Made with Love

One million Canadian workers — mostly women — sexually harassed at work in last two years

DonCorleo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2011
Messages
1,007
I don't get it. You are sexual harassed then time to let the legal system deal with it but NO they didn't do it.


WHY not?.




Angus Reid survey found most don’t want to tell the boss, would rather handle on their own.


Three in 10 Canadians say they have been on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or sexually charged talk while on the job or at an office function — but the vast majority prefer to deal with it on their own rather than report it to an employer, says a new Angus Reid poll.

And for approximately one million workers (mostly women) in Canada, the experiences are recent — within the last 24 months — despite the current climate of heightened awareness amid the explosive, ongoing allegations against former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi and embattled TV legend Bill Cosby, the survey found.


Fourteen per cent of those harassed also told the Angus Reid Institute that the experience was much more intense than mere innuendo or talk: it ranged from sexual touching to more serious unwanted sexual contact over their working lives.


While both genders of employees say they have experienced sexual harassment, “women are — unsurprisingly — four times as likely to have been harassed as men,” says the study released Friday.


“While issues of sexual harassment — or worse — have dominated the headlines in context of the stories on Ghomeshi, Cosby and even from Parliament Hill, it was important to measure what’s actually been going on with Canadians,” explained Shachi Kurl, senior vice president at the Angus Reid Institute.


“It’s real, it’s happening. What’s especially concerning is that the vast majority of those who say they’ve experienced harassment or unwanted sexual contact at work didn’t report this to their employers. They’re more comfortable in reporting this in a survey than in real life,” she noted.


Four respondents in five said they would prefer not to report such incidents to employers, with no significant differences between the genders. Most said they preferred to “deal with it on their own,” with 26 per cent feeling the issue was too minor and 21 per cent saying they didn’t think the employer would respond. Others cited being embarrassed by what happened or were afraid to lose their jobs or hurt their careers, the survey found.


“Granted, workplaces can be complicated environments. But what does this say about the state of offices and shop floors in this country?” Kurl said.

In terms of other actions taken instead of reporting to the employer, 40 per cent of those sexually harassed and 42 per cent of those who experienced unwanted contact say they confronted the person directly, while 34 per cent and 33 per cent respectively say they told someone else, like a friend or family member.

The remainder either did nothing, left their jobs or requested transfer to another area, the study shows.

The poll also reveals that Canadians over 35 are more likely than younger people to have experienced harassment or unwanted contact in the workplace at some point.

But there were minimal differences between reported experiences of sexual harassment across other socio-demographic identifiers including occupation type, education, affluence or a particular region of the country, the study says.


However, it found that for the majority, it has occurred on multiple occasions. Seventy-six per cent said it happened more than once and 28 per cent of the harassed group said it happened more than five times, while one-quarter said it happened once.


The findings are the result of a recent national online survey of 1,504 Canadian adults who are currently working or who have worked outside of the home.

The study also explored what Canadians consider to be appropriate behaviour at work or while on the job. While nearly all of those surveyed said that after-work drinks are okay in the workplace context, the results show that men tend to be more accepting of a number of other workplace behaviours than women.

Thirty-four per cent of men ages 18 to 34 said that telling “off colour” jokes was fine, compared to 18 per cent of their female peers; older men (55-plus) were more likely than all women to approve of “calling a co-worker’s outfit sexy” or “giving a colleague a shoulder rub” (39 per cent of men and 17 per cent of women).


Angus Reid conducted the poll from November 18 to 20. A probability sample of this size carries a margin of error of within 2.5 per cent 19 times out of 20.

https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-stor...harassed-at-work-in-last-two-years-report-es/
 
What's sorely lacking in this is a definition of sexual harassment, for the purpose of the statistics. If the definition is too broad, behavior that is generally considered to be 'tame' can be considered harassment, if the statistician or the alleged victim wants it to be.

Example: Female employee is about to eat a pear, as a snack, at her desk. Male employee says "Jane has a nice pear.". The remark is inappropriate in other circumstances, but not in this situation. If Jane has a bug up her nose, or if the definition of harassment is vague, this trivial joke can be blown out of proportion, because someone has no sense of humour, and feels no one else should be able to have one, either. If someone is eating a banana, you can say to them "Is that your nose, or are you eating a banana?", and it's OK, but is insulting in other situations.

If a woman has a new haircut, or a nice new office outfit, and a guy says "Shwing", like Mike Myers in a Wayne's World movie or sketch, it's a bit lame and dated, but it's not harassment, unless the definition in the poll would equate this as being equivalent to a nipple twist.

