Discussion on:

10 things you should know about sexual harassment

I also know (actually we all learned during the 1990's) that there is one person who apparently is free to commit sexual harassment in the workplace, that person of course being Bill Clinton.

We know this because his lying and obstruction of justice in the course of the investigations about this were apparently OK, too. Many, many people in this country (people on the Left side of the political fence) proclaimed that the people who were prosecuting him for these things were the ones who were wrong.

As history was re-written about all that, it is overlooked that the whole thing started because he was sued by Paula Jones for sexual harassment. (any citizen in this country can sue another citizen).

And when that was not overlooked, then Paula Jones was proclaimed by many to be "trailer trash" and so the courts were supposed to ignore the lawsuit, I guess. The Left side of the political fence says so.

What I do not understand to this day, and never will, is why Bill Clinton does not have to live by the same standard of conduct that everybody else should live by.

If it is wrong to commit sexual harassment, and it is wrong, then why is it OK for Bill Clinton?

because she failed to show damages.

Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice based on his testimony during pre-trial deposition. The Senate declined to convict. That's the end of it.

15 years after the fact, I still don't understand the flap. Americans knew he couldn't keep his pants up, and still elected him to the Office of President...twice.

Let it go, and join the 21st century.

What with underwriting the policy of "let's kill some civilians to show we care" cruise missile world policing.

Clinton's attorney Bob Bennett (brother of Bill Bennett) found out that Clinton lied and submitted false evidence in the case to the judge so he filed a 'friend-of-the-court' brief to the judge informing her of this which forced her to reverse her ruling against Paula Jones, and imposed a 90k fine against Clinton and suspension. of his law license for 5 years. Revised history serves only those with something to hide.

I'm trying to revise history? That's a bit of a stretch.

I think that it was not adequate how this whole sexual harassment thing was mixed up with politics. That' what counts at the end of the day, even though I am not at all happy with everything Bill Cllinton did as a president. What he is doing with his bodily fluids does not affect my judgement of his presidency, though.

Nice, you are a Republican. How about canning the politics for a second.

Clinton committed sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is wrong. What Clinton did was wrong. Why is it wrong to mention that? Why is it wrong to mention that some people, including apparently you, think it is OK to give him a free pass on something that is wrong?

He was sued for sexual harassment by Paula Jones.
- The lawsuit was dismissed.
- There was a settlement involving a large sum of money, no admission of guilt, and no apology.
- The "reversal" you cite was not a reversal. The judge cited Clinton for contempt of court, fined him $1,202 and ordered to him pay $90,000 to Paula Jones' lawyers after they presented evidence of Clinton's misleading testimony. Clinton was also disbarred for five years. This was not for sexual harassment, but for lying under oath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

His impeachment was not for sexual harassment, but for lying under oath.

Again, this was 15 years ago. It's history. Get over it and move on.

Perjury is much worse than Sexual Harassment.

It's even worse again if the one commenting Perjury is a Member of the Bar/Legal Profession as they should know much better and suffer greater penalties accordingly.

Of course when you have Delusions of Grander you think you can get away with it and just about every Politician does.

Doesn't matter which side of the fence they sit on they all believe that they are above the LAW and act accordingly. Of course if they where barred from obtaining office if they had Criminal Convictions or they had to stand down while in Office if they where convicted of anything we might have better politicians maybe.

But then again there have to be some perks of the job as they don't get paid anywhere near as much as they would if they where in Private Enterprise where they would remain untouched for anything that they do.

Col

I know why he was impeached. He was impeached for lying, obstructing justice, etc.

Which all began because he sexually harassed Paula Jones. If you proclaim he did not, then why did he lie, obstruct justice, etc.

He sexually harassed Paula Jones, but we are told we must get over it. How can we? He goes around today, treated by the media and too much of the population as some kind of font of wisdom, and is revered by the media and too much of the population.

I do not understand the double standard - one set of rules everybody needs to live by (and should live by), and a different set of rules for one person, Bill Clinton.

or even tens of thousands who, just like him, committed sexual harassment and were not held legally accountable for their behavior. The only difference between them and him is that none of them (that we know of) were the Governor of Arkansas when it happened.

Why is there a double standard as regards male and female sexual activity, where insurance companies cover the cost of the man's ED prescription, but don't cover the cost of the woman's contraception? Why is there a double standard as regards male and female pay, where women are more likely to be paid less for doing the same job as an equally qualified man? Why is there a double standard for crime, where those who ruin thousands of lives by fraud are sent to country club prisons for a matter of mere days per ruined life and those who ruin their own lives by using drugs spend decades in prison? There are double standards all around you, and this is the one you fixate on?

As for letting it go, are you telling me that you think nothing more important than William Jefferson Clinton getting off on sexual harassment and perjury charges has happened since 1998?

I "fixate" on the subject of Clinton because Sexual Harassment is the subject of this thread. There have been a lot of things happen since 1998, but the subject of this thread was Sexual Harassment, not what else has happened in the country.

