What Is Harassment?

[Patience 4 Axl]

That's why I've said, if you're walking in the street and someone says hello, because we all know sometimes it's just a hello, why not say it to everyone walking by. If it's just a friendly hello, why single one person out. There has to be some thought process behind it and I've yet to hear what it is.

Pretty sure it's been mentioned a few dozen times in this thread already, but I'll say again what the thought process is: The person saying hello is attracted to the person to whom he/she is speaking. Trying to start conversation with someone you find attractive has never and will never be harassment, as long as it's done respectfully and as long as the speaker backs off if they are told "Not interested" or if they get no response at all.

Seriously, people ... 50 pages of this?

And I think it is has been mentioned quite many times, too, that if you have numerous such encounters, even respectful ones, the sheer amount of them, the very fact that a woman can't just go do her business wthout having to respond to many such contacts, is often bothersome, annoying, and even could be felt as harassment (again, depending upon context and numbers), EVEN if each one was respectful enough and with absolutely no ill-intent. It's like telephone marketing. They might be as respectful as possible but I still don't appreciate the contact and if I have many such a day, especially a work day when I have better things to do (= on my way down the street to meet with someone, go somewhere, do something), then I might feel very annoyed, bothered, and even, to a certain extent, harassed by such completely unsolicited, uninvited and undesired contact (especially considered my number is now unlisted in business directories). They might try and succeed at charming me if they have done some research on me or my company, but it is still a distracting annoyance in a busy work day. Some men don't understand that if they MASK their contact with a compliment then magically the woman will appreciate it! [i know that for many men THE ONLY objective is to give a well-meant compliment.] And yeah, that might work, a compliment well played will be accepted as a compliment. But I also understand it can get a bit too much at the receiving end, something we men might be engineered NOT to understand, because, after all, for some of us there lies some self-preservation in being oblivious to not understand that our chatting up is flawed or unwelcome since it makes us try again and again untill we actually succeed.

I understand you may not appreciate the contact, that is certainly your prerogative ... but that comes with the territory of being at least a mildly attractive woman. It's no different than celebs who walk the street and constantly get approached, is that also harassment just because the celeb gets tired of it? Of course not, it comes with the territory. This is just another example of (mostly) women trying to re-define the definition of harassment, it's an accusation that is being misused and overused just as several other words ie: racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

I find the idea that pretty women should just endure feeling bothered, annoyed or harassed because they happened to be born beautiful, very insensitive.

On the contrary, they do have options. They can dress less provocatively (no tight shirt and tight jeans like in the video), they can avoid areas where they are more likely to be approached, they can get a male walking partner, etc.

I see. So my option is to change what I look like, figure out a different route to get to where I'm going, and make sure I have a male escort with me at all times. The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

[Rustycage]

Just flip the script already. Men should stop doing it and in turn women should start doing it to men. Everybody happy? K

[Orsys]

Just flip the script already. Men should stop doing it and in turn women should start doing it to men. Everybody happy? K

No way. I like how I treat you. Now hurry up and paint my apartment!!

[Apollo]

The lady carried out her study with the intention of collecting and editing comments to fit in with her agenda.

A few men, in life, are creepy, many are just bad at chatting up, and engaging, strangers.

In the 80s, the whole ethos in advertising was about going out and talking to strange ladies, with your fancy new deodorant, or your lovely white teeth with your new toothpaste etc.. The concept of approaching people and engaging with them should not be discouraged. It is not a skill taught at school though, and can come across as laboured and sometime creepy in this day and age.

We live in an age where ladies want equal this and equal that, and part of that process involves them putting down men

As a random example, look at tennis at Wimbledon, the ladies play three sets, they get lower viewing figures, and generate a lot less money than the men, yet they now get equal pay and winnings. That inequality means that young UK tennis gets less funding.

I guess I would have to know the investment in men's tennis in bringing up young tennis players vs investment in women's tennis before commenting on that. I know that investment in girls sports was disgusting vs boys sports in my school and young sports teams.

And I HAVE equal rights. I just don't want things or people standing in my way of enjoying my rights. I don't have to, nor do I, put men down in my pursuit of that enjoyment. But in highlighting the inequalities, I am not putting men down. Were you putting women down in highlighting your perceived inequalities in tennis?

