements between schools of thought in the lead.


 * Stick to a broad definition at the beginning and narrow it to the context later. I am inclined to use legal definitions, but this might be too narrow, as much of what constitutes "sexual harassment" is not actionable.


 * Why don't you point out the specific sentences that are problematic here, and some work can be done to make them NPOV. Shadowjams (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

NewEdit: (this is the person who started this section, about needing a new definition)... I just saw that someone has put in a new definition. This definition is:

"Sexual harassment is unwelcome harassment of a sexual nature, or based upon the receiving party's sex or gender."

I REALLY like this definition, as it is very specific, and sane. Its much better than the vague one that was one for the longest time, and bonus point... it's actually referenced very nicely.

I think this problem has been solved. If everyone agrees, I think we can remove this section "articles has unacceptable definition". This is no longer the case, and I think the definition is very acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.249.212 (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

pics
--BBM20 (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
It could use some pics though.72.188.101.60 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Catcall redirect to wolf-whistling
I decided to be bold and changed catcall and catcalling to redirect to Wolf-whistling, per consensus from the two discussions above. I'm not all that familiar with the term, but as far as I know it means a similar thing to wolf-whistle, and has little to do with sexual harassment. -M.nelson (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wolf-whistling is not completely accurate either. I'm thinking a soft-redirect to Wiktionary would be best. -- &oelig; &trade; 01:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)i like whatever she/he said!

even my friend has got problems like these

tl;dr
Something reallly needs to be done about the length of this page and keep it shorter amirite?72.188.101.60 (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm assuming you meant this talk page; I've archived all the old posts. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

corruption in india
Today, everyone says indisa is a independent country, it has its own constitution and laws but do u think any one follows this rules? why today all the politians are going away unpunished there omust be a stop to this. but who will stop we have thousands of words to say but when the time comes to do something everyone is quite. why do we depend on laws and constitution when we dont want to follow it. today india is among the top 38 countries in corruption. what india is growing. all the ministers are eating money, increasing prices of vegetables and sugar and for what???? for completing big projects like lavasa and etc.... why do always we middle class people suffer. now even ecucation has become a business. people establish scools and yearly fees starts from a lakh to 12 lakhs and for what so much caharge for AC Bills high class classrooms etc.. i dont know when will this thing stop but i know one thing if we take small steps towards a change and if this politicans understand then maybe indiaa could change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urjabeauty (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment outside of workplace?
I followed a link here from the article Harassment, which clearly stated that sexual harassment occurred often, but not always in the workplace, and simply was harassment that was sexual in nature or was motivated by the target's sex, sexuality, or gender.

It would be easy for the naive reader of this article, however, to draw a very different understanding: that sexual harassment is exclusively a workplace phenomenon, dependent for its existence on workplace power relationships.

Well ... how about a transsexual woman being pursued in the street with catcalls of "Faggot, faggot"? Is this sexual harassment or not? If not, why not? If so, I suggest that this article's view angle be broadened a bit to encompass sexual harassment in other settings, or else the article itself be retitled something like Sexual harassment in the workplace.

Why does Street Harassment redirect to this article when the article doesn't even mention street harassment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QueenCaroline (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Using Sexual Harassment as a Weapon
With so much divergence in what constitutes sexual harassment, and the stigma for the accused, alleging sexual harassment can also, and has been, used as a weapon by the accuser.

e.g., The Grand Gallant section. This type of harassment is so vague it invites itself to be used as a weapon. Dwdallam (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Along this same line, is their a term for someone who sexually preys in order to secure promotion or pay raises (i.e. "sleeping with the boss")? (Submitted 8:40 PST, 19 May 2011) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.57.112 (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this whole article is BS and needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.178.154 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

biased towards men
I'm surprized nobody on Wikipedia mentioned how men get accused of sexual harassment far more often than women do when it really happens roughly half and half with women having a slight edge because they are able to get away with more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.246.31 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

and not a word about false allegations... ?
It would strengthen the wiki article on sexual harassment to include a section on the problem of false complaints.

