Achieving armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes?"

Critical moment: 🤔
Almost daily we see announcements of male executives being fired, displaced and facing the end of their careers as a result of accusations of "inappropriate sexual conduct" usually but not always in relation to professional settings. The multitude of claims being brought forward attests to the pattern and practice of sexually predatory behaviors and intimidation employed in the business and professional world. The floodgates have been opened, and women [and men] previously too fearful of coming forward are now feeling empowered to tell of their experiences. At this time, there is an increasing disposition to consider such allegations seriously and as credible. That these stories are being told is an important cultural moment that exposes and illuminates power structures and imbalances that have impeded economic and professional progress for those exploited. On social media, there are multiple calls for an all out assault upon "men" and a calls for women to "take over" from a male dominated power structure. Apparently, this is the solution advocated for elimination and prevention of sexual exploitation in economic and professional contexts.

The problem with "revolution" is that, by definition, it almost always replaces one form of oppression with another. Patriarchal and gender based exploitation need to be dismantled, certainly. Sex and sexuality as surrogate for power MUST be called out, regardless of who holds power and against whom it is used. This is not an apologia for sexist behavior in any setting, for such conduct IS inappropriate, problematic and wrongful. Some careful and critical thought should be given, however, to how that problem might be addressed.

Thought should be given to the desired "end game." The current reckoning is understandable, and probably necessary, to dislodge power structures and mindsets. And perhaps we are not yet at a point where critical and thoughtful examination as to strategies can be entertained broadly. After a wave of justified indignation, retribution, vengeance, recrimination and bloodletting, what will stand? Will it be gender equality or a type of intractable conflict [e.g. Arab-Israeli]? If the former is a goal, how do we get there? I don't have the answer, but do believe that the question needs to be addressed.

As a person of color, the complexity of the constellation of problems is not a new phenomenon. How can race [as a social construct] and ethnic diversity or diversity of skin color and physical features exist without being employed as a "power tool" of exploitation and oppression? This is the simply stated, but chronically resistant problem to be resolved. In the race-related civil rights and social movements, we have seen in my lifetime several phases. There have been various calls to a public social conscience regarding discrimination and oppression, periods of open and public anger to both defend people of color against racial violence and to seek vengeance for racial injustice, movements for affirmative action to seek to redress systemic imbalance and promote an equalization of opportunity, and illusory claims of a "post-racial" society. The peaceful protests, change to claim dignity for people of color "by any means necessary," and the "kill whitey" exhortations have yielded some progress and also the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. Even whites, including Bobby Kennedy, who resisted the racialized power structure were not safe. Yet we still see almost daily reports of continuing racially motivated violence and exploitation, much of it "official" and systemic, against people of color in the United States and elsewhere. So, the "me too" movement and the "down with men" calls might be seen as a phase in a much broader process of social transformation. As such, the question is not whether it should take place, but rather what will these phases achieve?

Without serious, rational and critical examination, these public outcries and outpourings are not likely to yield constructive progress or solutions. I doubt anyone really believes that ALL males who have ever engaged in "inappropriate" behavior in their lifetimes will be summarily removed from positions of power and responsibility. Also, to claim that an offensive remark or innuendo of a sexualized nature is the moral equivalent of a rape or physical sexual assault may be misguided. It is similar to equating a racial slur to a lynching. Both are wrongful and should lead to accountability, but failure to distinguish is unproductive and could undermine the moral force of the exposure. There ARE varied circumstances and contexts which should lead to varied outcomes toward elimination of exploitation and abuse of power. Change in power relations, not just vilification ought to be a goal. In the employment law context, I have seen careers destroyed and opportunities foreclosed for employees of color based upon racial animus and systemic discrimination. I have also seen instances in which tenuous race discrimination claims were asserted by persons of color to mask substandard performance or for vengeful motives. A just result and constructive outcome can rarely be achieved without critical examination of the distinctions.

