When does banter become harassment?

Kitty, no where does that reply suggest or insinuate that you 'disrespected people'. How on earth can I know? What it does do is balance out your accusation of worthiness that YOU seemed to suggest about others whose posts you disagree with.

'Banter' is not chit-chat or it would not require another word to describe it. What I put was in answer to the OP re: when banter becomes sexual harassment. Those were my opinions based on law in the workplace.

Abuse can be any form of bullying and that can be (but may not be) sexist remarks. I would never and have never expected any colleague, to give me "a friendly hug, arm round the shoulder"in work and I would think, that if you were in the workplace now - not then, not 50 years ago, you would be aware that doing that might lead to a quick walk to HR and investigation of a disciplinary offence.

Outside work and socially you are in a different relationship - one you can walk away from however much of what happens with MPs seems to mean that employees are involved in social events. In that case they are still employees and perhaps MPs need to party less.

I do not think, for one moment, that Michael Fallon resigned because of a hand on a knee.

I've never objected to a friendly arm around me and I've comforted work colleagues in the same way. What a cold, unemotional place work would be without some form of human interaction.

I don't get what is wrong with a simple hug to celebrate or comfort a colleague.

I'm not talking about abuse. Abuse is a totally different thing to friendly interaction.

nfkdumpling Thank you for your response.

I do, however, take issue with your husband's view that: "Having worked in offices all his career and knowing the way some men think, he was merely stating what he thought the position might be in some organisations. He feared real equality may be put back."

To start with, I believe that "real equality" should include the right of women (and men) to reject the normalisation of remarks and behaviour of a personal/sexual nature which make them feel demeaned or uncomfortable. To suggest that if women persist in objecting to this sort of behaviour they will find themselves unwelcome in the workforce sounds like a very unacceptable stance to me and one that should not be tolerated. This is not something new. It was also said that if women were given equal pay and better maternity benefits this would affect their ability to get more senior jobs or be promoted. Unfortunately this has, to some extent, happened. That is not, in my view, a reason for abandoning conditions or standards or not changing a culture that many women find unacceptable. In effect, it's accepting that men are in charge and women had better "toe the line".

Anyway, given that 47% of the labour force comprises women, it's fairly nonsensical to think that men can banish them from the workforce but I still find the implication that because men rule the roost they can choose to "punish" women for, as it were, "making a fuss".

I think it is the duty of enlightened men, such as you say your husband is, to challenge sexist behaviour rather than proclaim that women would be well advised to adapt their stance if they wish to avoid being sidelined.

What a cold, unemotional place work would be without some form of human interaction.

Why - just by leaving out the things that may make people feel uncomfortable. Is work a place that is only warm and containing a suitable level of emotion if you talk about sex and touch one another? You seem to be describing a very old fashioned world where people cannot get to know one another within work but keep their friendships and even relationships outside it.

Most of the men I know challenge openly sexist behaviour. Of course they do. But at the moment it seems things are very up in the air as to what constitutes sexual harassment. What offends one person can be brushed off and dealt with easily by another. I fear it’ll get so everyone is icily polite for fear of saying the wrong thing. A bit like living in Russia - only with sexual suggestion replacing independent political thought. I agree with my DH that there will be circumstances where a boss will be chary of employing a woman if he can - just in case.

I hope that bosses, He or She, will have more sense than that, Nfk.

I think it best to keep work and relationships quite separate.

Why, Nfk, is everyone going to be "icily polite". How ridiculous are your statements going to become in order to attempt to justify such behaviour? People do not actually require sexual innuendo, touching people or pressure to be involved in sexual acts for it to be a friendly and comfortable place to work. Probably, for many, a more friendly and comfortable place.

... and comfortable place without such things.

How can it be uncertain what constitutes sexual harassment? It's clear, we have laws in place.
A comforting hug from a trusted work colleague would usually only happen in unusual circumstances and where both of the people involved gave tacit agreement either by body language or words. The idea that folks who barely know each other would be hugging is nonsense isn't it.

This is a report from Bristol University done last year.

www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2016/july/female-prime-minister.html

It's called A Good Parliament, and should be taken notice of in the commons. Having more women MPs means men feel less entitled.

I was chatting to an 18 year old,yesterday. She is in her first job, and what she told me left me speechless, really. Her colleagues; one male amongst all females spend all day being smutty with each other. This young lady told me that because the man is in his late 20s, the older women enjoy his attention. So, as this young woman was reaching up for something, whilst doing a task which they are expected to do together, the man says "Oh, I can see your bra!" I found it incredibly depressing, to be honest, in so many ways.

One way and another it sounds far worse than when I was 18 in 1961. How depressing is that?!

I think I was surprised by her acceptance and resignation that it's just how the work place is. It seems so much like the attitude a lot of us had in the 'olden days'. I had imagined today's young women would be far less accepting.

There was a man on Any Answers, talking about how he had to inform people coming from more eastern countries where the attitude to women is very different to ours, when they came here to work.

He said he had to explain we have many 'ambiguous' boundaries in work, giving overtime and pay as other examples. He said that when looking at behaviour at work he would describe 'safe' behaviour, 'negotiable' behaviour, 'hazardous' behaviour and 'dangerous/illegal' behaviour, perhaps this could be introduce in MPs induction to Parliament with on emphasis on what 'negotiation' actually means.

What came to me (while listening horrified while old women basically told young women to 'suck it up') was that while these MPs are the people who pass the laws about these things, but it seems do not take it seriously themselves. Perhaps the law needs to catch up more obviously with the changes in society and become more explicit.

I have found it fascinating to read so many excellent and so well thought out responses. I can only look back and think about my own behaviour and incidents whilst growing up. I once told a sports master I would kick him in the goolies if he touch me again when I was having a shower after a football game .
Dad once said to me "if you go out with sluts you will marry a slut. Make sure you fall in love with a lovely girl who you treasure for life". I did and we have been married 60 years and are still in love. We have 7 Gr Kids & 5 GGrand children.

twitter.com/BobJWilliams/status/926587275105984513

For anyone who didn't see Jo Brand on HIGNFY last night, putting four men in their place.

For those who don't like links, Jo Brand said "If you are constantly being harassed, even in small ways, that wears you down."

Something that a lot of posters on this thread might like to think about.

I don't like women being referred to as "sluts". Is there an equivalent term for men? Women are not commodities to be packaged up and labelled by men as good or bad girlfriend/wife material.

An excellent article here, too.
Can anybody explain why Newsnight had an edition discussing sexual harassment and the abuse of power which had a panel of 14 men and 3 women. What! Who decided that was appropriate?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/03/sexual-assault-victims-newsnight-media-blaming-victims

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/michael-fallon-defence-secretary-sexual-harassment

This is why Fallon had to resign.

Well said Jo Brand and badly done for the programme producers who did not get a second woman on the panel. Most of the female MPs however were unavailable because they were up to their eyes in dealing with the flack, backwash, revelations and tears and pushing for a single independent body to deal with the whole of parliament and not leave it to those with an eye to the politics.

To be fair, the clip from the Newsnight programme (in dj's 23.02 link) shows a very sensible man who says that having a laugh and a joke with someone doesn't require touching them, as there's no reason to do so, it adds nothing.

I worked with someone once who would certainly be deemed a sex pest; his conversation was full of sexual innuendo, he told off-colour jokes all the time and thought he was God's gift to women, when in fact he was merely tiresome. Never any touching.) Yet when someone was in trouble, he was the first to help: divorce, excessive workload, constant car break downs, he couldn't have been kinder, and there was no payback expected. So the one balanced the other, and we became very fond of him. (Not the jokes though.)