PUBLIC AFFAIRS QUARTERLY

Volume 8, Number 1, January 1994

"SEXUAL HARASSMENT" MUST BE ELIMINATED
F. M. Christensen
Please read the title of this article again. It is not about sexual harassment,
but "sexual harassment" --the phrase and its associated concept. Ironically,
charges standardly leveled against sexual harassment actually fit the concept itself instead.
"SEXUAL HARASSMENT" IS A VIOLATION
Sophistry: The art or practice of manipulating words so as to mislead
others. Or, How to succeed at deception without really lying.
In fact, "sexual harassment" is better described as a pseudo-concept;
there is something fundamentally illegitimate about it. Suppose someone
were to introduce the notion of "automobile harassment," meant to include
shooting at someone from a car, speeding dangerously past in or running
someone down with a car, insulting someone from a car, and waving at
someone who doesn't want to be waved at from a car. Such a category
would be very suspicious: (1) It lumps together serious crimes, minor offenses, and actions that are arguably not wrong at all. (2) What the actions
do have in common--the fact that they all involve a car--is irrelevant to
what it is about each action that makes it wrong. Confronted with such an
artificial concept, one would wonder what irrationality or hidden agenda
had led to that lumping together.
So it is with the notion of "sexual harassment." (For convenience, often
abbreviated hereafter as "SH.") Though its details take highly various
forms, "SH" is standardly meant to include attempted or actual extortion
of sexual favors, bodily contact of a sexual nature, and sexual expressions
of any kind: jokes, insults, propositions, passing comments, visual displays, facial expressions, etc., etc. When we attempt to state explicitly
what "sexual harassment" consists in, the only possible answer is, "Something or other to do with sex that someone or other may find objectionable." As in the automotive analogy, then, the range of offenses commonly
included in this heterogeneous category is immense--some "sexual harassment" policies even list rape under its rubric. Also as in the analogy, the
fact that sex is involved has nothing to do with why or whether any of the
proscribed actions is wrong, Sexual extortion is heinous because it is extortion, not because it is sexual; unwanted sexual touching is wrong because it is an invasion of personal space, not specifically because it is

sexual; sexual insults are objectionable because they are an attempt to hurt,
not because they are sexual. And simple sexual frankness is not wrong at
all.
Language can be very seductive, For example, many will assume that if
a term exists, there must be a corresponding category that is both significant (morally significant, in this instance) and well defined. Because of that
power to deceive, the manipulative use of language--sophistry, it is standardly called--is a very effective way to illegitimately influence beliefs and
actions, In the case at hand, (l) the indiscriminate lumping of "dirty words"
together with assault and extortion is a clear example of the sophistry of
guilt by association: organically linking serious felonies with things that are
at worst obnoxious causes the latter to partake of some of the horror of the
former, Similarly, (2) the fact that sexuality is the only unifying element in
an otherwise catch-all category makes sex the focus of attention--and hence
turns a morally incidental feature into the core evil involved. Indeed, the
only plausible motive for creating the pseudo-concept of "sexual harassment" was precisely to have these effects.
Further evidence for such a motive lies in the following fact: virtually
none of the institutions that have created "sexual harassment" policies have
adopted explicit rules to penalize all the major and minor non-sexual ways
one person can harm or offend another, The author knows of cases in which
co-workers or supervisors have deliberately made life miserable for someone, forcing the person to quit; also of cases of non-sexual extortion by
supervisors--e.g., a professor and his wife arm-twisting a graduate student
into granny-sitting for a summer. In most institutions, except for ethnic and
gender discrimination, the larger portion of the many ways in which one
person can mistreat or upset another are not in any specific way prohibited,
Why single out the sexual ones?
Indeed, why not simply adopt general policies of "worksite harrassment" (or the like), which would automatically cover the sexual variety as
well as all the other kinds of extortion, assault and offensive expressions?
(According to the non-academic staff association, the author's own university, which rushed to embrace "SH" in the early 1980's, has for years
resisted their requests to implement a general policy on worksite harassment.) Again, the obvious answer is that certain people are much more
interested in forging a special association between sex and harmful behavior than they are in providing protection from harmful behavior to all who
need it. They are especially anxious to make a crime out of things that
otherwise might be seen only as bad taste or bad judgment, or as not
objectionable at all. For it is pretty unlikely that any non-sexual "harassment" rules that might be implemented would see people pilloried or even
fired over non-hostile (or even hostile) comments, invitations, and facial
expressions in general--the Big-Brother violation of the rights of freedom

of expression would in that case be obvious to everyone.

