[23460] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Toast Song: If a male called a female a man...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rich Quodomine)
Sun Jan 19 00:03:35 2003
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 00:02:32 -0500
Reply-To: Rich Quodomine <aposatan@hotmail.com>
From: Rich Quodomine <aposatan@hotmail.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
IRwin and Brothers all,
>Hello, Everyone
>
>I often here this during Toast Song discussions and debates. A female
>Brother quotes "I am proud to be called a man." However, if a male were to
>label or call a female a man, even though she may not be offended by he
>remark. Wouldn't this potentially be interpreted as "Sexual Harassment?"
>Isn't sexual harrassment a violation of the Fraternity's Risk Management
>Policy?
First of all, my wife said she was proud to be called a "brother", not a
"man". Two children later, I can guarantee you one thing: She is not male.
More importnatly, being offended is not necessarily sexual harrasment. If I
called you a "dork" or "butthead" or any other offensive term, it is not
necessarily "Sexual Harrasment". It may be an offensive remark. Let's make
sure we don't broaden the definition of sexual harrassment so far that we
weaken it, and de-value cases of real sexual harrasment.
>
>I can confirm that in states like California, New York, Texas, Florida, and
>others that if this remark was vehemently condoned, employees in the
>workplace would potentially encounter either job reprimand or termination.
VEhemently condoned what? An offensive remark? Well, sure, and you can get
fired for a number of things, especially in at-will work states like New
York. The truth is that offending anyone intentionally is detrimental to
the fraternity. If you are talking about "quid pro quo" sexual harrasment,
where a company is guilty by permitting a group of employees to create a
harrasing environment, despite complaints, you may have a point. As stated,
though, I don't see where you are going vis a vis this fraternity.
*snip*
>
>I wonder if any of you recall the Clarence Thomas U.S. Supreme Court
>confirmation hearings with Anita Hill in 1991 or 1992?
Which was not a sexual harrasment trial, but a confirmation hearing abotu a
Supreme Court Judge who was accused of 10 year old harrasment case, that was
never proven to anyone's satisfaction. In retrospect, the hearing had less
to do with Thomas' legal skills, and more about a weak (and possibly racist)
accusation. What does this have to do with anything?
-- Rich
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
