To me, this op/ed by a female law professor about sexual harassment is bit puzzling. In the first part of the piece she says that men and women shouldn’t worry about accidentally harassing someone. She hangs her argument on the fact that one of the determinants is whether the unwelcome behavior was severe and/or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment. A judge or investigator would rely on the “reasonable person” test. That is, would a reasonable person find the behavior hostile or abusive? My unease comes from wondering who this “reasonable person” is whose judgment seems to be beyond reproach. Given the gender inequality in terms of number women in positions of power in most organization and professions, is the reasonable person a man or a woman? Women often get blamed for being strident or unreasonable when they assert their rights or call out unwelcome behavior. And in the case of Harvey Weinstein’s jury, the majority of them are men.
Worried about accidentally harassing a woman? Don’t be
One of the consequences of the #MeToo movement is a simmering male anxiety that a harmless chat by the water cooler might somehow end in a harassment complaint to HR – or worse. Harvey Weinstein’s criminal trial may reinvigorate those fears.