Then why would this pseudo-concept have been invented in the first
place? After all, sexual assault and extortion were already regarded as
crimes before the introduction of "SH" in the 1970's; attention could easily
have been called to their unrecognized degree of incidence or unacknowledged degree of seriousness without inventing such an all-inclusive category. Manifestly, creating a new and serious offense of uttering sexual
speech was the goal.
***
Why would the illegitimate concept have been so readily acquiesced in
by the general public? One of two main reasons is this culture's long-entrenched antisexualism: sex is debased and debasing unless "redeemed" by
something noble (love, art, etc.). Even today, this attitude is still so thoroughly internalized that most cannot really comprehend the contrary
view--though different people "draw the line" between acceptable and unacceptable degrees of sexual frankness in very different places. For even
today, most people have little concrete appreciation of the great power of
mindless conditioning and indoctrination over their emotions--they just
assume their aversive gut-response to sexual frankness represents genuine
moral knowledge. Because of the intensity of that reaction in many, even
those not sharing it are apt to go along with it.
A better illustration of this taboo at work could hardly be asked than the
Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas incident. There were basically only two sides:
"He didn't do that terrible thing," and "He did do that terrible thing." The
issue of whether it was a terrible thing to speak frankly about sex to her
was almost never raised. (At least not in public. But perhaps most of the
large majority who initially supported Thomas over Hill did so because
they didn't see it as a serious matter even if she was telling the truth.) The
question of whether Ms. Hill was justified in taking offence at "dirty
words" was not seriously raised--a fact that, objectively speaking, is as
astounding as it is revealing of the power of antisexualism. The fact that a
type of behavior as harmless and as natural for human beings as talking
about sex would be treated as a crime reveals something deeply perverted
in this culture.
Imagine a culture in which people were socialized with feelings of aversion toward emotional closeness, or one in which anti-religious feelings
ran high. Merely making an offer to share companionship, or wearing a
crucifix or a yarmulke in someone else's presence, would by analogy elicit
a charge of "friendship harassment" or "religious harassment." Rather than
the person with the unnatural feelings of aversion being advised to get
some serious counseling, the "harasser" would be publicly reviled and punished or sent to re-education sessions and forced to confess to thoughtcrimes. It has been only a few short years since interracial marriage was a

felony in many U.S. states, and portrayal of interracial couples was banned
from movies; to this day--though now they can't say so openly--some
people feel great offense at being involuntarily exposed to biracial couples.
Is such exposure "biracial harassment" of those offended? As a matter of
objective morality, there is not an iota of difference between these other
sorts of "harassment" and frank sexual talk: there is nothing intrinsic to
their nature, or to human nature, to cause harm or feelings of degradation.
On the contrary, in all these cases the real moral evil lies in the well-conditioned intolerance of those who take the offense, and in the harm to
others they feel that gut-response justifies them in committing.
The foregoing remarks are in defense of sexual frankness per se; they do
not, of course, apply to every variety of sexual (or non-sexual) communication. Again, extortion is a serious evil; and reckless or malicious speech
can hurt--often, more than a physical attack. There certainly are, moreover, borderline cases in which no harm is intended or foreseen but arguably should be foreseen, notably, making sexual requests to someone over
whom one has supervisory authority: for all the recipient knows, the person
having that authority might use it to retaliate for being rejected. Even here,
however, the degree of punitiveness displayed by "SH" proponents and
policies is grotesquely disproportionate, revealing a serious unconcern for
the subtleties of human interaction. And even when the supervised person
is the one who makes the first advance--clearly signalling a lack of fear of
retaliation--the supervisor is likely to be accused of "harassing" the other
person if it is made known. Even more revealingly, there are no special
regulations to restrain a superior from making non-sexual requests--involving anything from religion to politics to friendship to money--even
though in all those cases as well, the other person might fear retaliation
over the wrong response.
Another genuinely objectionable case is the use of sexual talk to insult
another person. Once again, it is the intent to cause distress that is the wrong
here, not the mere vehicle of that intent. Note also that the reason why
sexual words are available for this use in the first place is that they are
taboo--they already have shock-value. Consequently, having special rules
against even the non-hostile use of sexual words can only reinforce the
taboo, thereby increasing the tendency to employ them as weapons. Indeed,
in some incidents sexual frankness has been employed to insult certain
persons as retaliation, precisely because the latter had complained about
some non-hostile sexual frankness. Why would the proponents of "SH"
support such manifestly counterproductive policies?
Finally, unjustifiably hounding someone--over sex or anything else
whatever--is certainly objectionable, and those who engage in such behavior must be restrained. Notice once again, however, that cases not involving
sex are dealt with in a manner much more appropriate to the offense, or even

