Why now?

So if I have been struggling with these questions, why publish a blog now? It seems silly, but it's due to a TV show. I started watching Mad Men on AMC (which you should be watching Thursdays at 10PM). It is set at an advertising agency on Madison Avenue (thus the name) in 1960. It reminds us that everyone used to smoke everywhere. That it used to be okay to have a bottle of scotch in your office, and have a drink or three in the middle of the day. That sexual harassment laws were created for a reason (but have they gone too far?). That women used to fear divorce as a fate worse than death. Perhaps most importantly, it reminded me that while many may hearken back to "the good old days," they weren't that great if you were black or Jewish or a woman.

Most important, for this blog, it reminded me that people have always struggled for meaning in their lives. During one episode, our main character (Don Draper - played with smoldering star-making power by Jon Hamm) has a friend tell him that he has, essentially, achieved the American dream. Beautiful wife, amazing job, financial security, house in the suburbs, two cute kids. He "has it all." Draper responds "Yep, this is it." It both validates the premise (that he does have it all), while at the same time destroying it (this is it?!?).



If a man could not be happy in those times, when a man really was king, what hope do I have?

Today's controversial topic tread lightly my pretties): Have sexual harassment laws done more harm than good? My answer: Yes. What was designed as a way to empower women has instead Puritanized the workplace. The perceived intent of the law, to prevent women from having to make a choice between having a job or having to sleep with their boss, has morphed into a law that attempts to prevent offending people. There is a HUGE difference between those two concepts. Making someone uncomfortable by telling a joke about boobs is not the same as telling someone "show me your boobs or you're fired."

So, how did we get here?

**WARNING!! HALF-ASSED LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONTENT FOLLOWS**

(Much of the following is taken from the EEOC website)

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) provides:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - -

... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]

Seems pretty straightforward, right? According to the Guidelines published by the EEOC, only unwelcome sexual conduct that is a term or condition of employment constitutes a violation. However, the EEOC defined two types of sexual harassment: "quid pro quo" and "hostile environment."

In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive." Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co., 589 F. Supp. 780

The reasonable person standard should consider the victim's perspective and not stereotyped notions of acceptable behavior. For example, the Commission believes that a workplace in which sexual slurs, displays of "girlie" pictures, and other offensive conduct abound can constitute a hostile work environment even if many people deem it to be harmless or insignificant. Cf. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611.

It should be noted that the court in Rabidue came to a different conclusion. One of the factors the court found relevant was "the lexicon of obscenity that pervaded the environment of the workplace both before and after the plaintiff's introduction into its environs, coupled with the reasonable expectations of the plaintiff upon voluntarily entering that environment." 805 F.2d at 620. Quoting the district court, the majority noted that in some work environments, "`humor and language are rough hewn and vulgar. Sexual jokes, sexual conversations, and girlie magazines may abound. Title VII was not meant to - - or can - - change this.`" Id. At 620-21. The court also considered the sexual remarks and poster at issue to have a "de minimus effect on the plaintiff's work environment when considered in the context of a society that condones and publicly features and commercially exploits open displays of written and pictorial erotica at the newsstands, on prime-time television, at the cinema, and in other public places." Id. at 622. The EEOC disagreed. "The Commission believes these factors rarely will be relevant and agrees with the dissent in Rabidue that a woman does not assume the risk of harassment by voluntarily entering an abusive, anti-female environment. "Title VII's precise purpose is to prevent such behavior and attitudes from poisoning the work environment of classes protected under the Act." 805 F.2d at 626 (Keith, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part)."

**END OF LEGAL RAMBLING**

The dissent in Rabidue is now the accepted standard. Therefore fundamentally altering the nature of the workplace. Employers, faced with a fuzzy standard (YOU try and figure when a "reasonable person" would find something so offensive that it impacts their work) and liability for their supervisors actions, enforced strict new rules. No sexual jokes. No dirty (or borderline dirty) pictures. Employees are discouraged from dating (supervisors are forbidden from dating underlings). Yet it ignores a basic fact: people fuck.

We spend the vast majority of our time at work these days (at least here in America). The 40-hour workweek just doesn't exist anymore. We work harder and we work longer. If you aren't married, where are you meeting people? At work, of course. However, you are prevented and discouraged from acting on that most basic of human instincts - attraction. You think the girl (and yes, I will use girl sometimes, and not woman, and certainly not womyn) in the next cubicle is cute. Is it okay to flirt? Use innuendo? Hit on her when you are getting drinks after work with co-workers? Maybe. Maybe not. Will she think that if she doesn't laugh at your joke or smile at your innuendo that she will be ostracized from the workplace community? That is classic "hostile work environment" sexual harassment.

I am not saying that I am in favor of forcing a woman to choose between sleeping with her boss or keeping her job. I am saying that people fuck. People use foul language. In short, people are flawed. Attempting to create a workplace that is devoid of sexual energy is impossible. To pretend that men and women aren't different, aren't sexually attracted to one another, aren't looking to find someone (sexually, emotionally), is disingenuous. America has a tendency to try and wear blinders. "If we don't acknowledge it, if we legislate against it, it will go away." Bullshit. We are all trying to "get some." If you are offended by something, say something. However, just because someone is offended by something doesn't make it wrong. Why must I be governed by someone else's moral viewpoint or guideposts?

This entry has gone on far too long, so I will end it rather abruptly with this final thought:

The wages a woman earns are catching up (and in certain areas - NYC, LA - surpassing) those earned by men. A woman is no longer stuck with the choice of teacher/secretary/waitress. Are we still going to assume that a woman is so weak willed that she cannot tell the obnoxious jackass at work to get bent?