Sexual Harassment: Is There Any Doubt About What It Is - Essay Example

Sexual Harassment: Is There Any Doubt About What It Is? (Argument Paper) The world facesmany challenges regarding issues that affect humanity whether at work, home, and in many other settings. While trying to find solutions to these challenges, issues related to the approaches to use will always arise. In effect, the public engages in the debate that can be held through public forums in education publications in order to find a common ground and solve these new challenges, which might be without success in some instances. Therefore, what follows is a continuous debate in the public domain on the right approach and the wrong approaches to the problem. In view of this fact, one of the issues that the public continues debating to date is the issue of sexual harassment. In this case, this issue has led to laws meant to deal with this issue by defining sexual harassment offenses although the laws face a lot of debate and opposition from a cross-section of people. The sexual harassment offences range from candid comments to rape, and assault, which may seem obvious to many people, but there is a thin line between the offenses that qualify and do not qualify as sexual harassment offences. Goodman pointed out a relationship in the assumptions people had between date rape and sexual harassment. In this regard, a man has a different perspective on date rape from a woman’s perspective by noting that to a man, it was a date, while to the woman it was rape. Hence, a man does not identify any offence caused during the process while a woman takes offence and legal action against the man. Similarly, Goodman noted, “Sexual harassment comes with some of these assumptions. What he labels sexual, she labels harassment” (180). In effect, a man will not be able to draw the limit between a sexual comment and activity and will proceed on until the moment when the woman will take offence in the action and take legal action. In effect, the failure to differentiate between sexual and harassment will result to prosecutions based on failure to have a clear definition. In addition, there is an exaggeration of sexual harassment offences by classifying rape as one of the offences. Paul opined on the usefulness “to call rape ‘sexual harassment’ as doubtful, for it makes the latter concept overly broad while trivializing the former” (187). The measurement of offenses as sexual harassment is another issue that remains contentious. Goodman notes, “Sexual harassment rules are based on the point of view of the victim, nearly always a woman” (180). In effect, this makes the woman, in a sexual harassment case, the determining factor of sexual harassment with her feelings being instrumental in determining whether there was a sexual harassment. Goodman further noted the woman’s feelings did not only consider physical assault, but “whether the environment in which she works is intimidating and coercive…it says that her feelings matter” (180). In this regard, defining sexual harassment from a woman’s perspective effectively opens the definition to abuse and settling of scores amongst people, especially in the workplace. Following the use of a woman as the main perspective in measuring sexual offenses, another contested area regards a judges determination of a sexual harassment offense and morally wrong behavior. In view of this fact, Paul calls for restoring the distinction “morally offensive behavior and behavior that causes serious harm” (186). In this case, the current situation leaves this determination to judges who undoubtedly make decisions based on their preferences and biases. In effect, this does not make the process fair since there is no clear definition. Therefore, Paul reckons “lesser but not trivial offenses should be moral lapses for which the offending parties receives opprobrium, disciplinary warnings, or warnings depending on the setting and the severity” (187). While realizing the lack of clarity in defining sexual harassment offenses clearly in 1991, McCarthy noted, the “most organized and systematic assault on free speech and privacy since the McCarthy era” (189). In this context, McCarthy was of the opinion that the definition of the use of some statements and words such as ‘honey’ and ‘sweetheart’ as sexual harassment offenses were an assault to freedom of speech since it curtailed on an individual’s right to expression. To accentuate the failure to define sexual harassment clearly, McCarthy noted the law failed to provide “guidelines to define ‘offensive’ and ‘harassment’” (190). In effect, the lack of a clear definition structure makes the law on sexual harassment a draconian law. McCarthy supports this argument and quipped, “This is a cultural fascism unmatched since the Chinese communists outlawed hand-holding, decorative clothing, and premarital sex” (190). McCarthy realizes the trivialization of some sexual harassment offenses and noted, “No one, female or male, can expect to enjoy a working environment that is perfectly stress-free, or to be treated always and by everyone with kindness and respect” (187). In this regard, it is evident that some of the offences are trifling and petty, and they should not meet the threshold of sexual harassment. However, McCarthy notes, “Sympathetic judges have encouraged women to seek monetary compensation for slights and annoyances” (187). According to Fitzgerald, sexual harassment consisted of gender harassment, which “represents sexist and derogatory comments and jokes about women in general” (qtd. in Welsh 171). In this case, Fitzgerald is of the point that some offensive behaviors that demean a woman are a form of gender harassment, which is sexual harassment. To some extent, it is true that men will use language that is derogatory and demeaning to a woman. However, it is important to point out that Fitzgerald does not clarify on this form of language. Indeed, men make some comments and jokes on women, which may sound sexist and derogatory, without an intention of causing harm or offense. Some of the comments include words such as “honey” and “sweetheart” that we always hear bandied around in our society. In this case, drawing the boundary between when a word becomes derogatory or not is challenging since it amounts to interfering with an individual’s freedom of expression. On the other hand, Welsh identified sexual harassment as unwanted sexual attention that “consists of unsolicited sexual remarks, questions and/or sexual touching” (172). From Welsh’s point of view, it is evident that there are some actions that men engaged in, which may cause unwanted sexual attention to women. In fact, a number of women will feel unease when they encounter some behavior by men in the form of touching, making some remarks, and asking questions of a sexual nature. However, it is important to draw a boundary between flirting and lewd remarks and questions meant to cause unwanted sexual attention. In effect, the general classification of all unsolicited remarks as sexual harassment causes more confusion on the definition of sexual harassment. According to Fitzgerald, the overall definition of sexual harassment depends on the “psychological construct consisting of unwanted sex-related behavior at work that is appraised by the recipient as offensive, exceeding her resources or threatening her well-being” (qtd. in Welsh 171). In this case, it is the prerogative of an individual to define the meaning of sexual harassment according to their experiences. In this case, a woman will determine what they deem as inappropriate behavior and decide to take legal action depending on whether they considered an action as offensive or one that threatened their well-being. In effect, some women will consider some trifling behavior as offensive and a threat to their well-being. Therefore, this definition lacks clarity since some women will undergo sexual harassment without taking legal action while others will seek justice in the courts whereby most judges will rule in their favor. Therefore, the existing thin line between an offense qualifying as offensive or not depending on an individual is a result of leaving it to the “psychological construct” of an individual to determine the offenses that are offensive and those that do not meet this threshold according to their psychological nature. In conclusion, it is important to define sexual harassment properly using the pertinent laws and publicizing the definition in order for individuals to understand the offenses that qualify as sexual harassment. Based on this expose, it is evident that the various definitions of sexual harassment in the contemporary world failed to provide a clear perspective and rationale of defining sexual harassment offenses. Case in point, basing the definition of sexual harassment on a woman’s perspective, and especially on their “psychological construct,” leaves room for abuse and makes some offenses fail to qualify as sexual harassment offenses while others, which are more trivial, qualified as sexual harassment offenses based on a victims perspective. Works Cited Goodman, Ellen. “The Reasonable Woman Standard.” Contemporary and Classic Arguments: A Portable Literature. Eds. Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Badeu. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2004. 292-308. Print. McCarthy, Sarah J. “Cultural Fascism.” Contemporary and Classic Arguments: A Portable Literature. Eds. Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Badeu. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2004. 292-308. Print. Paul, Ellen Frankel. “Bared Buttocks and Federal Cases.” Contemporary and Classic Arguments: A Portable Literature. Eds. Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Badeu. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2004. 292-308. Print. Welsh, Sandy. Gender and Sexual Harassment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1999):169-190. Web. 24 April 2012. . Read More