The first session I went to at the WAM conference on Saturday afternoon was a panel discussion, chaired by the sublime Ann Friedman of Feministing, on women journalists confronting the “old boy’s network.” There weren’t many men in the session, but during the Q&A portion of the workshop, one young man asked an excellent question of the panelists: “What can male feminists do, especially those in the media, to confront the Old Boy’s Network?” It was a variation on the classic question that all well-intentioned men in the feminist movement ought to ask: “What is the most helpful thing I — as a man — can do?” The panelists gave some excellent answers about supporting female colleagues and introducing feminist themes into one’s own writing, but they left out, understandably, what I see as the single most important thing that any feminist man in a male-dominated field can do.
After the session, I went up to the young man and introduced myself. He’s Derek Warwick, an undergraduate women’s studies major from the University of Alberta in Edmonton (where my father taught, many years ago). Derek blogs at DoingFeminism. (I’ve been saying his name in my head, trying not to confuse him with the poet Derek Walcott.) I told Derek how delighted I was he asked the question, and told him that I hoped he would forgive the presumptuousness, but as an older male feminist, I thought there was one thing he really needed to hear in answer to his excellent query.
Male feminists must support women, of course. In the journalism world (which was the arena up for discussion on Saturday), that means standing in solidarity with women colleagues and fighting for the inclusion of feminist perspectives in all aspects of reporting. But I’m convinced that the single most important thing that feminist men can do to dismantle the Old Boys’ Network is both far more simple and far more difficult: refuse to join it.
Particularly for young white men working for older white men, the pressure to join the the Network can be both immense and subtle. All of us, as we age and climb whatever ladder it is we are climbing, look to mentor younger folks. The desire for a protege is a common one, and the classic model in the Network is for an older man to look for a younger version of himself — which in journalism, or academia, or law, may mean a middle or upper-middle class white guy in his twenties. Even those male supervisors who are ideologically sympathetic to feminism may find themselves more likely to support and nurture a young man with whom they feel that emotional affinity, that sense of themselves at a younger age. Resisting the “unearned privilege of the protege” is a very difficult thing to do.
Invitations to the Old Boys Club don’t come on monogrammed Crane’s stationery. They frequently come in the form of the casual, “Hey, we’re going out for drinks later”. Sometimes, the Club is obvious in its sexism, inviting “Derek” but not his fellow intern “Delilah”. More commonly, Derek and Delilah both get invited. Delilah, however, soon senses that the invitation to “hang with the guys” was made more out of obligation than desire. She may notice that some of the men seem uncomfortable with her, or that the conversation over drinks seems designed to exclude her. The older Boys in the office don’t have to take their junior colleagues to Hooters or a strip club to make the sexism obvious; indeed, that kind of crassness is becoming (one hears) somewhat rarer. But from what I hear even now, it’s still common for a young woman, out in social situations with male bosses and co-workers, to feel the tangible presence of a wall separating her from a group of men who might well wish that she would go home early, so the “free talk” (sexist and profane) can begin.
I can remember when I was in graduate school working briefly with a professor who was famous for his sexism and his lechery. A first-rate renaissance scholar, he had made sexual advances towards several young women in the department. Though I’d like to think that the situation would be different today, Professor “M” never got in serious trouble. I spent one quarter in 1990 as his research assistant; when we were alone together, he would often ask me what I thought about the looks of my female fellow grad students. I was uncomfortable, of course, and at first I said nothing, trying to change the subject. The best part of me wanted to tell him off; the worst part of me wanted to join in, eager to win his approval by bonding with him at the expense of the women in my program. Frozen between the two options, for several weeks I tried to avoid being alone with him, fighting the temptation to succumb and “be one of the boys” with this powerful older man. I’m ashamed to say that I only “told him off” at the end of the quarter, after he had signed my final time sheet: I told “Professor M” that I had felt very uncomfortable with what he had been saying, and that I would advise the women in my department to steer clear of him. He sneered at me, and we never spoke again. (Fortunately, my primary program was in medieval history, not early modern, where he had considerable power.) I learned a good lesson about the importance of speaking up, and speaking up at once. I’m glad to say I’ve never waited so long to confront sexism again. When a similar situation happened here at PCC, ,with a now-retired colleague who was one of my pre-tenure supervisors, I was able to speak up. I lost his friendship, but gained a measure of self-respect.
Invitations to the Old Boys Club come in many forms, some subtle, some crass. Frequently, they involve opportunities to bond with senior men through talking — in sexist, objectifying language — about women. Other times, particularly if the young man (like Derek, or myself at his age) is open about his feminist leanings, an Old Boys Club member will, when no one else is around, ask half-jokingly “So, are you really serious about this feminist shit, or do you just want to get laid?” Or, more obliquely: “Come on, Derek, the women aren’t around, you can drop the touchy-feely stuff.” If you are a young man, low in status in a newsroom or a corporate office or an academic department, the senior men will almost always try and assess your suitability for the OBC early on in one way or another; what is often euphemistically called “collegiality” is just code for “willing to play along and not challenge us.”
In our culture, we socialize men to crave the approval of other males, particularly those in positions of authority. The pressure to “give in” and join the OBC isn’t just from older men; for many of us, it comes from within ourselves, as it speaks to our powerful, socialized desire to have our masculinity validated by alpha males. Telling Derek something I’m sure he already knows, I said that it’s very easy to be a feminist man in a women’s studies program. While being one of the very few men to major in Women’s Studies can have its challenges, those challenges are nothing compared to holding on to one’s feminism in the workplace, in the face of the overwhelming pressure to conform to the standard for male sexist behavior. “Walking the walk” of feminism in the face of the very real temptation to become complicit in the Great Crime of institutionalized sexism can be incredibly difficult.
I’ll be honest: sometimes, I don’t know how my feminist brothers in the corporate world avoid complicity. In a sense, I have it easy: I’m tenured, and I don’t really have a supervisor. I am the only man on campus teaching gender studies. There is an Old Boy’s Network on campus, and I do get the chance to spar with it from time to time, but I do so from a position of relative impunity. If I piss off a colleague by calling him on his sexism (which I’ve done — here’s an example), the only tangible consequence is a cold shoulder. For a young man trying to make it in journalism (or any other market-driven profession), resisting the temptation to accept the countless small OBC invitations that come his way is going to be far more difficult.\
In the end, the reason to avoid joining the Old Boys’ Club is about more than just maintaining one’s feminist credibility. It’s about understanding that now, in 21st century America, white male power is maintained less through overt legal structures than through hidden social constructions. White men can no longer exclude women and people of color from leadership positions by fiat alone; indeed, most white men probably don’t consciously want to. But what they do want to do, consciously or not, is maintain an environment in which straight white men — “the Old Boys” — continue to enjoy privilege and comfort. The greatest of those privileges is the sense of belonging. The hard fact is, in order to make most workplaces welcoming to women and non-whites, the Old Boys will have to change the way they do many things. Decades of feminism, decades of civil rights legislation, have done little to dismantle the entrenched resistance on the part of the OBC to surrendering that privilege.
In the end, if you’re a feminist man, the single most important thing you can do is make it clear, in your words and in your actions, that you not only are not looking for OBC membership, but will, politely but firmly, reject it when it is offered.
And trust me. It will be offered.
This post reflects yet another double standard. It’s not cool and it’s not okay when feminists rail about the supposed ‘old boys club’.
Doing so is ageist (obvious from the use of the word ‘old’), sexist (by referring to grown men as ‘boys’, often done by the very same people who get crazed when women are referred to as ‘girls’), a cop-out (no one is preventing women from creating their own success and networks; if they are so capable, why follow in the footsteps of men? why not do something better instead of copying male behavior and inserting themselves into the networks of men that they so freely deride?), and naive, if not entirely dishonest (women form their own exclusive cliques and ‘old girls clubs’). At the possible risk of doing violence to Hans Christian Andersen and his profoundly insightful fable, the empress here simply has no clothes.
>Warren,
That our daughters, our mothers, our grandmothers, and our sisters earned only $.77 to every dollar, on average, that our sons, our fathers, our grandfathers, and our brothers made in the U.S. in 2007 is evidence of something. Smells old and male to me, no matter what you call it.
>Hugo,
Sometimes it takes brilliant people like you to point out some pretty obvious things to the rest of us. I’m going to keep saying No Thanks now when the Club Application gets mailed to my house. Thank you also for introducing us to Derek.
>Derek,
Thanks for you great public question and for Doing Feminism.
Great thoughtful post. I appreciate it
Hugo - I work in a very conservative industry. Golfing, drinking at the bar, going to strip clubs and joking sexism are all but mandatory for success. The men in this industry are individually not sexist - they have wives and daughters whose rights and equality they defend passionately, but get them together and the casual sexism emerges unmistakably.
