What is sexual harassment, exactly?
Hello all, and welcome to my early grave. I wanted to push this to be written on a later date for a few reasons, most notably because:
a) I found myself inside a rabbit hole discussing inequalities between sexes in the legal aspect,
b) the time it would take to write this would be immense, and
c) this might very well be the most controversial piece I’ve written yet. I’d imagine that no one would be ready for or pleased with what I have to say because I will be attacking all sides on a very heated topic.
Even the title, I had to workshop a bit. Deciding on this one proved challenging. Ultimately, I decided on a headline that was provocative enough for people to read but (hopefully, crossing my fingers and praying to God) inoffensive in the grand scheme of things. I will tread carefully on this one. Wish me luck, Medium.
So… sexual harassment. I will answer the question, “What is sexual harassment?” with a definition provided by the official website of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I chose this because of its prevalence on the Internet. If you Googled the term “sexual harassment,” this definition takes front and center stage in the results, with parts in purple text. I made a rather brave assumption that Google handpicked this as the best interpretation to showcase this complex issue. Of course, many valid versions can change certain aspects. However, given that this was chosen amongst others and it comes from a government website of the world’s superpower, I am comfortable in using this definition for my article. I took out redundant and explanatory sentences from the website to shorten it for analysis:
“Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex… Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal 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...”
I wish I could say that was what it meant, folks, and thanks for reading, but it doesn’t satisfy the “exactly” part of the question. That is to say: there is a lot (AND I MEAN A LOT) of nuance that is needed to understand this definition and its societal implications. Specifically, I am discussing that sexual harassment has a disturbing double standard, and its interpretation relies heavily on one person’s experience. In other words, you know the saying, “If you’re hot, you can get away with basically anything?” Yeah, exactly. So, let’s break it down.
The dictionary definition implied by the first sentence here firstly defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual advances. And here lies the first contention to discuss. We all know what it means when something is unwelcome. We don’t want it, and we never want to be put in the position in the first place. That is uncontroversial. What is controversial, however, is what can constitute a “sexual advance.” To demonstrate, here is an SNL sketch from 2005 that showcases what “advance” could mean, and it proves that you can find a funny SNL skit like a needle in a haystack.
Consider this: all of the advances (yes, even saying hi from a distance) constitutes sexual advances. You might say that is preposterous and that the sketch was an exaggeration. Nope. People believe that it is sexual harassment. Yes, even saying hi from a distance.
To many, the phrase “unwelcome sexual advance” means any contact from a man to a woman that the woman feels makes her uncomfortable. Look at the infamous video that I linked about. No doubt about it: that woman faced horrendous comments from some people on the street, and some assholes were even walking beside her and following her. However, she also received atrocious remarks like “Hi,” or “How are you doing?” Yes, you might consider it odd that they specifically target her. However, they might be trying to be friendly to random people. Remember, she walked for 10 hours, and the video only shows two minutes of her perspective without any grander context. However, the team who produced the video, Hollaback (now Right to Be), specifically chose those incidents without any follow-up or alternative perspectives offered. That can only leave one interpretation: saying hi = sexual harassment. That’s it! I have a lot to discuss related to this concept, but for the sake of getting through this quote, let’s proceed. I will address it sporadically throughout this piece.
The U.S. EEOC definition proceeds to include the phrase “requests for sexual favors.” I prefer to make it easier on my brain by interpreting it as asking someone, “Can I bang you?” In that case, that should be penalized without circumstance.
The last part of that sentence, though… oh dear God.
“Verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.” The vagueness of this line kills me.
Here is a fact: in 2001, a case determined that repeated acts of staring can constitute sexual harassment. Additionally, that is actionable sexual harassment, meaning that it can be brought to court as a legitimate lawsuit. If you imagine anything worse than that, you can bet good money that it is sexual harassment.
I know what you are going to say at this point: “It doesn’t mean that looking at someone is sexual harassment! Looking does not mean staring!” To that I say, hold on to that thought.
The following sentence of the definition says that harassment doesn’t have to be “of a sexual nature,” and it can manifest as offensive comments about one’s sex in general. The full quote includes the example of saying offensive remarks about women to explain this point. This is actually interesting, as what constitutes an “offensive comment about someone’s sex” makes up so much grey area. I’m not even going to try to get into the specific statements here, but I do want to bring up one thing to examine. From what I can read, saying women cause drama is offensive and can be considered sexual harassment. So, does that apply to saying men are pigs? Are generalizations, which are an easy way to put people in a box without the complexities and nuances that, while leading to horrible thoughts about a group that can manifest into discrimination, is a natural thought process, sexual harassment?
The final sentence slightly answers that question for us all. Teasing, offhand remarks, and isolated incidents are not considered acts of sexual harassment if they are not significant. However, the last part of the sentence still proves worrying. What constitutes frequency is not necessarily a problem. (Although, in my opinion, some people get too upset if something happens twice. A three-strike rule is something that should be implemented more if the incident is less than severe. It allows for any misinterpretations to be resolved and can better gauge the intentions of the person doing the harassment.) What is problematic is the issue regarding severity. It has to be pervasive enough to warrant a complaint or lawsuit.
