CDZ A bottom-up (no pun) approach to exposing sexual harassment

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Jan 1, 2017
10,923
1,635
290
D.C.
In the U.S. much has been in the news about prominent individuals' abusing their notoriety and/or power to create duress -- personal, social, financial/professional and/or political -- and in turn cajole others into acquiescing to all sorts of things from obliging a fetish to performing various sex acts. Far less often, however, do we hear about "regular" folks doing the same things.

Yes, we have the national sex offenders list, but when does any news organization announce the addition of new individuals to that list? Never, AFAIK. Are all or most sexual harassment EEOC cases mentioned on the national nightly or cable news? Even the publications that purport to list "all" the sexual wrongdoing cases don't actually do so.
Indeed, they don't even come close. According to the EEOC, in from 2010 to 2017, there were about 12.5K (give or take) reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. Of all those cases filed in the same years:
  • ~22% to 26% of them resulted in "merit resolutions." "Merit resolutions" include negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations, all of which are outcomes in which was found "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation."
  • ~50% to ~56% were closed due to there being "no reasonable cause."
  • ~21% to ~22% were closed for administrative reasons having nothing to do with the substance of the allegation a complainant reported.
  • ~6% to ~8% withdrew their EEOC claim/charge upon receiving their "desired benefit" (compensation). (This closure status, in effect, means "the claimant got what they wanted, so s/he dropped the matter." There isn't any clear indication for those cases whether the "desired benefit" was received before or after the EEOC had communicated its opinion on the matter.)
Now, I don't think that news programs need to report all 12K+ cases the EEOC takes up. On the other hand, reporting the ~1500 to ~2000 cases in which the claimant's charges and further investigation showed extant "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred" should be reported, at least to whatever extent they can be.


In the U.S. we seem to have a "top-down" (no pun) approach to broadcasting sexual harassment. It seems that unless one "raped a dozen people" or is a celebrity bereft of libido control, there's no mention of it. In the U.K., however, it seems that sexual wrongdoing by "commoners" is also making the news.
Sexual overstepping is not merely a "celebrity" occurrence and celebs, rich guys and/or other prominent folks should not be the only one's "named and shamed" for their actions.
 
Yeah, it's all about powerful people with powerful enemies. This Wynn accusation is happening because he was head of the Republican Finance Committee, a friend of Trump, and because he has a lot of high-power financial manipulations going on right now, some of them quite innovative, and so he has accumulated rich enemies.

However, I notice that the enemies don't bother unless it's all true --- the guy is a pig, no question.

The enemies know the stories and rumors and they go after the women to tell their stories --- that costs money and time. Nobody is going to bother doing that with the pig in the small office who does the same bad things but the women just have to quit and find other jobs, nobody helps them.
 
That there are bazillions of cases of sexual harassment that are not being publicized because people with powerful political and financial enemies, people with known names, are the ones mainly being exposed.

I also thought you might be implying that women will need to apply negative consequences to this behavior at all levels to have the best chance at stopping what is clearly an epidemic of quasi-criminal behavior at worst and culpable intrusion at best.
 
Question:
Circe, just what do you think is the thesis of the OP?
Answer:
That there are bazillions of cases of sexual harassment that are not being publicized because people with powerful political and financial enemies, people with known names, are the ones mainly being exposed.

I also thought you might be implying that women will need to apply negative consequences to this behavior at all levels to have the best chance at stopping what is clearly an epidemic of quasi-criminal behavior at worst and culpable intrusion at best.

Response:
  • Yes, part of the thesis: "there are bazillions of cases of sexual harassment that are not being publicized"
  • No, not part of the theis: Cases of sexual harassment are not "publicized because people with powerful political and financial enemies...are the ones mainly being exposed."
  • Yes, the inference you took from my OP is an accurate one to have taken.
 
I'm trying to decide where the line should be drawn on reporting. Sometimes I wish the news would report all settlements and convictions and fewer accusations.

My concern is as a society we are led to think a person did something wrong when he is merely accused of it.

Then again by the time a half dozen people accuse you of something you probably have crossed a line.
 
