Is the line between "courtship" and harassment really that blurry?

[Anonymous]

I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear to me what's harassment and what isn't. Using your authority at work or your hiring power to try and gain sexual favors is harassment.

So a lawyer asks a paralegal at the same firm to go out for drinks. Makes suggestive comments about going out and having fun. Paralegal declines, saying it sounds like fun but has other plans this weekend, maybe some other time. Lawyer asks again the next week, and gets similar response. Pattern repeats several times over the course of a few months. Paralegal does not work directly for lawyer, but is at same firm. Is this sexual harassment?

Repeatedly asking a coworker out, after she's made it clear that she isn't interested, is generally regarded as harassment.

Are you saying that’s clear harassment, or just “generally considered” which is a little more ambiguous phrasing? Could not tell from your response.

Also, in my scenario, the paralegal did not say “not interested”, but rather said sounds like fun, not now, maybe some other time. Is your answer still so clear?

Dude, get a clue. She's giving the lawyer a soft no. If she wanted to see him outside of work, she would figure out a way to do it. Are you really that stupid? If so, you shouldn't be lawyering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

Before the Internet, that's how you met women, at least outside your church, so yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

Why are you being obtuse? How do you think men ever got dates without approaching women and asking them out? Maybe you are too young to remember how people interacted before Tinder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men try to chat up cute women, duh. And if you're offended by "Hi", you need to put yourself someplace where that doesn't happen. "Hi" is not sexual harassment .

there you have it, folks. attractive young women have no right to be in public unless they are willing to be constantly hit on.

Saying "hi" to a stranger is equivalent to hitting on and harassing that person? If that's true, then I've probably "hit on" 10 different men and women today, starting with a 65 year old man in my neighborhood who was walking his dogs while I was on the way to work. You might need to recalibrate your measuring stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem may be that you look at a woman and think "cute girl" or "cute chick" in a coffee shop, while she regards herself as "an accountant attempting to finish a client file" or "a lawyer with a deadline." The fact that the person working at the coffee shop is female doesn't make it okay to interrupt her while she is working. You wouldn't interrupt Bob. Don't interrupt Sheila.

Umm, we would interrupt Bob if we were trying to date Bob.

So every woman in public is fodder for your need to date frenzy?

Before the Internet, that's how you met women, at least outside your church, so yes.

The internet has been around 30 years. Time to upgrade your tactics. Or do you still advertise in the newspaper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear to me what's harassment and what isn't. Using your authority at work or your hiring power to try and gain sexual favors is harassment.

So a lawyer asks a paralegal at the same firm to go out for drinks. Makes suggestive comments about going out and having fun. Paralegal declines, saying it sounds like fun but has other plans this weekend, maybe some other time. Lawyer asks again the next week, and gets similar response. Pattern repeats several times over the course of a few months. Paralegal does not work directly for lawyer, but is at same firm. Is this sexual harassment?

Repeatedly asking a coworker out, after she's made it clear that she isn't interested, is generally regarded as harassment.

Are you saying that’s clear harassment, or just “generally considered” which is a little more ambiguous phrasing? Could not tell from your response.

Also, in my scenario, the paralegal did not say “not interested”, but rather said sounds like fun, not now, maybe some other time. Is your answer still so clear?

Dude, get a clue. She's giving the lawyer a soft no. If she wanted to see him outside of work, she would figure out a way to do it. Are you really that stupid? If so, you shouldn't be lawyering.

If someone gives a soft no once or even twice, it may be that they are genuinely busy or already have other plans- especially if it's a spontaneous/last minute invite. But declining a third time, most definitely a no. They just want to be polite or nice about it and hope the other person loses interest. Considering their profession, shouldn't lawyers be better at reading people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men try to chat up cute women, duh. And if you're offended by "Hi", you need to put yourself someplace where that doesn't happen. "Hi" is not sexual harassment .

there you have it, folks. attractive young women have no right to be in public unless they are willing to be constantly hit on.