For months now, I’ve had coworkers and vendors say to me, “You’re so lucky to get to work in the office around all the women.” The implications aren’t so subtle. I’ve been known to say, “They don’t work topless you know.” I’ve also been known to say, “Why am I lucky?” I have yet to find a straight man who can actually formulate a response to that question. Back when I went along with it, trust me, it was easier.
A former coworker, a woman now in her early sixties, succeeded for years by outdrinking, outgolfing, our swearing and out smoking all the men in the company. They saw her as a peer because she was tougher than they were. At the same time, they saw her as an interloper in the boys club. When she changed jobs, they were relieved for reasons none of them could have really articulated. They don’t see themselves as sexist and in most ways they aren’t but . . .
It’s a difficult dynamic to explain but they just don’t see the systematic sexism at work. Even successful women executives in this industry confront this sexism. The pressure to be a good sport and go to the titty bar is not inconsiderable. The gauntlet they run is a complicated one - if they complain they’re seen as trouble causers, if they go along they are uncomfortable but to succeed, they have to play the game.
I agreed with one thing, it sounds as though Hugo has had it pretty easy, being tenured in Gender Studies. Sounds comfortable up there. For the peons, we have here one more cross to bear on the pitiable Via Dolorosa of the male feminist: rejection of solidarity with and alienation from one’s professional male peers, while their professional non-whitemale competitors are allowed, at times even encouraged, to avow themselves of that advantage. Once again, that annoying caller on station WIIFM asks: What’s In It For the Men? (or perhaps, what’s in it that offsets that very real cost?)
I’d add as well, anyone think that maybe decades now of sexual harrassment and hostile work environment litigation maybe had something to do with who does and who does not get invited out for drinks? And what about non-white men, who could use an in with the OBN they’ve never had? Can they get a limited gate pass? Maybe two drinks and a snicker or two at three sexist jokes?
J.K Gayle, how many times must it be pointed out that when experience, education and years on the job are factored in, the “pay gap” closes to within 5% or less? When will that hoary old 77-cent chestnut finally get a rest? Better still, when will we hear about women accounting for at least 80% of discretionary consumer spending?
Above: “avow” should have read “avail”.
Tom, you say that “their professional non-whitemale competitors are allowed, at times even encouraged, to avail themselves of that advantage”. The entire point of the “Old Boys’ Club” is that non-whitemale competitors aren’t allowed in. There’s no reason to avoid all mentoring relationships; however, you should consider actually reading some of the examples Hugo gave.
A professor discussing the attractiveness of his graduate students (and even making sexual advances at them) is not creating an environment in which they are encouraged to flourish. Ditto for a manager who can only ‘bond’ with his underlings through sexist jokes and comments.
Being accomodating to someone you consider reprehensible and encouraging them to continue in their ways is a moral failing, whether it’s sexism, corruption, or cruelty you encourage. This is true even when there is a benefit to be gained from the person’s good favor.
Thanks for the “hoary old 77-cent chestnut” question, Tom.
Answer:
That’s not even the half of it. Here are some other questions for us.
Lisa, sounds like we’re talking about different networks. Perhaps non-whitemale competitors aren’t allowed in to the strong case type of OBN. At least insofar as race is concerned, how prevalent that version of the OBN still is I would question. Beyond that, in a great many professions and institutions, the networks that exist for non-whitemales are far from “hidden social constructions”. I’ve yet to see a “National Conference of White Lawyers”, or an “American Association of University Men”.
I would agree that there’s no reason to avoid all mentoring relationships and would personally look askance at a superior making untoward comments towards others in the workplace / academy (whether I consider my own personal social capital best invested in correcting that person is a separate question). I’m not sure that Hugo would agree though. He seems to have a hair shirt tailored for every occasion in a whitemale’s life.
Um, I have to ask for some clarification about this part:
maybe decades now of sexual harrassment and hostile work environment litigation maybe had something to do with who does and who does not get invited out for drinks?
What, exactly, would guys have to worry about sexual harrassment and hostile work envirnment when inviting girls out if the envirnment wasn’t harrassing or hostile? The question, I’m asking then, is can you explain this in a way that isn’t sexist? Because it sounds to me like this is either claiming that women are overly sensitive, and charge sexual harrassment ALL the time, and the poor guys are so put out because of it OR that guys need to be sexist in order to relax and have a good time.
Antigone, that’s where we get the upshot, what exactly is the definition of harrassing or hostile? We don’t have an objective definition. The EEOC has operated under guidelines that the harrasser does not even need to be aware that the behavior is harrassing or offensive; and that a victim need not be directly harassed, but may be anyone who finds the behavior offensive and is affected by it (note, that there is nothing in this that says anything about sexism per se). Under the circumstances, when you add in the vicarious liability of an employer as well as the potential costs in time, legal bills, and bad publicity in defending against even spurious or unfounded charges, the consequences mount further.
Given that legal and regulatory environment, there’s a case to be made for adopting a precautionary principle, and minimizing opportunities for someone to potentially be offended. If that means that the after-work scene is not equally welcoming to all, blame the lawyers.
Tom, I’ve socialized in mixed groups fearlessly. Sexual harassment doesn’t just “happen” any more than racism just “happens” — it involves some very specific behaviors, and the definitions the government uses (that the behavior be “unwelcome” and in most cases “repeated”) is quite clear. If there’s a precautionary principle, it is not to exclude those whom you might harass — it’s to socialize with excellent boundaries.
I’ve led workshops in corporate and seminary settings on how to avoid harassment. Many folks come into these trainings with that same fear you express, Tom, that sexual harassment allegations may happen to them “out of the blue.” They leave far more confident about what they can and can’t do. The myth of the “good guy” laid low by a false sexual harassment charge is largely a modern fantasy, fed by awful Michael Crichton novels and even worse filmed adaptations thereof.
More power to ya then Hugo! Maybe when that message is spread further, we can put that common fear and its implications to rest.
My parents met while working together at a law office in the 70s, my father was actually one of the people who interviewed my mother when she was hired (he was a year ahead of her). I’ve heard more than a few expressions of surprise when I relate that story to people my age, who came into the workforce in the 90s and later, and figure that workplace relationships (maybe most particularly in law, and particularly with a disparity in position) are out.
“I’ve led workshops in corporate and seminary settings on how to avoid harassment. Many folks come into these trainings with that same fear you express, Tom, that sexual harassment allegations may happen to them “out of the blue.” They leave far more confident about what they can and can’t do. The myth of the “good guy” laid low by a false sexual harassment charge is largely a modern fantasy, fed by awful Michael Crichton novels and even worse filmed adaptations thereof.”
Hugo - I’ve sat in on those same types of seminars. I left with the same confidence that I entered with, because of the simple policy I adopted for myself. I do not socialize with female colleagues, or act towards them with anything other than cool professionalism. Why should I risk my career and my reputation by granting anyone the slightest basis to make a claim against me? Not even a lawsuit, but a nasty he-said/she-said exchange with HR? My career and my reputation is damaged, regardless of its merits. It isn’t sexist - it is prudent caution because much is at stake. Just like it is wise for a man to avoid ever being alone with a child not his own.
Harassment and hostile work environment legislation has given woman the power to act against legitimate abusers, and that is a good thing. You might assume that this power is never used inappropriately, because of course woman are far more ethical than men. That would be a foolish assumption for me to make.
As far as the “good guy laid low.” Regardless of the merits of the Clarence Thomas issue, it wasn’t lost on me that many people believed Anita Hill because - well - woman never lie about such a thing. Something bad must have happened. He must have done something. For many people an accusation alone suffices in such matters, and I could well see such an attitude in my next job interview.
Life is lived at the margins - all else being equal, there is significantly less risk in having personal relationships and after work fun with male colleagues than female ones.
Sweating Through the Fog: you hit the nail right on the head. Why take the risk?
Tom -
when experience, education and years on the job are factored in, the “pay gap” closes to within 5% or less
In 2003, the General Accounting Office (next exactly a left-wing thinktank!) came to the conclusion that `When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors [including race, age, experience, education, marital status, number and age of children, other income, region, industry, union membership, and time worked in the past year], women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000.’
As Echidne of the snakes concluded, `Many other studies have arrived at very similar results: showing that some of the gender gap can be accounted for by other reasons than discrimination but that there remains a large unexplained residual. Whether one believes that it is all due to omitted variables reflecting job flexibility or ability or whether one believes that at least some of it is due to unfair treatment of women in the labor force or elsewhere seems to depend on the assessor’s political bias.’
STF -
all else being equal, there is significantly less risk in having personal relationships and after work fun with male colleagues than female ones.
Less risk? Probably. (But watch out that you don’t accidentally say something sexist or homophobic around a male feminist or gay colleague!) Significantly less risk? Hugo’s claim was that this is not the case — that the risk is low so long as you keep your behaviour within some apparently broad but well-defined bounds. To simply deny that claim is not to give an argument against it. To remain paralyzed in fear simply because it might not be true — as you indicate you do in this comment — is irrational. Do you never leave your basement, just because there is significantly less risk of being mauled by a bear that way?
