I practice employment law exclusively for plaintiffs (victims). I was surprised at how wrong Penelope Trunk's advice was regarding sexual harassment, in the first link from your article. In that article, however, there is a link to another one of hers that is more balanced.

It is true that it takes proof of "severe and pervasive" harassment to constitute a "hostile environment" harassment situation (sexist remarks and the like, over months, interfering with your work. But you only have to get raped once. In any physical contact situation the sliding scale of severity is shortened, and you can also sue the offender personally for battery.

But if it's not severe, yes, the most practical solution is to confront the wrongdoer.

If that doesn't do it, read the company policy. Most companies have them and they are usually much stricter than what the law prohibits. That means that a conscientious Human Resources office will take your complaint seriously and do something about it, though usually it will be only to counsel the wrongdoer in a less-than-physical situation.

It's true that all Human Resources offices exist to protect the company, and you should never assume anything you tell them is confidential or that they are working for you, but that doesn't mean they cover up bad behavior. It can happen, but if they do that, they aren't serving the company's interests in the long run.

If Human Resources doesn't act based on your verbal complaint, put it in writing. Some policies require this anyway, but it has the added advantages of (1) documenting the history and (2) creating an event that is difficult for them to ignore.

If the company is stupid enough to retaliate against you, you've got real legal leverage. Trunk is completely wrong in saying the law is bad on retaliation. On the contrary, the defense bar advises their clients that they can usually deal with sexual harassment, but retaliation is real trouble. Usually they can't explain why they acted against you, and the rules permit the jury to infer that in that case it has to be because they retaliated. It gets harder if they are evil enough to hide and wait for six months before retaliating, but even then they had better have a good reason or they will lose.

No, you won't get a verdict big enough to retire on, but that's not what you're morally entitled to anyway. Get another job. As to whether future employers will penalize you for having challenged your employer, again Trunk is wrong: most employers don't care, particularly if you won, because they feel they don't do illegal stuff so it's no skin off their nose. It's not like Workers Comp, where they worry about hiring a big fat walking liability from day one.

What troubles me about Trunk's advice is that, at its worst, she is implying you should allow yourself to be co-opted in a sexual harassment situation. You don't have to do that, and you should never surrender your dignity in that situation. Manage the problem directly if you can, by all means. But if you can't, follow internal policy, document it, press until it's resolved, and if it doesn't -- talk to a lawyer.

It's usual for an admiral to get the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs when the Navy's turn comes around. That's not important, except that it logically means that sacking Pace has nothing to do with the admiral and everything to do with Pace. They sacked him for reasons that are not clear.

What is strange is that Gates' cover story is that Pace has to go because his reconfirmation will look to the past and be too strenuous. That doesn't work because any new chairman will have to know a lot about what has happened and will have views about it, and so is going to get good and grilled about it.

And this admiral is on record as saying that this war will have to go on for a long time, is in fact a "generational" war. Now, that is pure Rumsfeld-Cheney neocon perpetual-war talk. So that makes him totally congenial to Bush policy, and subject to every bit as much roasting over a slow spit as Gen. Pace.

So, what's going on? Is it the Iran angle after all? Will the admiral somehow keep the generals in line when Bush gives the order to drop bombs on them? Is Cheney's insane plan to drop nukes on the Iranians back on Bush's Top Ten hits? My understanding from Seymour Hersch's articles is that the Air Force generals were cool with that anyway. So if this guy is and Pace wasn't, maybe that's it.

But look for hints from the few necons left with White House passes. Probe Cheney.