If we are to reach any form of constructive solution or "armistice," there may also need to be a critical examination of the fact that the problem is "relational." In other words, the problem is not a unilateral process, like using a hammer to crush a rock. The problem is a product of interaction, a form of symbiosis. That is not to say victims should be blamed for the abuse of a power differential or exploitation. Yet calling out sexism and sexual impropriety should be thoughtful, evidence-based and reasonable to achieve credible progress. An environment that receives and listens to such concerns must be created and fostered. Another Anita Hill incident, in which her credible public stand against Clarence Thomas was dismissed as "female fantasies," should never again be allowed to take place. Had the mechanisms and environment for her to express those concerns at an earlier stage could have prevented recurrence and avoided the painful Senate hearing confrontation. Indeed, those conditions would have precluded the nomination of Thomas. Roy Moore should never have been allowed to hold an office of public trust, nor should he be allowed to advance for a variety of reasons, including misogyny. And comments by women suggesting reflection on ways that men AND women both contribute to a dysfunctional symbiotic relationship should not be dismissed by women, as were Anita Hill's arguments by men. In a heated argument, no amount of assigning blame for who started the conflict, or who is victim, will actually resolve the conflict. Both participants will have to change the dynamic of the interaction to achieve peace. Constructive solutions are unlikely to be achieved without change by ALL participants in the relational dynamic. Power will exist and be exercised in any context, but the balance and sharing of that power, along with effective prevention of abuse should be the goal. And the shift will not take place overnight. Reaching an armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes" will require a transformation, not a revolution.

Towards an asexual business culture??

The plethora of accusations coming forth in the media about women reporting a wide array of incidents deemed harassment or sexual assault or inappropriate sexually oriented behavior has sparked a one sided conversation that has illuminated the issues of sexual politics, abuse of power and empowerment of women to speak out. These accusations should not be lumped into a single basket, but the mainstream and social media trends toward the indiscriminate. Typically, one sided conversations are usually unproductive and fail to foster understanding or growth. At present, the frenzy of public scorn directed at men generally, and particularly those who have engaged in any questionable  sexually oriented encounter in the past, overshadows any critical or nuanced discussion directed toward better understanding.

To be sure, there are and have been sexual predators who are predominantly male, because of the male dominated culture of the working world. When power is wielded, it is usually the holder of power exploiting it. Since gender discrimination has created and maintained a power imbalance in favor of men, it is logical that the great majority of those exploiting such imbalance are men. Harvey Weinstein is a classic example. It is important to acknowledge distinctions, however. The focus here is not the rapist who attacks a woman either as a mugging assault or as date rape. The focal issue is the combination of sexually oriented interaction coupled with exploitation of power and position for intimidation and induced fear of reprisal that could damage career opportunities.

Examination of that issue requires dissecting the dynamics of power and such interactions as they have evolved. Men, having prospered from the privilege of power imbalance cannot be heard to complain that women seek to expose and address that privilege. Women, having adapted and having found ways to advance within the existing system must also accept some measure of responsibility for its perpetuation. This mutual accountability is apparently in short supply. When Mayim Bialek spoke out and noted that she chooses not to dress in sexually attractive wear for business contexts, a refusal to accede to the dominant expectations, she was attacked vociferously by women for allegedly "slut shaming." Her comments touched a nerve by exposing that women dress and present themselves in ways that are deliberately sexually distinctive in order to attract or access opportunities or to compete with other females for advancement. That the existing systems of power induce women to exploit sexuality for career and sustenance is wrong. To deny that such behaviors are prevalent denies accountability while demanding accountability from men, and is counterproductive.

The accusations against Al Franken, before he became a senator, provide a good case study, if we are allowed to look carefully, critically and closely. We do not know all the facts, but available evidence allows for exploration. There were two incidents, or parts to the story. Franken acknowledges his participation in both, a marked contrast from Roy Moore and the President who face more serious accusations involving many more women, but publicly deny their involvement. The first is the accusation of groping and kissing in connection with a skit performed during a USO event. The inclusion of a kissing scene was inappropriate for inclusion in the show - particularly if the female journalist or Franken was not comfortable and consenting. But the female journalist admits she agreed to do it. Was consent induced by fear that she would lose work opportunities. She is not an entertainer whose future career then comedian Franken could have impacted significantly. We next ask whether consent was genuine at the time, but retracted after the fact. In between these options is the possibility of faulty calibration. Suppose she consented to the kissing scene, but Franken's idea of what that entailed was different that what she expected or was comfortable with. If that were the case, Franken's acknowledgement of the event and the differing recollections of it are plausible. Did the journalist stop rehearsal and object? Was the scene pulled from the show on her objections? These might be helpful things to know if there is a desire to truly understand.

