Appendix: Stallman on sexual harassment
Stallman’s definition of “sexual assault” (see Appendix: Stallman on sexual assault) includes an explanation of his understanding of sexual harassment:
Sexual assault: The term is applied to a broad range of actions, from rape on one end, to the least physical contact on the other, as well as everything in between. It acts as propaganda for treating them all the same. That would be wrong.
The term is further stretched to include sexual harassment, which does not refer to a single act, but rather to a series of acts that amounts to a form of gender bias. Gender bias is rightly prohibited in certain situations for the sake of equal opportunity, but that is a different issue.
This is the complete list of sources collected for this report in which Richard Stallman has misrepresented sexual harassment.
Men now face being fired for vaguely sexual conversations that were not sexual harassment and that no one complained about. The accusation made against these actions is that they were “inappropriate”, because there is no concrete criticism to make.
Over half of US women professors and university staff report sexual harassment.
A basic principle of justice is that whether some action on your part would be wrong may not depend on another person arbitrary opinion of it. A just criterion must be something you can in principle apply to your own actions before you do them.
It follows that it is unjust to criticize people for making “unwanted advances”. In some cases the only way to find out whether an advance is wanted is to make one.
– stallman.org, 20 June 2018 “Reports of sexual harassment”
More artificial “scandal” about Oxfam.
An employee, Mutiku, was accused of sexual harassment, but was not fired. Assuming the allegations were true, whether they required firing him would depend on the details, which are not stated. In some situations it would be enough if he promised not to repeat whatever it was. In other situations, that would not be enough. We have no basis to try to judge the question.
The article then said that he was later fired for hiring prostitutes. Why should anyone be fired from any job for that? The article simply takes for granted that it is a horrible wrong.
Then the article connects the two by saying that the decision not to fire Mutiku was taken by a manager who was later fired for hiring prostitutes.
If we had reason to think the decision was wrong, we might suspect that that manager was inclined to go easy on sexual harassment. We might then wonder whether that was somehow related to his practice of hiring prostitutes.
But since we don’t know what the alleged harassment consisted of, we don’t know enough to begin to consider whether the decision was right or wrong, and we don’t have anything to try to link to anything else.
Ultimately, the article is just an attempt to throw random dirt at people for hiring sex workers.
– stallman.org, 19 March 2018 “Oxfam employee”
Men now face being fired for vaguely sexual conversations that were not sexual harassment and that no one complained about.
Naturally, the announcement of dismissal used the vaguest possible word: “inappropriate”. That word means “not correct in my judgment.” Such a vague criticism can never justify the conclusion that someone has done wrong. Any act might be frowned upon by someone.
If you want to demand that someone be fired or prosecuted for some action, or justify firing the person for some action, it behooves you to make an accusation that is concrete, not vague like “inappropriate”. You need to say what the action was, so we can judge how wrong it was. If you can’t or won’t describe it with something more concrete than “inappropriate”, we must presume it wasn’t bad enough to punish.
This note is not meant to defend conduct that merits some concrete criticism. Once there is a concrete criticism, we have a concrete issue to consider.
– stallman.org, 29 December 2017 “‘Inappropriate’ behavior”
One UK MP has accused another of “inappropriate behavior”, and the article gives us enough detail to see exactly what “inappropriate” means.
It means sending her a letter, once in a while, asking to go out with her. There was no pressure in them, as I see it. On the other hand, some might say that the high frequency of his letters — five in a mere 20 years — constituted pressure.
The vague word “inappropriate” makes it easy to put people in the wrong for asking for a date. We must reject vague accusations like that.
Aside from being a direct injustice to specific men, and sowing fear among many more, this distortion also wrongs the many women who have experienced rape, groping, or threats and pressure for sex. Surely most of those complaints are valid. Exaggerations like this one will undermine the response to those valid complaints.
By contrast, what he is accused of doing to another woman, rubbing his crotch against her, went too far. You mustn’t do that to people who have not given a direct invitation.
– stallman.org, 13 November 2017 “‘Inappropriate behavior’”
The UK Parliament is imposing a very strict standard of sexual harassment.
I think it would be wrong to impose that standard on everyone.
– stallman.org, 4 November 2017 “Strict standard of sexual harassment”
The term “sexual assault” is not suitable for a serious discussion, because it covers crimes of varying severities which call for different responses, plus sexual harassment which is not a crime.
– stallman.org, 3 November 2017 “Saboteur of Energy”
A famous theater director had a habit of pestering women, asking them for sex.
As far as I can tell from this article, he didn’t try to force women into sex. When women persistently said no, he does not seem to have tried to punish them. The most he did was ask.
He was a pest, but nothing worse than that.
However, to be considerate he should not have kept on asking repeatedly. It is not nice to be a pest.
– stallman.org, 29 October 2017 “Pestering women”
Half of the working women in the UK have been “sexually harassed”, using the broadest conceivable definition of “harassed”.
The article equates “harassment” with “unwanted behavior”. That definition is too broad, because no one should be given the power to prohibit absolutely any treatment that person considers “unwanted”. That is dictatorial power.
– stallman.org, 26 August 2016 “‘Harassment’ vs ‘unwanted behavior’”
“Sexual harassment”, or amusing risqué hack?
While I can see why the university didn’t like this, I don’t believe this public non-threatening joke should be considered “harassment”, much less an “assault”.
– stallman.org, 26 August 2015 “‘Sexual harassment’ or risqué hack?”
A campaign against sexism appears to condemn all explicit sexual advances as “harassment”.
– stallman.org, 10 April 2014 “Sexual advances”
Part of the cause of lower pay for women is that male senior managers are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment if they socialize or meet with women employees.
– stallman.org, 10 February 2014 “Part of the cause of lower pay for women”