There are many reasons for false accusations of sexual harrassment. O'Donohue and Bowers classify 14 reasons in their article:

William O'Donohue, Adrian H. Bowers. Pathways to false allegations of sexual harassment. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. Jan 2006. 3(1):44-47. DOI: 10.1002/jip.43 >Their abstract: “A sexual harassment allegation is either true or false. Whether specific allegations are true or false is important to questions of epidemiology, clinical diagnosis and treatment, administrative and legal proceedings, as well as the welfare of actual victims and innocent alleged perpetrators. It is naïve and harmful to operate with the heuristic: ‘All claims are true’. However, the truth of many allegations is very difficult to determine, particularly as is often the case when there are no witnesses, no conclusive hard evidence, and the presence of a situation where both parties have divergent accounts of the alleged occurrence. There has been little theoretical or empirical work on what would cause a person to make a false allegation of sexual harassment. This paper gives an overview of the intricacies associated with sexual harassment investigations and enumerates 14 possible pathways to false allegations: lying; borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, psychosis, gender prejudice, substance abuse, dementia, false memories, false interpretations, biased interviews, sociopathy, personality disorders not otherwise specified, investigative mistakes, and mistakes in determination of the degree of harassment.”<<

The frequency of false allegations of sexual harassment is controversial, context specific and mainly uncounted. For a recent statistic of about 6% false accusation in the far more severe matter of sexual assault, see the recent article: David Lisak, Lori Gardinier, Sarah C. Nicksa and Ashley M. Cote. False Allegations of Sexual Assault: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases. Violence Against Women. 2010;16(12):1318–1334. http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/12/1318 DOI: 10.1177/1077801210387747

>Abstract "One of the most controversial disputes affecting the discourse related to violence against women is the dispute about the frequency of false allegations of sexual assault. In an effort to add clarity to the discourse, published research on false allegations is critiqued, and the results of a new study described. All cases (N = 136) of sexual assault reported to a major Northeastern university over a 10-year period are analyzed to determine the percentage of false allegations. Of the 136 cases of sexual assault reported over the 10-year period, 8 (5.9%) are coded as false allegations. These results, taken in the context of an examination of previous research, indicate that the prevalence of false allegations [on sexual assault] is between 2% and 10%." <<<

Some institutions have amended their sexual harassment prevention policy to include a cautionary clause that accusations which are found to be insincere, untrue, false, manipulative, malicious are unacceptable, forbidden and may result in dismissal or discharge.

However, many universities, institutions and organizations do not discipline, let alone count, false complaints of sexual harassment.

Women whose accusations of domestic and sexual abuse are found to be false and even malicious enjoy immunity thanks to feminist legislation or regulation. For example in Israel, the Attorney General guideline 2.5 mandates exemption from prosecution to women who made false police complaint on domestic violence.

Perhaps there should be a separate wiki page on false accusations of sexual harrassment. -- Yohananw (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment - United Kingdom
Please review the section within the page in relation to Sexual Harassment in the UK.

In the context of employment, the provisions for Sexual Harassment are within the Equality Act 2010.

The legislation being quoted in the main document has been repealed.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.12.103 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question
If you are accused of sexual harassment by your employer do they have to tell what you've said. I'm curious because I was once accused and my employer will not tell me what they claim I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.243.100 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, you should probably direct this question to a legal help site or a lawyer, not to wikipedia. Second, under most circumstances, yes, they must tell you about the nature of the allegations against you. Workplace sexual harassment claims are handled under Title VII, which explicitly grant due process rights to the accused. That means that you have the right to speak in your own defense at a hearing, and the right to be told exactly what you are accused of. If they didn't do this, then go talk to a lawyer.Firenech (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Media and Literature section poorly formulated
The section on media and literature is haphazard and very US-centric. The very long item on a Fox television series is barely relevant and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.18.246 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexual harassment in Italy
There should be a section on sexual harassment in Italy.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

