comment
This Katie Roiphe essay ignores the fact that sexual harassment laws/policies were created in large part in order to ensure equal opportunity to work based on the premise that if you are subject to a hostile environment you are unable to pursue the same job as someone who isn’t harassed. Women were/are the primary beneficiaries/proponents of the standard since they historically have suffered the most harassment, though the policies encompass several categories beyond sex and I would say make everyone’s work environment better. (Equality of opportunity on the basis of race/ethnicity is the other big category.)
The equality of opportunity goal is essential because it explains why even though all harassment is bad, the government does not regulate sexual harassment in say a bar unless it is much more severe than workplace harassment. (The bar itself must equally serve everyone, though!)
The interesting thing is there is no law against an employer operating a very shitty, hostile office environment unless that employer harasses people on the basis of a protected categories. Everyone could be legally, equally miserable! Presumably, the law assumes employees could go find other work or eventually the shitty office will run itself out of business—just like it assumes you can walk out of a bar full of douchebags.
At first glance this seems like the wrong conclusion—legislate away all of the shitty*!—but it also reflects the understanding that the law cannot prescribe all of our behavior/solve our problems and much regulation must be left to cultural norms. Sexual harassment legislation was clearly necessary because existing norms last century failed miserably to achieve the equality goal. And luckily, nowadays, if you happen not to be a pizza CEO presidential candidate or Times op/ed writer, established norms largely agree with the law.
* I really hope someone runs for office with this as their slogan.
Update: The Times published a much better op/ed on the pizza candidate.