I have an ongoing discussion with someone close to me about other people in their life not acting/responding as they would like. I agree those other people can be unreasonable but I stress that we can’t just make people act as we would like them.
Sure, you can’t make Bob in accounting stop wearing that Members Only jacket. But if he sexually harasses someone? Fire his ass. See? You can make a difference! Bob may or may not change his ways, but the people in your life no longer include him.
Depends on the circumstances. If men smile a bit more at you, CatBus, it won’t be so easy. Maybe you don’t mind or maybe it’s horribly objectifying. If it’s the former, then no problem! If you’re walking down the street there’s less control over reactions.
Sexual harassment has two legal yardsticks: quid pro quo (which is usually an unprovably high hurdle, so it’s safe to ignore) and hostile environment. Convincing people smiling is of a nature that it caused a hostile environment is either also a really high hurdle, or else “smiling” isn’t the best term for describing the behavior in question. Either way, go for it. Offending people has never been the issue. Creating a hostile work environment is. The law knows the difference.
You are correct that crimes and civil offenses can happen anywhere. You can get mugged at work or in the street. You can implement security at work to prevent muggings, but on the street you have less control.
The basic principle is sound that others will behave badly and there’s no easy fix and a person might choose to go about things a certain way.
Sure, and there are penalties for when your behavior crosses a line of civil society. That’s reasonable.
Forget the law! Extreme cases are assault and harassment (as legally defined) but that’s not the whole story here. If a man whistles at you on the street, that’s not harassment. If 5 men whistle at you, still no. If a man creeps you out at work for smiling and being friendly and you think it has something to do with you looking good, that’s not legally actionable,
Sure, you’re talking layman’s harassment vs. legal harassment. The thing is, as far as sexual harassment goes, the significant difference to the law is location, not behavior. In a workplace, a behavior is harassment in the legal sense. Outside the workplace, the exact same behavior is harassment in the layman’s sense, just not actionable under (current) law. If the behavior you see in the street fails the legal test in a workplace, I’m not sure you’re going to run into many people calling it harassment.
but all these things are relevant to Peterson’s ill-made argument.
Seems there’s not much difference aside from the codification.
If you’re a person who objects to even minor displays of sexual interest or feel you’re not being taken seriously, you might choose to put yourself together more modestly. Or not. I don’t see anyone demanding or blaming women either way.
It’s not about being offended, it’s about harassment. If Employee A engages in harassing behavior with Employee B and Employee B doesn’t mind, that can still create a hostile work environment for Employee C. Harassment and being offended are not related. For that matter, so are harassment and makeup, or harassment and clothing.
The thought that men are governed by their penises and therefore can’t be expected to behave like decent people is a really convenient lie, and the thought that you have to curb your own behavior simply to avoid setting off a man is similar.
In summary: Do what you like as long as it doesn’t hurt other people. If someone near you is a jerk, it’s because they’re a jerk. If they’re such a jerk that they sexually harass you, it’s not because your bra strap is showing.