New photo?
A photo was added to Sexual_harassment. Can anyone explain what is the connection between the photo and the text? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the photo was part of a project depicting social issues. This one was created as a dramatization of sexual harrassment. There are a couple of others but I chose this one as it obscures the faces of the models.Thelmadatter (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060104012155/http://www.webcom.com:80/wcs/harass.html to http://www.webcom.com/wcs/harass.html#effects
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081220123857/http://www.ilo.org:80/public/english/protection/safework/gender/encyclo/psy14ae.htm to http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/gender/encyclo/psy14ae.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060215113203/http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org:80/Backlash.html to http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/Backlash.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060320085347/http://www.kscourts.org:80/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-1055.htm to http://www.kscourts.org/CA10/cases/1999/08/97-1055.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060708062743/http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org:80/SHworkplace.html to http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/SHworkplace.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060203104653/http://www.aaup.org:80/publications/Academe/1998/98so/SO98Alg.HTM to http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/1998/98so/SO98Alg.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060118134554/http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org:80/effects.html to http://www.sexualharassmentsupport.org/effects.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516085341/http://www.uoregon.edu/%7Ecounsel/harass.htm to http://www.uoregon.edu/~counsel/harass.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070831002533/http://www.eoc.org.uk:80/Default.aspx?page=15657 to http://www.eoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=15657

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120322111900/http://www.amicus.iupindia.org/Lels_WorkplaceHarassment_ovw.asp to http://www.amicus.iupindia.org/Lels_WorkplaceHarassment_ovw.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not illegal in the ordinary sense of that word
In the intro it says "In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal."

First of all, this is a blanket statement that needs support. If it is a fact that "in most [somethings] sexual harrassment is illegal" then that needs a citation.

Next, what does "most modern" mean? I assume "most" is modifying "contexts' and isn't a qualifier for how modern something is. Also, what is a "legal context"? Are you saying areas of the law? Does it refer to the laws in various jurisdictions? In fact, as discussed below, sexual harassment is mostly relevant in the workplace or in education settings. What does saying something is illegal in a legal context mean?

When you say that certain activity is illegal most people would assume that you are saying the activity is a crime.that could be prosecuted. In the United States, "Sexual Harassment" describes activity that is inappropriate in a work or education setting. Furthermore, according to the EEOC, "harassment is illegal [only] when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted)."

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

If it doesn't reach that level, then it isn't sexual harassment. I'm most familiar with the US, and sexual harassment is only unlawful in work or education settings. It appears from the rest of the article this is also the case in most jurisdictions mentioned.

In any event, this sentence is so problematic that I am deleting it. I don't think anything is lost by doing so. Ileanadu (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User SPECIFICO has reverted my deletion of this statement because "Statement is adequately sourced in the following sentence 'illegal' does not mean 'criminal'." However, the same objections still apply. First of all even if illegal does not mean criminal, that is not a source. A source is a citation, objective, authoritative support for a proposition or factual statement. In this case the statement that sexual harassment is "in most modern legal contexts" illegal. What is a legal context? What are modern contexts versus non modern ones? In how many of these contexts is said behavior illegal. In the US sexual harassment is only illegal in the workplace and in education. Even in those "contexts" it is not universally applicable. Title VII only governs some employers:


 * The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service.


 * https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm


 * While it has been expanded to the federal government and D.C., it still does not affect small employers. Furthermore, religious institutions are partially exempt


 * This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.


 * Title IX "has the potential to apply to an entire school, or institution, that receives federal financial assistance" but does not apply to:


 * social fraternities and sororities, sex-specific youth clubs such as Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, and Girls State and Boys State are specifically exempt from its requirements.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX#Applicability_and_compliance


 * Thus, a private educational institution which manages to avoid receiving federal funds, admittedly a difficult thing to accomplish, is not subject to Title IX.


 * Sexual harassment statutes do not extend to behavior among private individuals outside of the workplace or education environments.


 * So I ask again, what does "illegal in most modern legal contexts mean" and is that claim valid. If it is a valid statement of fact it needs a citation.


