All of this sounds great under my factors, but what about reality. The fact of the matter is, there is a infinite number of circumstances which affect what is and is not sexual harassment. I believe that in many cases Bill's defense is perfectly accecptable; but only once. I will argue though that the double standards, lack of company policy, and fear of law suits, make it impossible to justify any defense or accusation. The guidelines set forth not only by Altman but also by title seven, greatly affect the ability for one justify Bill's defense. Further they make it difficult to solve resolve any accusation of HEH without serious consequences to the parties involved and the company they work for.
The double standard implied in the guidelines for HEH harm both the male and female side of any incident. The seriousness and extreme consequences of a minor incident force male's in the work place to be overly cautious regarding what they say or talk about. It is ridiculous to go about job concerned about how people construe what you saying. Let's face most people do not ever intentionally want to offend another person by their actions. In the event that they do offend someone, the simpiliest resolution would be to make them aware of their action so they can appoligize and see that it does not occur again. Where the double standard plays in is that woman do not have to justify that the comment was unwelcomed. HEH is not like theft or any other crime because there is no way prove the event in most cases. Also HEH requires that one party be offended by the actions of another, so obviously the unwelcomeness must proved. People need to come to the realization that no matter what they do in life, at some point they will be offended by anothers actions. It is not fair to argue that the "reasonable woman" has different, more sensitive emotions that men don't. If this is the case how do you expect a male to know when his actions, which he thinks are perfectly appropriate, offend the "reasonable woman.