Also: Your example of a good man whose career was ruined by an accusation of sexual harassment is a Supreme Court Justice? Really?
Noumena: I’m familiar with the GAO report. I also know that one qualification that came out with it, which the GAO openly admitted was still a confounding factor, was time-away and child-care responsibilities. I’m not saying that there’s no relevant pay discrimination. But we go down to 20% with that issue still out of the picture. How much can afterwards can be accounted for by discrimination? How much then gets accounted for in career choice? (Which often gets ascribed to “pink-collar jobs” and how much society somehow abstractly and qualitatively “values” women’s versus men’s occupations, without any mention of labor market supply and demand, the quantitative way of measuring what society “values”.)
I had a similar experience to Sweating Through the Fog the last time I got one of those “What is Sexual Harassment?” sheets when I hired on for a new job. I figured that it was something that I’d never have to worry about by following one simple dictum: always courteous, never friendly. And Hugo’s point about the technical points of sexual harassment law still elides those near-miss, “appearance of impropriety” situations, which can arise from 3rd parties not even privy to the context and content of allegedly “offensive” behavior (half of an overheard conversation, office scuttlebutt, what have you). No one wants an accusation or misunderstanding even if they are in the right. Even if the minefield is clearly marked, why go near it when you don’t have to?
It’s remarkable the degree to which the commenters on this thread reflect the very problem I was discussing… the OBC is alive and well indeed.
In the workshops I teach, we emphasize that warmth and friendliness — including a willingness to mentor junior colleagues of the other sex — is recommended, as long as boundaries are observed. Folks, it’s really, really, really not that hard.
Hugo, let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager, about 14 years old or so, I was accused of sexual harassment at a summer program for junior-high and high-school students to take college-level courses. This would have been maybe in the summer of 1993, 2 years after the Clarence Thomas hearings, when sexual harassment was still quite a salient topic. I made a crude but merely verbal masturbatory reference, not too different from what many 14 year old boys do, in reference to a girl in the program talking about “making a motion” on something. She herself replied with a rejoinder to the effect that that “I must be pretty good at that”. Mind you, the accusation of sexual harassment did not come from her, but from a 3rd party, in this case a man about 19 years old or so, who was serving in sort of an RA capacity, and must have been pretty sensitive regarding the question of sexual harassment. I was ultimately relegated from the program.
In the rarified air of a workshop or a seminar full of people with good intentions and clear understandings, I suppose that many things are possible. Outside, things haven’t been so neat. We’ve fought the wars on this issue since the early 90s, and some of us have scars to show for it. Even if we didn’t, we’ve heard enough horror stories. Out of all that, experience tends to indicate that good fences really do make good neighbors. With just the potential for misunderstandings that can prove costly, the safest course in the workplace really is to keep the Chinese wall on personal relationships across the gender line. Add in the very real existence of agendas, egos, and vendettas, and this goes doubly so.
Tom, I am sorry you feel a sense of alienation and bitterness. I assure you that a great many men and women feel safer and more comfortable in the workplace precisely because of the presence of the very laws you decry. We can swap anecdote for anecdote, but if you’re going to go down the classic MRA road (the system is rigged against men, the divorce courts favor women, women regularly falsely report rape, and domestic violence laws unfairly ignore male victims, etcetera) then this blog — which is for feminists and those open to feminism — is not the ideal place to comment.
After all, I wrote this post for FEMINIST MEN who already accepted the basic principles of feminism. Having the comment thread dominated by those who question feminism’s essential premises doesn’t really help.
Hugo, it isn’t that I decry anything. I can well accept that such laws and policies were necessary to deal with the deplorable and unfair situations that genuine victims of sexual harassment were put into and continue to be put into. I’m not questioning that premise nor taking any classic MRA road looking to rollback any of feminism’s achievements.
However, these achievements have proven to be a “new thing” which we all have to find our own way to respond to and live with that is best, and safest, for ourselves. Overreach, perverse outcomes, and unintended consequences are common in any major public policy change or social revolution. If the new consensus as to the prudent middle course in dealing with those negative externalities is not what would have been considered ideal at the outset, then I suppose we are left with evaluating the present against the past situation that you implicitly reference. Either that, or seek further revision of that consensus.
Tom, how does an incident in which a fellow man accused you of sexual harassment show that it’s easier to avoid sexual harassment by fraternising only with male coworkers?
I don’t want to keep pressing the issue of the wage gap, since it’s borderline off-topic, but the GAO took into account full-time/part-time status and the number of weeks worked in the past year (which would measure long-term sacrifices made for routine child care) and industry and occupation (and so whether one is employed in a `pink-collar’ industry).
I hear you, Tom. I think you and I disagree about the state of the current environment, and the frequency at which “perverse outcomes” are actually reached. I respect that you’ve had to do what “feels right” for you in the workplace, and I hope that with time, you will feel comfortable interacting with female colleagues in as warm and friendly a fashion as you do with your male ones.
Noumena,
Regarding Clarence Thomas, I didn’t say his career was ruined. I used him as an example that just an allegation is sufficient in many people’s minds to permanently mark his character. If you were researching a male job candidate, and came across an allegation of harassment, would you brush it aside in the absence of a civil trial and a judgment?
I am not at all risk averse. Success in business depends to a great extent on taking measured risks. Risk without possible benefit is foolish, and there is no real benefit to me in being “warm and friendly” to a female coworker.
Hugo,
Businesses love to sponsor these seminars, but not because they expect any change in behavior on the part of their employees. They are forgotten once you walk out the door. Businesses sponsor these sessions them because paying for such seminars serves as a defense - by the business - against lawsuits that claim they allowed a hostile environment to fester. Pay X$ for some “sexual harassment training” for your employees, and your expected litigation costs go down 10X$ - not because your employees are better behaved, but because you can show the judge that you - the business - took documented steps to foster a good environment. The dead giveaway here is that there is never any follow-up after the seminars to check for changes in behavior. There are never any measurements for “success.” All the business wants is to have an invoice from you that they can show to a judge.
So you can talk all you want about how men like me have nothing to fear from a “warm and friendly” attitude towards female co-workers. I’m as likely to follow that advice as I am to cancel my general liability insurance.
Noumena, I wasn’t accused of harassing the man. He opened the issue in regards to something that I said to a female, absent any complaint on her part. The 3rd party issue further highlights the issue: even if the purported victim doesn’t feel harassed, at least not enough to open an inquiry, someone else might. Again, “appearance of impropriety”.
I’ll have to take a closer look at the GAO thing. Maybe I was looking at something else from them. Link?
Hugo, in all fairness, I think that the current environment may be a bit better than in was in the early 90s, when the Thomas hearings (and the Packwood scandal) were fresh in the public imagination and a lot of the policymaking and litigation had yet to be hashed out. Anecdote for anecdote, anyone can find themselves a crazy one on something or another (the zero-tolerance policies in K-12 education are particularly fertile soil). You don’t forget them, though, when they happen to you.
I’m not the other Tom; I feel the need to say this to avoid confusion.
Staying out of the OBC is good. Homosocial promotion hurts people who don’t look and live like the folks in power.
But… I think there’s a danger in connecting this with the protégé issue. Which is not exactly what you did, but I do see folks do this from time to time. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a young heterosexual white man being the protégé of an older heterosexual white man, and in fact rejecting the protégé situation accomplishes nothing in and of itself–the older gentleman will just find another young heterosexual white man with whom to better identify.
A better solution, for me, is to accept the protégé status…and use that status to bring people into the fold. Be a connector. Show up at the OBC club with non-white and female employees. Introduce people. Don’t oppose the social power hierarchy itself; instead, work to integrate it.
Of course, if you try to connect folks and the OBC refuses to play along, then you’ve got a decision to make about what sort of community you really want to be a part of. But I think it’s better to be a conduit for integration than it is to step away entirely, at least if the possibility of being a conduit exists.
(I feel the need to say, BTW, that I have no corporate experience and speak as a freelance writer whose mentors have primarily been female, quite often women of color. But it’s a good thread, and to be honest the antifeminist stuff is putting me to sleep, so…)
Hugo:
When you write:
you repeat a sexist cliche that needs a more explicit challenge. I recommend to everyone (and women’s studies teachers in particular) to remember the women who dedicated themselves, very successfully, to a world of hard facts and logic. The idea of women or feminism as “touchy-feely” would probably surprise Madam Curie, Countess Lovelace, or Admiral Hopper.
John, I was repeating a sexist cliche not because I believe it but because that’s verbatim what I have heard, over and over again, from OBC members who don’t take my feminism seriously. Of COURSE feminism isn’t all touchy-feely! I had hoped my use of quote marks would make it obvious those weren’t my words.
There have been times when I’ve been with a group of male coworkers and the topic of the relative attractiveness of our female colleagues came up. I was uncomfortable but not sure exactly why. You felt the same way, it appears. Could you help me understand what’s wrong with these situations?
