Please note there were no blog posts (hence, no blog grades) for Weeks 8 and 9 due to the Midterm exam and then Spring Break. Also note that I am tardy getting this post up, so blog comments are not due until midnight on Monday. I do encourage you, however, to comment more than once and to read what others have written before posting your comment. Some of you who tend to comment late in the week have been repeating what others have said. Ideally, the blog is interactive - not just make a comment and don't look at it again until next week.
This week you have several options for your comment. Choose 1 or more. If you choose number 4, though, you need to also choose one additional topic.
1. Did President Glasser's talk with us on Tuesday have a meaningful impact on you? How? Why? Was she different than you expected? She has a very distinct style, as she noted... "my passion is my compassion". Do you think a male president of a University would make a similar comment? Any other thoughts on President Glasser?
2. Yesterday we focused on sexual harassment. There was fairly broad agreement among you that there is often some gray areas regarding the "hostile environment" type of sexual harassment versus the quid pro quo type. A final question was asked as class was ending, so we didn't have the opportunity to discuss. I promised it in the blog, so here it is. I don't remember Rob's exact words, so he should feel free to correct me in his comment. Do women invite comments about their appearance when they dress in a provocative manner in the workplace? Is it fair to claim sexual harassment if you wear a mini skirt, tight clothing, wear revealing low-cut tops, etc.? Aren't women "asking for it"?
3. Is there a substantive difference in the way male judges rule in court cases and the way female judges rule? This was the last PP slide for lecture yesterday, but we didn't get there due to the discussion about sexual harassment in schools that led to the more general discussion about bullying. Aren't decisions of judges grounded in the law and the Constitution? If so, why does it matter if a judge is male or female? Shouldn't the ultimate outcome be the same, regardless gender?
4. Even though it is off topic for this week, I feel compelled to allow space for additional discussion about the bullying issue. If you comment on this, that's fine, but please also comment on one of the other three topics listed above that is on topic for the readings for this week.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Cameron posted this comment under Week 8 before I opened discussion on our current week. I copied and pasted his comment below.
Cobra said...
I know there is no post yet but I have really been thinking a lot about today's discussion, particularly sexual harassment or harassment in general at school.
I think we will all agree that something should have been done in the case highlighted in the text. The little girl's mother had repeatedly tried to work with teacher's and administrators to resolve the problem and they had apparently been uncooperative. You will usually never find me defending someone who commits a sex crime. I'm pretty adamant about where rapists, child molesters, and the like can go, but in this case I have to say, even though his actions were severe and caused this little girl psychological harm that is hard to fathom, I have to say that I feel sorry for him. This kid was a victim himself, a victim of his parents who apparently done nothing, who knows if they were even involved at all, and a victim of the same teachers and administrators that failed the little girl involved.
This needed to be dealt with, but to slap the cuffs on any grade school kid who sexually harasses another child is not the way to do it. I mean I can only speak from personal experience, but I can think of times that I said stuff to girls and boys alike that I now know could have been sexual harassment, I can also remember being harassed myself in the same manner. Did I deserve to be thrown into the legal system? Did my fellow grade school aggressors? I think not...we deserved a good talking to and an explanation as to why what we were doing was wrong.
I joked about an assembly to stop all of us little rowdy boys from popping bra straps, but it's true, and looking back it was the right thing to do. They didn't call the cops or file sexual harassment charges against all of us, they sat us down and said "Look, this has got to stop, it's wrong, it's immature, and it is sexual harassment, don't do it." We didn't know, we'd been popping elastic bands for 8 maybe 9 years, bras really were just a big rubber band that happened to be attached to somebody. The point is we needed guidance, from our parents, and from our teachers. Guidance that the young man in the case we studied did not receive, and frankly how can that be his fault? Was the court right to find the school liable, you betcha, was it unfortunate that it had to go that far, damn right it was, they should have helped themselves and this young man by offering the guidance he was obviously lacking.
Another thing we all talked about a lot was how we didn't feel safe in school, some of you even said you had kids that were getting picked on and that they didn't want to go to school. I think Dr. Patton was right, something is going to have to happen to get the public school systems of this country to wake up and start protecting these kids. I mean, children need to feel safe at school, not just safe from bomb threats and Jeffy Dahlmer, but safe from harassment at the hands of their own peers.
It was my Junior year in High School before I beat that kid up with my lunch tray, you should have seen the chicken noodle casserole that was flung across the cafeteria, it was classic. After that, honestly most of my problems ended, for one I ended up marrying the girl that the whole thing was over, but I always felt like it was because I stood up and got them before they could get me (for about a week it was like weird van dam movie I ended up getting in three fights in like ten days, but then it cooled off). But I shouldn't have had to go through all that, no kid should at least not a school. Before the lunch tray incident, there was one guy that actually had already graduated that came to school and threatened me in the parking lot when I was getting into my truck. I went the next day and told the vice principal about it, you know what that ass told me? "Cameron, you did the right thing by telling us, you're really just a light weight, these guys that you're dealing with are heavy weights, there good ole' boys, you'd do good just to stay away from them, we really can't do anything to help you but don't fight just come tell us and we'll keep an eye on things." He said he couldn't even keep this guy, who wasn't even a student, from being in the parking lot. He said he couldn't do anything, so I told my mom and dad that I had to do something, that I would probably get a little time off school but I felt that it was the only way to settle the thing, and so I started to pick fights with them and I got my poor little ass kicked a couple of times, but like I said after about a week or so it was over, at least to the point that I quit carrying a baseball bat everywhere I went.