Not to go completely off topic, but there is a bit of controversy in the sport's world over what equality in sports actually means.

I'm confused as to why you think the poster was "putting women down" when he was just stating a fact. Tennis is just like the majority of other spots - more people attend sporting events played by males than they do by females. Yet, there is a big push from feminist groups (as well as others) that pay and participation rights should be equal.

For example.

The University of North Carolina women's basketball team averages 2,900 paying customers per game.

The University of North Carolina men's basketball team averages 18,000 paying customers per game.

So the men's team is bringing in SIX times more money into the athletic program than the women's team.

Some groups will say that everything needs to be "equal" in terms of amount of money paid to coaches, facilities, trips, etc.

But, if you wanted true equality and everybody to stand on their own - with NO special favors.......then those groups wouldn't want the men's group to fund the women's team. How is it equal or "equality for all" if one group is funding the other group's survival?

There is no equality about it if one group can't make it on their own without being funded by the other group.

And the side aspect, which he mentioned with Tennis, is that the group that is actually raising the most money ends up LOSING out on a portion of their accomplishments because they have to share an uneven amount with a group that can't make it on their own.

Imagine if that's how it worked in the real working world. You and your co-worker work purely on commission. This year you generated 40,000 worth of commission and your co-worker generated 6,000. You'd be cool if you two (even though you don't work together or your output doesn't depend on anything the co-worker does. You work independently) have to split your earnings in half? So instead of making 40 grand this year, you only make 23,000 and your co-worker (who generated 6,000) also gets 23,000 (thanks to you).

Equality in sport's doesn't really mean equality in sports. It basically means the men's teams have to fund the women's team.

BUT what I'm really curious is to why you think the poster was putting women's tennis "down" when he just stated that it doesn't draw as much attention as men's tennis does? That's just a statement of fact - no opinion attached to it at all. Why do you think he was putting them down?

[Rustycage]

Just flip the script already. Men should stop doing it and in turn women should start doing it to men. Everybody happy? K

No way. I like how I treat you. Now hurry up and paint my apartment!!

So much for a compromise.

[Orsys]

The lady carried out her study with the intention of collecting and editing comments to fit in with her agenda.

A few men, in life, are creepy, many are just bad at chatting up, and engaging, strangers.

In the 80s, the whole ethos in advertising was about going out and talking to strange ladies, with your fancy new deodorant, or your lovely white teeth with your new toothpaste etc.. The concept of approaching people and engaging with them should not be discouraged. It is not a skill taught at school though, and can come across as laboured and sometime creepy in this day and age.

We live in an age where ladies want equal this and equal that, and part of that process involves them putting down men

As a random example, look at tennis at Wimbledon, the ladies play three sets, they get lower viewing figures, and generate a lot less money than the men, yet they now get equal pay and winnings. That inequality means that young UK tennis gets less funding.

I guess I would have to know the investment in men's tennis in bringing up young tennis players vs investment in women's tennis before commenting on that. I know that investment in girls sports was disgusting vs boys sports in my school and young sports teams.

And I HAVE equal rights. I just don't want things or people standing in my way of enjoying my rights. I don't have to, nor do I, put men down in my pursuit of that enjoyment. But in highlighting the inequalities, I am not putting men down. Were you putting women down in highlighting your perceived inequalities in tennis?

Not to go completely off topic, but there is a bit of controversy in the sport's world over what equality in sports actually means.

I'm confused as to why you think the poster was "putting women down" when he was just stating a fact. Tennis is just like the majority of other spots - more people attend sporting events played by males than they do by females. Yet, there is a big push from feminist groups (as well as others) that pay and participation rights should be equal.

For example.

The University of North Carolina women's basketball team averages 2,900 paying customers per game.

The University of North Carolina men's basketball team averages 18,000 paying customers per game.

So the men's team is bringing in SIX times more money into the athletic program than the women's team.

Some groups will say that everything needs to be "equal" in terms of amount of money paid to coaches, facilities, trips, etc.

