[no permission has been granted to distribute this, though I doubt Forbes would care.] Forbes, December 9, 1991, p.116 column: "In My Opinion" Printed above title: As a feminist I am outraged by attempts to turn flirting into a federal crime. "CULTURAL FASCISM" by Sarah J. McCarthy On the same day that Ted Kennedy asked forgiveness for his personal "shortcomings", he advoctaed slapping lottery-size punitive damages on small-business owners who may be guilty of excessive flirting, or whose employees may be guilty of talking dirty. Senator Kennedy expressed regrets that the new civil rights bill caps punitive damages for sexual harssment as high as $300,000 (depending on company size), and he promises to push for increases next year. Note that the senators have vted to exempt themselves from punitive damages. I am the owner of a small restaurant/bar that employs approximately 20 young males whose role models range from Axl Rose to John Belushi. They work hard in a high-stress, fast-paced job in a hot kitchen and at times they are guilty of colorful language. They have also been overheard telling Pee-wee Herman jokes and listening to obnoxious rock lyrics. They have discussed pornography and they have flirted with waitresses. One chef/manager has asked out a pretty blonde waitress probably 100 times in three years. She seems to enjoy the game but always says no. Everyone calls everyone else "Honey" -- it's a ritual, a way of softening what sound like barked orders: "I need the medium-rare shish kebab *now*!" "Honey" doesn't mean the same thing here as it does in women's studies departments or at the EEOC. The auto body shop down the street has pinups. Perhaps under the vigilant eye of the feminist political correctness gestapo we can reshape our employees behavior so they act more like nerds from the Yale women's studies department. The gestapo will not lack for potential informers seeking punitive damages and instant riches. With the Civil Rights Act of 1991 we are witnessing the most organized and systematic assault on free speech and privacy since the McCarthy era. The vagueness of the sexual harassment law, combined with our current litigation explosion, is a frightening prospect for small businesses. We are now financially responsible for sexually offensive verbal behavior, even if we don't know it is occurring, under a law that provides no guidelines to define "offensive" and "harassment." This is a cultural fascism unmatched since the Chinese communists outlawed hand-holding, decorative clothing, and extramarital sex. The law is detrimental even to the women it professes to help. I am a feminist, but the law has made me fearful of hiring women. If one of our cooks and managers -- or my husband or sons -- offends someone, it could cost us $100,000 in punitive damages and legal expenses. There will be no insurance fund or stockholders or taxpayers to pick up the tab. When I was a feminist activist in the Seventies, we knew the dangers of a pedestal -- it was said to be as confining as any other small place. As we wer revolted and outraged by the woman-hatred in violent pornography, we reminded each other that education, not laws, was the solution to our problems. In Women Against Sexist Violence in Pornography and Media, in Pittsburgh, we were well aware of the dangers of encroaching on the First Amendment. Free speech was, perhaps more than anything else, what made our country grow into a land of enlightenment and diversity. The lesbians among us were aware that the same laws used to censor pornography could be used against them if their sexual expressions were deemed offensive. We admired powerful women writers such as Marge Piercy and poets like Robin Morgan who swooped in from nowhere, writing break-your-chains poems about women swinging from crystal chandeliers like monkey vines and defecating in punch bowls. Are we allowed to talk about these poems in the current American workplace? The lawyers -- the prim women and men who went to the politically correct law schools -- believe with sophomoric arrogance that the solution to all the world's problems is tort litigation. We now have eternally complicated questions of sexual politics judged by the shifting standards of the reasonably prude. To the leadership of the women's movement: You do women a disservice. You ladies -- and I use that term intentionally -- have trivialized the women's movement. You have made us ladies again. You have not considered the unintended effects of your sexual harassment law. You are sayign that too many things men say and do with each other are too rough-and-tumble for us. Wielding the power of your $300,000 lawsuits, you are frightening managers into hiring men over women. I know that I am so frightened. You have installed a double pane of glass on the glass ceiling with the help of your white night and protector, Senator Kennedy. You and your allies tried to lynch Clarence Thomas. You alienate your natural allies. Men and women who wanted to work shoulder to shoulder with you are now looking over their shoulders. You have made women into china dolls that if broken come with a $300,000 price tag. The games, intrigue, nuances, and fun of flirting have been made into criminal activity. We women are not as delicate and powerless as you think. We do not want victim status in the workplace. Don't try to foist it on us. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah J. McCarthy, a Pittsburgh restaurateur and writer, has been published in "Humanist, Midstream, Learning" and several college textbook anthologies. Her published articles include "Pornography, Rape, and the Cult of Macho" and "Why Johnny Can't Disobey."