My little sister wasn't so fortunate, she caught it pretty bad about her sophomore year, same girl beat her up three times, twice at school and once at a ball game, teachers seemed to turn a blind eye and once again the same administrators told her that like her brother, she was a light weight, she needed to toughen up and not let them bother her...the girl practically put her in the hospital for christ sake..how can you not let that bother you. By this time Mom and Dad had wizened up a bit and they got themselves a lawyer. The problem isn't that the girl beat her up, it's that the school did nothing to protect her after it happened, they hoped that like so many times before the situation would resolve itself, they did nothing to make my little sister feel safe at school. This was no isolated case, I saw the hands that were raised in class of those who got picked on in school, hell, there's five co-plaintiffs in my sister's case.
Bottom line, kids should feel safe at school, they shouldn't have to turn into harassers simply to avoid being harassed.
Cameron
3/22/2007 10:25 PM
Seeing President Glasser for the first time in person, her size is not what brought my attention, but to the fact that although she did not have a loud voice I could her hear her very clearly and attentively. She is the type of role model many people could listen to for an hour or so almost any time. Her dedication to her family over her career is a wonderful thought too many people, but not always realistic in many situations. I myself could not put my family first over a ball game, I couldn’t afford too. Don’t think I wouldn’t attend any games, I just couldn’t cancel important meetings to go see my child play a game (Even if I was the only parent, which I really wouldn’t be able to afford). You can see that she is a compassionate woman in her smile and that is most welcoming. I don’t see a male President of a University saying that anything to the sort of putting a family before a career and that gives me hope that when (not if) more women take positions of power, that strategies between careers and home life will change for the better. Our career choices for many of us are our lives as well as our home life. With technology advancing it is almost impossible not to bring work home with you, and personal issues to work (especially when most people spend more than 40 hours a week working and their friends are at their jobs)
I feel that if the work place was not one where women would feel compelled to dress proactively (working as a cocktail waitress or working for tips in an environment that would be male customer dominated like a casino, a bar, or even a coffee shop) then, yes, unfortunately women invite comments on their appearance, they may want someone to notice them, but at work getting paid by the company, they are on the company’s time and should therefore find a better place to show off what they got other than at work. Still this should not warrant a fair claim to sexual harassment. The work place should however have a policy put in place (if not one already) of what type of clothing is appropriate and if they don’t follow the rules they should be reprimands accordingly (verbal warning, written warning, sent home, docked pay, fired). On the other hand, if they work in an environment where they have to wear clothing that is “asking for it” for their job, sexual harassment is still not fair game, but most women who works these kinds of jobs knows when sexual harassment has gone too far (no sexual harassment should come from coworkers or bosses) from customers. I would guess that most sexual harassment complaints are not from establishments where women rely upon their looks to earn them more money would be the problem, although I know there may be some cases out there.
I had a parent teacher conference yesterday with my son's 5th grade teacher. We discussed why the other boys pick on my son, Austin and how he got his face scraped up by a boy on the playground the other day. She told me that while my son is good for the most part of the day in school he has to become defensive around the other boys. Of course, this only compels them to tease him further. Austin didn't want the boys calling him names behind his back and he told the boys to say it to his face. That didn't go over too good with another boy, Kevin. Kevin went up and called Austin "a stupid country hick” (He's been called worse, this was actually almost nice for a change)
Austin told him yeah so what, so Kevin got mad and pushed him on the ground and they scuffled. Austin had already gotten into a shoving match twice the previous day and was grounded because he didn't tell the teacher the first time and got caught by the guidance counselor the second time, so he ran to the teacher afterwards. When I picked up my kid that afternoon I was mad because no one called to tell me or even at least send a note home.
I asked the teacher at the meeting that if the boys couldn't stay out of trouble why she didn’t sit them out of recess beside her at the very least. Because I might have to go buy an audio recorder for Austin to carry around with him and a shirt on him that says on both sides I AM RECORDING EVERYTHING ANYONE SAYS AROUND ME! IF YOU DON"T WANT IT HEARD DON"T SAY IT. Just so I could keep my son out of trouble and in school, since he feels compelled to stop the bullying on his own after attempts to tell the adults in charge.
As many things on in a public school, I don't understand why we don't have better monitoring systems in all schools (especially public). We should have cameras in all the rooms and on the grounds. Of course, the restrooms would be a problem, but a monitor during bathroom breaks would put a stop to problems there for the most part. If we can afford computers for the schools we should be able to afford better security, in the end saving more money.
I have been around President Glasser several times before her speech in class. I have actually spent time with her outside of a school-type setting. I really enjoy her and her thoughts on many topics. I have heard many speeches made by President Glasser, which caused me to be slightly disappointed in this one. Everything that she spoke about personally was very inspiring; it is the leadership section that disappointed me, because I have heard her speak before, I have actually heard that same speech before.
Ignoring that fact, I think she did a great job. She is a very professional woman but is also approachable at the same time. I have been debating about law school myself. After listening to her speech I feel better about the idea of law school, I feel like I can do it. I loved her advice about dealing with people who are difficult and about surrounding yourself with positive people. Being a leader of an organization myself, her advice helped me greatly. I have issues with a few members who don’t feel that a girl should be in charge. I will truly take President Glasser’s advice to heart.
As far as her passion being her compassion I have several thoughts. I think that sounds all fine and dandy, but I’m not sure it is a very realistic belief. As a woman she does bring something different to the table. She is probably more compassionate than a man would be. But I have to wonder if she faces problems being compassionate? I am not sure who said it in class, but I also wonder if she faces opposition being a woman, meaning does she feel the need to act more manly or portray stereotypically male traits in order to fit in or get things accomplished, since most of her advisors and superiors are men? I have seen her deal with alumni and she does not need to portray male traits to get things accomplished because she has developed close friendships with most of them. But in regards to those in the higher up positions like the Board Of Regents, I think she would need to be more stereotypically male to get people to listen to her.