Harassment should require either intent or cluelessness on the part of the alleged perpetrator, but all too often, it's a subjective decision on the part of the pollster, or the alleged victim. Just because someone "feels" that they have been harassed, does not necessarily mean they have been. All office behavior should not have to be toned down to a level acceptable to the most prudish employee. That trivializes real harassment, by making the statistics unreliable and potentially serving an intended agenda.

The adjective "unwanted", used repeatedly in Don CorLeo pasted text, is also noteworthy. Suppose two guys in the same office say the same thing to the same woman, or use the same gesture. The woman finds one of the guys attractive, but not the other. It's not reasonable to say that the unattractive guy was guilty of harassment, but the handsome guy was not, because the woman was found one guy attractive, but not the other.

A few years ago, there was a TV commercial with a TV couple, and the guy says to her "That's the third time you've screwed up this week. Can't you do anything right?", and then the voice over says "If you've been abused....yada, yada,", but the incident depicted cannot really be called abuse. If it were, almost 100% of married men could claim to be abused on a daily basis.

I'm not in any way suggesting that sexual harassment does not exist in workplaces, nor that it is rare. When the acts that are counted as harassment are ill defined, however, the numerical data can become meaningless.
 
bobistheowl said:
What's sorely lacking in this is a definition of sexual harassment, for the purpose of the statistics. If the definition is too broad, behavior that is generally considered to be 'tame' can be considered harassment, if the statistician or the alleged victim wants it to be.

Example: Female employee is about to eat a pear, as a snack, at her desk. Male employee says "Jane has a nice pear.". The remark is inappropriate in other circumstances, but not in this situation. If Jane has a bug up her nose, or if the definition of harassment is vague, this trivial joke can be blown out of proportion, because someone has no sense of humour, and feels no one else should be able to have one, either. If someone is eating a banana, you can say to them "Is that your nose, or are you eating a banana?", and it's OK, but is insulting in other situations.

If a woman has a new haircut, or a nice new office outfit, and a guy says "Shwing", like Mike Myers in a Wayne's World movie or sketch, it's a bit lame and dated, but it's not harassment, unless the definition in the poll would equate this as being equivalent to a nipple twist.

Harassment should require either intent or cluelessness on the part of the alleged perpetrator, but all too often, it's a subjective decision on the part of the pollster, or the alleged victim. Just because someone "feels" that they have been harassed, does not necessarily mean they have been. All office behavior should not have to be toned down to a level acceptable to the most prudish employee. That trivializes real harassment, by making the statistics unreliable and potentially serving an intended agenda.

The adjective "unwanted", used repeatedly in Don CorLeo pasted text, is also noteworthy. Suppose two guys in the same office say the same thing to the same woman, or use the same gesture. The woman finds one of the guys attractive, but not the other. It's not reasonable to say that the unattractive guy was guilty of harassment, but the handsome guy was not, because the woman was found one guy attractive, but not the other.

A few years ago, there was a TV commercial with a TV couple, and the guy says to her "That's the third time you've screwed up this week. Can't you do anything right?", and then the voice over says "If you've been abused....yada, yada,", but the incident depicted cannot really be called abuse. If it were, almost 100% of married men could claim to be abused on a daily basis.

I'm not in any way suggesting that sexual harassment does not exist in workplaces, nor that it is rare. When the acts that are counted as harassment are ill defined, however, the numerical data can become meaningless.

Say that again in one paragraph.
 
bobistheowl said:
What's sorely lacking in this is a definition of sexual harassment, for the purpose of the statistics. If the definition is too broad, behavior that is generally considered to be 'tame' can be considered harassment, if the statistician or the alleged victim wants it to be.

Example: Female employee is about to eat a pear, as a snack, at her desk. Male employee says "Jane has a nice pear.". The remark is inappropriate in other circumstances, but not in this situation. If Jane has a bug up her nose, or if the definition of harassment is vague, this trivial joke can be blown out of proportion, because someone has no sense of humour, and feels no one else should be able to have one, either. If someone is eating a banana, you can say to them "Is that your nose, or are you eating a banana?", and it's OK, but is insulting in other situations.

If a woman has a new haircut, or a nice new office outfit, and a guy says "Shwing", like Mike Myers in a Wayne's World movie or sketch, it's a bit lame and dated, but it's not harassment, unless the definition in the poll would equate this as being equivalent to a nipple twist.

Harassment should require either intent or cluelessness on the part of the alleged perpetrator, but all too often, it's a subjective decision on the part of the pollster, or the alleged victim. Just because someone "feels" that they have been harassed, does not necessarily mean they have been. All office behavior should not have to be toned down to a level acceptable to the most prudish employee. That trivializes real harassment, by making the statistics unreliable and potentially serving an intended agenda.