ignored altogether, by institutions with "SH" policies. Notice also that this
is a case of real harassment: dictionaries define that word in terms of
ongoing efforts that vex someone else. Yet from the very beginning, it has
been insisted that single acts should count as "sexual harassment." This is
yet another example of misuse of words to make the behavior in question
seem worse than it is. (One piece of early literature says, "Harassment is
harassment, whether it happens once or a hundred times." That is precisely
analogous to advising, "Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.")
The consequences of this are serious, Individuals given no fair warning that
certain behavior is "unwanted" are being severely punished for honestly
failing to foresee the response, Indeed, one cannot safely ask first whether
a certain kind of sexual communication will be found offensive, since even
doing that "involves sex" and may be "unwanted." Hence the effect of such
a policy is not merely to restrict sexual speech around those who find it
offensive; it is to restrict sexual speech, period.
***
Presented with the irrationality of taking offense at sexual frankness,
advocates of "SH" employ various defenses. One is to argue that such
expressions are not relevant to the purpose of the workplace (or school,
etc.). True enough--but it does not follow from the fact that something is
not needed that there is anything positively bad about its presence--much
less that it is morally permissible to punish it. Such a rationale could be
used to justify the banning of any non-work-related topics of conversation,
from one's children to the weather. We should be long past the point of
thinking people are nothing but robots for their employers, and must leave
their humanity behind when they come to work.
Another such rationale is a curt "Well, in our culture, sexual frankness
is offensive!" This is an endorsement of the lynch-mob theory of social
justice: if enough people believe it morally acceptable to punish a person
for something, it is morally acceptable. It is also the reactionary response
that has been used to defend every traditional evil from foot-binding to
racism--hardly the sort of thing people who claim to be promoting moral
progress, as "SH" advocates do, should be championing. The unwillingness
to look honestly at one's own pre-existing convictions is the greatest obstacle to moral progress.
What is true is that cultural attitudes cannot be changed overnight. Society can only move "with all deliberate speed" to erase entrenched feelings of offense at harmless things. But those who say "We'll just put these
punitive rules in place to protect people with the aversive feelings until
those feelings go away" seem oblivious to the powerful reinforcing effects
of the rules themselves. The more humane attitude toward the legitimacy
of sexual needs that developed in the 1960's had already made a good start
in weakening aversion to sexual openness when the "SH" proponents began
their drive to strengthen it.

The legitimate point remains, of course, that individuals are entitled to

their own preferences, even irrational ones, in their own private "space."
That certainly covers the case of unwanted touching. (Though here too, the
Anglo-American touching-taboos are emotionally very harmful; in a mentally more healthy culture, casual and playful physical contact would be
much less apt to count as assault.) But when it comes to behavior that is
seen and heard, unavoidably the available "space" must be shared to a large
degree. Thus when two different sets of sensibilities collide in a common
environment, each person has a moral obligation to try to accommodate the
other. More to the point here, when the behavior in question is not objectively harmful, no one has a moral right to make oneself out to be a victim
and the other person a criminal. Yet that is exactly the sort of self-serving
bigotry the rules against sexual frankness are meant to promote.
A very different rationale for penalizing sexual openness has been employed in recent years: not that it may be insulting or offensive but that,
given existing fears of sexual assault, it may be frightening. It is sad indeed
if the fear of sexual violence is so great for some individuals that any
innocent mention of sex conjures up those fears; a person like that would
certainly need sympathy and counseling help. But as a study of "SH" cases
makes plain, such individuals are rare. By analogy, surveys of the general
population indicate that being violently robbed is more common than rape,
and theft is far more prevalent still; yet people do not automatically fear
that a co-worker who mentions money--or even one who requests a loan
or a donation--is out to steal from or to mug them.
What is especially noteworthy about this particular rationale for "SH" is
that it is part of a much larger campaign to link sex with violence in the
minds of the public. The equation of sex with violence represents a significant effort on the part of certain contemporary ideologues. For example,
repeated scientific surveys in the past 20 years have found much less violence in pornography than in the entertainment media in general--less even
than in "family" movies--yet these people have successfully promoted the
belief that massive violence occurs there. The example at hand is the "sexual harassment" concept, which achieves the same end by putting simple
talk of sex into a single category with vicious crimes like extortion and
rape. Using sophistries like these, the ideologues have managed to darken
even the most innocent actions and utterances with images of violence. If,
then, some people do indeed fear such innocent behavior even in their work
environment, that campaign of guilt by association is apt to be part of the
cause of such fears.
One last rationale for "SH" is simply grotesque. Certain extremists do
not grant that casual talk of sex is in the same category as casual talk of
friendship, politics or the weather. In their view, it is always or nearly

