Despite the massive publicity concerning the challenges of sexual harassment in the workplace, few firms have yet to take the necessary steps to eliminate the vice. Although the enterprises know it exists, they are unsure of how to manage the peril. Various definitions of the concept have been accorded by philosophical, legal, and managerial disciplines. However, Wall’s says that the meanings omit the interpersonal elements of sexual harassment. This article entails a comparison of the frameworks provided by Feary and Wall concerning sexual harassment.
According to Wall, there are four necessary and sufficient conditions of sexual harassment. X is the sexual harasser and Y is the victim, first, if X does not attempt to obtain Y’s consent to communicate to Y, X’s or someone else purported sexual interest in Y. Second, if X communicates to Y, X’s or someone else purported sexual inserts in Y. X’s motive for communicating this is some perceived benefit that he expects to obtain through the communication. Third, if Y does not consent to discuss with X, X’s or someone else’s purported sexual interest in Y. Lastly, if Y feels emotionally distressed because X did not attempt to obtain Y’s consent to this discussion and/or because Y objects to the consent of X’s sexual comments. (Wall, 149) Wall’s theory of sexual harassment focus on the communication between X and Y, he believes that sexual harassment is a form of communication that violates privacy rights of the person being harassed and that it excludes gender. Wall further believes that sexual harassment exists at the instant that consent is not given to the harasser. An example of sexual harassment in the workplace is giving a coworker a compliment, Wall would consider this as giving a compliment to violate all four frameworks of sexual harassment. This is because if X gives a compliment to Y without consent that is automatically considered to violate the first principle. If X’s motive for giving Y the compliment has a hidden desire for some sort of benefit then that violates the second principle. Also, if Y does not wish to consent to communicate with X then X’s compliment violates the third principle. Finally, if Y feels some sort of distress due to X’
Feary’s Arguments against Wall’s View
Feary provides that the corporate environment is still yet to understand the concept of sexual harassment. For them to eliminate the issue, they will have to let go of certain misconceptions. She adds that sexual harassment does not result from the ignorance of policies. Unlike Wall’s view of behavioral patterns, Feary attributes sexual harassment as a moral problem that arises from communication, gender, and cultural factors. The philosopher proceeds to highlight the myths that have prevented the business surrounding from taking the peril seriously. They include the ambiguous joke that ethics in corporate governance is an oxymoron, that is, an enterprise should not adopt morals seriously (Feary, 152).
Feary adds that sexual harassment should not be classified as a problem in the communications in a firm that results from factual disagreements and ignorance, gender and cultural differences, or confusions in the murky concept. Fear also argues that Walls view of sexual harassment is too narrow because Wall excludes the idea of what the victim might be feeling even if they do give consent (Feary, 155). Sexual harassment emerges from the distress it
offers to the victim. Here, she goes against the ideology presented by Wall of consent as the determining factor in a sexual harassment case.
The Framework
The two philosophers present two strong concepts that can be used to distinguish sexual harassment from the usual daily occurrences that people encounter in the workplace. First, it is vital to realize the behavioral patterns depicted by Wall do have a significant impact in sexual harassment cases. Also, consent can be an appropriate perspective to term an incident as sexual harassment or not. However, the concept of consent is further emphasized by the Feary’s ideology of distress that stems from sexual harassment. The framework of sexual harassment from Feary’s point of view has five main concerns. The emotional or physical harm caused by a non-consensual sexual assault case should be present. Privacy violation in the place of the assault should be present in order for sexual harassment to be present. Discrimination and the issues of power equality also occur if sexual harassment is present. The victims liberty must also be violated, for example, women who are sexually harassed in the work place, end up leaving their jobs because they are too scared to complain. Lastly, Feary says that sexual harassment must violate equality of opportunity because it creates obstacles for the victim to advance or overcome obstacles in the workplace. Even though Wall focused on the key factor of consent being the determent between whether or not sexual harassment can actually be considered sexual harassment, Feary elaborates more on the factors that cause and occur before and after sexual harassment. Fear is right, Walls view of sexual harassment is too narrow, it’s not just about if the victim says yes or no, it’s about why the harasser is harassing the victim and how the victim feels after the assault.
Works Cited
Feary, Macy. Sexual Harassment: Why the Corporate World Still Doesn’t Get It? Hiring, Firing, and Discriminating, 2013.
Wall, Edmund. The Definition of Sexual Harassment. Hiring, Firing, and Discriminating, 2013.