I think there have been many other cases of sexual harassment occurred since years ago, but almost no one cares about this. I have also read at Illegal and very common, workplace sexual harassment is tough to define about this. I think people, especially women should be brave enough to speak up about this harassment matter.
I think there have been many other cases of sexual harassment occurred since years ago, but almost no one cares about this.
To the extent you are correct about "almost no one" caring about sexual harassment, that is part of the problem.

It is hard to define and there is likely not any binarily qualified objective definition of sexual harassment; however, using Justice Stewart's rationale, when one sees it, engages in it, or is the victim of it, one knows that one has done. Each of us is called to know the persons with whom we interact and exercise due discretion regarding what we say to them and how, when and where we touch them.

I think people, especially women should be brave enough to speak up about this harassment matter.
I think victims and/or observers of apparent harassment most certainly should speak up. I don't think women have any more or less onus to do so than do men.
 
I'm trying to decide where the line should be drawn on reporting. Sometimes I wish the news would report all settlements and convictions and fewer accusations.

My concern is as a society we are led to think a person did something wrong when he is merely accused of it.

Then again by the time a half dozen people accuse you of something you probably have crossed a line.
My concern is as a society we are led to think a person did something wrong when he is merely accused of it.
Well, I don't really agree with you on that point. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a foreign notion to Americans and that is the mindset we are led to ascribe to.

What people do, on the other hand, is a different matter, and in terms of manifested behavior, I agree with the general sentiment you shared. Far too many folks ascribe to "innocent until proven guilty" when it's "their guy" who's accused and/or when so ascribing advances narratives and notions about which they have some preconception. Quite simply, too many people are unprincipled.

Then again by the time a half dozen people accuse you of something you probably have crossed a line.
Sometimes, yes, and sometimes, no. The probability of whether one has or has not "crossed a line" does not depend on the number of people who make an accusation, but rather on the quality of information that supports the assertion/accusation.
 
In the U.S. much has been in the news about prominent individuals' abusing their notoriety and/or power to create duress -- personal, social, financial/professional and/or political -- and in turn cajole others into acquiescing to all sorts of things from obliging a fetish to performing various sex acts. Far less often, however, do we hear about "regular" folks doing the same things.

Yes, we have the national sex offenders list, but when does any news organization announce the addition of new individuals to that list? Never, AFAIK. Are all or most sexual harassment EEOC cases mentioned on the national nightly or cable news? Even the publications that purport to list "all" the sexual wrongdoing cases don't actually do so.
Indeed, they don't even come close. According to the EEOC, in from 2010 to 2017, there were about 12.5K (give or take) reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. Of all those cases filed in the same years:
  • ~22% to 26% of them resulted in "merit resolutions." "Merit resolutions" include negotiated settlements, withdrawals with benefits, successful conciliations, and unsuccessful conciliations, all of which are outcomes in which was found "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred based upon evidence obtained in investigation."
  • ~50% to ~56% were closed due to there being "no reasonable cause."
  • ~21% to ~22% were closed for administrative reasons having nothing to do with the substance of the allegation a complainant reported.
  • ~6% to ~8% withdrew their EEOC claim/charge upon receiving their "desired benefit" (compensation). (This closure status, in effect, means "the claimant got what they wanted, so s/he dropped the matter." There isn't any clear indication for those cases whether the "desired benefit" was received before or after the EEOC had communicated its opinion on the matter.)
Now, I don't think that news programs need to report all 12K+ cases the EEOC takes up. On the other hand, reporting the ~1500 to ~2000 cases in which the claimant's charges and further investigation showed extant "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred" should be reported, at least to whatever extent they can be.


In the U.S. we seem to have a "top-down" (no pun) approach to broadcasting sexual harassment. It seems that unless one "raped a dozen people" or is a celebrity bereft of libido control, there's no mention of it. In the U.K., however, it seems that sexual wrongdoing by "commoners" is also making the news.
Sexual overstepping is not merely a "celebrity" occurrence and celebs, rich guys and/or other prominent folks should not be the only one's "named and shamed" for their actions.
Just another PC campaign run amok. How about report sexual harassment when it happens to personnel director?
 
Just another PC campaign run amok. How about report sexual harassment when it happens to personnel director?


How about using the definite article? You aren't a native English speaker: I'm diagnosing a Russkie.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top