But, if you wanted true equality and everybody to stand on their own - with NO special favors.......then those groups wouldn't want the men's group to fund the women's team. How is it equal or "equality for all" if one group is funding the other group's survival?

There is no equality about it if one group can't make it on their own without being funded by the other group.

And the side aspect, which he mentioned with Tennis, is that the group that is actually raising the most money ends up LOSING out on a portion of their accomplishments because they have to share an uneven amount with a group that can't make it on their own.

Imagine if that's how it worked in the real working world. You and your co-worker work purely on commission. This year you generated 40,000 worth of commission and your co-worker generated 6,000. You'd be cool if you two (even though you don't work together or your output doesn't depend on anything the co-worker does. You work independently) have to split your earnings in half? So instead of making 40 grand this year, you only make 23,000 and your co-worker (who generated 6,000) also gets 23,000 (thanks to you).

Equality in sport's doesn't really mean equality in sports. It basically means the men's teams have to fund the women's team.

BUT what I'm really curious is to why you think the poster was putting women's tennis "down" when he just stated that it doesn't draw as much attention as men's tennis does? That's just a statement of fact - no opinion attached to it at all. Why do you think he was putting them down?

He wasn't, just as I wasn't. That was my point.

[Apollo]

The lady carried out her study with the intention of collecting and editing comments to fit in with her agenda.

A few men, in life, are creepy, many are just bad at chatting up, and engaging, strangers.

In the 80s, the whole ethos in advertising was about going out and talking to strange ladies, with your fancy new deodorant, or your lovely white teeth with your new toothpaste etc.. The concept of approaching people and engaging with them should not be discouraged. It is not a skill taught at school though, and can come across as laboured and sometime creepy in this day and age.

We live in an age where ladies want equal this and equal that, and part of that process involves them putting down men

As a random example, look at tennis at Wimbledon, the ladies play three sets, they get lower viewing figures, and generate a lot less money than the men, yet they now get equal pay and winnings. That inequality means that young UK tennis gets less funding.

I guess I would have to know the investment in men's tennis in bringing up young tennis players vs investment in women's tennis before commenting on that. I know that investment in girls sports was disgusting vs boys sports in my school and young sports teams.

And I HAVE equal rights. I just don't want things or people standing in my way of enjoying my rights. I don't have to, nor do I, put men down in my pursuit of that enjoyment. But in highlighting the inequalities, I am not putting men down. Were you putting women down in highlighting your perceived inequalities in tennis?

Not to go completely off topic, but there is a bit of controversy in the sport's world over what equality in sports actually means.

I'm confused as to why you think the poster was "putting women down" when he was just stating a fact. Tennis is just like the majority of other spots - more people attend sporting events played by males than they do by females. Yet, there is a big push from feminist groups (as well as others) that pay and participation rights should be equal.

For example.

The University of North Carolina women's basketball team averages 2,900 paying customers per game.

The University of North Carolina men's basketball team averages 18,000 paying customers per game.

So the men's team is bringing in SIX times more money into the athletic program than the women's team.

Some groups will say that everything needs to be "equal" in terms of amount of money paid to coaches, facilities, trips, etc.

But, if you wanted true equality and everybody to stand on their own - with NO special favors.......then those groups wouldn't want the men's group to fund the women's team. How is it equal or "equality for all" if one group is funding the other group's survival?

There is no equality about it if one group can't make it on their own without being funded by the other group.

And the side aspect, which he mentioned with Tennis, is that the group that is actually raising the most money ends up LOSING out on a portion of their accomplishments because they have to share an uneven amount with a group that can't make it on their own.

Imagine if that's how it worked in the real working world. You and your co-worker work purely on commission. This year you generated 40,000 worth of commission and your co-worker generated 6,000. You'd be cool if you two (even though you don't work together or your output doesn't depend on anything the co-worker does. You work independently) have to split your earnings in half? So instead of making 40 grand this year, you only make 23,000 and your co-worker (who generated 6,000) also gets 23,000 (thanks to you).

Equality in sport's doesn't really mean equality in sports. It basically means the men's teams have to fund the women's team.