The adjective "unwanted", used repeatedly in Don CorLeo pasted text, is also noteworthy. Suppose two guys in the same office say the same thing to the same woman, or use the same gesture. The woman finds one of the guys attractive, but not the other. It's not reasonable to say that the unattractive guy was guilty of harassment, but the handsome guy was not, because the woman was found one guy attractive, but not the other.

A few years ago, there was a TV commercial with a TV couple, and the guy says to her "That's the third time you've screwed up this week. Can't you do anything right?", and then the voice over says "If you've been abused....yada, yada,", but the incident depicted cannot really be called abuse. If it were, almost 100% of married men could claim to be abused on a daily basis.

I'm not in any way suggesting that sexual harassment does not exist in workplaces, nor that it is rare. When the acts that are counted as harassment are ill defined, however, the numerical data can become meaningless.
You want to walk the fine line between harassment and a bad joke? Really? "Shwing" is easily harassment. The sound of an erection. There is no other interpretation.

Your claim that harassment is ill defined is not correct. A lot of dumb shit guys say is construed as harassment and should be reconsidered and rephrased. These guys refuse to accept responsibility for the dumb shit they say and do. They should be more considerate of their professional female colleagues.
 
cryptic said:
..."Shwing" is easily harassment. The sound of an erection. There is no other interpretation...

Back in the day, 'shwing' would have been considered a left handed compliment. Nowadays, I guess 'shwing' would only be complimentary, if the woman is fugly.

Many women over 50 would like to provoke a 'shwing', on occasion, either at home, or at work. Self esteem can be built by affirmation that one has sexual appeal, every bit as much as it can be, by having an authority figure compel a male peer to grovel, or have him dictate an insincere apology.

I can see how 'shwing' could cause a permanent negative effect to the frown lines of a cubicle cutie who gets a new haircut, in order to blend seamlessly into the background, like in the music video for Somebody That I Used To Know by Gotye.

If 'shwing' falls under the definition of sexual harassment, as defined in the Angus Reid poll referenced by post #1, I can easily see why the statistics quoted are so high, and why the results of the poll therefore have negligible academic value, but have nonetheless made the Yahoo! News headline technically not inaccurate.

What's equally common in the workplace is that when two women wear the same outfit, the one who did not receive a 'shwing' or its verbal equivalent takes offense on the other's behalf, in order to draw attention to the plight of those who have no sex appeal, through no fault of their own.

I can't tell if you're a man or a woman, cryptic, based on your generic avatar. I strongly believe that some doubt might still exist, were I to meet you in person.
 
bobistheowl said:
Back in the day, 'shwing' would have been considered a left handed compliment. Nowadays, I guess 'shwing' would only be complimentary, if the woman is fugly.

Many women over 50 would like to provoke a 'shwing', on occasion, either at home, or at work. Self esteem can be built by affirmation that one has sexual appeal, every bit as much as it can be, by having an authority figure compel a male peer to grovel, or to dictate an insincere apology.

I can see how 'shwing' could cause a permanent negative effect to the frown lines of a cubicle cutie who gets a new haircut, in order to blend seamlessly into the background, like in the music video for Somebody That I Used To Know by Gotye.

If 'shwing' falls under the definition of sexual harassment, as defined in the Angus Reid poll referenced by post #1, I can easily see why the statistics quoted are so high, and why the results of the poll therefore have negligible academic value, but have nonetheless made the Yahoo! News headline technically not inaccurate.

What's equally common in the workplace is that when two women wear the same outfit, the one who did not receive a 'shwing' or its verbal equivalent takes offense on the other's behalf, in order to draw attention to the plight of those who have no sex appeal, through no fault of their own.

I can't tell if you're a man or a woman, cryptic, based on your generic avatar. I strongly believe that some doubt might still exist, were I to meet you in person.

Yep, still a dickhead...
 
bobistheowl said:
Shouldn't you be busy, guarding a harem?

Gosh, Bobby, you really are....funny.

And not in a good way.

But that's OK, you'll keep trying. It's what you have to do in order to validate yourself and convince yourself you are smarter than everyone else here. Take your best shot, big boy.

Make it count, because you're rapidly annoying just about everyone on this fine board.
 
bobistheowl said:
Fixed your post.

I rest my case. Guess you never figured out why no one wants to spend time with you, huh?
 

Attachments

  • untitled.jpg
    untitled.jpg
    8.7 KB · Views: 23
Back
Top Bottom