The second part of the story is a staged photograph in which the journalist appears to be asleep, dressed in field gear and a protective vest, with Franken reaching toward her breasts. Witnesses, including photographer, say that she was feigning sleep and was a willing participant in the "comedic" photo. She says she only saw the photo after the fact. Both statements can be truthful, but the media has seized upon the photo as evidence of past misconduct. Franken agrees in retrospect that the photo was in bad taste and was not "funny." The complicating factor in the debate may be whether the journalist was complicit in the photo. She was not touched, but was treated as a sex object in the photo setting. It is important that accusations of women coming forward be presumed credible if progress and change are to take place.  Yet if evidence is corroborated that she participated in staging the photo, and does not acknowledge this, her accusations will be criticized as false claims and may undermine credible claims of assault and abuse by other women.

A potentially troublesome, but possibly beneficial change on the horizon may be toward a totally  asexual business environment. That would be an end result unless there is more nuanced dialogue. One perspective opened by the Kevin Spacey accusations is that victimization is not exclusive to women. Men may be victimized in the workplace by male or female superiors, particularly with regard to claims of intimidation and humiliation. So the result is that women would not be allowed to wear any clothing that is reflective of sexuality. and men would similarly be required to dress in an androgynous fashion. A comment of "you look well" or "your dress is quite professional" would be permitted. However, no comment suggesting other the person "looks attractive" would be permitted. Every interaction would need to be recorded, and any one-on-one interaction that is cross-gender must be avoided.

While the current law would not support a claim of harassment or hostile work environment based upon a compliment, the current court of public media could destroy a career based solely upon any accusation. Any person with career position or aspirations would be well advised to avoid any fraternizing with any professional co-worker or acquaintance of the opposite sex [or same sex if any participant were gay]. The innocuous business lunch [involving no actual touching] could potentially come back to destroy a career, if recalled differently even years later. Such events would be extremely rare, and this assertion would inevitably be criticized as overreaction,but the point is that any encounter would entail unreasonable risk. Thus, avoidance would be prudent. The presumptive way to establish trust would be to preclude any interaction that could be interpreted as sexually inappropriate. We have seen dystopian movies reflecting such environments.

The human comedy is replete with stories and foibles about misunderstandings, misaligned expectations and other mishaps as couples attempt to establish relationships and navigate the arena of sexual politics. One suggestion would be to return to Victorian standards where touching is mostly forbidden. The problem with such regression is that there was sexual impropriety then as well. And current accusations of "feeling humiliated" do not require touching. At present, however, the best we may be able to do is to shift culture for any business related encounter that directly involves or might lead to employment opportunity to a totally asexual standard of behavior.

Speaking of irony instead of comedy, consider hostile attitudes displayed in this country toward Muslims and the traditional garb expected of its adherents. The burka or hijab worn to conceal indication of femininity is considered extreme. Yet adopting such a standard of dress, along with a requirement that men's bodies be fully clothed in robes at all times in the presence of women would begin to address the current crisis. Alternatives are also unpalatable. Recall that allegations of sexual misconduct toward Congressional pages led to elimination of that program, and the blanket loss of  opportunities for thousands of interns [male and female] over the subsequent years. Could the current discourse backfire by encouraging discrimination in hiring to limit potential for sex harassment claims in the work environment? [Think of "the old boys network" amplified] Clearly that is not what most people ultimately want to see. But unless there is a willingness for more critical engagement and discussion surrounding the role of sexuality in the workplace, including open and accountable talk from all perspectives, then draconian type measures may be the only resolution.