(Editor's note: Barbara Risman is professor and head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago and executive officer of the Council on Contemporary Families. She is the author of "Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transition" (Yale, 1998) and editor of "Families as They Really Are" (Norton, 2010).
(CNN) -- In my mind -- and in the law -- there are two kinds of sexual harassment. The first kind is quid pro quo and easy to spot. A really detestable (usually) man gives his (usually) female subordinate employee or student an ultimatum: Put out or lose some opportunity, be it a grade, a job or a promotion.
During the "Mad Men" era, bosses got away with such, and women thought it the price of a life outside the kitchen. No more. Women no longer think this is OK. Professors even lose tenure over this clearly sexist and illegal behavior these days. We've come a long way on the road to equality on this front. Lawyers don't settle such claims for a few months' salary and a promise of silence.
No one knows right now if this is the kind of sexual harassment that Herman Cain is accused of, but I doubt it. For one thing, several others have claimed they witnessed the harassment of the women in question, and such bold threats aren't often made over the dinner table in a restaurant with observers.
But then there is the other kind of sexual harassment, the behavior that makes the workplace uncomfortable, that creates an environment that is hostile to women in general, or just to one person because of her (or his) sex, gender, race or ethnicity. Everyone agrees that workplaces ought not to differentiate between actors simply because of their sex, gender, race or ethnicity.
But beyond that, when sex and gender are involved, we often get into a "he said/she said" dialogue. For example, he believed the jokes were simply funny and created a more friendly setting; she believed they were offensive and created an us (the boys) versus them (her or her and other women) organizational climate where she was always going to be outside the loop, outside informal conversations and social networks that mattered.
Another example might be when a powerful man is attracted to one of his co-workers and simply wants to start some sort of sexual friendship, an offer he perhaps had made many times before and occasionally was accepted. But this time, the woman finds a sexual overture from a married boss intimidating and off-putting. She believes it changes forever the climate of the workplace. Even if he never threatened her status after the "invitation," she didn't believe the professional relationship would ever be the same after what she perceived to be sexual harassment.
If we look at sexual harassment in these terms, as he said/she said, we will never find a solution -- ethical, legal or moral to the problem. At this point, we have yet to create any consensus around the appropriate way to deal with sexual attraction and sexual desire in the workplace. No one can deny that workplaces are often where adults meet their life partners. In a 24/7 work environment, where else do you have to meet a spouse? And indeed, in a world where people often think of themselves as defined by "what they do," it makes sense that those who also do it are the people we have enough in common with to fall for, whether it's to fall in love, or even just in lust.
And yet, we are still in a world where the most powerful class of actors happens to be older men. We do not live in some post-feminist world, where power is yet equally shared. No one wants to anger or displease one's boss, even a little. Nor do we live in a world where the workplaces have become truly integrated by sex. In fact, the most recent research suggests that in the last decade, we've stalled at integration by sex. While women are getting more and more of the degrees, they remain in traditionally female-dominated fields, and are not moving forward in male-dominated ones.
My hypothesis for why is that heavily male-dominated occupations, including politics, are so heavily masculine in their cultures, full of sexual innuendo and -- perhaps -- the kind of sexual harassment of which Cain is accused.
I don't have an easy answer, but I do know we'll never solve the problem by trying to figure out what he said or she said. Instead, we have to decide what, as a society, we want to be acceptable or not in our workplaces and schools and then enforce the norms with legal penalties. Here's a first volley: It should be illegal for men (or women) to make sexual overtures to their subordinates.
End of story.
Power always gets in the way of easily saying no. But more than that, if we want workplaces that do not privilege the men who have previously dominated the social space, we need to change the culture in which sexual banter objectifies women and turns them into the "other," and take seriously the claims by women that men harass them.
The more subtle kind of sexual harassment has consequences not only for the individual woman who finally complains, but for all of us, by sustaining a culture where the powerful positions in many occupations, including politics, remain dominated by men.
Should accepting boorish sexual banter and unwanted sexual approaches be the price of admission to male-dominated occupations? It's up to us as a society to set the standards. Here is a moment in time to take stock: Let's hear what the women who were silenced by being paid off have to say about the private behavior of a very public man who is running for president.
Now, with apologies to Professor Risman for the admitted ease with which one can call plays from the armchair, here's the thing about the thing.
"...Here's a first volley: It should be illegal for men (or women) to make sexual overtures to their subordinates.
End of story...."
Laudable and best intentioned.
But hardly practical.
Because accusation, and/or prosecution, of the overture requires a specific definition of the term "overture".
Which will bring us back to do-re-mi.
Or he said/she said, as the case may be.
Then throw personal tastes, moralities, senses of humor and, even, "common" sense on the canvas and the picture of harassment we are trying to paint looks less Norman Rockwell and more Jackson Pollack.
Even agreeing on a difference between "blatant" and "subtle" is a challenge.
Especially at that line that exists right on the edge precisely between the two.
Insidiously, and certainly frustratingly, it inevitably circles back to our old nemesis, "consensual".
"Oh, heck, she knows I respect her...and that I was just flirting."
"Oh, heck, I know he respects me...and that he was just flirting."
In forty five years of professional life, to this moment, I have never been accused, to my knowledge, of any kind of sexual harassment.
But I can easily recall comments I made over those forty five years that could be interpreted that way.
And that's the problem in trying to solve the problem.
While any reasonable person, male or female, would agree that "boorish" behavior is, at best, undesirable and, at worst, unacceptable, it is, again, that pesky need to define the term that stands in the way.
And, in the midst of an issue that defies clarity, here's a clear fact.
Men and women can be equally guilty of exploiting that pesky need to define.
Men, when their testosterone short circuits whatever better angel wiring they might possess.
Women, when there is some advantage to be gained by damaging the man's position and/or credibility.
Did Herman Cain sexually harass any, or all, of the women who have, at this point supposedly, accused him?
Three people know.
Cain. The woman. God.
And because this entire issue continues to reside on the slippery slope of definition, you can, arguably, disqualify two of those three.
Professor Risman is clearly an articulate advocate for solving the puzzle.
Problem is, it's not so much a puzzle as it is a Rubik's Cube.
And, of all her observations, I think this one resonates most clearly.
"...I don't have an easy answer, but I do know we'll never solve the problem by trying to figure out what he said or she said...."
While we can all agree it's maddening, the fact remains...
Each and every day, well meaning groups of twelve people sit in courtrooms all over the world trying to determine what he said or she said.
And trying, to the best of their abilities, to decide what is true and what is not.
Truth, regrettably, often lurks somewhere in subtlety of shadow.
And, just as regrettably, that's the only thing that is blatantly obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment