sexual harassment on seetec course?

suki1964

daytona0 wrote: »

It depends on the context! In my place I could go up to one or two of the girls and say things like that. They'd have a right laugh! Filthier things have been said at that place!

BUT you can't say that to strangers. You *may* get away with it in that the girl takes it on the chin, but they do have a right to feel harassed over it.

OP, you probably do need to get a thicker skin when you go into proper work, but in this case you are fully justified in what you are doing.

I would suggest there is " no context"

These are not comments made in a place of work

Even if neither you nor the "girls" mentioned minded, someone else in the same place of work just might

Gingernutty

The OP has also posted on Mumsnet, where they allow swearing and stuff.

OP, it's horrific and needs to be reported.

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2733891-is-this-sexual-harrasment-or-am-i-overracting

Wayne_O_Mac

Gingernutty wrote: »

OP, it's horrific and needs to be reported.

You're talking about mumsnet, right?

daytona0

suki1964 wrote: »

I would suggest there is " no context"

These are not comments made in a place of work

Even if neither you nor the "girls" mentioned minded, someone else in the same place of work just might

You'd be a fool if:

1. You said these things to someone who didn't want to hear them (like OP)

2. You said these things within earshot of anyone who might take passive offence (like you)

Aside from that, as long as both parties feel comfortable and it isn't at the expense of anyone who hasn't consented, then live and let live So I maintain that a context exists, but it is certainly not applicable in OP's case.

agrinnall

This is Seetec to anyone who doesn't know (I didn't).

http://www.seetec.co.uk/

Having read the post by the OP on Mumsnet I would definitely make the statement and to be honest I would expect the perpetrators to at least be suspended from the course and put onto another one that the OP is not on, and if it was down to me I'd just throw them off and not allow them back.

Undervalued

agrinnall wrote: »

This is Seetec to anyone who doesn't know (I didn't).

http://www.seetec.co.uk/

Having read the post by the OP on Mumsnet I would definitely make the statement and to be honest I would expect the perpetrators to at least be suspended from the course and put onto another one that the OP is not on, and if it was down to me I'd just throw them off and not allow them back.

The problem is, I assume, the lack of any independent witness. If a formal complaint is made the people running the course will have ask the (alleged) perpetrators for their side of the story and they will no doubt deny it. OK, that may be sufficient to stop the problem but it may not.

I would first make it very clear that their behaviour is not welcome and that any further incidents will be reported. I would also be tempted to record that conversation on my phone as a precaution.

DigForVictory

cat777, you need to go in, you need to complete all the paperwork & you need to ask to stay on the course but without those two. Why should *their* shameful conduct cost you *your* education & development? You may not be worried about loosing your money, but as a forum we are. Education is what you undergo to get not just a job but the better jobs, so don;t let these idiots take it away from you.

Have you told the Papworth Trust folk about this? As I'd bet they'd be all for you getting the ongoing education & support & the two idiots getting a very solid lesson in acceptable conduct.

All the very best today &, I hope, with your ongoing education!

Guest101

TELLIT01 wrote: »

From my limited understanding of the issue, it's sexual harassment if the recipient perceives it as such, irrespective of whether it was intended or not. As you have made the complaint I think you really should see it through.
You haven't given any detail, as is your right, so it's not possible to be any more specific than that.

That's partly correct, there is always the reasonable person test to consider.


I refer to the 'Hugh Mungus' video which surfaced recently as an example

sangie595

daytona0 wrote: »

It depends on the context! In my place I could go up to one or two of the girls and say things like that. They'd have a right laugh! Filthier things have been said at that place!

BUT you can't say that to strangers. You *may* get away with it in that the girl takes it on the chin, but they do have a right to feel harassed over it.

OP, you probably do need to get a thicker skin when you go into proper work, but in this case you are fully justified in what you are doing.

And this is exactly why these things continue to happen to women, and why thickheads spend to much time using the "it's only banter" line.

This is a workplace. Not your living room and not the local pub. In a workplace there is never a context in which such language is appropriate. And the fact that worse things have been said in the past is no excuse for it to continue. There is no context. It is wrong. No more than, in the past, had someone said that to a young woman, it would have been right for her dad and her brothers to be waiting for you the next day to teach you a lesson you will never forget. That used to happen to. No excuse for it to continue to happen.

Personally, I doubt I would find it amusing in any context, but the workplace is for working - anything beyond that should be within limits of sociable behaviour. If you wouldn't walk up to a stranger and say it, it shouldn't be said in a workplace. Or, a better test might be, if you wouldn't walk up to a stranger and say it without expecting to get your lights punched out, you shouldn't say it - clearly the former test wouldn't work on idiots like these. Although I suspect that they are not nearly so "brave" in a situation where they don't know that the stranger won't be able to punch their lights out. That's the way of bullies.

Undervalued

sangie595 wrote: »

And this is exactly why these things continue to happen to women, and why thickheads spend to much time using the "it's only banter" line.

This is a workplace. Not your living room and not the local pub. In a workplace there is never a context in which such language is appropriate. And the fact that worse things have been said in the past is no excuse for it to continue. There is no context. It is wrong. No more than, in the past, had someone said that to a young woman, it would have been right for her dad and her brothers to be waiting for you the next day to teach you a lesson you will never forget. That used to happen to. No excuse for it to continue to happen.

Personally, I doubt I would find it amusing in any context, but the workplace is for working - anything beyond that should be within limits of sociable behaviour. If you wouldn't walk up to a stranger and say it, it shouldn't be said in a workplace. Or, a better test might be, if you wouldn't walk up to a stranger and say it without expecting to get your lights punched out, you shouldn't say it - clearly the former test wouldn't work on idiots like these. Although I suspect that they are not nearly so "brave" in a situation where they don't know that the stranger won't be able to punch their lights out. That's the way of bullies.

Wouldn't work on alleged idiots like these!

The employer (or course provider in this instance) needs to be fair and hear both sides.

The alleged behaviour is deplorable but it is not unknown for exaggerated or even total unfounded allegations to be made against wholly innocent people.