She kept discussing her size; I think that is a pertinent issue because in a situation when she is deal with those above her, especially the men, I feel that being such a small woman would lead them to see her as dainty fragile. I think that President Glasser would need to be especially aggressive to get her ideas put into action. I may be very wrong and I intend on asking her about this topic the next time I see her, I will update you all on her response.
When I interned in Frankfort I talked to President Glasser on a few occasions. At the Eastern/Western reception for the legislators and staff I got slightly intoxicated and asked her to introduce me to the governor...she didn't, but an equally intoxicated elderly woman did, so alls well that ends well.
I have always found President Glasser to be a pleasant person...however I would like to present a modification to her lemonade saying....
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and try to find someone whose life gave them vodka and have a party -Ron White
Cameron
Wow. Is the only word I could describe President Glasser’s speech. I wasn’t expecting such a caring, motivating, interesting President. It wasn’t the fact that she was a woman, but the fact that she was the President. In my past experience with the President from Lexington Community College, was very different. He was very distant, and not personable at all. Maybe because he was man, maybe because the authority got to his head. Don’t get me wrong, his speeches to the College seemed nice and appropriate, but when I served him at my restaurant he was just the opposite. Even after I expressed to him that I was one of his students, he seemed very uninterested. I have the feeling that if I were to see President Glasser in public, she would at least smile at me, Since “compassion is her passion”.
Many would say compassion is a woman thing, men who show it are weak. I think that compassion should go across genders, race and ethnicity, because that is something that people lack. President Glasser should speak more often about this issue in particular, raise the awreness of what it can do for the community and the world. Even if you didn’t like her speech, or like her has a person, or couldn‘t take your eyes off her hair; that is something that we all should take with us, practice it, and teach it to others. This world has too much negativity and hate. So many people walk around day to day stuck in the routine of their lives, not thinking about others. It only takes simple actions to make someone else’s day better… a smile, a conversation, a compliment, a pat on the back, lending an ear, anything. People shouldn’t do these things just because it makes them feel better about themselves, the should do it because it is the humane thing to do, you should have the urge in your heart to want to \make someone else’s life better regardless what it does for yours.
It takes a special kind of person to speak in front of a group of people and make what you say meaningful, but everyone can listen and put good ideas into action. Of course what I say today is primed by a new book I’m reading which focuses on compassion and cultivating yourself and surrounds. So excuse me if I sound a little hippish and idealist.
I really enjoyed President Glasser’s presentation and had an opportunity to speak with her one on one afterwards. She seems to me to be a very compassionate, concerned individual. However, I am pretty sure I would never want to be on her bad side. I was thinking about what several of us commented on…”that would be good in a perfect world”. I know that we thought some of the things she spoke about were a bit idealistic. I think that is the point though. If she only spoke in a realistic way we would not reach higher in an effort to reach the idealistic view. We would place limits on ourselves. I think if we attempt to achieve the idealistic view we will raise ourselves higher than if we only attempted to achieve the realistic view. There is a saying: shoot for the moon; even if you miss you will land among the stars (I am not sure who the author is). I think this is very true. I found President Glasser to be very motivating and inspirational and she offered me some really great advice after her presentation. It is very nice for me to see a positive, successful female; especially a single mother. I really think she should take that speech and put it on CD. I would love to hear it again. I should have taken more notes!
My response to Rob’s comment is: would you ask that about a man? Would you ask if a man invited sexual harassment because of the way he dresses? The most important thing that men need to understand is that not all women dress provocatively so that they can be commented upon, hit upon, or harassed. Some dress the way that they do because it makes them feel good about themselves and sometimes it is simply because they want to dress that way. This same theory has been used in rape cases. Well, she dressed that way, therefore she was asking for it. Would you honestly accept that as an excuse from a man who just raped a women? I should hope not! There is not a reason EVER that would excuse rape or sexual harassment whether it is toward a man or a woman.
In a work place there are usually general guidelines on the proper attire to wear. Most people abide by these rules but not all. When I worked for a home builder in an office setting we had a girl that consistently wore inappropriate clothing to the office. She was reprimanded several times and sent home to change. I do agree that there is certain clothing that can cause a disturbance in the work place and should not be worn. However, this does not mean she was inviting sexual harassment.
The use of “she was asking for it” takes the responsibility off the man and puts it solely on the woman. If something a woman is wearing is so provocative that it leads to sexual thoughts in men’s minds are you telling me that they are so inept that they would not have the ability to control themselves? Is what she is wearing so enticing that men would lose all self-control and would have to seek her out and harass her? I don’t believe that is true. As a human being living in this world, I should have the right to wear whatever I want without the fear of being violated. I assure you there are not very many men who have to worry that what they wear may lead to harassment, rape, or even worse violations. It is not women that need to change; it is the men and their ability to use excuses such as “she asked for it” as reasoning for their pathetic behavior!
Janice Clayton
Commenting on #2...
I think sometimes women can wear clothing that obviously makes it more likely that they will be sexually harassed. I suppose men can too, but in the context of the question I'll stick to women.
I mean obviously I'm not going to argue that anybody deserves to be harassed, sexually or otherwise. But, I mean come on now...women that wear clothing that shows off certain parts of their body are obviously wanting to show off that part of their body. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but if you have a skirt that gives a sneak peek every time you bend down to pick up a penny, your probably more likely to be hit on than if the same skirt came down to your ankles, whether your in the workplace or out on a Saturday night...maybe that's wrong, maybe all men are just out to find someone to sexually harass and should never look at a woman in the workplace, but I think that it is unrealistic to expect people to see the same people day in and day out and not have at least a few people who develop genuine feelings for one another.