The GAO report is available in PDF form here.
Bill, what’s happening is that a group of guys are using a discussion of women’s attributes in order to bond with each other; women, in other words, are the “glue” to reinforce a fragile sense of masculinity and brotherhood. What you object to, rightly, is both the crass way in which women are being objectified and the habit that your co-workers have of using women for homosocial bonding.
1) I’m not convinced Anita Hill was lying. I do find it interesting that were even more people who just assumed she was lying, as opposed to people who just believed her.
2) Tom, we really could match anecdote to anecdote, but Hugo said not to. In general, I will make the comment that I suspect it is FAR more common for a woman to be harrassed at work, and not report, because of fear that she’s “misinterrepting what the person was doing” and/or being afraid that she’s “overreacting”.
3) Sexual harrassment law is fairly clearly defined (more so than other laws such as what constitutes pornography). You have the reasonable person standard (which is what you fell under; a reasonable person would find a discussion of masturbation to be sexual, or at the very least, unprofessional) and then you have the repeated standard. The repeat standard is when you do something that a reasonable person would not necessarily object to, but if someone reports that this joke or action makes them uncomfortable, then the behavior has to stop (I’ve been hit on this one; people don’t like it when you make Biblical jokes about David).
If you’re interested in sexual harrassment standards, there are plenty of critisms of it. Feminist speaking, there is talk that there shouldn’t be a “reasonable person” standard; there should be the “reasonable woman” and “reasonable man” standard, based on the idea that “reasonable person” is going to mean “reasonable man” any way, and that’s not an accurate reflection when it’s happening to a woman. (The example I was taught was a female pin-up picture; according to the “reasonable person” standard, that is not hostile, the reasonable woman standard calls it hostile. Compare that to a male pin-up picture, which both the reasonable person and the reasonable man standard both claim is hostile).
Honestly, I don’t generally expect men to be uncomfortable with these standards. I don’t understand why not making comments about other women’s “score”, or not making sexual jokes, or not having pin up calendar’s in your workspace is such a hardship that one has to swing to “cooly professional”. It is possible to be friendly without being hostile.
Appologies if my comment became too long, I tried to truncate it as best I could.
Antigone,
I was never in the habit of engaging in crude or abusive behavior, and so I never claimed to suffer any hardship from harassment laws and policies. Yes, the standards for what is considered harassment are quite clear. These are, however, legal standards that would be used in an expensive and painful litigation - they do me little good when my name and reputation is trashed. There are many people who believe that an accusation means I must be a creep in some way, even if the exact particulars of the accusation are proved unfounded - months or years later. So if a female co-worker takes an angry walk down to HR and makes a claim against me, I suffer harm.
Unlike Hugo, I’m not in a profession where mentoring is an integral and expected part of the job. So if I want to mentor someone, or just relax with a coworker, the safer choice to indulge these pleasures is a male co-worker. If a female co-worker makes an accusation against me, and I’m asked: “were you ever alone with her” my answer must be a truthful no, and I must be able to produce co-workers who were in a position to witness every interaction I had with her. If another co-worker makes an accusation of favoritism - that I granted a promotion to a female because of some intimate, or even “warm and friendly” relationship, I better be sure that there isn’t even a hint that such a relationship was possible. Relationships that begin as “warm and friendly” often turn sour through no fault of our own.
So yes - “cool and professional” (not hostility!) is my policy in the office. I tend not to relax with people that have loaded guns in their purse - regardless of how “warm and friendly” they might seem.
Um, sweating through the fog; you do know that sexual harrassment claims can be made by men as well as women, right? You are also aware that if you promote males that you have a “warm and friendly” relationship you can be accused as favoritism just as much. I don’t know why there’s this fear of women accusing sexual harrassment.
Antigone,
Yes I did now that males can sue as well. It is all about the odds, and the credibility that such claims receive. There are never any guarantees in this sort of thing, but all things being equal, you are less likely to be sued by a man, and less likely to have a complain levied against you. A claim of favoritism is generally treated far differently than a claim of favoritism based on an asserted “quid pro quo” sexual relationship.
But recall it isn’t about lawsuits and legal standards of proof - it is about the relative risk of a complaint that receives automatic credibility in some quarters. I’ve had “warm and friendly” relationships with male colleagues that took a bad turn, but I had little fear they would take a walk down to HR.
Sweating Through the Fog, in your proposed nightmare scenario, would it really matter whether you had actually spent time alone with the accuser or not? I mean, if you’re worried about the accusation (not actually losing a suit, but being accused), then it seems to me that an accuser could make up stories of y’all spending time alone together just as easily as she could anything else.
I also second Antigone’s reminder that a man can sue another man for sexual harassment just as easily as a woman can. Happened to a (married, with kids) school superintendent in Mississippi not long ago.
Sweating Through the Fog, in your proposed nightmare scenario, would it really matter whether you had actually spent time alone with the accuser or not?
Yes - it matters. There is a big difference between a he-said/she-said situation and a they-said/she-said situation. I want to be able to say (and why would I ever want to put myself in a position where I have to lie to my employer?) that we were never alone, and never really had any private time together. Doors were always open, there were never any dinners or drinks after work. If we had spent time alone being “warm and friendly” she can, when things are no longer “warm and friendly” say anything she wants and some people will believe her - closed doors and after dinner drinks give them a hook to hang their attitudes on. It is purely my word against hers, and my employer gets exposed to to financial risk if they seem to discount her allegations.
Yes there is some risk of an unfounded accusation by a male co-worker. I used to lock my doors and windows when I drove through the South Bronx, while I kept my windows wide open driving down Park Avenue.
Hi Hugo,
Unfortunately I don’t have the time this week to address some of the other concerns that were brought up by the other commenters, but I just wanted to say thank you. I agree with your response to my question.
I’ve definitely realised it’s easy for me to be a male feminist in a women’s studies program, and that I have difficulties to face in the future. I worked in a pulp mill this summer and it was the worst experience of my life. You touched on a great (and true) point: Other men will try to get me to give up “the act”. I’ll never forget, after a week or so working with the older men, my coworkers, when they told me they’d change me within the four months I was there, as if I feminism were a negative quality (and, I suppose it would be, if you’re a large beneficiary of the patriarchy).
Anyway, I asked the question, because it’s my intention to become a writer eventually, and already I’m noticing huge problems in relation to gender. For example, at the Gateway, the campus newspaper, the opinion meetings have plenty of men in attendance, with usually only a few women. Sexual harassment abounds, but that’s the subject of a future post of mine, perhaps.
Anyway, thanks again, Hugo. I really appreciate the time you took to write this, and I hope we’re able to meet again in the future. It really was a pleasure meeting you!
“I also second Antigone’s reminder that a man can sue another man for sexual harassment just as easily as a woman can. Happened to a (married, with kids) school superintendent in Mississippi not long ago.”
Um…I believe Antigone was also pointing out that a man can sue a woman as well as another man. About a year ago on this blog, I recounted a story of an older woman acting inappropriately towards me and other people at a music camp a few years ago, and I remember Antigone being sympathetic and supportive of my viewpoint, for which I remain grateful to her.
Can I just point out to Warren that he’s misunderstood the etymology of the phrase “Old Boys’ Club”. It doesn’t mean “old” as in age, or “boys” referring to men as if they were younger. It is a phrase that comes from the English public school system, where ex-students belong to groups called “Old Boys’ Associations”, i.e. they were formerly (of ‘old’) students (’boys’) of the school. These schools had/have a reputation of helping their own - the male, white, upper classes. This is where the term comes from, and thus your criticism of the individual words as agist and sexist makes no sense.
Thanks for this. I’m a woman, but this issue has been very hard to explain to non-feminists (yes, I can get evangelical about feminism, but I find if I’m patient and take people through slowly, it works), because if there are any equality laws in place, people refuse to believe that there can possibly be any inequalities. Because, you know, people don’t have biases, and can’t just favour white men during interviews/mentoring/company, whatnot. Alos, people jsut find it hard to understand why I I’m not satisfied with poor male colleagues merely letting women into their presence socially, when in fact they really want to avoid them, and try to talk about the manliest things they can, talk over the women and don’t engage them in the conversation, hoping that will make the vagina-people go away.
It’s not really better than not letting women in at all. At least then, women would know straight out that their status as female made them inferior in the eyes of their colleagues. But to the untrained eye, women not being included to the full as you stated looks more like the case of ‘I just didn’t gel with that particular person’, so is harder to prove as discrimination. It obviously is, of course, especially since the overall pattern is quite clear (few non-white men, women or LBGTQ people in the ‘in’ crowd, but people can try to rationalise it all away by going on about how they just ‘get on better’ with people just like them. To some extent, we all do, but an inclusive person would try to work past their biases, and get to know people different from themselves. The kind of people you’re talking about of course just don’t want to.