Saying "hi" to a stranger is equivalent to hitting on and harassing that person? If that's true, then I've probably "hit on" 10 different men and women today, starting with a 65 year old man in my neighborhood who was walking his dogs while I was on the way to work. You might need to recalibrate your measuring stick.

Again mutual eye contact + mutual hi / greetings= okay

Interrupting someone to say hi to inflate your own self worth = not okay

Why is this so hard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

https://mic.com/articles/135394/14-women-were-brutally-attacked-for-rejecting-men-why-arent-we-talking-about-it#.Ioj5NVzMX

Stop pretending you don't know why women give polite answers to unwanted male attention. As noted earlier in the thread, you and men like you are shitbirds who do know where the line is, but habitually step across it to feel powerful. Playacting confused isn't convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you really don't want to be asked out, then why wouldn't you say "No, I'm not interested in anything romantic with you"? No absolutely means no, but "sure sounds like fun, maybe some other time" doesn't always mean no.

Because when a woman says what you suggested, she is perceived as either a bitch or an arrogant ass to have assumed that you were asking in a romantic way. See coffe shop convo amd marital rape. Historically, we have not been allowed to say No in the way you describe. You should read some Deborah Tannen - women's ways of speaking are equally valid. Learn to listen to what we are saying.

No, you need to learn to communicate. What rule says you're "not allowed" to say no? You're saying you're unhappy that your soft deferral ("sounds great, maybe some other time") is not being perceived as a firm "no, not interested", and you're angry that you keep getting asked out even after the soft deferral. You can stop the situation by simply giving a firm "no, not interested", but you nevertheless choose the soft deferral. Why? You know full well that if you give a soft deferral, the man will potentially perceive that as leaving the door open. So why do you choose to leave the door open? Why not simply close it?

And what you’re missing is that in this example, although paralegal does not work for this specific lawyer, she likely works for a colleague and the power differential is still tilted because if the lawyer asking her out gets pissy about being rejected, he can still badmouth her to her boss or make problems in her job. The continued soft no helps at least mitigate or buy time until he hopefully loses interest.

Look at how irritated men are about not being able to say hello - how do you think you/they take a rejection by someone they feel power over, even if it’s only perceived or social power? (Hint: usually not well)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty clear to me what's harassment and what isn't. Using your authority at work or your hiring power to try and gain sexual favors is harassment.

So a lawyer asks a paralegal at the same firm to go out for drinks. Makes suggestive comments about going out and having fun. Paralegal declines, saying it sounds like fun but has other plans this weekend, maybe some other time. Lawyer asks again the next week, and gets similar response. Pattern repeats several times over the course of a few months. Paralegal does not work directly for lawyer, but is at same firm. Is this sexual harassment?

Repeatedly asking a coworker out, after she's made it clear that she isn't interested, is generally regarded as harassment.

Are you saying that’s clear harassment, or just “generally considered” which is a little more ambiguous phrasing? Could not tell from your response.

Also, in my scenario, the paralegal did not say “not interested”, but rather said sounds like fun, not now, maybe some other time. Is your answer still so clear?

Dude, get a clue. She's giving the lawyer a soft no. If she wanted to see him outside of work, she would figure out a way to do it. Are you really that stupid? If so, you shouldn't be lawyering.

Same answer when it's a 27 year old female lawyer inviting out a 25 year old male paralegal? Is it harassment the first time she asks him out? Or just the second time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://mic.com/articles/135394/14-women-were-brutally-attacked-for-rejecting-men-why-arent-we-talking-about-it#.Ioj5NVzMX

Stop pretending you don't know why women give polite answers to unwanted male attention. As noted earlier in the thread, you and men like you are shitbirds who do know where the line is, but habitually step across it to feel powerful. Playacting confused isn't convincing.

Oh good, now we're getting to the part where you call me names. At least you're communicating clearly for once. See if you can intuit what I think about you ...