Harrasment Suits

Q: The right end of the stick is that SH laws hurt everyone involved. If they exist they ought to be enforced evenly, which they are blatantly not. They really ought to be repealed as a very bad idea. Then are you saying that there is no such thing as sexual harrasment? Are you saying that it is better to stop none of the crime than 50% of it?

A: There are a bunch of these in securities houses on Wall Street that I know of - guys suing for sexual harrasment and winning. DOL-EEOC has also successfully prosecuted cases as well. Yes, it is rarer, but it does happen. In part it is rarer because males are less likely to bring the allegation forward, similar to domestic abuse situations. The problem with this line of questioning is that it really begs the question.

In order for me, as a male, to respond to the fact that there should be more sexual harrasment suits against females, I have to change my standards as to what is acceptable behaviour. You are attacking the wrong end of the stick. The right end of the stick is what constitutes sexual harrassment, much like what constitutes abuse, not that there aren't successful prosecutions of females for sexual harrasment. That just leads to anarchy. "I feel hurt" should not, in my opinion, be a case for abuse. When an action is perpetrated, regardless of by which gender, with the intent to subjugate or demean another person, then absolutely that should be harrassment/abuse.