I don’t think false allegations are as massive a problem as some people claim. How can they be? As a man, you’ll no doubt ahve witnessed sexual harassment before (hopefully not perpetrating it), or at least inappropriate talk about women colleagues. This is very common, I’m sure you’ll agree. So, why, knowing how many women report being harassed or raped(I don’t mean pressing charges or making alelgations, but surveys, where there is no reason to lie, and perps are not named), would you assume that any woman making an accusation is out to get the men, or that if you socialise with women, even if you are being respectful, you’re likely to get accused? There’s a chance you could get accused of any crime (including harassment) if you socialise at all. That’s a risk we live with. But if you know how to interact with women, you’re unlikely to say or do something that may be construed as being harasement. Many men probably do feel uneasy, because they ahven’t actually thought about if their actions are harassment, and may harass women without seeing it as harassment. They may even see themselves as innocent victims (well, have you ever met a bully who admitted what they were doing was wrong?), but that doesn’t mean that what they were doing wasn’t making women uncomfortable, or wasn’t unacceptable. I like the sound of those workshops of yours, Hugo. As a feminist man, teaching other men what is and isn’t an acceptable way to treat women is important. Too often, people focus on the women, what they may have done wrong, without ever addressing why the men made them uncomfortable, and their own actions.
So, to be a feminist man I would add the following: when a woman says she’s been harassed or raped, for once, don’t empathise with the man first and woman last (if at all). Don’t immediately jump to worrying how this might affect his amazing career or reputation. Think for once about all the harassment you have seen, how, if you hadn’t seen it yourself, you would have assumed any accusation against that harasser as being an unjust stain on his reputation. This doesn’t mean you should immediately assume the accused is 100% guilty, but rather an understanding that they might well be, which flies against societal expectations.
That is the real face of the OBC, men always empathising with other men, and protecting their backs out of cameraderie, even when they know something.
Anna,
“As a man, you’ll no doubt ahve witnessed sexual harassment before (hopefully not perpetrating it), or at least inappropriate talk about women colleagues. This is very common, I’m sure you’ll agree.”
I can’t say I agree, based on my experience. I’ve been a professional for more than two decades, and have never witnessed anything that I would consider an act of sexual harassment. Not one. Not even close. And when socializing with male coworkers I have never heard a female co-worker spoken of in sexual terms. Not even once.
Lots of women are biased against men, and particularly, as I wrote about here, men in groups. Some people just assume that any male bonding has - as its essential glue - misogyny.
I’m not denying that misogyny exists, or saying that women don’t face unfair obstacles in the workplace, and I’m certainly not asserting that sexual harassment is not a serious problem. I just get troubled when people assume that my male bonding necessarily is based on misogyny.
OK, maybe you haven’t seen any sexual harrassment. Maybe you have, and haven’t even recognised it. Maybe your experience isn’t representative of the rest of the world, or even your country. that doesn’t mean that there isn’t sexual harassment. Individual women may or may not be biased against men, but men are also often biased against women. And int he big scheme of things, mena re really the ones with the socioeconomic power. So overall, women have more reason to fear men taking a dislike to them than vice versa.
But don’t forget that male bonding had, at least in the past been openly misogynistic. I mean, taking your clients to strip clubs isn’t exactly conducive of encouraging women to participate. Let’s not forget all the men-only clubs throughout history where business socialising was cemented. It’s hard for women to not view male bonding as misogynistic when it has ofren in the past revolved around objectification of women. and anyhow, we weren’t talking about ‘male bonding’. We were talking about professional relationships and building business networks. The very fact that this has gotten conflated with male bonding IS the problem. Male colleagues don’t have some inalienable right to go out and meet mentors and clients without theri female colleagues. Teh very fact that they don’t try to include them is a problem, because business shouldn’t be about about ‘male bonding’. There are plenty of women in the workplace, and if they see business bonding as misogynistic, it’s because they’re deliberately not included. And that IS misogynistic, because it implies that women colleagues don’t have the right to be included, and that their male colleagues needn’t make any effort to include them. Want to go out with your mates? fine. Feminsts don’t care. Demand that business socialising be an all-male thing because women change the atmosphere- not good.
Well, nobody said male bonding is 100% misogyny, just that it was often prevalent. It could well be that it is mostly misogynistic, because society Is misogynistic. You can’t opt out of the patriarchy entirely, especially if you refuse to believe it exists. So men who don’t believe there is inequality by essence can’t not be misogynistic, because not being misogynistic requires the effort to realise that society is, and therefore you are, unless you try to change. so anyone saying male bondign is often misogynistic aren’t trying to say all men are evil, but that in a society that does hate women, they get encouraged by other men, and even women, to be misogynistic. Now, obviously, if all the men are doing is talking about something totally inocous, they’re not being misogynistic.
Same with racism or homophobia. Hell, even if you are the minority, you still take in the hate against your kind and subtly reinforce it.
Anne,
I started to write a point-by-point rebuttal, but I realize there is little point, because in your eyes I have no credibility, even when discussing myself and my experiences. It seems you are saying that I must hate women, because I claim not to, and that my failure to admit I saw, or participated in, harassment means that my unrecognized misogyny makes me clueless in such matters. I’m either lying about myself or my experiences, or my experience must be so unusual that it proves some more general rule.
I never said YOU hate women, because I never thought it. I was writing about people in a general manner. I was focusing on those men who do belittle women, or who do harass or ignore them, because that is what the post is about. I did not mean to imply that you were lying.
I do believe you are telling the truth of your experiences, for what it’s worth. The bottom line is, however, that I also value the experiences of the women I know, and I don’t think it’s a case that most of the women who say they are being harrassed or feel sidelined are lying or being oversensitive.
When I said maybe you (or other men) may have witnessed harrassment, but not recognised it, I wasn’t accusing you of hating women. It’s just that as a man, somebody not typically worrying about being sexually harrassed, you might not be as sensitive to what harrassment, or a woman being cold-shouldered by her male colleagues would look like. I’m not blaming you for harrassment you may not have spotted (and may not exist, obviously), but just pointing out that you may be less sensitive to it than women who have to deal with it, and that if your female colleagues were to speak openly, they might report harrassment, that you may never have seen.
As for unrecognised misogyny, we all have it. I admit I’ve taken in misogynistic ideas, and have to fight and examine them, and deal with the fact that I’m far from perfect and have things I need to work on. I was not trying to suggest you are particularly misogynist, or even average-person misogynist, but that like all people, there are things you don’t always realise affect the way you may see women or deal with women’s issues.
Three comments:
What “manly” things do you mean? Sports? Last I checked, sports included women (WNBA anyone?) Technology? Most geeks know that women pioneered huge areas of technology; lok up Admiral Hopper and Countess Lovelace on Wikipedia. I don’t see how you can classify whole areas of conversation as masculine without buying into a lot of stereotypes.
Trying to talk people out of believing in their own experience doesn’t often work.
Making discomfort “unacceptable” has a discriminatory effect. Something else must happen for harrasment to take place: the violation of some defined boundary.
Because, of course, men never try to talk women down in these fields, and women in sport get as much recognition or pay as male athletes, don’t they? And naturally, womens’ sports are always in the media, and girls are always actively encouraged to be interested in sport by their fathers (or mothers for that matter) as a way of bonding with them. Yes, sports include women, but if you don’t look at sports reporting and notice a) the sports events and players with the most publicity are male, b) that nearly all of the sports commentators are male, and that c) sports is regarded by most people to be more suitable for men than women, both in terms of being an athlete, and in terms of being a fan. You don’t see half as many ads for beer featuring a gaggle of women watching ‘the game’, or movies featuring the same. It’s just not a part of the way society sees women. And let’s not forget if we’re talking about professionals, ehich means the game of choice might be golf. The business socialising in expensive clubs being key to the OBC. The same clubs where women aren’t allowed to compete, or are given really bad tee times.
Are we talking about the same technology field? The one where women bloggers get death threats, women gamers get unwanted attention if their handle is remotely female, where any games aimed at women feature cooking cute puppies or really simple gaming? women having pioneered technology areas doesn’t mean that women can’t be disrciminated against. If you actually look, you can find women who have played a big part in nearly every field, despite the odds stacked against them but that doesn’t mean people don’t on average think men must be better than women, and that some things are more ‘male’.
The point is, I’m not classifying them masculine. I don’t think any field or interest belongs to a gender. The average women and men we’re talking about, though, may. The women may well have been pressured out of any interest they had in sport or technology. The men probably see sport as a ‘man’s thing’. At the same time, it is these traditionally ‘male’ social activities (watching/playing/discussing sports, having a beer with the guys, going to a strip club etc) that are often a part of social and business relationships. and I just think it’s unfair that women grow up being told not to be interested in the kind of things that can make a big impact on their career, and at the same time that men grow up being told that it’s not really for women, and that socialising whether for work or play is always better without women, or that they should be tolerated at best.