Insurance companies in many places do cover the cost of Women's contraception - and now the Obama administration is attempting to force those institutions who do not believe in that (such as Catholic hospitals) to cover it anyway, thus taking away religious freedom.

Women do not get paid less than a man for the same job. It would be against the law for a company to do so.

Your general political rant (obviously from the left side of the political fence) leaves unanswered the question appropriate to this thread - why is engaging in Sexual harassment OK when Bill Clinton does it?

Do you want me to say he got away with it? Again? OK, he got away with it.

Your further comments show a decided lack of knowledge of the real world. And your political rant reminds me of a couple of my neighbors, neither of whom demonstrates too strong a grasp of reality. One thinks the last president should have been impeached for treason and the other still believes the current President has no birth certificate.

You are the one who drifted off of the subject - obviously by your post "Nobody ever said it was okay" you view yourself as having great wisdom and others are apparently stupid.

I show lack of knowledge of the real world? You must have been asleep for the last couple of weeks and thus have missed the controversy surrounding Obama administration efforts to require Catholic organizations to include contraception as part of their health insurance packages.

The economy that's been in the tank since the last year of the Bush administration isn't very important to you.

Obviously, by your response to my last post, you continue to miss the point. As I said earlier, many thousands of men have probably committed sexual harassment and gotten away with it. Why is Clinton any different from any of them? Is it because you know his name? Because he's a Democrat? Why?

On the subject of requiring agencies sponsored by religious organizations to provide health insurance coverage they may find morally objectionable, answer one question: Is there a religious test for employment at these agencies? Do employees have to be of that religion? If so, then no, the agencies should not be forced to provide such coverage. If not, while such agencies may be religious in nature, they are not religious organizations and should comply with any laws & regulations that apply to other such organizations. Why should employees be denied coverage for standard medical procedures and treatments simply because their employer finds them objectionable?

Regarding your post entitled "Apparently"---

If somebody does not like the conditions at the place they work, then they should go somewhere else to work. It is that simple - it is backward when the employee can demand what their employer is to provide.

You display your partisanship by making a comment about the economy and the Bush administration - the economy took the severe downturn that it did because of the aftereffects of the practice of granting mortgages to people who likely would not be able to pay them back - a program over the years that was promoted by Democrats.

Why has the economy not recovered since then, when normally we would be in a significant recovery period by now? The answer is current administration policy.

But you, as a partisan, blame President Bush, just like the current administration continues to do, also. And you proclaim I don't think the economy is important - how do you derive this from what I have posted?

The subject was sexual harassment and not the economy (at least to begin with) so of course I did not at first comment on the economy.

You are going overboard with your partisanship, which you can't defend when you get into the nitty-gritty explanation of why things happened the way they did.

With regard to the original subject, Clinton is subject to increased scrutiny because he was President.

You say that many thousands of men have probably committed sexual harassment and gotten away with it. But is anybody running around saying it was OK for them to have done that? Or that we need to get over it?

Yet this of course was the case with Clinton. As well as proclamations that lying and obstruction of justice were OK too. This whole episode is in the past now but at one point if was current and it was when it was current that people were giving Clinton a free pass on lying, obstructing, and sexual harassment.

Others (your anonymous "many thousands of men") may have "gotten away with it" but not because they were intentionally given a free pass because of who they were.

Although your first post should have given me a clue, I had not realized you bought into the talk-radio blame game.

Have a nice day.

You proclaim you are not going down the road, but you forget you are the one that started us down a road that was other than the original subject of this thread to begin with. You are already well down the road you say you are not going down.

You have covered all the standard "bases" people on your apparent side of the political fence usually cover now except one - you have already indicated you believe yourself to be intellectually superior, and now you bring in talk radio.

But...you forgot to mention Fox News!! (known to lefties as "Faux News"). That is one of the bolierplate things those on the left side of the political fence bring in rather than actual cogent arguments defending what they believe, but you must be getting sloppy because you forgot it!!

I was trying to understand why the fixation. That's the road we were on up until now.

And your assumption about my political views must be incorrect, as I didn't even think of Fox News until you mentioned it.

There are always people including me talking filthy jokes to others. Is this supposed harassment act?

If it's just you and your friends in a private location or isolated area, and you swap 'filthy' or sexually-oriented jokes as part of your friendship, I would say no. If you swap them in the hallways at work, while other people are around, then that could be considered part of a hostile work environment.

If somebody finds such jokes offensive, even if they don't tell you, and you continue to tell such jokes in their presence, that has been interpreted as harassment. Better to be safe than sorry, and not tell such jokes at work.

If the person receiving the "Joke" is offended then it's Harassment.

But if you open a door for someone and they are offended by that act you have also committed a Sexual Harassment Act.

Col

If you open a door for someone and they are offended by that act, it's not sexual harassment on your part, it's impolite on their part.

I've had people complain once or twice. I shrug my shoulders, walk through the door, and let it close in their face. Karma...

Come out and investigate a Sexual Harassment Complaint against me that only involved opening a door and saying Good Morning.

Of course the woman was very pregnant and had just found out that her Sailor Husband would not be home for the birth so she was more than slightly pi$$ed off.