BUT what I'm really curious is to why you think the poster was putting women's tennis "down" when he just stated that it doesn't draw as much attention as men's tennis does? That's just a statement of fact - no opinion attached to it at all. Why do you think he was putting them down?

He wasn't, just as I wasn't. That was my point.

My bad - I apologize.

I read your sentence wrong.

[Facekicker]

That's why I've said, if you're walking in the street and someone says hello, because we all know sometimes it's just a hello, why not say it to everyone walking by. If it's just a friendly hello, why single one person out. There has to be some thought process behind it and I've yet to hear what it is.

Pretty sure it's been mentioned a few dozen times in this thread already, but I'll say again what the thought process is: The person saying hello is attracted to the person to whom he/she is speaking. Trying to start conversation with someone you find attractive has never and will never be harassment, as long as it's done respectfully and as long as the speaker backs off if they are told "Not interested" or if they get no response at all.

Seriously, people ... 50 pages of this?

And I think it is has been mentioned quite many times, too, that if you have numerous such encounters, even respectful ones, the sheer amount of them, the very fact that a woman can't just go do her business wthout having to respond to many such contacts, is often bothersome, annoying, and even could be felt as harassment (again, depending upon context and numbers), EVEN if each one was respectful enough and with absolutely no ill-intent. It's like telephone marketing. They might be as respectful as possible but I still don't appreciate the contact and if I have many such a day, especially a work day when I have better things to do (= on my way down the street to meet with someone, go somewhere, do something), then I might feel very annoyed, bothered, and even, to a certain extent, harassed by such completely unsolicited, uninvited and undesired contact (especially considered my number is now unlisted in business directories). They might try and succeed at charming me if they have done some research on me or my company, but it is still a distracting annoyance in a busy work day. Some men don't understand that if they MASK their contact with a compliment then magically the woman will appreciate it! [i know that for many men THE ONLY objective is to give a well-meant compliment.] And yeah, that might work, a compliment well played will be accepted as a compliment. But I also understand it can get a bit too much at the receiving end, something we men might be engineered NOT to understand, because, after all, for some of us there lies some self-preservation in being oblivious to not understand that our chatting up is flawed or unwelcome since it makes us try again and again untill we actually succeed.

I understand you may not appreciate the contact, that is certainly your prerogative ... but that comes with the territory of being at least a mildly attractive woman. It's no different than celebs who walk the street and constantly get approached, is that also harassment just because the celeb gets tired of it? Of course not, it comes with the territory. This is just another example of (mostly) women trying to re-define the definition of harassment, it's an accusation that is being misused and overused just as several other words ie: racist, sexist, homophobe, etc.

I find the idea that pretty women should just endure feeling bothered, annoyed or harassed because they happened to be born beautiful, very insensitive.

On the contrary, they do have options. They can dress less provocatively (no tight shirt and tight jeans like in the video), they can avoid areas where they are more likely to be approached, they can get a male walking partner, etc.

I see. So my option is to change what I look like, figure out a different route to get to where I'm going, and make sure I have a male escort with me at all times. The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

You know in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan they advocate the wearing of a Burqa so men won't be tempted to do this. I like how you are suggesting that legislation be put in place as an alternative to the Burqa. That way all men who just can't control their urge to have sex with you because you are so beautiful will just have to keep their mouths shut or face a prison sentence.

Maybe now I understand what they mean by - "They hate us for our freedoms"

Not having to wear a Burqa in public still allows the men to rape you with their eyes. Those LUCKY AMERICAN MEN!

Guess the only way to stop men looking at you in public is to blind them all with a stick. Hopefully you can get that law passed before Father Time robs you of your beauty. Oh the patriarchy!

[Orsys]

The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

Regardless of whether you think "addressing" women is right or wrong, it's not a matter of what "should" be ... it's a matter of accepting reality.

I SHOULD be comfortable parking my car in a public place without bothering to lock the doors or set the alarm.

I SHOULD be comfortable leaving the front door to my house unlocked.

I SHOULD be comfortable letting my kid wait at the bus stop by herself.

I SHOULD be comfortable walking in public with my wallet in my back pocket.

I SHOULD be comfortable crossing a street in a crosswalk without first looking both ways.