 * I once again propose that the sentence be deleted or reworded to make its meaning clear. Ileanadu (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not propose a rewording that retains the meaning, namely that sexual harassment is illegal in the contemporary US and many other domiciles. SPECIFICO  talk  03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310223845/http://shsf.invisionzone.com:80/index.php?showtopic=445 to http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=445
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622065038/http://privat.ub.uib.no:80/BUBSY/playboy.htm to http://privat.ub.uib.no/bubsy/playboy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcom.com/wcs/harass.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uoregon.edu/~counsel/harass.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011083501/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/index.html to http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9932/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201171917/http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/searchDetail.action?measureId=10297&baseHREF=country&baseHREFId=563 to http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/searchDetail.action?measureId=10297&baseHREF=country&baseHREFId=563
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311060132/http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=a1f5e83af0f492d74310d4d1a073b792&showtopic=279 to http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?s=a1f5e83af0f492d74310d4d1a073b792&showtopic=279
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://shsf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=445
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203063912/http://www.kmblegal.com/index.php/160/Sexual_Harassment_Law_A_Brief_Introduction_for_New_Practitioners to http://www.kmblegal.com/index.php/160/Sexual_Harassment_Law_A_Brief_Introduction_for_New_Practitioners
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614052101/http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003256.php to http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003256.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020075002/http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf to http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/DTLFinal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020063807/http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/hostilehallways.pdf to http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/hostilehallways.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717065233/http://www.cfchildren.org/articlef/walls1f/ to http://www.cfchildren.org/articlef/walls1f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070709085048/http://www.webcom.com/wcs/harass.html to http://www.webcom.com/wcs/harass.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120713063240/http://filipiniana.net/read_content.jsp?filename=L00000000018 to http://filipiniana.net/read_content.jsp?filename=L00000000018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Glee and Madmen descriptions
Reading the 'In media and in literature' section just now, it seemed to me that the 'Glee' and the 'Man Men' summaries stood out as being much longer and more detailed that the other entries, and they don't appear to be written in a very encyclopaedic manner.

The Glee entry appears a lengthy description of a number of episodes, with a lot of information that hardly seems relevant to the issue of sexual harassment.

The Mad Men entry is shorter, but contains what appear to be the opinions of the writer, it contains statements which are unreferenced, e.g. "...it is an accurate and offensive showing of how women were treated in the workplace."

I've never watched either of these shows, but I can't believe either warrant such lengthy entries. I'm thinking about changing these to something shorter, e.g.

- The Fox television musical-drama show Glee deals with issues around sexual harassment in the episodes 'The Power of Madonna', 'Never been kissed' and 'The first time'.

- The AMC drama show Mad Men, set in the 1960s, explores the extent to which sexual harassment was prevalent in society during that time.

What do other people think?Girth Summit (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted "the Wharton Project" addition
Per WP:Undue weight, I reverted an edit by Kota Thomas A. Wharton (seen here). No valid reason that we should be giving the Wharton Project's definition priority. This is also a clear WP:Conflict of interest case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Good call. There may be another home for this information, or something similar to it, somewhere in the article outside the lead. The article could do a better job at explaining the history of the term than it does currently.
 * Taking a look at the article's treatment of various definitions of it, the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas issue is the last thing mentioned at section, whereas it is the first occurrence of the term chronologically for many people.  The section  offers some U.S. Federal agency definitions but not in the context of a historical evolution.
 * I remember as HR departments in companies began to disseminate sexual harassment training in one form or another, to employees in the 2000s and thereafter. If Wharton is a big name in that development, they could conceivably be included in one of those sections (preferably not by the COI user), and likely there may be multiple sources for that kind of information, and secondary sources about that narrative would be better than company-based ones anyway. Mathglot (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Kota Thomas A. Wharton, if you keep making edits like these that I just reverted, you will be reported. And as for your edits to the Sexual violence article, we do not format our leads like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Susan Meyer
Susan Meyer is a redirect to Susan Mayer, a fictional character on television. Clarification is needed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If and when a biography is written about Susan Meyer (Cornell University), then the Cornell University researcher and activist's bio may be moved to WP:primary topic status. As long as there is no article, the fictional character is primary. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual harassment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121020062419/http://www.obj.ca/Other/Archives/2005-08-10/article-2233666/Sexual-harassment%3A-Poisoning-profit-prospects/1 to http://www.obj.ca/Other/Archives/2005-08-10/article-2233666/Sexual-harassment%3A-Poisoning-profit-prospects/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