always meant to degrade or threaten--hence the claim that sexual frankness is merely one end of "the continuum of violence against women."
Often, the motive for desiring to degrade or threaten is said to be dominance over the other person--"Sexual harassment is about power, not about
sex." The use of sexual terms to degrade does happen; but the reading of
malicious motives into others people's minds on such a massive scale is
incredible, and reveals far more about the makers of the claim than about
those they malign. Yet such charges have not, as they would in a more
rational society, served to totally discredit their makers. On the contrary,
the extremists have been highly influential in the development of "SH"
policies--which reveals as clearly as anything else the power of the sexual
anxiety into which they tap,
***
The upshot of all this is that "sexual harassment" is indeed a violation.
The very concept is a violation of principles of intellectual honesty. It is
also a violation of the principles of morality: jokes and requests and comments involving sex are no more evil than are those involving any other
aspect of the human condition. Finally, its enforcement is a violation of the
human rights of those castigated and prosecuted because of other people's
irrational aversions. The list of horror stories about people seriously
harmed for uttering harmless words grows constantly.
"SEXUAL HARASSMENT" IS SEXIST DISCRIMINATION
I am Woman; I am strong.
--Helen Reddy, 1971
But if you speak graphically of sex in my presence,
I'll just DIE (or words to that effect).
--Anita Hill, 1991
Like the claim that sexual frankness is degrading, a second belief passes
with little public challenge these days: that it is discriminatory toward
women. Well before the introduction of the notion of "sexual harassment,"
sexual openness by a male around a female was being labeled "sexist" and
"male chauvinist" by certain feminists. Now, real sexism is a serious matter. This culture's awakening, over the last 25 years or so, to the harms
women have suffered under societal structures around the world has been
a moral advance of the first magnitude. Also like the claim that sexual
frankness is degrading, however, the allegation that it constitutes discrimination against women is a serious falsehood; it is a parasite upon the ideal
of gender equality. That this second view has become so widely accepted-even endorsed by the Supreme Courts of the U.S. and Canada--reveals
once again the power of certain irrational influences to subvert intellectual
honesty.

In its general sense, to discriminate is simply to differentiate in some

manner: to treat, in attitude or in behavior, one person or thing differently
than another. To discriminate in the common negative sense of the word
("invidious discrimination") is to treat some person or persons unfairly or
unjustly vis-a-vis someone else: to treat him or her or them worse or less
well without having adequate grounds for doing so. Racial discrimination
("racism," for short) consists in treating someone unfairly because of her/his
race; similarly for "sexism." There is also the useful concept of de facto
racial or sexual discrimination: treatment on unfair grounds other than race
or sex, but in circumstances such that members of one race or sex are
disproportionately harmed by it. At least, such are the official meanings of
these terms; again, one can unwittingly or deliberately misuse words--and
that has happened wholesale with the word "sexism."
Some who have labeled sexual frankness "sexist" may have been confused by the unfortunate ambiguity of the word "sex" and its cognates:
having to do with erotic desires and associated behavior (as in the phrase
"having sex") vs. having to do with the general differences between males
and females (as in the phrase "the opposite sex"). Many these days escape
the ambiguity by using the word "gender" in the latter case. Adding to the
confusion, the phrase "sexual harassment" is more and more often being
used in that wider sense of the word "sexual;" to avoid such confusion, this
article has stayed with the original meaning of that phrase, as provided by
the narrow meaning of "sex." (It would of course be true by definition that
gender harassment is sexist.)
Others who regard sexual frankness as discrimination against women
may have been misled by the fact that most sexual expression, like most
sexual attraction, "discriminates" (i.e., differentiates) between the two
sexes: heterosexuals, and homosexuals, are attracted to members of one
sex in a way that they are not attracted to the other. But this is hardly
discrimination in an objectionable sense. Only a tiny minority of extremists
believe it is unfair to members of one sex for a person to be attracted
sexually only to members of that sex--or unfair to be attracted only to
members of the other sex. If sexual openness is objectionable (the claim
denied in the first section of this article), it is not because it is used to
express an attraction to one sex that is not felt toward the other, unless
homosexuality and heterosexuality themselves are objectionable.
Even in the case of genuine wrongs such as sexual extortion, moreover,
the fact that a given offender victimizes members of only one sex is not
part of what makes the actions wrong, hence it is not a case of invidious
gender discrimination, By way of analogy, consider the intruder who once
stole the author's VCR but who, finding nothing he wanted in a neighbor's
apartment, stole nothing from him. Surely it would be very odd to say that
the wrong done to me consisted not only in my being deprived of a posses-

