RANT-12/9

Sexual Harassment.

Just saying the words brings a flood of scenarios to mind. Images of gold-digging females bent on grabbing a piece of fame and fortune, embolden by a society that views females as the weaker sex and fueled by the little boy/macho-man attitude that “I was just joking around.” In fairness, I’m sure gay men face as much or even more harassment. I suppose the big difference being; with gays you can add a fanatical/zealot religious faction to the mix, methodically thumping their holy books in unison in the background.

The majority of publicly exposed sexual harassment cases involve a female vs. a male. The defense’s recipe for success includes; a female with a moderate or less income, add in a dash of questionable character, a little syrupy flirty attitude and maybe a pinch of a previous relationship with the defendant. Stir well within the media and serve on the pages of the local newspaper. On the other side of the table, we have the prosecutor, sometimes apply labeled the accusers defense lawyer, armed with a folder filled with partial truths, out of context statements, a witness list laced with vendetta driven do-gooders and an erasable attitude of self-righteousness.

Each of these images points to the real problem, one that perceives the accuser not as a victim, but as an opportunist. The accused, on the other hand, is viewed as the victim. The “I was just joking around.” answer is initially the most used defense in these cases. The flaw with this defense is the true underlying character of the accused and accuser. Not all accusers are gold-diggers. Likewise, not all accused are macho egomaniacs. The trick is to know which is which and that can only happen with a public trial where those questions are answered in full view of all.

Unfortunately, most cases are settled out of court because of the inherent costs of prosecution. Because these cases are not settled in court, the accuser is often considered the victor and if a monetary settlement is attached, so is the gold-digger label. Interestingly, I doubt the court would award any monetary settlement. That’s the rub, by going to court for a judgment it opens up the liability for the employer, thus starting the process all over again. So, it’s easy to see why a settlement out of court is preferred. The other advantage to this is the costs of the settlement are usually paid by the employer without admission of guilt or public knowledge, ending further litigation. Both employees will lose their jobs and the gold-digger and the sexist go on about their lives with their new labels attached. No one has to admit any guilt or wrong doing.

The reason for my writing this is everyone I have talked to about the Jenn Sterger/Brett Farve story has basically said the same thing; “She’s a money grabbing bitch, just out to make a name for herself and take down a famous football star.” And, I have a problem with this view. Granted, they may well be right about the whole situation but, the last time I looked at my passport it said “Citizen of the United States of America”. As such, I am presumed not guilty until proven in a court of law otherwise. If one can jump to the conclusion that Jenn is a bitch so easily, then how easy is the leap to say Brett is a perverted asshole with no respect for women? The truth is yet to be shown and in fact may never be known. Just ask yourself this question; what would you want people to think if you were in this situation? I’ll save my judgment and use it on something of more importance, like draft or bottle?