None the less it was a Sexual Harassment Complaint and I now ask before opening doors for anyone. Though I do completely agree that it's Impolite on their part.

Didn't matter that the sliding Door was broken either apparently I'm supposed to have waited till she asked or hurt herself and slammed the door shut after I went through it rather than holding it open for her.

Col

I had this happen, to me, once.
My reply was, that I didn't open the door, because she was a lady, but because, I was a Gentleman!
Can't remember where I got it from, but it worked!

"No. I held it open because I'm a gentleman"

The wretched society is that where lawyers domineer over the Law

It's often blown so hugely out of proportion it may as well be a joke. As 'sissy sue' stated just above: 'People who are looking for reasons to be offended will always find what they are looking for.'

This is sadly too true, and like far too many things, it's simply too easy to accuse, and too hard to defend against.

Should some girls putting on over-sexy outfits shun up the probability of being harassed (incl. eye-sight) by more conservative appearance? i.e. Don't pour honey if you don't want to invite bees.

By the way, my wife welcomes my harassment a lot.

for rude or abusive conduct toward another person based on their manner of dress. None.

And if the attention or conduct is welcomed by the subject, it is, by definition, not harassment.

I don't recall who the comedian was, I want to say Steve Harvey.
The gist was this:
Don't judge someone by their clothes.
Clothes are like uniforms, they give clues as to what people are and what they do.
I see a police uniform, I think they are a police officer, I treat them accordingly and I give them respect.
I see a Judge's robes, I think they are a Judge, I treat them accordingly and I give them respect.
I see a streetwalker's clothes, I think they are a streetwalker and I treat them accordingly.
(end)

I've worked many places, and often the double-standard of gender is simply idiotic in terms of dress codes. It can be 100F in the office with no A/C. Guys must wear slacks or jeans, a full-sleeve shirt. Maaaybe if they're lucky short-sleeve. Women can wear skirts that would make a streetwalker blush, shorts that may as well be hotpants, and blouses that may as well be gauze, etc... And be safe from comment.

I understand 'dress to impress', however, you dress to show off everything without a hiding much is not doing that. Some pull it off, many don't. But if you're a guy and you comment one way or another, EVEN SAYING THAT THEY LOOK GOOD, it can be sexual harassment. Sorry, that's just BS.

I have often considered filing a hostile work environment claim against some of the women around here for wearing clothing that is overly revealing. To me this is no different than the guy that has a swimsuit calendar on his wall and the women getting upset about it.

Citing statistics from 18 to 20 years ago is pretty lame. I know that government is slow, but 20 years slow? Seems like lazy authorship to me.

Where can I get this sexual harrassment that everybody keeps talking about? There's none where I work.

Our world has become overtly politically correct. Yes, sexual harassment as described in #5 is true harassment. However, it's now harassment when two people, joking among themselves about something that's obviously silly, nonsense and ridiculous - are now accused of harassment simply because someone who's not part of the conversation walked by and overheard it. I just don't believe that's true sexual harrassment - and regardless of my username, I am female.

Paradoxically, I'm offended by the easily offended because of the implication that they have a heightened moral sensibilty. That being said, I don't want the real misogynists or harassers to think I'm one of them so I just keep it Bill Cosby at work.

1. Harassment is in the eyes of the victim. If she is offended by your SI swimsuit wallpaper, its harassment. If your boss does not do something about it, a judge and a checkbook will.

2. Jokes aren't. The boob test spread sheet bought a friend a BMW. She is a harassment attorney.

3. If you are uncomfortable with your workplace, start a diary. Save the emails (print them out) take pictures. Then follow your company's policies.

Read your companies policy. I am a firm believer in knowing what you can be fired for before it happens.

I, for one, am sick and tired of ???ambulance-chasers??? intruding into every aspect of my life and creating the current litigious environment rife with political correctness that we have to endure at every turn. Now they???re authoring articles in a techie publication ??? Bah, humbug!

I say we turn the tables on them and mandate that all lawyers must back-up all their PCs??? hard drives on a daily basis and defrag them a minimum of once a week or be disbarred. How do you like me now?

My best advice - don't start a business in the United States. This frivolous tax doesn't exist elsewhere.

Also in the 90's was a report showing that the number of cases of men filing harrassment cases against women was rising at a pace that matched the increasing number of female bosses.

So as equality reaches the boardroom, women are are taking equality in harrassment also.

Harassment is wrong, whether sexual, racial, or just plain old harrassment - it's a form of bullying, and there is no excuse. If you are not considerate of everyone around you, you don't deserve a place amongst normal, decent people. Most people do not harrass others, so there is no argument that can be brought that supports harrassing behaviour as "normal".

At my company, it's considered sexual harrassment to give members of the opposite sex cards for St. Valentine's Day.

Unless we were dating, or at least good friends outside the workplace, I'd be uncomfortable with getting a valentine's card from someone I work with...........that's something you give people you care about, not people you just work with. If you are that friendly with a person you would socialise outside work and if not then the card probably isn't appropriate.