The Law Applies to All

More men are filing sexual harassment claims, reports Associated Press writer Sam Hananel.

During more than two years as a food runner at an upscale steakhouse in Scottsdale, Ariz., [John] Pilkington says his male supervisor groped, fondled and otherwise sexually harassed him more than a dozen times.

I'm a firm believer in the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery. I'm also a firm believer in freedom of association and property rights – things that although are supposedly Constitutional, aren't enforced as well as the Thirteenth Amendment.

My point?

The way I see it, Pilkington had three possible good options if he didn't like the groping:

1. Go to the supervisor's boss or the business owner and complain. The owner should be responsible for the tone of the workplace.
2. Quit.
3. Tell the supervisor that he will quit if he does it again, and then quit if the supervisor does it again.

Now Pilkington, a married father of two, is the star witness in a federal lawsuit against Fleming's Prime Steakhouse & Wine Bar and one of a growing number of men claiming they are victims of sexual harassment in the workplace.

I fail to see why the owners of the steakhouse should be held responsible in a court of law if Pilkington didn't like the work atmosphere. He wasn't a slave. He was free to quit. Somehow, we go the idea in this country that if someone hires you, they are obligated to make you feel comfortable in perpetuity. They aren't – or shouldn't be. They are obligated to compensate you as mutually agreed for the work you do. If I hire someone to add on to my house, I should not be obligated to make sure that person is never offended by anything he sees at my house.

I agree that the supervisor's actions were wrong. But I don't think that everything that is wrong should be addressed in the law or a court.

From 1990 to 2009, the percentage of sexual harassment claims filed by men has doubled from 8 percent to 16 percent of all claims, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Well why not? The law applies to all. Either we have equality under the law or we don't. Some of the people who supported sexual harassment laws, like some supporters of other laws, only meant for the laws to be used by certain people against certain people - but that's too bad. I remember how upset some self-identified feminists, who had been so insistent that sexual harassment claims against (now Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas be taken seriously, got when sexual harassment law was applied against President Clinton. That wasn't supposed to happen. Other feminists, like Tammy Bruce, recognized that Clinton's behavior was wrong and called him on it, and called other feminists out for defending Clinton.

Women still file the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment claims with the EEOC and state and local agencies.

That's a given considering the previous sentence – that 16 perfect of claims are filed by men. The options are kind of limited as to who is filing the rest.

While some cases allege harassment by female supervisors or co-workers, most charges involve men harassing other men.

That's because most men who are being sexually groped or pressured by females or being subjected to females exposing themselves or touching themselves don’t mind it. Okay, so I’m joking. Partially. Actually, it probably has more to do with testosterone. But hormone defenses in court cases don’t work as well for men as they do for women.

In the past, some employers might have shrugged off such antics as "boys will be boys" horseplay or fraternity-type behavior. But the EEOC has been filing more lawsuits involving male victims, saying it wants to send a message that such behavior is unacceptable and unlawful.

So not only have women been successful in making previously male cultures be readjusted to the sensitivity levels for women who are present, but even when a female isn't there, we're still supposed to act like there is a sensitive female there.

What ever happened to people handling things like grown-ups? Harassment is childish, but people used to respond along the lines of "sticks and stones may break my bones...". A clever comeback used to smooth the situation over. A swift kick to the nuts of the groping supervisor would have done much to get the message across.

The EEOC said the abusers would drag some victims kicking and screaming into a walk-in refrigerator, touching and grinding against the victims' genitals and take turns simulating rape.

There's a difference between harassment and assault.

Again, I do not justify harassment. It is morally wrong. But what we're seeing is a predictable result of 1) women making inroads into previously male-only professions and positions; 2) a general increase in crudeness and sexuality in the culture; and 3) the ideas that we have a right to ongoing employment regardless of what our boss thinks and a right to not be offended or uncomfortable when interacting with other people.

I'll stop here before I end up rewriting the rest of what I already wrote in this previous entry.

There's a lot of truth in this video from Saturday Night Live.