Reality is, I'm not comfortable in ANY of those situations. So I adapt.

But you don't like that you are not comfortable in any of those situations, correct?

I wondered how long it would take for burqas to come up.

[Facekicker]

The notion that a legislative barrier be erected to criminalize normal public social interaction between the sexes is frankly fucking insane and smacks of something out of Orwell's 1984.

Then again, more and more people look to the government or a pill to solve all of life's woes.

It's a wonder some people can step outside their front door without wrapping themselves in a thousand layers of cotton wool.

[Roush]

I see. So my option is to change what I look like, figure out a different route to get to where I'm going, and make sure I have a male escort with me at all times. The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

Yup, the world doesn't revolve around you and your needs.

[Facekicker]

Very interesting read.

Street Harassment Isn’t About Sexism—It’s About Privilege
Kay Hymowitz @KayHymowitz Nov. 4, 2014


Americans would rather talk about almost anything other than class. Even today as income inequality and racial and gender disparities dominate the headlines, even among the tell-all Millennials, class is quarantined from the arena of respectable conversation.

The latest example of this stubborn truism emerged after a video showing the catcalling torment young women face on city streets was posted on YouTube. Many viewers noticed that in the two-minute video by the activist group Hollaback!, condensed from a single woman’s 10 hour walk around New York City, all of the offending men were black and Hispanic. They chastised the creators for creating the appearance that white men don’t do this sort of thing, which led ultimately to an apology from Rob Bliss the video producer.

To say that Bliss was being disingenuous is putting it mildly. In a little noticed item on the website of the alternative magazine Mass Appeal Chris Moore did a little sleuthing and found that more than half of the shots used in the film appeared to be shot on 125th Street in Harlem, a predominately poor, black neighborhood. Much of the rest were shot near Times Square and Canal Street, neither area what anyone would call genteel. You have to give Bliss this much credit: He knew what he and very few other people are willing to admit. Street harassment is largely a class thing. In New York, at any rate, that means it’s also a race thing.

Now before anyone tweets about the pasty skinned guys from Morgan Stanley who whisper nasty somethings in her ear when she’s on line at the Financial District Starbucks, let’s get the obvious on the table: Street harassers can come in all colors and sport all kinds of pedigrees. Without a doubt, there are white guys in Brooks Brothers or Zegna who will ruin a girl’s morning with an unwelcome suggestion for where on her body he would like to deposit his bodily fluids.

Still. These bespoke brutes may not be a rare breed, but they’re just not common enough to spoil a good 10 hour walk along the Upper East Side. Young women who tense up as they approach a construction site know full well that walking past the guys who drive the fork lift will almost surely result in some unwanted attention; walking past the architects who are pouring over the blueprints probably won’t.

The catcalling gap will make sense to anyone who has noticed that middle class men and women tend to have a different physical and sexual presentation than their less privileged peers. Psychologists have long known that there are marked class differences in child rearing that can explain this. Preparing their children for office and stable domestic life, middle class parents have always nudged their children to display what was once known as “bourgeois propriety.” The term doesn’t seem to fit an America where, as the “Advice Goddess” Amy Alkon has said, even “nice people say f–k.” But middle class homes continue to encourage their children to use their “inside voices,” to demonstrate bodily self-discipline (one reason obesity has become a class marker), to play nice, and to soften the rough edges of male physicality. They ban toy guns from their homes and petition schools to prohibit dodgeball and other “human target” games.

Lower income parents tend to be less “proper” in their childrearing, dispensing more physical punishment and shrugging off rough and tumble play. The difference shows up in school where lower income kids, particularly boys, have more trouble sitting still, paying attention, and keeping quiet; educators consistently report they have more behavior problems. It should come as no surprise that these same boys grow up to become men who are more blatantly, and for middle class women especially, more obnoxiously, interested in every passing young thing. In rare but important instances this goes well beyond obnoxious; lower income men (and women) are also more likely than middle class to be involved in domestic violence disputes.

The catcalling gap creates some cognitive dissonance for promoters of the idea of “white male privilege.” If men of color and working class dudes are the biggest offenders, then middle class (mostly white) are the good — or at least the less bad — guys. Middle class men may no longer open doors for women or help them carry heavy suitcases, but most of them would be mortified to hear a friend shout “Hey baby; shake that thing!” to passing strangers as they rush to take their poli-sci class or make their 10 a.m. project meeting.