sion, but also in the fact that it was unjust to steal from me without stealing
from my neighbor as well. (If not so, then just about all crimes whatever
would be crimes of discrimination!) Similarly, most who commit sexual
crimes will choose a victim of one gender rather than the other because that
is the gender that "has what they want" in regard to sex; they do not
commit such crimes, usually, because they want members of that gender
(which may even be their own) to be treated worse, any more than that
thief felt a special animosity toward me. Clearly, then, the fact that most
sexual harassment involves the "discrimination" of being heterosexual or
homosexual is not grounds for calling it sexist. This is tacitly admitted by
standard "SH" policies and legal decisions, which fail to allow that bisexual "harassers" are not guilty of discrimination on the basis of gender--and
hence not in violation of civil rights legislation forbidding discrimination
on that basis.
Returning to sexual frankness, yet another reason why some may allege
it constitutes sexism toward women begins with a genuine and very serious
type of sexism. Traditionally, women in this culture were limited to the roles
of sex partner and mother, hence they were not valued as much as men for
all the other things they could do. What seems to have happened since the
rise of feminism is that the roles women were traditionally allowed have
been aversively associated, in the minds of some, with those they were
denied. Consequently, calling attention to sexuality seems to these individuals to devalue women's other roles--notably, that of productive worker. As
legitimate as the underlying concern is, the fact remains that guilt by association is a fallacy, and can only lead to new problems rather than solving
old ones. The appropriate response to the old role imbalance is not a new
imbalance in which women are seen as asexual ("comrade wife, heroically
working for the production quota") but one that recognizes the full humanity--including the sexuality--of everyone; the embargo on sex-talk that
"SH" advocates promote treats people as less than fully human.
The illegitimacy of this antisexual response is especially clear when we
realize that sexual expression generally calls attention to the erotic potential of both genders, not just that of women. It is further revealed by the
fact that no similar reaction has occurred regarding that other role to which
women were historically limited: no prohibitions against talk about parenting have been created to assure that women are thought of as paid workers
and not just as mothers. Finally, notice that genuine (overt) stereotyping
and sex-role affirmation are legally protected on grounds of freedom of
speech, whereas sexual harassment is not; clearly, the reasons for punishing sexual openness as sexist discrimination do not include its alleged
tendency to reinforce roles and stereotypes. The fallacious reasoning about
women's societal roles is at best a minor motivation for the "SH" movement.

One more motive for the charge that sexual frankness is sexist is not
based on confusion over what sexual discrimination consists in but on a
vicious falsehood. It is the claim of certain extremist feminists, who say
that all or nearly all men who utter casual comments about sex are doing
so in order to degrade or threaten women. This group libel was mentioned
in the last section, What was not noted then is the part of the extremists'
claim involving sexist discrimination: that men have those desires to degrade or threaten because of their bigotry toward women. (Women who
engage in raunchy talk, of course, are doing it for some other reason.) The
more extreme of these ideologues make the same claim about virtually all
heterosexual sex. But it is perfectly clear who the real haters are in all this.
The most plausible reason why sexual openness is considered "sexist" is
a special aspect of our culture's entrenched anti-eroticism. Sexual openness
has long been seen not just as offensive, but specifically as offensive to
women. In times when the general notion of sexism toward females was
virtually unheard of and woman's "place" viewed as God-given, for a male
to speak openly of sex around a female was considered grossly disrespectful--"Please! There are ladies present!" Women were viewed as too morally pure and too delicate in their sensitivities to be exposed to anything so
crass and degrading. We might call this attitude the "double standard of
sexual offense;" though attenuated since the "sexual revolution," it is still
very much with us today. Relative to that double standard, then, treating
women the same as men in regard to sexual frankness is seen as treating
them worse--i.e., discriminating against them. Yesterday's charge of "disrespect for women" has simply become today's "sexism against women."
For illustrations of just how extreme the difference in attitudes to the two
sexes is again becoming, one can turn in almost any direction. For example, a male athlete is facetiously called a "jock," deriving from "jockstrap"
(which derives in turn from an old slang term for the penis); and that hoary
joke calling a sports fan an "athletic supporter" turns up in "family" newspapers. But make parallel jokes about a woman's sex organs or undergarments, these days, and see how quickly you are accused of a hate-crime.
Yet is the differential treatment justified? After all, being raised in a
society already having that double standard results in women being more
conditioned to find sexual frankness distressing. On the contrary, this fact
no more justifies "SH" penalties than the fact that some people have been
conditioned to have racist feelings justifies punitive regulations to protect
their sensitivities. That the two genders feel different degrees of aversion
to sexual openness argues for changing their differential conditioning, not
reinforcing it. Moreover, this difference between the sexes is not really all
that large--males receive the same basic erotophobic socialization. (As a
teenager in the late' 50's, I was mortified to see pictures of Michaelangelo's David, or to hear jokes like the "athletic supporter" one.) The main
difference is that, since males are socialized never to admit they aren't

