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.
No comments:
Post a Comment