Of course a woman doesn't deserve to get raped or harassed because she flaunts a little, but making yourself more inviting doesn't seem to help the situation any. I would say the real trouble here is mixed signals rather than revealing clothing, or maybe revealing clothing in the workplace can send a mixed signal.
So do women "ask for it", I don't really think so, but I do believe that wearing revealing clothing in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter, will increase the chances that a sexual harassment issue will come up.
Cameron
I personally thought that President Glasser's speech to us on tuesday was very inspirational. It was nice to know that she had other hopes for herself and accomplished them. I also really thought it was amazing how much family meant to her. When she started talking I found myself taking notes on what she was saying. It took my by surprise when she started talking about her experiences in law school. It really surprised me when she said that someone actually told her that "Women don't go to law school, they take up the place of a man." I was really shocked. I had always wanted to meet President Glasser but the closest to meeting her was at the ball game a couple of weeks ago. She seems like a very intelligent lady and I think that she handles EKU well. I was so interested in her Leadership Qualities that I started writing them down. If anyone needs to know them I have them wrote down.
President Glasser also hit a note close to me when she started talking about how that teachers needed to be compensated. I toally have to agree. I am an education major myself and the pay is not hardly worth it. We are being trained to teach tomorrow's leaders yet we recive the least pay. Why is that? Why are the ones who do so much for our children's future treated the worst? I never will understand that!
Ok, so now I would like to comment on the bullying issue. Like I said in class I wasn't really a bully. I did get into two fights but that is only because they started with me first. I recieved a reputation simply because my brother was a hard ass. He was constantly getting into trouble and stayed in the office. I guess when I got to high school everyone just assumed that I was just like him. I hung out with him because I was new and didn't have that many friends. All of my grade school friends went to a different school. I guess just being seen with him and people knowing that I was related was enough for them. Now we are facing an issue with my little brother. He is in the 6th grade and stays in trouble. This kid is like an angel at home so we don't understand why he acts that way in school. It finally came out the other day. He isn't bad at school. Me and my brother had such a bad rep all through school that they are automactically assuming that he is just like us. They are placing this stereotype on him and he is seriously the sweetest kid you will meet. I think that alot of problems are started just because people assume the worst in kids. They feel like if they are going to have this name placed on them that they might as well live up to it. As far as the bra snapping goes. It happens in every school. Boys snap bra's and girls kick boys in the rear. It happens. I don't think that when they are doing it however they are saying to themselves "I could be charged with sexual harassment for doing this"! But that's just me personally!
President Glasser was a wonderful public speaker and definitely caught my attention with the way she talked about her way to the top and how her goals weren't always what happen in her life. She did say one thing that really made me think. She said that life isn't always about achieveing goals, but having the experiences that you have encountered trying to reach that goal. Also, your goals in life aren't always going to come true, but having friends and family, all is well and it will be O.K. You are going to be successful at whatever you do even if it is not what you want to do at a younger age. I didn't realize how much she has actually done in her life. She has done so much more than she has expected to do. She not only reached her goals, but she exceeded them. She is definitely an insperation to everyone and she had a wonderful sense of humor to go with that. I think that a man might not have such a good story and has probably not gone through what she has.
President Glasser's "Fireside chat" did have an impact on me. I really did enjoy hearing her talk about what she had to overcome to get where she was. Coming from a single parent household it's interesting how no matter what walk of life you're in, the ones that make it through the hard times are always some of the best people in the world. I'm glad that the President of our university doesn't think she's above coming and talking to a class, and I think that alone is something that should be admired. Her talk on leadership is something that I payed particular attention to. Since I was a small child my mother always told me to make sure I surrounded myself with people that were smarter than I. This wasn't hard to begin with (and still isn't hard now :-) ) however; I learned that the more you do this, the quicker you become the person that starts to surround other people, and the role is switched. This is something that she didn't say, but I felt was implied and I think that's the lesson of that whole section of her speech. The biggest influence I received from President Glasser was probably the positive attitude mentality. It is easy to lose sight of the end goal sometimes, and I think that she of all people can realize that. This helped me, because she isn't just a motivational speaker, she is someone who has lived it, she is someone that has walked a mile in the shoes of someone that couldn't always see the end, and I think that is what made her very motivational and inspiring to me.
In response to Cameron's response to #2 :-) confusing I know.
About women and what they wear to work...
I believe that when women dress provocatively at work they are doing so for attention. If you get dressed in the morning and put on your new cute, slightly revealing outfit, you are doing so to get noticed. That doesn't make any harassment right, but I think it is to be expected when dressed in an inappropriate manner. The workplace is a place to work (I know that is redundant but it makes my point), the workplace is not some place to flaunt yourself, no matter how good you look. Dressing in that manner is not only inappropriate but also unprofessional. Women are complaining that we aren’t being taken seriously at work, blah, blah, blah. How can you expect you be taken seriously when you present yourself unprofessionally? Women are always searching for equality… while it is a problem… I think it is silly to think that equality will happen while we behave and dress inappropriately. However, I know that it is difficult to get ahead when men are expecting you to be sexual objects… I think we have a catch 22 here.