10

"tough," it is much harder for them to own up to feeling shame toward

anything.
True, there is good evidence that females' sexual desires are biologically
less easily aroused and more easily suppressed (on average, that is) than
males; but this merely means they have less reason to resist the "sex-isdirty" message, not that they are naturally inclined to find such frankness
offensive. In The Myth of Male Dominance, anthropologist Eleanor Leacock describes an Amerind culture in which the women's language and
actions were as highly sexual as the men's. She quotes a Jesuit missionary
who was shocked by so much sexual openness (and by so much general
freedom as the women had), saying "their language has the foul odor of the
sewers." The benighted natives were sexually harassing each other without
realizing it.
In conclusion, the ubiquitous charge that sexual frankness is "sexist"
toward women is utterly false. The claim is based either upon confusion
and mindless conditioning or upon sophistical distortion.
***
Ironically, in fact, the double standard of offense is itself sexist. First of
all, it is discriminatory toward women themselves. It is not sexually frank
males who are sexist, but those of both genders who promote the "SH"
concept, with its differential treatment of men and women. This was called
forcefully to the author's attention by a recent experience as the lone male
in a meeting of young women engineers and students. I had suggested that
perhaps men should be cautious in their language around women, given the
latter's more sheltered background. Unanimously and politely but firmly,
they told me that was a sexist (their term) idea, the sort of stance that
would keep women and men from being full equals. (Note to reactionaries:
all of them were completely feminine, even by this culture's exaggerated
standards.)
To see the truth of their point, one need only reflect on the fact that the
double standard of sexual offense is tightly bound up with the double
standard of sexual behavior, which has been so central to discrimination
against women. Its worst victims were the "fallen women" of years past,
forced into lives of abject misery; even today the attitude claims many
lesser victims. Beyond that, the double standard has been a powerful
source of control over women, as is revealed by the right-wing dictum,
"Women are better than men and we aim to keep them that way." In part,
at least, the special solicitousness shown to women lest they be traumatized
by sexual frankness has been a cover for a special desire to keep them in
their place.
Sheltering women from crass things like sex is part of a broader traditional pattern. It was hinted earlier that a second major reason, besides

11

culturally engrained anxiety over sex, explains why an illegitimate concept

like "sexual harassment" would be so readily accepted in this society. That
second reason is another powerfully trained societal attitude, one we might
call the "double standard of concern:" a greater degree of solicitude over
harm or potential harm to women and girls. It goes well beyond the legitimate concern felt for any individual--of either sex--who is more vulnerable, involving as it does stereotypes and sweeping value-attitudes based
on gender rather than on individual circumstances.
This mindframe is reflected in a multitude of ways in our culture: in such
traditional dicta as "Save the women and children first" and "You can't hit
your sister back, she's a girl!," in opinion-surveys showing that suffering by
a woman is regarded much more seriously than exactly equal suffering by a
man, and so on. (The origins of this societal attitude are shrouded in the past,
but seemingly include such historical influences as a social compact to
protect the baby-bearers who guarantee group survival; the exaggerated
male role of protector in cultures, such as ours, with long warring traditions;
and a patriarchal trade-off to women for having been denied freedom and
power.) Consciously and unconsciously, the double standard of concern
continues to exert a powerful influence over all of our thinking about gender.
The results of such societal protectiveness have not all been advantageous to women, however. In many ways, the consequences for them have
been disastrous, notably a trained helplessness in girls and women that
feminists have so rightly decried. The moderate biological difference between the sexes in regard to average physical strength has been culturally
exaggerated into a much larger one, and a difference between them in
emotional toughness has been created where there is evidently no biological difference to begin with. Women's greater fears and vulnerabilities are
largely the result of having been overly sheltered, in those early childhood
years when boys are taught to "take it like a man" and all through life.
The relevance of all this to "SH" was first brought to the author's attention a few years back by a woman friend who had spent some time in the
Canadian military. (Again, she is thoroughly feminine.) "The implicit message of sexual harassment policies," she said, "is that women are helpless
children, who need Daddy to shelter them from every little slight. But that
is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as women are given special protection
from trivial things like this rather than having to stand on their own feet,
they will remain the hothouse flowers they have been raised to be." (For a
marvelous contrast to Anita Hill's neurotic reaction--assuming she was
telling the truth--to dirty words, read Gretchen Morgenson's anecdote
about her response to a sexual insult on the first day of a job in Forbes
Magazine, Nov. 18, 1991.) It could be added that the male code of self-reliance, including never being an informer, often gets carried to an equally