Pointing out that an anecdote isn’t data, and that just because one person has not witnessed harassment does not mean ti doesn’t exist is trying to hypnotise people, now? The point is not about his ‘experiences’ because he doesn’t have any. He’s not a woman. His not having seen anything he classes as harassment does not mean it does not occur. Spotting harassment is not something he’s been brought up to give any effort to. Sexual harassment isn’t something he ever has to worry about, if he chooses. So forgive me for not falling over to give his not having seen anything (or recognised it) more credence than the experiences of those who have suffered harassment, felt demaned by their colleagues in a way that their male colleagues would never be subjected to, and experienced other male colleagues looking the other way when something happened.
You might not believe it, but some guy who hasn’t seen any harassment might not have much of note to say about harassment. And if he doesn’t, maybe he’s better off listening to people (male or female) who have more experience of the issue at hand? Or maybe I should next ask him to tell me what it’s like to be pregnant.
And I think you’ll find nobody was calling on a ban on anything that makes anybody uncomfortable. Saying something is wrong is not the same thing as saying it must be banned. I think men should make mroe of an effort to not ostracise women (I think people should make more of an effort with other people generally), and to stand up with them when something like harassment happens, and to treat them as the equals that they are. Making somebody uncomfortable isn’t illegal, but that’s not to say it’s desirable behaviour.
The point is, who should define the boundary? The men likely to be doing the harassing? Seeing as you’ll still get get plenty of men who think verbally harassing strangers is acceptable (has ’show us your tits!’ ever realy worked?!?!), forgive me if I don’t believe they should get the final say as to what is and isn’t harassment.
If you’re not a slimy sleazebag, you probably don’t have to worry about false allegations. It’s kind of funny men fall over themselves in fear over a false harassment or rape allegation (even though this is relatively rare), but not over the very real likelihood that their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers will be harassed or raped.
The point has nothing to do with whether our society has achieved complete equality; it has to do with whether you have to cede whole areas of conversation to men. If your colleagues start talking about sports, bring up Patti Wagstaff, probably the highest performance athalete in the world today. I doubt you’ll find any man so macho he won’t look silly sneering at what she does.
I don’t claim that men never pick topics of conversation so as to exclude women. But I have two points here: assuming that men see sports as a “man’s thing” does an injustice to the men involved, who may very well welcome an intelligent conversation with a woman about something that interests them, and classifying areas of conversation as “manly” shortchanges women. Yes, the stereotype of technology and sports, among other things, as “male” does exist. That doesn’t mean anyone has to buy into it.
People experience discomfort for a huge number of reasons. Discomfort often preceeds discrimination on prohibited grounds. A lot of people experience “discomfort” with members of other ethnic groups or other religions; people feel “discomfort” with people with disabilities. Defining discomfort as the defining characteristic of harrassment thus has a discriminatory effect. Also, desirable behaviour does often include making people uncomfortable. Historically oppressed people who claim their rightful place will make a lot of people uncomfortable. Harrassment means a pattern of conduct meant to exclude and demean; that makes a perfectly good definition, one that has no discriminatory effect, and I recommend sticking with it.
OK, for the record, I have no comment on the prevalence of false allegations of harrassment, and nothing I wrote has to do with false allegations. Making “discomfort” the core of a harrassment allegation has a discriminatory effect even if nobody ever makes any allegation on that basis. That said, I also observe that your comment contradicts a key feminist insight: that misbehaviour reflects on the character of the doer, not the victim. Making false accusations constitutes an offence in law and ethics. Protecting women does not require accepting false allegations; indeed, condoning false allegations (assuming they happen) harms efforts to protect women from actual harrasment.
I don’t ‘assume’ that the entire population of men has no interest in what women say. Some honestly do. But some only have the vaguest interest, as long as they feel the woman in question is not stepping on their toes, and as long as she’s not really being that smart.
Again, I’m not ‘classifying’ topics of conversation as manly. It’s not in my interest for whole subjects to be out of bounds to me and my kind. I’m saying that many people DO see this this way, whether consiously, or by unrealised bias. Many men aren’t aware they are excluding women, but they are. They may well find themselves thinking that a woman talking has an ‘annoying voice’, or soemthing about her they don’t like but can’t put their finger on. They may jsut think she’s being too ’strident and argumentative’, or a ’showoff’, or in other ways critique her more harshly than they would one of them. They may, whether they realise it or not, interrupt her, talk over her or spend their time trying to contradict an argument she never made, or split hairs. We don’t always have to know we are excluding someone to do it. The point is that we don’t have to buy into it, but many people do, and that’s what we want to address. So assuming that I buy into stereotypes and that I’m harming all the innocent men and women by assuming they are, when I’m trying to explain that stereotypes are harmful because many people DO buy into them (if most people didn’t, to at least some degree, would we even HAVE stereotypes?), and because they harm those who do as well as those who don’t, seems to be misplacing the focus to me. If you don’t buy into stereotypes, good for you.
But bringing up one example, no matter how amazing, is never enough for somebody who really wants to bend over backwards to believe women just aren’t as good. I’ve been there, done that, even with generally intelligent men, and it depresses me. Take science or any other field. Some guy says something to the effect of there being few notable women in whatever field, that ‘if women are as smart as men, how come the vast majority of discoveries and inventions, and theory, music, literature, drama, philosophy and art was created by men?’ You can bring up Marie Curie (Nobel laureate twice over) Rosalind Franklin (not even allowed her degree because women didn’t get them in those days), but they’ll still stick to their guns that it’s womens’ fault that in the last few decades we haven’t made up for all that not-being-allowed-an-education-thing (if they even graciously admit that not being able to vote, hopd property, be educated or taken seriously was a problem for women in the past), and that our failure to take over academia proves our inherent inferiority. (of course, if more women do enter a field, e.g. Medicine, suddenly its ‘feminisation’ will bring about the downfall of civilisation!).
The point is, we shouldn’t have to bring up all the women who have ever contributed to a field to prove we don’t suck. And I shouldn’t have to try and force myself into conversations where I am deliberately excluded (where men assume, often erroneously, that I must have no knowledge of the topic) in order to socialise. These men should have the courtesy to not treat their coworkers, girlfriends or whatnot like they shouldn’t have an opinion.
Come on, you can’t seriously see ‘uncomfortable’ and ‘demeaned’ as two discrete categories, rather than a scale on which any incident may fall. Tell me the last time somebody sued for merely feeling a bit unfortable, when even individuals who are demeaned think twice before doing anythign about it. Besides, as I said earlier, nobody was suggesting that making somebody slightly uncomfortable be made a crime. Now, following a woman home when she’s walking alone makes her uncomfortable, and is definitely harassment. I don’t know whether she’d say she feels demeaned, per se, but then again, it’s another type of harassment. The real point I’m trying to make here is that we women are brought up to accept a lot of crap, even if it does make us uncomfortable. The last thing we are taught is to make a big deal over something relatively minor, and we are not taken seriously if it is believed this is what we are doing.
I’d also like to point out that someone in a compromised position due to relative physical vulnerability, socioeconomoc class, race, sequal orientation and gender (including trans) feeling uncomfortable is entirely different to somebody who is in a relatively safe position feeling discomfort. It’s not the same discomfort, because the system is not stacked with the odds against them. If a man is walking down the street alone at night, and comes accross a very angry looking woman, he may feel discomfort. Is it going to be the same as the discomfort a woman meeting an angry man alone on the street might feel? No. Discomfort may be a legitimate way to describe what some people feel when they are harassed, even though it should not be used as a definition for harassment, it may be useful in describint the effects of it.
And when you can point out to me that I was condoning false allegations, I’ll willingly concede that point. I do not condone false allegations in any form. For a start, as you eloquently pointed out, it makes people think that the other majority of women who honestly did face it, must be lying. However, since we can assome that there are more women who are NOT lying than are, (even the MRA figures on false rape allegations, don’t report more than 1/4 false in that the defendant didn’t to it, not that the crime didn’t happen), and that of those perpetrated, few ever get to trial or are convicted, feminists shouldn’t have to spend half of the time they focus on rape or sexual harassment focusing on how some people lie, when many more are telling the truth, and are being ignored. In a system where so many victims go ignored and judged, not assuming they are lyling makes much more sense than the default position of society, which overall favours the rights of the accused. We have systems where the prosecutor is assumed to be lying, which is not the same thing as assuming innocence. We can assume innocence of a defendant, whilst still believing a crime occured, because we would then require the accuser to prove that *the defendant* specifically did it, as opposed to that a crime has occurred. A seemingly small difference, but I’d like to see the focus shifted from assuming she must be lying, to assuming it might have happened, but was he the one who did it? Both cases, he still gets to be assumed potentially innocent. I also don’t see where I’m framing harassment as the fault of the harassed, except by admitting that yes, some people may lie about being harassed, but that they are a minority.
The point is, how do we protect women when many real allegations are treated as false ones from the start?
