It is important to rethink sexual harassment by addressing the following question: Because most men do not harass women, why do men tend to be resistant to admitting the breadth and depth of sexual harassment in organizations? The author posits that because men and women do not understand each other’s standpoints on sexual harassment, a gap exists between men’s and women’s understanding of what sexual harassment means. Specifically, men’s power over standpoint and the related fear of marginalization clash with women’s power with standpoint and the related fear of physical harm. The author concludes by suggesting that engaging in a dialogue with the goals of understanding and accepting other standpoints is necessary before sexual harassment can be approached in a humanistic manner.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, B. J. (1998). Black womanhood and feminist standpoints. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 575-586.
2.
Barr, P. A. (1993). Perceptions of sexual harassment. Sociological Inquiry, 63, 460-470.
3.
Berger, P. L. , & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
4.
Berryman-Fink, C. , & Riley, K. V. (1997). The role of gender and feminism in perceptions of sexual and sexually harassing communication. Women’s Studies in Communication, 20, 24-44.
5.
Bingham, S. G. (1994). Introduction: Framing sexual harassment—defining a discursive focus of study. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 1-14). Westport, CT: Praeger.
6.
Blum, T. C , Fields, D. L., & Goodman, J. S. (1994). Organization-level determinants of women in management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 241-268.
7.
Booth-Butterfield, M. (1989). Perceptions of harassing communication as a function of locus of control, work force participation, and gender. Communication Quarterly, 37, 262-275.
8.
Brody, L. R. , Lovas, G. S., & Hay, D. H. (1995). Gender differences in anger and fear as a function of situational context. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 32, 47-78.
9.
Bullis, C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling, constraining, and shifting perspectives. Communication Monographs, 60, 10-17.
10.
Buzzanell, P. M. (1994). Gaining a voice: Feminist organizational communication theorizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 339-383.
11.
Buzzanell, P. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process: Implications for understanding and change. Communication Monographs, 62, 327-354.
12.
Canary, K. J. , & Hause, K. S. (1993). Is there any reason to research sex differences in communication?Communication Quarterly, 41, 129-144.
13.
Caputi, J. , & Russell, D.E.H. (1992). Femicide: Sexist terrorism against women. In J. Radford & D.E.H. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman killing (pp. 13-21). New York: Twayne.
14.
Clair, R. P. (1993a). The bureaucratization, commodification, and privatization of sexual harassment through institutional discourse: A study of the Big Ten universities. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 123-157.
15.
Clair, R. P. (1993b). The use of framing devices to sequester organizational narratives: Hegemony and harassment. Communication Monographs, 60, 113-136.
16.
Clair, R. P. (1994). Hegemony and harassment: A discursive practice. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 59-70). Westport, CT: Praeger.
17.
Clair, R. P. , Chapman, P. A., & Kunkel, A. W. (1996). Narrative approaches to raising consciousness about sexual harassment: From research to pedagogy and back again. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 24, 241-259.
18.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, 14-32.
19.
Conrad, C. , & Taylor, B. (1994). The context(s) of sexual harassment: Power, silences, and academe. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 45-58). Westport, CT: Praeger.
20.
Coontz, P. D. (1995). Gender bias in the legal profession: Women “see” it, men don’t. Women and Politics, 15, 1-22.
21.
Diehl, L. A. (1996). Raising expectations: Institutional responsibility and the issue of sexual harassment. Initiatives, 57, 1-10.
22.
Dougherty, D. S. , (1996, November). Structuration and conflict management: Women weight lifters and change. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Diego, CA.
23.
Dougherty, D. S. , & Duncan, V. J. (1998). Perceptions of power and conflict management strategies in African American dating relationships. In V. J. Duncan (Ed.), Towards achieving Maât: Communication patterns in African American, European American, and interracial relationships (pp. 135-151). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
24.
Flam, H. (1993). Fear, loyalty and greedy organizations. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 58-75). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Foss, K. A. , & Rogers, R. A. (1994). Particularities and possibilities: Reconceptualizing knowledge and power in sexual harassment research. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 159-172). Westport, CT: Praeger.
26.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
27.
Garlick, R. (1994). Male and female responses to ambiguous instructor behaviors. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 30, 135-158.
28.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon.
30.
Grauerholz, E. (1994). Gender socialization and communication: The inscription of sexual harassment in social life. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 33-44). Westport, CT: Praeger.
31.
Harding, S. (1991). Who’s science? Who’s knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32.
Hartsock, N.C.M. (1987). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 157-180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
33.
Hartsock, N.C.M. (1997). Standpoint theories for the next century. Women and Politics, 18, 93-101.
34.
Hawkesworth, M. E. (1989). Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 533-557.
35.
Hearn, J. (1993). Emotive subjects: Organizational men, organizational masculinities and the (de)construction of “emotions”. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotion in organizations (pp. 142-166). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22, 341-365.
37.
Hemphill, M. R. , & Pfeiffer, A. L. (1986). Sexual spillover in the workplace: Testing the appropriateness of male-female interaction. Women’s Studies in Communication, 9, 52-66.
38.
Hirschmann, N. J. (1997). Feminist standpoint as postmodern strategy. Women and Politics, 18, 73-92.
