There is a difference between “reason” and “naval gazing,” the latter being pretty self-indulgent and ego-centric.  Thinking through a problem hardly leads to vulnerability. No problems would ever be solved without reason.

Also, the mild harassment that I wrote about is often a mistake, rather than done out of an intent to exploit or harm.  Indirect harassment is usually done out of habit.  Both are usually signs of ignorance. 

It continually amazes me the degree that many “victims” lump all allegedly sexually harassing behavior into one always-done-intentionally-always-done-to-exploit-always-done-to-harm-me category.  Mistakes and miscommunication seem to be foreign concepts as much to them as they are to their “harassers,” not to mention the concept of CONFLICT RESOLUTION.

You are also mistaken if you think that a sexual harassment victim is always the one being bullied.  Sometimes sexual harassment is done in response to bullying.  This doesn’t make it okay, but the situations can be much more complicated than you could possibly imagine.

Ultimately, the position you hold involves black-and-white thinking, and many people approach sexual harassment in this way which really does not work at all in most situations.  Sexual harassment is “grey area,” full of fuzziness, subjectivity, and misunderstanding.  Often, the tiniest of transgressions can be completely blown out of proportion by the very knee-jerk reactions you are endorsing, not just by the victim or the harasser, but by people only peripherally involved. 

Indeed, most of the damage done in sexual harassment situations is the result of knee-jerk reactions, regardless of who is jerking their knee, and regardless of the direction of the jerk. 

Also, I think you mistake “reaction” and “action.”  The latter is always preferable and allows for problem solving and conflict resolution.  “Action” is empowering, while “reaction” is often destructive. 

It’s very interesting to me that so many have reacted so negatively when I espouse avoiding destructive reactions to mild or indirect harassment.  Saying “keep your head” is NOT the same thing as saying “don’t confront the behavior.”  I’ve repeatedly written, yes, DO confront the problem.  Just do so constructively and with an eye to conflict resolution.

Frankly, that this way of thinking is so foreign to so many is as scary to me as the prevalence of extreme and long term sexual harassment.  And they are equally dangerous trends.

Don’t destroy the team because someone hurt your feelings.  No one will respect you for it in the end, and you won’t really respect yourself, either, not in the long run.

Still, if you truly believe that it’s best to react first and reason later, even in the face of mild or indirect harassment, than you are exactly the type of “victim” I am talking about, and no further examples are necessary.  (Besides, as I wrote already, I cannot describe any more as this would be a violation of confidentiality.)

I know that I personally struggle a good deal with how to respond “proportionately” to instances of bullying, harassment and abuse. I appreciate the perspective that targets/victims ought not to abandon their compassion. But I would also be mindful that bulliers of all types are depending upon us as women to stay compassionate, even while they have abandoned theirs for the sake of self gratification. I’m not sure why you are so concerned about people who misuse sexual harassment if they are the minority you concede that they in fact are. You don’t detail any specific episodes of overreacting that you have encountered. Your words come across as reactionary and antagonistic to any victim who may be contemplating coming forward. Would you be willing to sketch in more detail any of the instances you’re alluding to? Maybe it would help others to understand your upset.

I think that the literature that references the experience of victims as encountering flack for coming forward is accurate. I have definitely experienced this as I have tried to fight back. The very nature of abuse is that it will not be receptive to forms of resistance. I think it’s better to err on the side of over-correcting for forms of harassment. Better that offenders expect a negative consequence to their behavior than victims question themselves (we’re already doing this, as part of our experience of being harassed).

I have been pursued by a co-worker for several months, resulting in my finally going to management this week. Predictably, my boss spoke to the offender before speaking to me, and reported that the offender had accused me of “threatening” him. Since this is the third time I have brought a formal complaint against someone at work for harassing treatment, I was subjected to a lecture about how I need to separate the “personal from the professional.”

The problem with Ceara’s advice to use the harassment as an opportunity to question oneself is that we may lose precious opportunity to protect ourselves while we are navel-gazing. The perpetrator is not examining himself or his motivations at all. He is instead probing us for vulnerabilities. Self reflection is the pinnacle of vulnerability and doubt.

I hesitated before taking decisive action because I felt flattered by my harasser’s overtures. He did nothing overtly sexual or threatening, which is why I was confused for so long. Instead of being repulsed, I started to develop my own feelings of attraction, which I went so far as to express to him. Without being upfront about the nature of his own attraction (claiming that he was interested in a mere “friendship”), he persisted in wanting a (ostensibly platonic) relationship, even after I expressed my desire to end contact. In my case, my co-worker’s contacts with me have all been by instant messenger, which is particularly disquieting for one who has never experienced it. I am fairly certain it meets the criteria for cyber-stalking, as he is so persistent, relies upon it exclusively, seems to wait until I log on everyday, and finally became hostile to me via text message when I persisted in setting boundaries.

I am actually experiencing a great deal of pain over losing this “friendship,” as damaging as I know it was, and would have continued to be. The one thing I will give Ceara is that my sense of low self esteem does initiate a reaction of anxiety whenever I am approached by a member of the opposite sex. So there are definitely things for me to look at. What seems important is that I discount the advice of my manager, and others who aren’t well informed about harassment and stalking on the job. The Employee Assistant Counselor denied out of hand that I was experiencing stalking. She maintained that my coworker could be taken at his word when he professed a desire for mere friendship. Now I am in trouble for having discussed a previous sexual harassment investigation.

I think it’s better to react first, and question later. The worst that will happen is that even “mild” harassers will think twice. We want that. Trust me.

I mean, give me a break.  If that was how I felt, SHS would never have been formed in the first place!

The article is specifically a criticism of destructive responses to mild and/or indirect sexual harassment. 

Please note that one of the goals of SHS is to encourage constructive solutions to sexual harassment whenever possible, such as using “conflict resolution” strategies, or mediation.  (See our About Us page on the main site.) 

I welcome comments on the article as long as they focus on the topic as written. If you make a comment, and it does not get approved, then it probably did not focus on the topic. 

Thanks!