(Apologies to Hugo for swarming over this post. If you want us to stop this sort-of post necromancy, please tell us :) )
When you speak of “manly” topics, that feeds into certain stereotypes. That some men rely on these stereotypes to limit, belittle, and exclude women doesn’t change that. I consider it perfectly possible to condemn stereotypes without ever buying into them in any way.
If you don’t believe in using “discomfort” as a definition for harrassment, we don’t disagree. Thank you for clarifying this point.
Can you? Without mentioning them at all? without admitting that many people DO buy into them? Without trying to analyse where they come from? Without trying to help those that DO follow the stereotypes and get hurt? Tell me, how can you condemn a stereotype without mentioning it exists, and that enough people believe it and follow it to be a problem? It’s as useless an approach as ‘I’m colourblind to race’. If you can’t admit how stereotypes are prevalent, and how that harms people, how people follow them, how exactly can you engage in discourse about them?
Let’s talk numbers, for a second, or at least relative proportions. False reports are believed to be a relatively minute proportion of rape or harassment reports. Futhermore, very few cases get to court, and many fewer get any kind of conviction. The evidence needed to convict makes it relatively unlikely that somebody will be wrongly convicted (considering many that were not false won’t get that far!).
Wrong convictions and false allegations happen for all crimes. It’s regrettable. As I said, I agree women who make false allegations are harming women as well as men.
But the truth is, teaching men to not be assholes would decrease the incidence of harassment, because men would be clear about what constitutes harassment. Sure, diehard rapists wouldn’t change, but I don’t think that’s the majority of them. I think that a very large proportion of men really don’t know how to get consent in a meaningful manner, and what women consider is an appropriate way of interacting with them. Not meaning to rape or harass doesn’t mean you haven’t hurt someone, and isn’t an excuse, but the best way to teal with this is to encourage men to be cautious.
I can’t be sure that a man who says it’s not true didn’t do something, even if I belive he believes what he did wasn’t harassment (or rape) in a society where a lot of men really don’t have a good idea of what either entails. If you take a fairly decent bloke who just isn’t sure how far to go, erring on the side of caution may prevent an incident where the woman feels she is being harassed, (or was raped), which he may not have seen as such. things aren’t black and white, and a lot of people just don’t know (or care) where to draw the line. Encouraging men to take a look at their attitudes
As for completely false allegations, made up of some desperate revenge attempt, you’re mo more at risk of one of harassment than one of vindictively burgling their house, or petty theft. Yes, people sometimes accuse others of something they haven’t done, but I don’t see any way of decreasing the incidence of false reports that wouldn’t have a much more damaging effect on those that are true. In short, whilst it’s very wrong for some five percent of women who make allegations to lie, should I be more concerned about the relative minority of people affected by that, or the 80% or so of rape or harassment victims that aren’t believed?
Also note, I said ‘probably’, because whilst I admit you can be perfectly decent and get accused of something, it’s quite rare. I wasn’t trying to suggest that only sleazebags could get falsely accused (and all men deserve to be accused!), rather that such an accusation is relatively infrequent. And that to my mind, his opinoion may have differed with hers as to what constituted the issue.
Will we have any true idea of how many rape/harassment allegations are false, and how many are unproved? I have no idea. They are wrong, and if it truly is a false allegation then by definition the man does not deserve it. But whilst rape and harassment remain much more damaging, and much more frequent than false allegations, I can’t personally justify worrying more about the events that are the least likely, and least serious.
And if you are a slimy sleazebag (aka rapist), then the allegations would be true. and even if you have reason to worry about them (they enver do, anyway, or they wouldn’t do it), I’m not gonna lose any sleep over hurt feelings.
Anne Onne, I don’t know how much we actually disagree. Indeed, that troubles me almost as much as the substantive points on which we may or may not disagree.
For example, your use of the term “manly” to describe topics of conversation may well refer solely to the intent of the men involved, but the way you actually worded it suggests that some topics actually do belong to men. And I have dealt with enough feminists with a vague hostility to technology and a willingness to abandon the field of technology to men, that, well, that bothers me. So I want clarity. If you really consider technology and so on “manly”, then say so, and we can argue about that. If you don’t, then please say so clearly.
Your vague emotionalistic comments on harassment and rape worry me even more. First of all, defining the issue in terms of feelings and what “en don’t know”, rather than reasonably objective standards of behaviour does threaten disabled men, just as it has threatened racialized men in the past, and may well threaten them today. That has nothing to do with “false allegations”, by the way; when you define an offence in emotional terms, the truth or falsity of the allegations involved will remain forever unprovable and unproven.
I don’t consider them the preserve of men. I don’t consider men to have any more right to them, or any more natrual innate interest or mental ability for those fields than women. I pretty much thought that believing men and women equal, and that all fields should belong to both to be central to feminism, so didn’t see the point of having to make a point that I don’t personally belive the sterotypes. that and using the word ‘manly’ in quotation marks, to point out it is not my personal choice of word, but what others use to describe it.
I tried to make it clear that I was focusing on the problematic dependance others have on these stereotypes, and how that affects women, both those who are good at ‘manly’ things, and those who aren’t. Sorry if it was unclear.
Ah, the emotional uppity women.
I don’t see why it would threaten disabled men. Like I said, it’s not about some vague feeling of unease, and I did agree that some vague discomfort is not a strong enough feeling to be titled ‘harassment’. Harassment requires the harasser to actually DO something to the woman that she finds degrading (which would also make her feel uncomfortable), such as staring at her chest and making lewd remarks, touching any part of her body against her will, pressuring her to sleep with him when she has said no, throwing sexualised slurs at her and disctiminating her on the basis of her sex. Discomfort is an important part of harassment, but it’s not the only part, and assuming that women need men to define what is acceptable for them, lest they all start accusing every man who catches their eye of harassing them is disingenuous and infantilising of women. Women who complain take a lot more than a little discomfort to snap and turn whistleblower.
Furthermore, women’s vaginas don’t have to be equal opportunity employers. If a woman doesn’t want to sleep with or be addressed in sexual terms by any man, whether he be black, disabled or any other kind, she has the right to it. Even if her reason for not sleeping with them are based in racist or ableist thinking, they don’t owe sex to anybody, and assuming that coloured men, or disabled men should somehow deserve a free pass is rather odd.
Women don’t normally make accusations of any sort lightly, and you don’t see a huge spike in the number of disabled men being accused of harassment. Though I agree women may be conditioned to be more afraid of black men than white, their being present is not any more likely to lead to an accusation of harassment, because in general women know that harassment is not simply feeling a bit uncomfortable.
You’re worried because at heart, you can’t trust that women have enough reason to be able to tell the difference between somebody calling them a ‘frigid cunt’ if they complain about their behaviour, or if somebody sticks a hand up their skirt, and feeling a bit uncomfortable because a man seems a bit off. Let me tell you, in a society where we are taught to fear rape (for good reason), women are always on edge. Since we don’t go accusing every second man we meet, I think we can prove we aren’t the silly little emotional cretins you take us for.
You also might not be able to prove he put his hand up your skirt, or that he forced himself on you (he’ll just say you like rough sex, and the jury will believe him because you wore red underwear that day so you must have wanted it.). There are a lot of non-convictions because of lack of evidence. There are also lots because people always assume the woman must have consented, even when there is evidence. That’s not forgetting that the defence get to pick their jury, and here in the UK they tend to get away with picking all 10 men (out of the 10 men and 10 women they can choose from), and 2 women to sit. My point is that the jury may often be blind to what evidence does exist. Not to mention the fact that the police don’t take allegations seriously.
The fact is, helieving that HE in particular must be the person who commited the crime, and believing that the crime probably took place are different things.
You can worry all you like about the poor men and how there might be a one-in-a-million chance of some woman making completely false allegation out of the blue, for no reason. It’s your choice. I’ll worry about the very real everyday problems millions of women worldwide face.
John Spragge,
Your comments to Anne….
“Your vague emotionalistic comments…” and “First of all, defining the issue in terms of feelings and what “en don’t know”, rather than reasonably objective standards of behaviour…” is judgmental, dissmissive, minimizing and very offensive. Let me be clear…it’s very difficult for women to prove a man forced himself on you…when other workers don’t stand up for fear of losing their job….happens every day and far more than false allegations. You do a great disservice to women by minimizing their valid concerns as vague and emotionlistic because you fear they’re too emotional to demonstrate reason or logic. It’s easy for men, especially CEO’s to divert attention away from themselves by trivalizing women as whore’s and “too emotional” in response to unwanted sexualized behaviors.
Discrimination against, and oppression of, people with disabilities happens. Full stop. That oppression, like many other forms of oppression, often works by advocating the primacy of the emotions of the privileged. I make no apologies for saying that, out of my own experience, defining offences in emotional terms does threaten and oppress people with disabilities.
