| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 277.1 | Amherst, here I come! :-) | CADSYS::PSMITH | foop-shootin', flip city! | Wed Aug 08 1990 11:17 | 14 |
| Well, all I can say, is thank heavens I'm moving to Amherst in two
weeks! :-)
I was talking about this rule to a friend who goes to UMass and we
agreed it was a) impossible to enforce, b) inappropriate intervention
by administration, and c) needlessly narrow. You can't legislate
politeness. Summary: it's dumb and it won't work. We didn't think
about how it's unconstitutional restriction of free speech, but that's
very true...
Sudden thought -- hey, maybe they could extend it to CONSTRUCTION
SITES!! Now THAT I would support! :-)
Pam
|
| 277.2 | pointers | LEZAH::BOBBITT | water, wind, and stone | Wed Aug 08 1990 11:38 | 14 |
| see also:
womannotes-v1
271 - how do you spell harassment?
798 - sexual harassment or cowardice?
womannotes-v2
949 - verbal abuse and harassment
human_relations
686 - harassment?
-Jody
|
| 277.4 | Just the person I'd pick. | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Wed Aug 08 1990 11:58 | 4 |
| Locke missed a swipe: Here's ol' Gus making the rules for what
constitutes harrassment against women and girls.
Ann B.
|
| 277.5 | confessions of a bawdy wench | TINCUP::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Wed Aug 08 1990 14:54 | 8 |
| Why is it that we (generic universal humans) always have to take things
to extremes? Sigh, this is the sort of thing that ends up imprisoning
women. For matters of personal rudness I prefer the "Buzz off Bozo"
defense.
It also occurs to me that this is a take off on the "right to life" sex
is bad and teenagers should never "do it" philosophy. Geeze, I'd be
arrested under half those rules. (no I won't say which ones ;*)) liesl
|
| 277.6 | did we read this right? | COOKIE::CHEN | Madeline S. Chen, D&SG Marketing | Fri Aug 10 1990 17:51 | 9 |
|
I noticed that most the replies to this note assume the harrassment
rules in question apply to the male as the predator, and the female as
the prey. Who said the rule against lurid looks, or suggestive
comments don't apply to the female doing the looking, and the
suggesting? The verbage in the original note did not imply which was
which.
-m
|
| 277.7 | | CONURE::AMARTIN | you IDIOT! You made me!!! | Sat Aug 11 1990 10:31 | 5 |
| ITs a given. Only the male beast of the species can be so crass....
:-) :-)
|
| 277.9 | gray zones have gray definitions | AV8OR::TATISTCHEFF | noah and zeke like him too | Sat Aug 11 1990 16:22 | 20 |
| re .8
the argument of using terms such as rape and sexual harrassment very
carefully so as to retain the "shock value" our society places on them
was used in _Liscence_to_Rape_ (on marital rape, a legal oxymoron in
many states).
while i find it a good argument, it leaves many victims in a real
quandary on how best to describe what has happened to them. they
experience a real, horrible, and entirely unambiguous event, but are
left without words to describe it.
re .0
while the rule is terribly vague, and yes, could be abused easily, i
can still envision many situations where the behaviors described
(innuendo, leers, etc) could indeed leave a person *truly* and
*justifiably* fearful.
lee
|