That raises the question of how the disproportionately white campus has become the site where so many men behave badly. That’s easy to answer. Put middle class men in a frat house with flowing kegs, and their manners melt into a boozy puddle. That’s exactly the point of the whole exercise. People —men and women — drink because it feels good to shed their inhibitions, to say the sorts of things of which their parents might not approve and do things their daytime, classroom selves may wonder at.

Ironically, then, Hollaback!’s video suggests that privilege belongs to white middle class women as much as their male classmates. For all of the myriad problems they face in a college sex scene drenched in alcohol, women students can walk the ivy paths with minimum of hassle (unless they pass by the guys building the new student center with yoga studio and state of the art fitness center). When they move to a chaotic, multicultural city, however, especially if they venture into Harlem and Times Square, they find themselves bumping up against all types — blue collar and poor men, immigrants and children of immigrants, men whose parents may not have raised them to treat women with the sort of restraint their own brothers and fathers do. And they don’t like it one bit.

Even Rob Bliss — especially Rob Bliss! — has to know there’s not much anyone can do about it. Unless they’re willing to see a lot more minority men hassled by the police.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Facekicker

[magisme]

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Edited November 7, 2014 by magisme

[alfierose]

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

[Facekicker]

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Please clarify their race and attractiveness before I pass judgement.

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

University policy is overwhelmingly dictated by feminists. It overrides everything on campus.

[alfierose]

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Was he good looking though? Makes a difference y' know. :-p

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Please clarify their race and attractiveness before I pass judgement.

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

University policy is overwhelmingly dictated by feminists. It overrides everything on campus.

Tsk. Look at us women ruling the world!

[Orsys]

The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

Regardless of whether you think "addressing" women is right or wrong, it's not a matter of what "should" be ... it's a matter of accepting reality.

I SHOULD be comfortable parking my car in a public place without bothering to lock the doors or set the alarm.

I SHOULD be comfortable leaving the front door to my house unlocked.

I SHOULD be comfortable letting my kid wait at the bus stop by herself.

I SHOULD be comfortable walking in public with my wallet in my back pocket.

I SHOULD be comfortable crossing a street in a crosswalk without first looking both ways.

Reality is, I'm not comfortable in ANY of those situations. So I adapt.

But you don't like that you are not comfortable in any of those situations, correct?

Correct!

But the difference?

I don't complain about it, I don't refuse to accept it, and I don't refuse to adapt. It is what it is, I simply learn to deal ... like avoiding certain sections of certain cities.

I must protest. A male started the thread asking members for their opinions on a video. The discussions took a very natural turn to members talking about their own related experiences. Surely there is no issue with some of those members being female, is there (she asks as she bats her eyelashes hoping her feminine wiles win you over)?

[Facekicker]

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Was he good looking though? Makes a difference y' know. :-p

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Please clarify their race and attractiveness before I pass judgement.

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

University policy is overwhelmingly dictated by feminists. It overrides everything on campus.

Tsk. Look at us women ruling the world!

The problem is when Universities enact policy based on people who think along these lines

it leads to this kind of thing...

Dozens of Harvard Law School faculty members are asking the university to withdraw its new sexual misconduct policy, saying that it violates basic principles of fairness and would do more harm than good.

“Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required” by the federal anti-discrimination law, known as Title IX, they wrote in an op-ed article signed by 28 current and retired members of the Harvard Law faculty and posted online by The Boston Globe on Tuesday night.

Harvard College and Harvard Law School are among the dozens of higher-education institutions under investigation by the federal education department over their handling of complaints of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

The federal government has threatened to withhold funds from universities that do not have adequate sexual misconduct policies.

So over the summer, Harvard, like many other institutions on the list, announced a broad new policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence. The policy, which went into effect last month, defined sexual harassment for the first time, and created new procedures for dealing with complaints.

The law professors say the new procedures are fundamentally flawed.

