You have no idea how delighted I am to hear that from an older male in this sort of context! I’ve been involved in church leadership for many years now, and, being an affectionate (female) person myself, I have trouble comprehending a ’safe place’ where people aren’t allowed to offer hugs in appropriate context… yet time and time again, I find that all the respectable adults, and this can be said twice over for the men, in youth work feel that a 100% no-contact policy is the only way to go…

You’ve also just made me realise how different I am at uni… I can’t imagine ever hugging one of my teachers.

As for Inappropriate Behavior in a teacher, what I find interesting is that no one considers the possibility of it being a problem for female academics. I know a few who, if they had been men, would be hung drawn and quartered for initiating romantic contact with a student, even after exams are in… and yet, when it’s a female teacher, the overall attitude seems to be ‘lucky student!’

I don’t, however, see how those can in any way be blamed on “feminism.”

Part of it is simple reality: statistically speaking, for whatever reason (genetic or societal) men DO appear to be more likely to commit certain acts.

That said, however…. I concur with some of the other men in this thread regarding the PRACTICAL effects of the problem. Although I am personally “safe,” and would not molest or approach anyone, in my career (I’m a lawyer) I have seen a variety of unfounded accusations fly, from both sexes. And it makes me nervous.

Angry people use any weapon they have, and as I discussed above it so happens that women have better access to use of the “he harassed me” claim than do men. This is not their fault, nor does it represent a failure of feminism. Yet it is true.

I have perfect ability to predict my own likelihood to act inappropriately (zero) but have only minimal ability to predict someone’s future likelihood to react angrily, or to make inappropriate demands. How will they react if I criticize them? Fire them? Give them a bad reference?

The risk is, unfortunately, quite high. On a personal level, I would be fairly unlikely to ever agree to a situation where I did not have unusual protection against retaliation. When it comes to employment matters, i give my clients the same advice.

As a result, that makes it more difficult to offer my assistance to women, and though this is a negative effect for the women it’s not their fault at all. Nor is it the fault of feminism. But while I’m willing to make considerable sacrifices in the name of feminism, that type of exposure is not a risk I’m willing to take.

“As Gavin de Becker put it well, a decent man doesn’t have to tell you he’s decent; he simply behaves in an appropriate manner from the moment you meet him and as long as you know him.” Great book!

The insurance guys say you can count on a suit after a negative personnel matter regarding a woman employee.

That’s why they offer both insurance, and, if desired, generic manuals and policy directives.

Thing is, if a guy wants to harass, he can, no matter what the employer does. The issue is to avoid getting hammered when innocent.

Having the procedures manual means that it is difficult to claim the employer was blind to the possibility, and thus any employee who really does it is doing so knowing better.

Somewhere in your house you will find something with a label like the one on my iron, which says “Do not iron clothes while on body.”

This is because someone, somewhere, sued based on such a thing, and at least cost someone a whole lot of money defending the lawsuit over it.

I provide services to a lot of companies. As such, part of the requirement is to be familiar with their policies and procedures. Several have policies of supervisors not being alone with underlings of the opposite sex, as well as outside fraternization.

Puts a crimp in “Mentoring,” eh wot?

Yup. It really is that simple.

Run that by your lawyers and see how far it gets you.

Yup. It really is that simple.