does it need underwear picture
The same person added this image to various articles not long ago. My removal of it here has been reverted. Do we need a picture of someone in their underwear with "me too" written on them for any reason?  D r e a m Focus  23:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a common theme to write on articles of clothing or on the body where an assault occurred. I don't think the image is that problematic; it's not objectifying, sexual, demeaning, gratuitous, or shocking. It's a person in their "modest" style underwear standing there.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the page. It's just a picture of somewhere wearing underwear with the word "MeToo" which isn't even mentioned in that section. I removed it. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing situations which dont have anything of sexual nature as "sexual harassment"
This is the typical language manipulation done with coined terms. A term is coined to describe something of reality, and then over that coined term a lot of different situations or actions of different nature are added to the meaning of that term to even it's severity to them with the purpose of following particular group interests.

"The incident may arise from misunderstanding by the perpetrator and/or the victim; the perpetrator may think referring to adult co-workers as "girls" or "boys" is harmless, merely informal speech, but victims may think those words harmful and insulting because they deny the maturity and professional status of the persons being described".

This for example has nothing per se "sexual" in nature (regardless if the particular person who does so later has other attitudes which indeed are sexual in nature) and it's described as "sexual harassment". Citing sources, authors, institutions which manipulate language in this way doesnt give any validity to the fake argument that is an harassment of sexual nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.195.142.157 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

In the workplace (section)
The "In the workplace" (section) is tagged as a list, but I do not see it as a list. Please remove the tag.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Where to find all the discussion
If you are looking for concerned discussion about the content of this page, it has largely been removed ("archived") so you can't see it here. Of course, it's all still available through 'View history', if you look just below where 10 kB, 20 kB or 40 kB have been expunged. Onanoff (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Definition of "unwelcome"
Many of the definitions of sexual harassment use the word "unwelcome" but the legal definition of that word is not given explicitly. On the web I find definitions along the lines of "'Unwelcome' or 'unwanted' ... means any actions which the harasser knows, or reasonably ought to know, are not desired by the victim of harassment." By my reading of this legal definition, it may not be sufficient for the actions to be unwelcome to the harassed individual; the actions are apparently to be evaluated based upon what the harasser knows or ought to know. Is that right? If you know and can document the right answer in this article, please do! Thanks — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 20:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I found some EEOC text and added it to the article. — Q uantling (talk &#124; contribs) 16:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 19 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isresnick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydneygallagher20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Globe and Mail reference
Cadbury333 posted a reference to what is said to possibly be the first ever use of the term sexual harassment in print in Sexual_harassment. The reference is said to be an article by Hugh Gardner in the Globe and Mail from 18 March 1972. In attempting to verify the content of this article, I've been unable to find it. A web search on "..and every prisoner an unprintable word" produces only links to this Wikipedia article. The source is said to be ProQuest Historical Newspapers digital archive. I do have access to that archive as a Wikipedia editor, but searching that archive I was unable to find the Gardner article. Can someone update the reference to provide more information as to how to access it? Dash77 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dash77 asked about this possibly first published reference to "sexual harassment." I received a scanned copy of the Globe and Male article I intially cited. It was a review by Hugh Gamer of the book, Maximum Security: Letters from Prison, edited by Eve Pell (1972). The review contains this paragraph (bold my own): "Among the criminal acts perpetrated against long-term California inmates is the theft of destruction by cell-searching guards of a prisoner's appeal to a higher court, the withholding of mail, the removal of a man from one penitentiary to another where his wife cannot afford to visit him, the sexual harassment of a female visitor by a guard who promises better privileges for her man in exchange for her favors, the tearing up or scribbling of obscenities on photographs of wife and children, the deliberate breaking or confiscation of the contents of a gift package." I also looked in the actual book (via Internet Archive), but did not find that phrase. So, at least we know that "sexual harassment" was used in print in March 1972. But I cannot say for certain, of course, if it appeared earlier...although I'd be happy either way. Cadbury333 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Growing Bibliography for SOC190 Project on sexual harassment in the video game industry
https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1429&context=honors_theses http://fembotcollective.org/supplements/ada/issue1/Consalvo_Final.pdf http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444816635778

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and the Law
— Assignment last updated by Tabbyscarry (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Sociology of Metoo
— Assignment last updated by Ingotsofcopper (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)