“Harvard has made the Title IX office the charger, the prosecutor, the investigator, the adjudicator and the appeals board, and its sole task is to get this Title IX furor to go away. So at every stage, that office is deeply invested in the rightness of what they did at the prior stage,” said Janet Halley, one of the professors who signed the article. “It’s a totally secret process, in which real genuine unfairnesses can happen, and it’s so airtight that no one would know.”

The new policy, the professors said, is skewed against the accused, who have no assurance of adequate representation, or of a chance to confront witnesses or present a defense at an adversary hearing.

In a statement responding to the law professors, Harvard defended the new policy, which it said was “an expert, neutral, fair and objective mechanism for investigating sexual misconduct cases involving students.”

“The university appreciates that not every member of the community will agree with every aspect of the new approach,” the statement said. “Some believe the policies and procedures go too far; others believe that they do not go far enough.”

While Harvard is confident that the new policy and procedures offer a “thoughtful, fair and consistent approach to these profoundly complex and sensitive situations,” the statement said, it added that a committee of faculty, staff and students will consider possible improvements.

MaryRose Mazzola, a public policy student at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and member of Harvard Students Demand Respect, is one of those who would like to see an even tougher sexual misconduct policy. Her group has started a petition to add to the policy an affirmative consent provision, similar to one recently adopted in California, requiring both students to consent actively to each sexual act.

“We’re deeply concerned with the sentiments of the letter,” Ms. Mazzola said. “But it’s important to note that the latter is from some law faculty, but doesn’t represent the whole school or the university or the students. There’s disagreement on both sides.”

The Harvard law professors are not the only ones pushing back against the policies that have resulted from the Department of Education’s more aggressive enforcement efforts. An article in the Oct. 27 issue of The New Republic magazine argues that many college students accused of sexual assault are having their rights trampled. Its author, Judith Shulevitz, cited 20 pending lawsuits by students who said they had been treated unfairly.

[MB.]

The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

Regardless of whether you think "addressing" women is right or wrong, it's not a matter of what "should" be ... it's a matter of accepting reality.

I SHOULD be comfortable parking my car in a public place without bothering to lock the doors or set the alarm.

I SHOULD be comfortable leaving the front door to my house unlocked.

I SHOULD be comfortable letting my kid wait at the bus stop by herself.

I SHOULD be comfortable walking in public with my wallet in my back pocket.

I SHOULD be comfortable crossing a street in a crosswalk without first looking both ways.

Reality is, I'm not comfortable in ANY of those situations. So I adapt.

You are not comfortable cause you are afraid you get robbed or that they hurt your kid. Both things are illigal though. So we didn't accept that, we made laws against that. . You adapt cause it is still happenening even with those laws, but there still are laws.

Personally I would really like vulgair street calling to be illigal and fined. Women can do without a 'baby, want to f...!' when walking the streets.

[Facekicker]

The solution couldn't possibly be that maybe men should just stop addressing women they don't know who happen to pass them on the street. Ok. Nothing wrong there at all.

Regardless of whether you think "addressing" women is right or wrong, it's not a matter of what "should" be ... it's a matter of accepting reality.

I SHOULD be comfortable parking my car in a public place without bothering to lock the doors or set the alarm.

I SHOULD be comfortable leaving the front door to my house unlocked.

I SHOULD be comfortable letting my kid wait at the bus stop by herself.

I SHOULD be comfortable walking in public with my wallet in my back pocket.

I SHOULD be comfortable crossing a street in a crosswalk without first looking both ways.

Reality is, I'm not comfortable in ANY of those situations. So I adapt.

You are not comfortable cause you are afraid you get robbed or that they hurt your kid. Both things are illigal though. So we didn't accept that, we made laws against that. . You adapt cause it is still happenening even with those laws, but there still are laws.

Personally I would really like vulgair street calling to be illigal and fined. Women can do without a 'baby, want to f...!' when walking the streets.

How do you propose to police a law like that. Install listening devices on the streets?

[alfierose]

@Facekicker, that article doesn't state what the sexual misconduct code involves exactly. On the face of it, I agree an accused should be able to fairly put forward a defense. I also agree that mutual consent should be agreed for different sexual acts. Other than that I would need more detail to decide if it's reasonable or not.