This is where we need to go back to the staring vs. looking analogy from earlier. Remember that? Think about it: we look at things all the time. (Understatement of the millennium, right?) What can be considered a glance or ogling depends on several factors, including how the person being observed feels. Believe it or not, everyone has a different tolerance of how long they can be stared at. Science might give an approximate average of about 3 seconds, but it varies from person to person. Heck, that might even prove too long for some people!
This long-winded explanation leads to the main point I want to convey: sexual harassment is a nebulous concept and is subject to many double standards. This is because it is almost always up to the victim’s interpretation to examine its occurrence. Frankly, sexual harassment is quite unique in that case, as very few crimes carry that distinction. Think about it: murder, burglary, kidnapping, arson, fraud, forgery, and trafficking do not need to have their definition changed from person to person. It’s nearly impossible to find double standards in the process of a crime. A man’s experience with being robbed of his assets is not different from that of a woman. However, this is not the case with sexual harassment. This is the fault of our society and specifically the ever-encroaching gender divide that makes it hard for people to agree on standards. And I blame everyone for this, regardless of gender, for perpetuating the twisted perceptions of this crime.
Let me provide you with a recent example that I was given by someone on Reddit. (Thanks, by the way!) Imagine that someone worked as the head of a security detail for, say, Danny DeVito. Why not; after all, he’s harmless. This fictitious person, let’s say it’s a woman, alleges to have been called by DeVito into his room. Upon arrival, she claims to have seen DeVito dressed only in a robe, with his privates exposed. According to her, the sight shocks the woman who tries to leave, but DeVito insisted that she move some luggage.
Now, what would you imagine the public response to be if this was alleged in 2017, at the beginning of the #MeToo era? Outrage, most likely. People would be disturbed by DeVito, there would be calls to remove him from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and he would be lumped in with people with more disturbing accusations like Harvey Weinstein. People would be furious at DeVito, and rightfully so. In my perspective, while the crime is not as pervasive as other perpetrators from the casting couch, he should still face reprimand for his actions. That counts as indecent exposure, regardless of if he was in his room or somewhere else. The woman did not consent to seeing Danny dressed that way. That certainly counts as harassment of a sexual nature as stated in the definition above. (Also, the image of Danny DeVito’s junk would be traumatizing for anyone.)
Now, take that same scenario, replace the woman with a man, and replace Danny DeVito with, say, Mariah Carey in a see-through négligée. Would that evoke the same response? No, actually. I’d imagine that people would joke about the guy for claiming harassment. After all, it’s Mariah Carey! Even if he didn’t consent to it, he should be proud that he got to see Mariah’s bits and pieces. Otherwise, he must be gay! Either that, or he certainly must be doing this for money, and this entire movement of #MeToo needs to stop. This certainly can never be considered sexual harassment, and all it does is harm the image of legitimate survivors of harassment.
Why would I imagine that would be the response? Because this event actually happened, and this response was actually the dominant opinion. See how people can react to a charge of sexual harassment differently? Not only that, but I haven’t seen any calls to cancel Mariah Carey.
See, there is a huge societal problem where what women face and consider sexual harassment would be accepted by men as anything but. I will delve into that point in another blog post, but I bring this point to showcase that men are not blameless in this regard. (And, yes, I can tell it’s men saying this. Why would so many women care to see Mariah Carey nude?) The culture of, “You should be happy to have seen her nude,” or, even worse, “You should have been happy to have been fondled/groped/drugged/raped by that hot chick,” ruins any discourse on sexual harassment. Another prime example: “I would have been happy to be a 14-year-old boy raped by my hot teacher!” I hear that a lot when crimes like that appear. Men. Get a goddamn grip on yourselves. And I can bet that this isn’t just the fantasy of lonely men. I have heard happily married men say this same talk too.
This also goes back to that SNL sketch I mentioned earlier. Like the video and the old saying goes: if you’re hot, you can get away with anything. Looks give someone more leeway to do things that would be vilified if done by an unattractive person. And this goes for both men and women. After all, a big part of sexual harassment is that it has to be so severe it can’t be ignored. And methinks getting fondled by a disheveled-looking man would be much more dreadful than by David Hasselhoff, or having your privates grabbed by an elderly lady be much more pervasive than by Margot Robbie. In fact, as we have seen with the Mariah Carey situation, you could be shamed for thinking otherwise!
All the training required by many places in the world cannot overcome the fact that by and large, people are more willing to get over being sexually harassed if it was done by those whom they find attractive. And listen, if, in a sick fantasy, you want that to happen, and you’re okay with that, that’s fine! It’s 2023, and I shouldn’t kink-shame. But, this presents many legal issues and inequalities in our system; additionally, it opens Pandora’s box to what constitutes such criminal acts. Not to mention how horrible it makes dating approaches seem, which is another can of worms to unfortunately open.
Sexual harassment is too broad and too open to interpretation of a crime to rely on simply word of mouth. However, it is also such a charge that when levied, can jeopardize future lives. We cannot live in a world where people who commit the same crime face different outcomes. It is precisely why systemic discrimination is rightfully challenged in today’s world. And it is for that reason that lawmakers, judges, lawyers, and the general public have to ask themselves: “What is sexual harassment, exactly?”