Commenting on # 2, about sexual harrassment and "asking for it". Sexual harrassment in context is about unwanted attention. Now, yes, if a woman is going to dress sexy, she may want some sort of attention, but that should not justify comments while in the work environment. I think many have already pointed out that work is not the place to dress that way anyhow. And several said that when a woman dresses that way, she should "expect" it. I think this argument is unfair. Many women dress sexy for a variety of reasons, but to say that they should just simply accept the fact they will be sexually harrassed will not do. I still believe there is a gray area in this issue, which makes it difficult to address, but if a woman is obviously not wanting attention from a man, who may say things to her about the way she dresses, he should be told to stop. If he does not stop, action should be taken. Regardless of what the woman is wearing.
Commenting on # 3, I would expect that judges do adhere to the Constitution when making decisions, but it can also be interpretive. People can interpret what something vague in the Constitution means, and someone else might think it means something different. However, in the Supreme Court, much of the time they do try to make a narrow ruling in strict adherence to their interpretation of the Constitution. But I do believe that in cases involving women's issues, that women will have a different perspective, and therefore may vote differently. Perspective is an important thing. President Glasser mentioned how her perspective and way of doing things was different, and her being a woman had some part in that. Now, we have only had two women SC justices, one who is gone now. But in regards to Ruth Bader Ginsburg especially, who has been mentioned in the text several times, and been involved in so many sex discrimination/women's issue cases, I do believe she may vote on some issues from a woman's perspective, and knowingly do so. Also, being the only woman on the Supreme Court, currently, maybe she feels that in some of these cases (that are based on sex or affect women), she has an obligation to speak from a woman's perspective.
So, while we may expect decisions to be grounded in law and the Constitution, there is still room for interpretation, and is some instances, I do believe gender may affect that.
- Ashley Farmer
Out of my four years here at Eastern, this was the first time I’d actually heard President Glasser give a speech, besides the ones at Commencement ceremonies that are muffled by a poor sound system. I knew I was already impressed with her, dating back to the President’s picnic my freshman year. As a new student, she greeted me with warmth and enthusiasm and I really felt like there was something very personable about her. Now yes, I did figure that it was protocol for her to shake everyone’s hand and make them feel as if she was so glad that they were there, but I didn’t care—it was still very nice.
Throughout my years here at EKU, I’ve seen President Glasser at campus events, and even once in the Fayette Mall, where she was of course hugging someone (she did claim that she was a hugger). I’ve always been impressed with her enthusiasm for EKU and students.
The day she came and spoke to our class, I was very intrigued by hearing her career and personal background—I had no idea she was a lawyer. I think many students see college/university presidents as ones who gets paid to wear the school logo and make cheesy speeches. However, through Glasser’s speech, I’ve realized that it takes a lot of prior experience, as well as education, to attain such a career position. I personally found the parts of her speech where she talked about her real life experiences more interesting that the whole “leadership qualities” part, which were still very important. To me, her openness with us and passion made me realize that she is a real person too, and I admire her for her family values and perseverance.
Would I say all the same things if our university president were a man? As stereotypical as this sounds, most likely not. I feel that this could be influenced by both the fact that I’m a female and/or that males may not always display the same personality traits and emotions as females. As I am a “people person,” I relate more to those that are that way as well—and I’ve found that more often those are female than male (not always however).
In conclusion, I agree with Leslie that President Glasser is very approachable. After her speech, I decided that after four years, it was time to introduce myself—and as expected, she was extremely nice and inquisitive about my experience at EKU. Overall, I admire her and feel that she’s a great female leader.
The concept of a woman “asking for it” in the context of sexual harassment should actually have no gray areas in the workplace. I believe that Leslie already stated earlier in the Blog the obvious. This is work. This is not the weekend or a club. The reason that I say that there should not be a gray area pertains to the company that I used to work for and the simple yet effective guidelines that they instituted. I just pulled out their 2007 Business Practice Guide and referenced the section on sexual harassment. Of course it contains all of the verbiage that the EEOC uses in relation to creating a hostile working environment. However, it also blatantly states something that is pertinent to the idea of “asking for it.” It also lists that unwelcome sexually harassing conduct can take form in someone wearing sexually provocative clothing. Following this even closer I looked up the dress codes for both men and women. Men have a total of six entries under the do’s and don’t of professional dress. Women have three times that many entries. In the corporate world personal appearance is expected to be professional. I should not be an object of attention. I managed many attractive women while with his company. Nevertheless, it was made clear from the top down within the organization that we were all there to make money and do our jobs. Dating does occur within the organization, but even that fall under scrutiny. Before I started dating an employee, both she and I let our Regional Vice President know our intentions. By the way, I married her so I guess all of that would not have been sexual harassment anyways. Nevertheless, the point that I am attempting to make is that rules can be put into place in the workplace to even remove these grey areas and make the environment professional. Even if a woman does dress provocatively, this is 2007 and I don’t think that I would club her over the head and drag her back to my cave!
I found President Glasser's talk quite interesting. I had no idea she had raised kids on her own, or realized the problems that she faced as a women in a male dominated field. I was glad she came and spoke with us and I enjoyed her personal experiences. At a school like EKU, you sometimes feel disconnected from the administrative powers and so having her speak to our class personally was a good experience and brought a personality to the face that you see on tv.
