Corporate Attractions

Family Fun with Alzheimer's Disease
Track and Field for Girls

corporate attractions coverCorporate Attractions: The New Sexual Rules for Men and Women on the Job

Submitter: This book was an excellent purchase for 1990. It takes the reader through what to do and what not to do from the authors own experience filing a sexual harassment claim. An updated book with current laws {god I hope they have been updated since the 90’s}, and dealing with online harassment would be a great replacement.

Holly: It has typos and grammatical errors (“Who’s harassing who?,” “Why do woman fear sexual harassment?”) and it spouts labor statistics from the 90s. Reason enough to replace it, I’d say. Picture the reference transaction from the patron’s point of view. They’re already stressed out and you give them this? Thanks for nothing.


corporate attractions back cover

facts and figures

what signs did I ignore?

More about men and sexual harassment

why do woman fear sexual harassment

corporate attractions q and a


  1. It is absolutely sickening that a new book would have to be published on this subject. By 2015, sexual harassment should be ancient history. We haven’t come such a long way, have we?

  2. I’m fascinated by people’s grammar peeves, even though in general I don’t share them. This is the first time I recall hearing a complaint about “who’s [verb]ing who?” What is the complaint? Certainly it should not be “Whose harassing who?” Are you a holdout for “whom?”

        1. “Whom” is not antiquated, it’s grammatically correct in this instance based on its part of speech.

    1. It actually should be “Who’s harassing whom”. To check if a sentence is correct, replace who with he or she and whom with him or her, as to simulate the answer. So, “Who’s harassing whom?” “Well, he’s harassing her.” The original text would equate to “He’s harassing she,” which wouldn’t be right at all. And on who’s vs whose, it is just like it’s vs its. Who’s/it’s are contractions with is, whose/its are possessive. Hope that helps some .

  3. Many companies and organizations hold a mandatory sexual harassment class now. I guess this is a CYA for them because you have been warned.

  4. This book assumes sexual harassment is only directed towards women. There are women who use their sexuality as a way of bullying men. If the man doesn’t respond, the talk goes around the break room that he’s gay, is a woman-hater, has small genitals, or is plain stupid. Some women use sexual harassment accusations or the threat thereof as a form of harassment. Due consideration needs to given those forms of sexual harassment as well.

      1. I see two possible reasons for the lower number of complaints from men. First, the glass ceiling has meant that fewer women are supervisors who could harass. Second, many say that men are less willing to file such complaints because they are less likely to be believed and because our culture supports the myth that such unwanted attention is a benefit rather than harassment. I wish I could cite the column that appeared in Inside Higher Ed where the HR person didn’t seriously consider a complaint from a male student about sexual harassment until a colleague asked what this person would do if exactly the same complaint came from a female student. (The official would have immediately investigated.)

        I’m a firm believer in the equality of the sexes, but this equality includes the possibility of doing evil as well as the possibility of doing good.

  5. This would have been a great book for it’s time. The anecdote in “The Second Sign” on page 148 gave me the utter creeps. I have heard similar stories before. I hope the author of that story moved onto better things.

Comments are closed.