As in the rape cases previously studied, the victims that are involved sexual harassment and sexual discrimination are subjected to an array of defenses created by their employers. All to often these "rational"explanations are under the guise of traditional gender ideologies, which attempt to explain "natural" sexual behavior and/or "natural" gender differences. As in the rape cases, the use of ridged gender roles often play a silent through critical role in shaping the court's decisions on sexual discrimination and sexual harassment cases. As will be demonstrated in the cases of Lanigan vs. Bartlett, Smith v. Eastern Airlines Co., EEOC v. Sears and Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, a traditional gender ideology denies equal opportunity by promoting an enviorment in which females are required to behave and dress under the guise of a stereotypical gender role. As a result of these certain expectations women are limitied in the upward mobility of their careers. For example, in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Price was discriminated against because she was deemed as too aggressive, on the other hand, in the EEOC v. Sears case, women were seen as "poor risks" as a result of not being aggressive enough. Secondly, in the case of Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, we have a case which attempts to measure the severity of the sexual harrasment. In other words, the court attempts to measure the severity of sexual harrasment by equating it to the loss of employment opportunites, hence, disregarding the horrific psychological damage occurred by sexual harrasment. Consequently, the emphasis of tangable losses such as employment opportunites strike a similar cord with those rape cases that emphasize the characteristics of a "traditional" rape. In short, as in the cases of rape, the ideologies of a traditional gender role, not only promote these incendents of sexual harrasment and discriminat
             ...