I missed class on Tuesday due to the Herstory Conference, which was great by the way. It was fantastic to hear about women in history instead of just the male viewpoints. But on the topic of sexual harassment, I wanted to say that I sometimes feel that employers, or at least the employers I have had, seem to make sexual harrasment out to be a very trivial issue. For example, during orientation, the manager will pop in a video and leave the room while you watch a corny 1980s film that has really bad actors acting out scenarios in unrealistic ways and then a voice interrupting with, "FACT: such and such such and such about sexual harrasment." I remember one video where some male employee was coming on to a woman and complained that the reason he was attracted to her was her "tight sweaters" when in fact, the actress in the video was wearing a huge oversized sweater in all the scenes. But what I'm saying is that it seems that sexual harrasment in some workplaces gets taken very lightly. There is little to discourage workers and the videos tend to make employees laugh than think about sexual harrasment and its consequences. Talking to my boyfriend, he said that he never even had the videos at his work, or any discussion of sexual harrasment. I am talking about places that aren't really formal business settings, but the kind of positions where one would have a part time job; low paying work. It seems that with little discussion of sexual harrasment, someone might feel more free to do things that they might not otherwise feel able to do. For example, at one of my former workplaces, an employee constantly made advances toward girl employees, was guilty of saying completely inappropriate things, and telling inappropriate stories. However, as a long time employee, and well-liked by management, it seemed (and seems to current employees) almost impossible to do anything about the problem, especially since his actions were mainly verbal, and not physical. And as for women "asking for it" when they dress in cute or revealing clothing...I think this is a bunch of crap. I can't say I speak for all women, but I think I speak for most, when I say that a compliment is one thing entirely different than harrasment. "You look nice today" versus some derogatory or demeaning or harrasing statement is a big step. There's a difference, primarily in the intetion of the speaker.
Jenny Holly
In response to #2:
First, women or men for that matter should not be permitted by their employers to dress provocatively in the workplace (the issue of those "workplaces" where people earn their money by dressing provocatively aka strippers and such will be addressed later in this post) If a business owner expects that business to be taken seriously then rules should be put into place in terms of workplace attire reflecting this seriousness. For that matter, if an employee wants to be taken seriously and seen as professional then he or she has a responsibility to them selves to dress professionally. People, for the most part aren't stupid and know what is and is not acceptable to wear in the work place and if there's any confusion over what is acceptable most businesses have a dress code they expect their employees to adhere to. If this dress code is not adhered to then an employer has every right to correct the problem. I agree with what Leslie posted earlier, if you don't dress professionally then you can't expect to be taken seriously.
That being said, every person in the workplace also has a responsibility to exercise a little self control. If someone is dressed inappropriately you don't have to promote their behavior by making comments to them about how they look. If you think their attire is inappropriate then you should go to a superior and express your concern. If the employer doesn't do anything about it hopefully enough customer or clientele will be offended that they express their concerns or the business losses some money for their inaction. As the saying goes "the customer is always right" and if enough customers complain the business owner or manager is going to be force to listen or get hit where it hurts, the wallet. Perhaps if you are offended enough and your boss refuses to do anything about that person's inappropriate dress you could make the case that you are being sexually harassed by being forced to look at that person's "body parts" all day when you are attempting to get your work done. A good enough lawyer may even be able to make a case that your employer is facilitating sexual harassment by not putting a stop to it and violating your civil rights.
If you just happen to like the provocative manner in which someone is dressed you also have a responsibility to exercise some self restraint by not hitting on them in the workplace. Cameron posted something about we can't expect people not to have certain thoughts when women dress provocatively in the workplace. This is true but people should also have enough self control to not make those thoughts known, or at least not make them if they don't meet EOC guidelines....meaning if you have your mind so set on commenting on someone's appearance tell them they look sharp :) I don't think there's a way an employer can stop people in the work place from dating but if a relationship starts to interfere with a person's work performance, an employer certainly has the right to make it known to that person that their performance is lagging. If two people in a workplace are dating they should still maintain the same level of professionalism as they would even if they weren't dating. This reminds of the story my boss told me. Her dad was a dentist and her mom was the receptionist at the front desk. She said for years her dad's patients didn't even know he and her mom were married because she would always address him as Dr. so and so. Her mom told her that the in the workplace there was a necessity for her to be professional and address her own husband by his title of Dr. If the patients were expected to take their business seriously then she had to first.
This brings me to the "stripper issue" or workplaces where women make money by dressing in appropriately. While I don't necessarily agree with this choice of profession, these people have rights to. Just because someone makes their living by taking their clothes off doesn't mean they deserve to be deprived of their civil rights. Of course, lude comments are almost territorial with these professions but inappropriate touching when one of these "performers" has made it clear that they do not wish to be exploited in such a way is wrong. I guess that's also why strip clubs probably hire bouncers so if a customer does get out of hand in terms of their word choice or touching, they can be removed from the building. Nevertheless, I can also see where there may be some gray area and it might be a bit difficult convincing a jury you've been the victim of sexual harassment when you've chosen to work in a strip club.
Janice posted something about you cant say someone is asking to be sexually harassed because they dress in provocative manner. Like she said this is like saying someone asked to be raped because of the way they dress. I think people do have a responsibility to dress appropriately but you can't use this to remove accountability from someone who engages in sexual harassment. Again, people have to exercise some self control.