39.
Kramarae, C. (1992). Harassment and everyday life. In L. F. Rakow (Ed.), Women making meaning: New feminist directions in communication (pp. 100-120). New York: Routledge.
40.
Kreps, G. L. (1993). Introduction: Sexual harassment and communication. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 1-5). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
41.
Kreps, G. L. (1994). Sexual harassment as information equivocality: Communication and requisite variety. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 127-138). Westport, CT: Praeger.
42.
Krone, K. J. , Carter, K., & Szwapa, C. (1995, November). Reasons to continue gendering organizational communication studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
43.
Kurth, P. (1994, September 26). Adam and Eve: The abuse of abuse. Forbes FYI, 154, 53-56.
44.
Landis-Schiff, R. (1996). Sexual harassment: Why men don’t understand it. Initiatives, 57, 15-26.
45.
Lyman, P. (1987). The fraternal bond as a joking relationship: A case study of the role of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In M. S. Kimmel (Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 148-163). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Marshall, J. (1993). Viewing organizational communication from a feminist perspective: A critique and some offerings. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16, (pp. 122-143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Mongeau, P. A. , & Blalock, J. (1994). Student evaluations of instructor immediacy and sexually harassing behaviors: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 256-272.
48.
Muir, J. K. , & Mangus, K. (1994). Talk about sexual harassment: Women’s stories on a woman’s story. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 91-106). Westport, CT: Praeger.
49.
Mumby, D. K. (1998). Organizing men: Power, discourse, and the social construction of masculinity(s) in the workplace. Communication Theory, 8, 164-183.
50.
Myers, D. G. (1989). Psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Worth.
51.
Nicks, S. D. (1996). Fear in academia: Concern over unmerited accusations of sexual harassment. The Journal of Psychology, 130, 79-82.
52.
Norton, M. B. (Ed.). (1989). Major problems in American women’s history. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
53.
Owen, W. F. (1989). Image metaphors of women and men in personal relationships. Women’s Studies in Communication, 12, 37-57.
54.
Paetzold, R. L. , & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1993). Organizational communication and the legal dimensions of hostile work environment sexual harassment. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 63-77). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
55.
Payne, K. E. (1993). The power game: Sexual harassment on the college campus. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 133-148). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
56.
Pearson, J. C. , & Davilla, R. A. (1993). The gender construct. In L. P. Arliss & D. J. Borisoff (Eds.), Women and men communicating: Challenges and change (pp. 1-13) Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
57.
Propp, K. M. (1995). An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information use. Small Group Research, 26, 451-474.
58.
Putnam, L. L. (1990, April). Feminist theories, dispute processes, and organizational communication. Paper presented at the Arizona State University Conference on Organizational Communication: Perspectives for the 90s, Tempe, AZ.
59.
Rosener, J. B. (1990, November/December). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68, 19-25.
60.
Shedletsky, L. J. (1993). Accused of sexual harassment. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 81-89). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
61.
Solomon, D. H. , & Williams, M.L.M. (1997). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work as sexually harassing. Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 147-184.
62.
Spitzack, C. (1998). The production of masculinity in interpersonal communication. Communication Theory, 8, 143-164.
63.
Staples, R. (1993). Sexual harassment: Its history, definition and prevalence in the Black community. Western Journal of Black Studies, 17, 143-148.
64.
Sundt, M. (1996). Understanding the characteristics of the sexual harasser. Initiatives, 57, 27-36.
65.
Svoboda, J. M. , & Crockett, R. W. (1996). Subculture roleover: The anatomy of a hostile environment. Initiatives, 57, 37-48.
66.
Swigonski, M. E. (1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39, 387-393.
67.
Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5. Women and men in the workplace: Language, sex and power. New York: Avon.
68.
Tavris, C. (1992). The mismeasure of women: Why women are not the better sex, the inferior sex, or the opposite sex. New York: Simon & Schuster.
69.
Thacker, R. A. , & Gohmann, S. F. (1993). Male/female differences in perceptions and effects of hostile environment sexual harassment: “Reasonable assumptions?”Public Personnel Management, 22, 461-472.
70.
Trigg, M. , & Wittenstrom, K. (1996). “That’s the way the world really goes”. Sexual harassment and New Jersey teenagers. Initiatives, 57, 55-66.
71.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
Welton, K. (1997). Nancy Hartsock’s standpoint theory: From content to “concrete multiplicity”. Women & Politics, 18, 7-24.
73.
West, R. L. (1987). The difference in women’s hedonic lives: A phenomenological critique of feminist legal theory. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal, 3, 81-145.
74.
Witteman, H. (1993). The interface between sexual harassment and organizational romance. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 27-62). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
75.
Wood, J. T. (1992). Telling our stories: Narratives as a basis for theorizing sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 20, 349-362.
76.
Wood, J. T. (1993). Naming and interpreting sexual harassment: A conceptual framework for scholarship. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 9-26). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
77.
Wood, J. T. (1994). Saying it makes it so: The discursive construction of sexual harassment. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 17-30). Westport, CT: Praeger.
78.
Wood, J. T. (1997). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