12

pathological extreme, It also bears repeating that anyone vulnerable to

genuine harm deserves protection. But those who oppose sexual frankness
in the name of equality for women are worse than mistaken; their response
is tragically counterproductive,
There is yet more sexism inherent in "SH," however; the concept and its
enforcement constitute sexist discrimination toward men. At a minimum,
this is true in the de facto sense: they constantly produce serious injustices
against individuals, the great majority of whom are male. (This fact is
unlikely to garner much sympathy in public, given the pervasiveness of the
double standard of concern and other current political influences.) Though
usually written in gender-neutral language, "sexual harassment" regulations are as objectionable as they would be if they penalized intrinsically
harmless behavior that is more typically female. There are several important facts, however, that make their discriminatory nature particularly
clear.
One of these is the social tradition requiring males to do the initiating, if
any romantic or sexual contact is to be made at all. (This tradition is closely
tied to the sexual double standard, with its feeling that it is unnatural or
unwholesome for a woman to display a genuine interest in sex, and to the
trained passivity resulting from the double standard of protectiveness.) In
spite of 25 years of talk about gender equality, women in general and
feminists in particular have done little to alter this pattern regarding who
must initiate--even though they alone can change it. Hence he is the one at
risk, in case his approach should turn out to be "unwanted." "You must make
any overtures that are to be made, and we will judge whether they are
acceptable or criminal," is the message of women supporters of "SH" to
men. If women had to worry that their approaches would be not only rejected but prosecuted, the "unwanted remarks and invitations" section of the
category would be swiftly jettisoned. (Promisingly, and revealingly, some
may be realizing this in the one sort of relationship where a woman must
initiate. Recent charges of lesbian harassment in the military and in
women's sports have been met by the response from feminist activists that
they stem from anti-lesbian bias. How does it feel?)
Actually, it isn't quite true that women usually do nothing to initiate
romantic or sexual contact. A major reason why women spend so much
more time on their physical appearance than men do is that using visual
means to attract the opposite sex is one method they have traditionally
been allowed. This includes--though the degree acceptable to society has
always trod a narrow line--the wearing of revealing clothing. Nor is the
latter behavior just an artifact of culture: display of sex organs by females
to attract males (as well as more active initiation) is an ancient trait among
primate species. Unfortunately, as many have noted, that "broadcast"
method of initiation is highly non-selective; it attracts unwanted attention

13

as well,
This leads us to a more overt way in which "SH" policies discriminate
against men. In general, those who have crafted or interpreted the details
of the policies have not allowed the wearing of revealing clothing to count
as a form of sexual harassment. In other words, the methods generally used
by men to express sexual interest are considered punishable, those used
mostly by women are not. Suggestive dress is as much a way of "calling
attention to sex" as is suggestive speech (or display of pin-ups, etc.)--indeed, once again, sexual display antedates spoken language as a way to
send a sexual message--but the powers that be refuse to recognize the fact.
(Instead, paradoxically, responding to that sort of visual statement with a
verbal one--even to complain that such dress is inappropriate to the workplace--is itself apt to be penalized as sexual harassment!) Suggestions that
revealing dress be included in the regulations are standardly met with angry rhetoric about "blaming her for others" reaction to her--they should
bloody well control it!" That is precisely the point about negative reactions
to the other kinds of sexual frankness. This sort of hypocrisy clearly reveals the sexist motives underlying the "SH" concept.
Similarly, the use of one's sexual attractiveness to get special treatment
is not explicitly listed in "SH" regulations. And when sex is exchanged for
employment favors, it is the person who got the sex, not the one who got
the perk or promotion, who is apt to be blamed for "harassing" the other.
(Notice that this latter is a case of mutually-agreed bribery, not extortion,
and hence violates the rights of other employees of both sexes to fair
treatment--not the rights of either of the principals.) Nor are you likely to
see sexual teasing listed on an index prohibitorum for "SH"--even if it is
done to exert power or to humiliate. After all, holding out false promises
of sex is a female behavior that males object to. Or at least, males perceive
females as doing it; and in the standard ideology of "sexual harassment,"
what a female "perceives" a situation to be, not a male's perception or his
actual intent, is what determines whether it is objectionable. Clearly, what
underlies all this discrimination against men in "SH" rules is sexist attitudes. Indeed, outside of the policies themselves, even the pretense of gender inclusiveness is generally dropped. Again and again, in the literature of
"sexual harassment" policy advocates, the frankly stated purpose is to punish a man for whatever a woman finds offensive.
***
The basic point of the foregoing paragraphs is that the double standard
of offense has been very harmful to both men and women. And efforts to
promote it--in the form of "SH" regulations or any other--constitute unjust treatment, in different ways, of both. "Sexual harassment" is indeed
sexist discrimination.
Of course, efforts to resist the "SH" juggernaut are met with accusations