On the flip side there is evidence of a number of cases where men have been able to use the law to further persecute their victim.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/nov/06/call-crown-prosecutors-account-suicide-alleged-rape-victim

[magisme]

@Face

24F, Caucasian, 6/10. What do I do?

Edited November 7, 2014 by magisme

[Len Cnut]

@Face

24F, Caucasian, 6/10. What do I do?

Find out if she likes Appetite for Destruction and then depending on the response you may be allowed to rape her.

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Was he good looking though? Makes a difference y' know. :-p

Coworker told me my ass looks good in the pants I'm wearing. Harassed as fuck.

Please clarify their race and attractiveness before I pass judgement.

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

University policy is overwhelmingly dictated by feminists. It overrides everything on campus.

Tsk. Look at us women ruling the world!

The problem is when Universities enact policy based on people who think along these lines

it leads to this kind of thing...

Dozens of Harvard Law School faculty members are asking the university to withdraw its new sexual misconduct policy, saying that it violates basic principles of fairness and would do more harm than good.

Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by the federal anti-discrimination law, known as Title IX, they wrote in an op-ed article signed by 28 current and retired members of the Harvard Law faculty and posted online by The Boston Globe on Tuesday night.

Harvard College and Harvard Law School are among the dozens of higher-education institutions under investigation by the federal education department over their handling of complaints of sexual assault or sexual harassment.

The federal government has threatened to withhold funds from universities that do not have adequate sexual misconduct policies.

So over the summer, Harvard, like many other institutions on the list, announced a broad new policy aimed at preventing sexual harassment and sexual violence. The policy, which went into effect last month, defined sexual harassment for the first time, and created new procedures for dealing with complaints.

The law professors say the new procedures are fundamentally flawed.

Harvard has made the Title IX office the charger, the prosecutor, the investigator, the adjudicator and the appeals board, and its sole task is to get this Title IX furor to go away. So at every stage, that office is deeply invested in the rightness of what they did at the prior stage, said Janet Halley, one of the professors who signed the article. Its a totally secret process, in which real genuine unfairnesses can happen, and its so airtight that no one would know.

The new policy, the professors said, is skewed against the accused, who have no assurance of adequate representation, or of a chance to confront witnesses or present a defense at an adversary hearing.

In a statement responding to the law professors, Harvard defended the new policy, which it said was an expert, neutral, fair and objective mechanism for investigating sexual misconduct cases involving students.

The university appreciates that not every member of the community will agree with every aspect of the new approach, the statement said. Some believe the policies and procedures go too far; others believe that they do not go far enough.

While Harvard is confident that the new policy and procedures offer a thoughtful, fair and consistent approach to these profoundly complex and sensitive situations, the statement said, it added that a committee of faculty, staff and students will consider possible improvements.

MaryRose Mazzola, a public policy student at Harvards Kennedy School of Government and member of Harvard Students Demand Respect, is one of those who would like to see an even tougher sexual misconduct policy. Her group has started a petition to add to the policy an affirmative consent provision, similar to one recently adopted in California, requiring both students to consent actively to each sexual act.

Were deeply concerned with the sentiments of the letter, Ms. Mazzola said. But its important to note that the latter is from some law faculty, but doesnt represent the whole school or the university or the students. Theres disagreement on both sides.

The Harvard law professors are not the only ones pushing back against the policies that have resulted from the Department of Educations more aggressive enforcement efforts. An article in the Oct. 27 issue of The New Republic magazine argues that many college students accused of sexual assault are having their rights trampled. Its author, Judith Shulevitz, cited 20 pending lawsuits by students who said they had been treated unfairly.

If you dont want to be stared at surely taking a picture of yourself with a placard with some shit written on it is a bad idea?

Edited November 7, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Dazey]

I read somewhere that this years intake of Oxbridge students were made to attend classes about sexual consent. I don't think it's entirely a social class thing.

Probably because half of them had spent the last 10 years being buggered at boarding school.

[alfierose]

@Face

24F, Caucasian, 6/10. What do I do?

Is that 6 ft 10 and 24 f bra size? Wow! You know real life Barbie.