In response to question #3:
I thought about this question a little bit this afternoon when I was listening to Justice Mary Noble speak. Justice Noble is the only female Justice currently serving on the Kentucky Supreme Court and only the third in the court's history. Justice Noble talked a lot about how in Kentucky, because our judges are elected, candidates are not supposed to express their views and opinion on political issues because in the end their job is to apply the law, not take a stance on what they think the law should be. However, she also talked a lot about how the Kentucky Supreme Court as it now stands is the most diversified as it has ever been with both a female and an African American (the first in the Court's history), Justice McAnulty, currently serving. If Justices are all supposed to make decisions based on the law does having a diversified courts matter in substantively? Descriptively having women and minorities in positions of power does seem to give the appearance that our government is representative of our diversified population. However, if a Justice goes strictly by the law wouldn't the outcome be the same no matter what race or gender the judge is? My answer is, not necessarily. I realize the Dolan book talks about how studies have found that having women present in the judiciary may bring more awareness to women's issues, little evidence is available that women judges decide cases differently than men. Even so, a person's experiences can affect the ways in which they interpret the law. Of course there are things like, precedent cases that judges are also supposed to rely on but, judges can always overturn past decisions. One of the main purposes of our law is that it is adaptable to the changing needs of society. If you have Justices who've had different experiences in life, which may be a result of their race or gender, then those Justices may see a need for a change in the interpretation of law to reflect a changing society whereas a white, male Justice may not. No matter how hard a judge tries to separate him or herself from their personal beliefs in deciding cases, their experiences will still have somewhat of an impact on how they interpret the law. Statistically, it may not be evident that race and gender affect how a judge interprets the law. In the face of this evidence against my proposal I suggest that maybe there's yet to be a great enough presence of women and minorities in judgeships to accurately determine whether or not gender or race has an affect on a judge's interpretation of the law or, maybe it's not necessarily race or gender that affect how one interprets the law but cultural and economic background.
Kristeena Winkler
When talking about bullying, I was not beaten up like what we were talking about in class but I was definitely teased in grade school. I was a little bit bigger than all the other girls during the 4th and 5th grades. But it wasn’t the girls that teased me but it was the boys, boys that I have grown up with and have gone to school with since kindergarten. I know they said some really cruel things to me, I have basically put them out of my memory but I do remember that I cried a lot at home and never told my parents and the teachers never knew. Then as my growth spurt came along I was teased for being super skinny and everyone thought I had an eating disorder (totally false). I think that children in that age range like teasing and beating up other because they are bored with their lives and they have no respect for others, and the fact that they get away with it in school is outrageous. I want to someday in the near future be a case worker in public schools. I would hope that the school that I work for would protect the wellbeing of the children that go to that school. I agree with Cameron, children should be safe in schools.
I agree with basically everyone else, when women wear revealing clothing whither or not they know that they are asking for it they are. If these women are wearing turtlenecks and long skirts that in no way show any skin, and they still are getting harassed then that is a problem. When working with the opposite sex women should know that wearing clothing that shows off their assets is wrong and inappropriate for work. It should be a given, I don’t want to seem like someone that doesn’t care but when you show up to work in a tight skirt and a shirt that shows off your “ladies” and a man or the men at work come on to you. I’m sorry I don’t feel sorry for you in the least, ha you asked for it. I don’t want to hear you complain you could have prevented it.
Growing up name-calling, bra snapping, and worry for safety was a common thing. Terms like "ho" and "skank" were always taken very lightly by ALL administration, including female teachers. Bra snapping was a custom. It was just one more thing that happened in addition to the usual playful teasing. In fact, in grade school you were special if you had a bra to be snapped.
Moving into high school, I along with a few others I knew became fearful at points. Comments like "I could F*** you right under that skirt" went ignored by the very people charged with protecting us. What's worse, the way in which the latest dress code at that time was enforced was alarming. I heard of girls being asked to bend over with their back to our male vice principal. Apparently this was the only way to test if skirts were too short, having a male superior check out their asses. I considered wearing a "gray area" skirt just so I could tell the vice principal what I thought of his methods. Instead, I opted for never wearing a skirt to school unless it covered my knees. Personally, I don't give a damn if these girls skirts were too short. That is not the way to enforce the dress code. You find a way to make it measurable and have a female charged with enforcing it.
The boys in schools do need to be sat down and taught why their actions are wrong. Cameron is right. Handcuffs do not teach a child anything other than fear of the people they should be learning to trust (the police). In many instances a child does not understand why what they have done wrong is wrong. In those cases, the child needs to be explained why it's wrong, otherwise I see no reason for them not to repeat their behavior. They have no logic as to why they shouldn't.
While boys need to be taught the wrongs of certain actions, girls need help too!!! No one ever told us it was disrespectful to have your bra snapped. No one told us how to react to physical threats. No one told us why name calling was bad. There was one teacher that explained why she thought the term "ho" was racist in 8th grade. But even at that, it was never explained that any terms like ho, skank, slut... were used to degrade women into thinking they are less important or worthy of consideration. The girls of our schools need to be educated too.
I think it would make a huge difference if we just taught our boys why certain things were wrong AND our girls why they shouldn't allow themselves to be treated in certain ways. Education has always been the way to make steps in society.
Kara Bowen
I was very excited to hear that President Glassier was coming to speak to our class. This is my fifth year at Eastern, and Tuesday was the first time that I was able to meet and interact with her. Dr. Patton must be well connected to get us such a high profile guest speaker. I was impressed with Dr. Glassier. She seemed friendly and approachable. Her advice was thoughtful and pragmatic. She, as well as anyone, is qualified to speak of the hurdles facing the white-collar working female. Her job is very prestigious and high-profile. As Eastern's first female president, she has certainly faced many obstacles to prove herself worthy of the position. The university is headed in a positive direction and a great deal of the success is attributed to her. All of the problems are also blamed on a university president also. I couldn't see a man talking about his passion being his compassion. Compassion is often a trait that women, collectively, exhibit more than men. I believe that an institute of higher learning can gain a lot from a female, as Eastern has from President Glassier.
President Glasser's speech was a compelling one. It kept bringing gender roles to mind, as she referred to her passion as being compassion, the importance of family above all else, and her definition of herself as a mother before all else. I think one would be more hard pressed to find a man who would cite the same same things as his highest priorities. Which makes me wonder--and this is just purely for the sake of playing devil's advocate--are people off-base when they ask female politicians about family and ushy-gushy female stuff? Obviously, the comments about hair and appearance and attire are irrelevant, but if females are, generally speaking, quick to reinforce their role as mother and nuturer, even if only to make the population at large feel comfortable and reassure them that they (the politican/candidate/leader/whatever) is not pushy/dike/bitchy/etc. etc. because she has challenged the societal norm? So in essence, the stereotype perpetuates the stereotype.