I should not have to add this either, but making the point that one particular person has stated an argument in vague and emotionalistic terms does not mean that I either regard all women as overly emotional, or that I regard the usual definitions of rape and harassment as based on emotions.
The problem isn’t sexual harassment but a more insidious wrong of quietly creating a barrier between women and men, and in the “men” circle, objectifying women. As an attorney who’s been a partner in law firms since the early 90s, young white men need to do what I’ve done: don’t associate with colleagues who objectify women. It is clear to everyone where I work that I don’t do that, and I am happily not subjected to it at this stage of my career. If you need to work with people who objectify or exclude women, you need to make it clear that you don’t participate in such activities. This might hurt you, even cost you your job, but it’s the right thing to do. If a client wants to be entertained at a strip club, they can get themselves a new attorney. There will be other clients.
I am sure this is not easy for everyone to do because I suspect most guys who do it, do it to fit in, to be accepted, and to advance their careers. Allow me to make an observation from my own experience: To be relatively immune from the Neanderthals, you may need to be better than the rest in terms of your job skills. If you are so good that the firm or company will appreciate you for what you are, you won’t feel so pressured to join in their nasty games. They will leave you alone, and you will be appreciated by the women AND men who don’t buy into their crap. Perhaps men who think as we do are like the young women who’ve had to work harder to be better than the men, just to keep their place in the company.
And perhaps someday you will be the older guy in the office and you can set an example for the young men that sexism is immoral, that everyone should be treated the same, because people are people. That’s the best thing you can do for young men.
Any thoughts on folks like myself, who wish to/are in the process of resigning from the OBC?
Great post. Thanks.
Tom,
As a young female professional in a profession where mentoring is often key, I’m actually pretty sad about your unwillingness to move beyond “cool professionalism” with your female colleagues. I understand you have first-hand experience with an allegation of sexual harassment and that comes to bear on your perception of the issue, just as it would if you had been a target of such harassment, but I strongly urge you to consider the flipside of your risk analysis. Ok sure, a female colleague has the option of going to HR and accusing you and that accusation could very well damage your reputation. But have you thought much about what happens to that female colleague at all? Some people might believe her, at least enough to warrant investigation into the matter, sure, but others are bound to discount her story, even if it’s true. If we’re talking anecdotally, I’ve seen instances where women have been subjected to some pretty heinous behavior from male superiors but been hesitant to report it for fear of looking like a complainer at best, like an out and out liar at worst. No one wants to be the one to take down super popular successful male partner, especially when it’s going to be his word against yours. Sometimes these women get blacklisted–clearly not fired, but given the cold shoulder by management to induce them to leave. A reputation for reporting sexual harassment follows these women from job to job and their careers can just as easily be damaged, if not ruined. I just think you should give more consideration to the incentives and disincentives women have for reporting sexual harassment. I really do think the risk of reporting outweighs any potential damages award in a lawsuit for most women.
I’m not a man, so I can’t speak from the perspective of being worried all that much about being accused of sexual harassment when I didn’t intend any impropriety, but it honestly doesn’t seem all that difficult to determine where the line is between friendliness and sexual harassment. There may be that outlying tiny percentage of women (really, of people!) who would be offended by things that everyone else would not, but they are just that–outliers! Think about how much the workplace would benefit from a more balanced power structure–how many great ideas a female colleague would bring to the floor if she climbed to the top? Think about how much less you would have to worry about being falsely accused if your work environment was simply less likely to be unfriendly to women? I guess it’s too much to expect that some men would be willing to give up one tiny sliver of perceived security from litigation in order to further a more equitable workplace environment. *sigh*
Hugo,
This was a great post, thanks so much for writing it.
Discrimination against many groups happens, John. As it happens, this post is NOT about disabled people.
Harassment is something that carries an emotional impact. It does not leave physical scars or marks (That would be assault, on top of harassment). If you can suggest a way of discussing harassment and alienation without mentioning the emotional impact, go ahead. Emotions are a large part of the marginalisation of any group - both in the reasons behind that oppression, and in the opressed group’s reaction.
Again, and for the last time, l’m going to point out that I did not advocate harassment claims merely if a person feels slightly uncomfortable. There are very real boundaries for harassment and rape. People do NOT file harassment suits simply for feeling a little queasy. For a start, people are pressured to minimise their discomfort in the work environment and play nice, and this is especially the case for minorities. They are NOT encouraged to complain, or taken seriously when they do.
This thread was also about alienation, something that is not as obious as secualised comments, but is much more subtle. It can’t be actively legistlated against, and nor was anybody calling for it to be. The post was originally about the many small ways in which women (and others) are discriminated against by the persistence of the OBC, through being made to feel unwelcome, not being chosen, having to prove themselves more capable, and also including harassment.
Since you’re so concerned with being rational (as oppised to emotional. Only them wimmin folks are emotional, and they just accuse everyone of harassment for looking at them crooked!), perhaps you could explain how disabled people really are more likely to be at risk of false harassment suits? Because I can’t see that happening. That’s not to say that disabled people don’t face problems in the workplace, they do. But in the face of the very real problems they definitely face (lack of provisions for them, colleagues keeping a distance, suspicion about their health state),
Funnily enough, it is pretty convenient that a lot of misogynists use that very same defense. ‘I don’t hate all women, but this one? she’s a real bitch!’. Ignoring someone’s arguments and explanations when they don’t suit you (how exactly are my definitions of harassment or rape different from ‘the usual’?), and insisting that they’re too emotional for you to address, IS using a technique often directed at women to silence them and discredit their opinion.
Also, sorry, but you don’t get a ‘get out of jail free card’ on a feminist blog. There’s no reason for anyone to assume you’re not a misogynist since most men are, to varying degrees, and you have done nothing to differentiate yourself from them. From what we’ve seen on this post, all you’ve done is try to change the topic about discrimination against women and minorities to focus on the poor men. If you derail a topic that is NOT about false allegations, you place the much rarer problem of false allegations as being much more important than the real allegations, or the many that are never made. You bring the focus from the oppressed to the oppressor. And your concern about diasbled people doesn’t seem very genuine.
Because apart from the fact that the topic was not about them, you only seem to care about discrimination against them if it’s women making some false harassment allegations because they felt vaguely uncomfortable. With no proof yourself that anybody has ever made accusations of harassment against disabled people for such a reason. Why no concern about how the OBC is treating these people, when that’s what the topic is about? Not to mention that there are many women of colour and disabled women, which are even more vulnerable to alienation and harassment. But of course, discussion about any group is actually about men.
Instead, you bring up this irrational fear (and I’m being emotionalistic?) that if women are allowed to complain, they will complain about even the stupidest of slights. Even when people have explained again and again what behaviour really constitutes harassment. In short, you reduce women to idiots, or at best, angry irraitonal creatures ready to ruin some poor man’s reputation for no reason. This does not bear out in real life. Whilst it would be impossible that no women make false allegations, this is not going to be a significant enough number compared to the number who are harassed and don’t report it, or who do and don’t get taken seriously.
I don’t think we’re going to aagree, and you’ve ignored most of what I’ve said, and dismissed the rest as emotionalistic, so I’m not planning on continuing this discussion, unless something actually relevant is said.
Anyhow, Tim, sounds like a good plan, but not an easy one. I hope more men have the courage to take it. Chareth, spot on. We won’t make progress on the harassment front until more people examine their viewpoints.
Explain, please, why you qualify the word “uncomfortable”. A lot of (actually quite minor) disabilities have effects that make some people a lot more than “slightly” uncomfortable.
You conflate two issues here. In relation to disabled people (I apologise for the slip where I wrote “men”), I wrote that making discomfort a basis for harassment puts them (us) at risk. That risk does not simply include allegations of harassment (I accept that some disabilities make certain people genuinely uncomfortable), but getting excluded from the workplace completely. After all, if a worker can allege harassment simply on the basis of personal discomfort (at any level), it doesn’t make sense to bring a person with Tourette’s syndrome, or any one of several other neurological variations, into the workplace.
As you wrote above, harassment and rape have actual boundaries. A subjective sense of personal discomfort with another person does not constitute a breach of those boundaries.
As for false allegations, you have already acknowledged that these violate both ethics and the law, and I have nothing more to say about them. I want to clarify the definition of harassment, not raise the bogey of false allegations, except to say that it doesn’t do to make excuses for them.
Kindly avoid making assumptions about what I can and cannot prove, can and cannot document, have or have not actually experienced. And once again, my concerns do not involve the hazard of specific accusations against people with disabilities. If we allow “discomfort” to creep in as a standard for harassment, then we will exclude and marginalize people who make others uncomfortable.
Aside from anything else, because if the standard (discomfort) for harassment exists, then a lot of disabled people will never get their foot on the bottom rung, never have a chance for a mentor at all.
No. Discrimination against the disabled affects disabled women as much or more. And while the paradigm defines harassment as something men do to women, general discrimination against the disabled hurts women just as much.