14

of bad faith and callousness. In the familiar words of its proponents, "men
just don't get it." It is certainly true that many men, traditionally, have
failed to realize the anguish women have suffered as the result of sexual
extortion and assault, and out of fear of those evils. That must continue to
change. However, such insensitivity is largely the result of men's and
women's experiences in life being so different. It is difficult--for a member of either sex--to be cognizant of tribulations that one does not have to
face oneself. (Note well that this is a case of not realizing, not one of not
caring; again, once the degree of suffering is known, both men and women
care more about the pain of others who are women.) It is thus likewise true
that many women do not appreciate the special sorts of trauma men have
to face--from growing up in a society that may force them to go off and
die in battle to having their children ripped away as a matter of course in
divorce court to being the primary recipients of non-sexual violence from
the day they are born. Or, to the point here, the trauma of having vicious
charges thrown at them for their sexual feelings, and the fear of being
deprived of their careers over a few inadvertent words. Yet the "SH" proponents never raise the issue of whether women understand men's special
vulnerabilities; in their eyes, "getting it" is a one-way street.
Women who object to the "SH" concept are also dismissed by these
ideologues, of course. In their arrogance of pretending to speak for all
women, they seemed oblivious to the fact that a considerable majority of
both sexes supported Thomas over Hill--evidently most women didn't "get
it" either. In spite of the efforts by "SH" proponents" to drive further
wedges between men and women, the two sexes have much more in common in their beliefs and aspirations than they differ on. The proponents'
response, of course, is that such women have been "brainwashed" and
hence cannot recognize their own pain. Given the views of the many strong
women like those cited and quoted here, the "SH" advocates are themselves the ones who don't get it--they are insensitive to the feelings of an
awful lot of women, attempting to marginalize them and appropriate their
voice with stereotypes about "how women feel."
Men and women must come to understand each other better. And in
general, the best way to do that is by decreasing the differences in their
life-experiences--not increasing them by reinforcing the old double standards. The other way to promote such understanding is by increasing the
communication between them over their differing feelings--not decreasing
communication by promoting blame and punishment for expressing the
"wrong" feelings. The illegitimate concept of "sexual harassment" is part
of the disease of sexism, not part of the cure.
"SEXUAL HARASSMENT" IS A SERIOUS SOCIETAL PROBLEM

15

In spite of the illegitimacy of the concept and the bigotries of its supporters, "sexual harassment" was rapidly accepted everywhere in this society. Draconian policies were seen as perfectly justified for combatting the
highly indeterminate set of actions involved. At my own institution, the
president was unembarrassed to put forward a proposal including such Star
Chamber tactics as the keeping of secret files on professors. Even the U.S.
Supreme Court, which of late unanimously struck down an anti-hate law as
an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech, has upheld this
all-intrusive violation of that freedom. Across the U.S. and Canada, supposedly powerful men in government and business have been publicly
shamed and lost their positions over dirty words.
The same thing barely missed happening to Clarence Thomas. Very
clearly, the confirmation vote on his appointment was decided far more
along standard political lines than by the politics of gender. The traditionalists in the Senate ached to flaunt their "protector of women and children"
badges, but more desperately wanted that crucial Supreme Court position
to go to a conservative. Indeed, so great was the embarrassment afterward
that the Senators fell all over themselves to get out bills enforcing "SH"
prohibitions and preferential hiring for women--and the President hastily
dropped his earlier-declared resolute opposition to the latter. (These same
powerful men, be it noted, have always been willing to pass laws condemning and restricting the sexuality of ordinary men, while often using their
prestige and influence to pursue their own personal sexual satisfactions. So
much for the myth of male solidarity.)
In spite of all this, "SH" supporters declared in massive numbers that the
razor-thin Thomas confirmation proves that women's pain is not taken seriously in this society, and that women have no power. If he had lost--you
can bet your very life on this--they would not have concluded that there is
no societal concern about the possibility that a man, even a black man,
might be harmed by false accusations. The U.S. government grinds to a
halt and the world stands transfixed for days over charges of a few sexual
words and requests for dates, and women's accusations are not taken
seriously? Women have no power? For anyone to actually believe such a
thing--as opposed to merely charging it as a power ploy--requires a perception of reality twisted beyond recognition by ideology. And for anyone
to get away with saying it--as opposed to being universally denounced for
uttering gross manipulative falsehoods--requires that public commentators
know full well where the massive power lies.
The notion of "sexual harassment" has, in a very short time, become a
major source of injustice in this society. And it represents the greatest
violation of freedom of speech to emerge in decades. To enforce it is every
bit as evil as it would be to threaten people's careers for making feminist
comments around those who might take offense at them. Fair-minded femi-

16

nists and other fair-minded women must refuse to support that illegitimate
concept. With the individual suffering of men and women and the tragic
conflicts between women and men that the double standards have always
produced, it is a Faustian snare.
***
What should be done instead, then? Given the fact that protection from
some of the offenses included in "sexual harassment" codes is genuinely
warranted, what is the just response? The answer is very clear. First, those
codes and their tribunals should be replaced by mediators--men and
women trained to deal with delicate human conflicts without the inquisitorial face and victim-victimizer mentality of the "SH" machinery. And they
should deal with conflicts of all kinds, not just those over sex, thus eliminating their antisexual implications, The abuse of civil rights codes and
tribunals in this arena should also be ended, leaving them to deal with real
racial and gender discrimination, Finally, the genuine crimes and harmful
behavior that have been lumped together with dirty words and pictures
should be handled by the criminal and civil law--and those systems should
be suitably sensitized to harms they may have ignored in the past. "Sexual
harassment" must be eliminated,
University of Alberta, Edmonton
Received February 10,1993

17