don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

No sensible person is in FAVOR of sexual or any other kind of harassment. The term “harass” originally meant “to set a dog on,” then evolved to mean “to worry and impede by repeated raids” and gradually “to exhaust, fatigue and to annoy persistently.” As noted, only a barbarian would find this acceptable. Such a thing should not be visited upon women, men or even wild beasts. It is contemptible, villainous and heinous. Anyone found guilty of harassment as so defined should be, in the words of the late Mayor Daley of Chicago, “vilified, pilloried, savaged and yes, even criticized!” To paraphrase from JFK’s inaugural address, “Let the word go forth, from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that I’m against it, as defined above.”

That said, from a self-management perspective that honors equal protection, fairness, freedom of speech, humor, creativity and diversity of all kinds, including diverse attitudes and behaviors, it seems that the current code of sexual harassment at the workplace, especially at those bastions of political correctness called universities, is out of control. While a few women focused on the struggle to free themselves and others from boorish males may feel vindicated by all the rules and restrictions in place and the severe punishments heaped upon those accused of harassment transgressions, most women and all men are the poorer for the way things are in this respect. In my opinion, both genders are endangered by well-intentioned but truly bad rulemaking concerning sexual harassment. Public awareness of the hazards and attendant reforms are needed and needed fast.

The heart of the problem is that words can now be a crime and innocence must be proved. In the case of alleged harassment, innocence cannot be proved. This situation is very good for vindictive people, but very bad for free institutions.

What male is not vulnerable to charges (unsubstantiated and untrue but still charges) of harassment? To qualify, all that is required in most workplaces (and all universities) for a charge is that some man’s remarks to a woman are “unwelcome." To constitute harassment, the remark need not be threatening. Quoting Virginia Postrel in the magazine Reason (December, 1991, p 4): “If some nerd asks an uninterested woman out more than once, that’s harassment. If somebody uses a four-letter word, that’s harassment. If someone discusses the Howard Stern show, that’s definitely harassment.” What’s next? “You read essays by Don Ardell? I accuse you of harassment!”

Teasing, unlike to set a dog on, or to worry and impede by repeated raids or to exhaust, fatigue and to annoy persistently, can be dumb, rude, boorish and so on, but there should be, and of course there are, less litigious ways to deal with such problems than the thermonuclear harassment codes now in place.

It is important to emphasize that the power to levy sexual harassment charges is not really a good thing for women, contrary to what some may think. The signal going out in workplaces across the land is that women are fragile, dangerous and often vindictive. Any little thing can set them off. Offend them and they can ruin your life!

Result? It’s evident that if this climate takes hold, men will not be idle in their defense. If they can’t get around hiring women, they will compartmentalize, segregate and otherwise wall off these potential human time-bombs. Few confidences will be shared and the prudent executive will not venture far from the old boy network. The most unstable female employees will be major players in the company. For everyone else, job satisfaction, productivity and hence profitability will decline in a workplace atmosphere dominated by fear of harassment charges.

It is not conducive to health, self-management or good public policy to make accusations easy or comfortable for the accusers, as is the goal of most corporate anti-harassment policies. The burden of proof should always be on the accuser, not the accused. There are better ways to discourage male piggery than the legal nightmare created in the wake of the Thomas/Hill national debacle a decade ago.

In Europe, women look at the American experience in this area and say “What the hell are they talking about,?” according to Kevin Myers, an Irish pollster. He calls the U.S. scene on sexual harassment a matter of rampant “prefeminist infantilism.” It degrades women, makes them a protected species. Most women in America don’t want this, he suspects and I concur. Equality in the workplace means or should mean that you assert your rights. Real women don’t want to be passive recipients of special entitlement, a brittle but protected class. If a man makes off-color remarks, the true feminist or truly equal woman will tell the bounder, the cad, the absolute rotter in no uncertain terms to back off. If he does not, she reports the klutz to her associates, the union, the bigger boss or whomever and he is dealt with. She certainly will not wait years to take revenge or add to the ludicrous sue-mania that already burdens society quite enough.

I never realized it before, but now I know. I’m a feminist-and proud of it.

Be well. Look on the bright side.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MENTAL DOMAIN under the skill area of mental health. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell