Policing sexual "harassment" should not be the responsibility of employers
Debate Rounds (2)
Most ladies spend a lot of time and money on clothes, cosmetics, perfumes, low calorie diets and gym memberships in order to look attractive to men.
So what's the point of young women going to all that trouble and expense if their male colleagues at work fail to compliment them with a suggestive remark accompanied by a playful pinch of her bottom or an innocent fondle of her breasts?
Just to be absolutely fair, it should be the same rule for a man and he should have no right to complain to his employer if some leggy blonde stunner caresses his groin area and suggests that he joins her in the stationery room for a little bit of "corporate entertainment".
If an employee is seriously molested against their will on repeated occasions then they should consult their lawyer or call the police because managing inter-personal relations of staff should not be the responsibility of employers.
You started off your debate by sterotyping which is not a very good way to start a debate, but to move on with your view of women making themselves look good while at work. I agree with you to a point that there are some women who make themselves look good so they can be eye-candy to all men who come across the womens' path be it at the mall, club, or work. However, I would assume or hope most women do it for its culturally accepted and maybe to make themselves look attractive at work for it could be a self-esteem booster. Besides have you ever thought maybe a woman makes herself look attractive while on the job for she knows the men will be day dreaming about her and not focusing on their work and this could lead to her getting a promotion over her male co-workers. Not saying women do this, but I wouldn't be surprise either. You then stated how your agrument applied to both females and males.
Now I would think both men and women experience sexual harassment while working, but I assume it is an issue mainly for women then men due to the fact of how men and women are wired biologically different when it comes to sexism. Now hear me out and this is in general and my opinion between the sexes. A male is more likely to enjoy sexual harassment for it leads to attention for most males and more likely to jump into the woman's pants faster then vice-versa. I also think its more of a one sided issue for sexual harassment according to Dr. John Gottman and I quote " Sexual harassment is a subtle rape, and rape is more about fear than sex" (NYTimes, Archieves, Published Oct. 22, 1991 by Daniel Goleman). Not sure how big of a problem sexual harassment is in the overall work force, but if it is a major problem then would police really be helpful?
You wrote something along the lines that sexual harassment should be resolved by the victim seeking help from the police and lawyers. Yes, police should get involved, but only in the most extreme sexual harassment situations for in my opinion they potentially have more important things to attend to such as someone with a gun in a school, a multi-car fatal accident, etc. Besides going back to reputation do you think it would look good for an employer if the police were continously being called due to sexual harassment. Therefore policing sexual harassment should be the responsability of the employer and he/she should use all the resources that he/she and his/her employees could use to provide and work in a safe and professional environment.
You know that girl in the office you have been admiring from afar for so long? Yes, that"s right: the nice, slim, pretty one with the outsized breasts. Well, how does she know you find her attractive? She won"t unless you let her know.
So here's the idea: go over to her desk and say "I bet you five dollars I can make your boobs bounce up and down without touching them."
She'll accept assuming that you will try and make her guffaw at some amusing anecdote and that she will be easily be able to resist the temptation to laugh at any joke you might tell her.
With that, you reach out and grab her boobs, and bounce them up and down vigorously, and then say "Okay, I lost, here"s your five dollars!"
So you've had your fun while she will think your trick is enormously funny. She will also be flattered because you paid attention to her and, furthermore, she'll be five dollars better off, so everyone's a winner man!
You see, it is the jovial atmosphere that this type of flirtatious exchange creates which actually improves staff moral and, thereby, productivity and company loyalty.
Now, to address my opponent's arguments: a private company's primary responsibility is to maximise profits for its shareholders and the red tape involved in pursuing accusations of sexual harassment, many of which will be spurious, can cost a company a great deal of money and, therefore, restrict the amount of cash available for dividend payments to investors.
Regarding the company's reputation, since the law applies to all firms, no company would be obliged to police sexual harassment in the workplace so their reputation wouldn't suffer if they didn't.
Some companies may choose to crackdown on people having a bit of a laugh at work but this extra time and expense would make the firm uncompetitive and also give the impression to potential recruits that their outfit would be a joyless place to work, where everybody is obsessively monitored and subject to intrusive surveillance, where the slightest transgression in the arena of political incorrectness is severely punished.
Who would want to work in such an Orwellian environment? Only militant lesbians and frigid religious girls together with prudish Nazis and humourless homosexual gentlemen, that's who.
My opponent goes on to quote the Jewish author Daniel Goleman who equates a man attempting to forge a friendly relationship with a female co-worker with rape. This is the same man who claimed that non-cognitive skills can matter as much as I.Q. for workplace success (Working with Emotional Intelligence, 1998, Bantam Books), in other words, an gibbering idiot should be put in charge of a running a major country just because he can drive a golf buggy. Thankfully this hasn"t happened in the real world since George W. Bush became President of the United States but it shows what an utter fool Goleman is.
At the end of the day, workers are not schoolchildren, if they are being bullied at work they can't go to their boss like they went their teacher at school, they have to deal with it like adults and the same principle should apply to sexual "harassment".
I disagree for we communicate and interact with others mostly by body language/action than actually speaking. Therefore a girl can tell if a male likes her through his body language/actions that can be appropriate which excludes any actions that are viewed as sexual harassment.
My opponent also mentioned how the the primary responsibility of a public company is to maximise profits for its shareholders and having to police sexual harassment takes money away from the shareholders. Now, yes I agree the primary responsibility of a public company is to maximise profits for its shareholders, but the action of not policing sexual harassment could also and mostly likely would lead to affecting the shareholders profits too. How? Ok you are an employer of a company and you don't police sexual harassment and therefore it is solely in the hands of your employees. Sexual harassment starts to become an issue in that a good portion of your employees are constantly taking off work to meet with their lawyers and/or you are constantly hiring and firing. These actions as well as the action of policing sexual harassment in the workplace affect the shareholders and their profits.
Another statement my opponent mentioned was the law would apply to all companies not having to police sexual harassment and therefore the reputation wouldn't be a concern. Just because something is a law (or not a law) it can still have an impact on the reputation of the company. For example there is no law that says big corporations such as Merck, Glaxosmithkline, Microsoft,Google, etc have to offer its employees services such as having national food chains on site, day care services on site for the employees young children, on site bank(s), and other services. Offering these services keeps the employee happy and in return the employee is more likely to increase his/her work productivity leading to the increase profits for its shareholders. So these factors combined together would affect reputation of the company as far as those who are looking into being an employee and/or investor for that company. So why wouldn't companies have the same attitude and go above and beyond of what is expected of them in relation to sexual harassment, no matter if there is a law stating that employers don't have to police sexual harassment?
The last thing I would like to comment on is that my opponent had ask if anyone would want to work in such an Orwellian environment? I hate to say this but we live and I repeat we live in an Orwellian world to a degree. Yes, everyone to a point is under surveillance. Just look at things like Face book where anyone can view what you post (if you allow it) and some have gotten in trouble from their employer for what has been posted on their face book page, despite the fact that the postings occurs while off the job or its something that was part of that person's past. Everything we do, for we have smartphones, tablets, credit and debit cards, and the list grows that tracks our movements and you are worry about being under the microscope while at work? Hell, cameras are becoming smart that not only do they recognized us by our facial features, but there are companies trying to develop or maybe they have already where cameras talk to each other and they can predict where you will likely go next when walking in the streets of a city.
Thank you and I hope you are having a good time enjoying the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.