But then there's nothing wrong with the mother/nurturer role, and it is no doubt central to a woman who is a mother and a nurturer's role in society and thusly to her organization, but maybe it's just the light we cast it in that matters. In other words, there is still this subtle, latent light cast on all things feminine, no doubt left over from the Church's campaign to wage a holy war on all things woman when the rise of Christianity first took up arms.
For a woman to aspire to what a man has is to better herself. For a woman to want to be reasonable, powerful, etc etc is to somehow better herself, as emotionality and all things female are still viewed as personality weaknesses, or at the very least undesirable for a person in a position of power. But in reality, it is the compassionate, nurturing traits of woman that would make for the most benevolent, most fiercely protective and most socially beneficial leader. The ultra-matron. I am perhaps just rambling at this point, but all that flashed in my head when I heard Pres. Glasser speak, and I'm trying to recreate those chaotic spasms of thought. Poorly, I fear.
#2
My comment on attire and sexual harassment was meant in a slightly different context. What I wanted to ask was whether women in a professional environment should be critiqued for their attire. Obviously, wearing a bikini to a law office is not acceptable, but should managers ever ask women to dress less provocatively in the office? If a woman is skating the line of being too provocative in their dress, even if they are wearing business attire, then is it the place of a boss, male or female, to ask the woman to wear something else? I personally think that this is acceptable, but I wanted to hear responses from the rest of the class.
Furthermore, is it ever ok for a manager in a less professional environment to ask a woman to wear something more provocative? Would it be ok for a bar owner to tell a female bartender to “show a little skin?” Comparing this situation to the aforementioned law office seems absurd; however, production in both cases could go up. It is likely that the legal professional will cause fewer distractions and look more professional for clients if she dresses conservatively, and by the same token it is likely that a female bartender wearing tight jeans and a low cut shirt would increase production in a busy bar. So I guess the bottom line of my question is this. Should professionals be able to ask female employees to dress differently if their appearance could lead to more production at work? My answer is yes, within reason. I believe that a manager has the right to tell an employee, male or female, to cover up or dress more appropriately if the manager feels the employees appearance is a distraction. However, I believe that managers should only be able to ask employees to “show more skin” in limited, outlined circumstances. If a restaurant has a uniform, or certain expectations from their waitresses, then it would be ok. The employee would have presumably accepted the position knowing the dress expectations and would be able to respond accordingly. The example in mind is Hooters, which obviously displays sexist, revealing costumes; however, any employee that applied there would have known about that expectation.
On to the question at hand, I believe that, to a degree, women that dress provocatively at work invite attention. The best way I can explain this is that we all dress differently for certain occasions. If I feel like it is cold outside then I am going to wear a jacket and gloves, if I am going to the water-park then I am going to wear swimming trunks, and if I am going to play basketball then I will wear shorts and a t-shirt. Pretty simple logic to follow isn’t it? If I am wearing swimming trunks then I would expect people to ask me if I am going swimming. Likewise, if I am wearing a shirt and tie I believe people would expect me to be going somewhere that would require that attire. By that logic, a woman that is wearing a short skirt and low cut top knows what she is dressing for. She may be dressing for herself, but looking “sharp” and looking “sexy” do not necessarily go hand in hand. I think we all have seen women that are obviously wearing something a little provocative, and I think that work is not the place to wear that attire. If a woman is wearing revealing clothes at work, then she is inviting attention, not harassment but attention. There is a difference between being hit on at work or being asked out at work and then blatant, groping, touching, or other inappropriate behavior. That sort of harassment is wrong regardless of the situation and should be reported. However, I feel that it is a little bit of a stretch for women to wear completely revealing clothing and not expect respectful attention from coworkers. In the end, I believe that if women, or men, do not want special attention at work, then they should wear more conservative clothing. If a woman wants to dress for herself, and look good, then she should do so on her own time, when she is in her private life, not at work.
Up until last Tuesday, the extent of my interaction with President Glasser was limited to a photo op where several of my friends and I had painted ourselves maroon at a basketball game, and that was a very brief meeting. This was the first time I have gotten to hear her speak, and she left a few lasting impressions on me. First and foremost, I’m not at all surprised that she was once a trial lawyer, as her oratory skills were quite excellent. Everything in her speech indicated she was very comfortable in front of an audience, and also well prepared. As I believe someone pointed out in class, her speech did seem like it came from a stock collection that she might have tweaked a bit for our class specifically (and as much as I presume she speaks publicly, I can’t blame her for not drafting a brand new speech each time).
I guess she wasn’t all that different from what I had expected. Her compassion and interest in us, the students of EKU, came across as much more genuine in this smaller setting. Perhaps a male president might not have repeated President Glasser’s statement that her passion is compassion publicly, but I think that, in order to be truly good at what you do, there must be some degree of care and concern for whatever it is that you do. I suppose you could be the president of a university through cold hard efficiency and the occasional lobbying in Frankfort for money, but a genuine desire to see your students excel, which I would define as compassion, is something that people do respect, and I think is essential to being a good university president. Also, I think her compassion for the students is counterbalanced by a thorough grounding in sensible principles of management and administration that make for a good leader. For example, I get the impression that she does sympathize with us for each tuition increase, but they still happen because the university couldn’t function on the tuition rates of 2001, or so the accountants apparently say.
Post a Comment