Guest post: A form of obedience/submissiveness to the authority of the perceived majority
Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on The rot at the core.
To borrow another useful distinction from Margaret Heffernan it’s not just about authority, but also conformity. Unlike obedience/submissiveness to authority conformity feels voluntary (or “voluntary”) and doesn’t presuppose any imbalance in formal rank or status (hence the expression “peer pressure”), only the normal fear of conflict, embarrassment, or social isolation. And even female bosses are not immune to the influence of their male peers as well as patriarchal society at large.
On a deeper level I guess conformity can be understood as a form of obedience/submissiveness to the authority of the perceived majority. I say “perceived” because the people “setting the standard” don’t even have to be in a real majority. One of the concepts I remember from my old bachelor’s degree in media studies is the Spiral of Silence in which people who, whether or not it’s true, feel like they’re in a minority tend to self-censor, thus making their own views seem even more marginalized and on the fringe, when they may not actually be fringe at all. All it takes [1] is for a few loud and assertive people (and as we all know the male sex has more than its fair share of those) to make their opinions known at an early stage without being contradicted, and everyone else tends to just accept their views as representative of the group as a whole.
There’s also a lot of slippery slope-type dynamics going on: On the spectrum from sexist jokes to all-out sexual assault we never cross an obvious “boundary” where things abruptly and instantaneously change from “definitely OK” to “definitely not OK”. If you have already accepted steps a,b,c as normal and acceptable it’s very difficult to make a consistent argument that steps d,e,f are “crossing the line”. By the same logic once you have accepted steps d,e,f as normal and acceptable it’s very difficult to make a consistent argument that steps g,h,i etc… etc… This is why there is no “safe level” of sexism. The “jokes”, the “banter”, and the “locker room talk” are all part of the enabling apparatus allowing the Trumps and Weinsteins of the world to go all the way to x,y,z.
_______________________________
1. Actually it doesn’t even take that much. All it takes is the (perfectly reasonable) assumption that the group in question isn’t radically different from the rest of society.
The problem is, life very rarely has obvious boundaries. There also isn’t an obvious boundary between flirting and sexual harassment. The general answer to that problem usually is: Context matters. But that means that there is no absolute answer and that you rarely can give a consistent answer to why you think one thing is ok but something similar is not.
My personal take is that I have a rough idea where I draw the line. But that doesn’t mean the line can never be crossed. The line is a marker for how far the line is crossed. I do try to make it clear whenever I think someone crosses the line, but depending on context I will let them get away with it as a one time lighthearted joke or protest strongly because of a continued series of contemptful remarks.
Making that kind of call is not easy and I guess I make plenty mistakes, but given the messy nature of life, I guess it is the best I can do.
axxyaan, I think when you are working with a woman, the line should be clear. And in the cases coming forward, many of the women protested or said no, but were “overruled” in some manner. That “no” is a clear line. Unless you are among those who believe that “no sometimes means yes”, and if that is the case, it is still contingent on a person to honor the no. If the person saying no really means yes, that’s their problem.
As for touching a woman, making crude comments about a woman and her appearance, or any other sexual content in the workplace, just don’t do it. That will keep you out of trouble. If two people are attracted to each other, there are often ways to figure that out without entering the realm of sexual harassment.
Simple rules:
1. Don’t assume women are there to be pretty
2. Don’t assume women are required to smile
3. Don’t assume that women want you
4. Don’t assume you have a right to women you want
5. Don’t touch a woman in any way that you would not touch a man
Those are simple enough rules, the line is clear enough, and frankly, flirting in the workplace should be avoided, because really, you are there to work.
I adhere to “the rock” test. If you would not say or do something to Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, don’t do it to a woman.
“the rock” test! Love it! :-D
Stuart should make it a meme.
Your rule 5 and the RT could both be generalized into:
Don’t behave towards women in ways you wouldn’t behave way towards another man.
Almost all sexist behavior would be ruled out by that one simple rule of thumb.
Tsk tsk… I really think the Illuminati have fallen short lately. These evil brotherhoods used to have lofty goals like world domination and “The New World Order”, and now they’re just going out of their way to be annoying. Like sneaking typos into people’s comments on blogs. Rather pathetic if you ask me… :-/
iknklast,
It seems we have a different concept of what the boundary is. You write that the “no” is a clear line. But in my opinion that “no” is not the line. That “no” is the reaction you get when the line is already crossed. I have no problem retreating after that “no”, but at that moment the boundary wasn’t clear to me, because had it been clear I would have avoided getting that “no”.
I find that last paragraph troublesome because life is just not that rigid and I don’t think I should treat it as that rigid just because some arsehole can’t understand context. I don’t think I should stop giving one specific colleague a morning hug just because I can’t give a consistent argument for why I can hug that colleague but someone else can’t. What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable for an other or what may be acceptable in one situation may not be acceptable in an other situations and where the boundary is between the two is rarely expressible in consistent argument.
Life is full spectra where we find one side acceptable or even commendable, find the other side unacceptable yet we can’t find a consistent argument for why the boundary should be at a specific point and not an other. I don’t think that such situations provide a good general reason to stop all activity along such spectra.
axxyaan #5
I actually agree that getting to the point where a woman has to say no means a line has already been crossed (although not taking that no for an answer is crossing yet another, even more fundamental, line), but we still seem to arrive at totally opposite conclusions. I’m glad you care enough about women’s boundaries that you would have avoided breaching them if you knew, but given that we don’t know, I would rather not risk it in the first place.
As a man myself, my attitude is that the world doesn’t owe me shit in terms of flirting-opportunities. I don’t accept that women should have to put up with some sexual harassment for the sake of men’s desire to flirt. If that means I miss out on the opportunity to ever flirt with or hit on a woman, the world is no worse for it, and I have not been denied anything I was ever entitled to in the first place. This attitude of male entitlement that says “I don’t care how uncomfortable this makes women. I want to flirt, and whatever women may or may not want is not going to stop me” is a major part of what got us into this mess to begin with.
I don’t accept that women should have to put up with some sexual harassment for the sake of men’s desire to flirt.
So basic, yet so generally neglected.
It seems we are talking past each other.
Bjarte Foshaug #6
Really, that surprises me. Are you really telling me you will not act in someway, when that act carries with it even the smallest risk of getting you a “no” reaction? Or do you consider the risk of how you act just so small that you tend to ignore it?
My impression is that people’s boundaries shift. And that behaviour someone found acceptable yesterday, can elicit a “no” today. So not risking is just not an option. You do the best you can in estimating where someone’s current boundary is and try to avoid crossing it. But eliminating the risk of crossing it, is not possible.
Now if you want to argue a lot of men, take irresponsible high risc’s or just don’t care enough about women’s boundaries, I totally agree. But if in response to such an observation someone comes with a proposal that seems to ignore how messy life in reality is, then I find such a proposal troublesome.
And does the world owe you shit in terms of other opportunities? Does the world owe you opportunities for building friendships? If not does that mean it is wrong to act in a way that supports building friendships (on the workfloor)? Or do you rather not act in such a way for the risc of getting a “no”?
axxyaan – What are you even talking about? It’s perfectly possible to build friendships at work without any sexual overtures or flirting at all. It’s possible and it’s pretty simple.
I was under the impression this piece was more general than crossing/respecting sexual boundaries, but was about respecting boundaries more generaly. So when someone states he rather not risk crossing a boundary, I wonder if he is just as risk averse in other circumstances like when trying to build a friendship.
Because I agree it is pretty simple building a friendship at work, but my impression is that the reason it is easy is not because we try to eliminate the risk in approaching each other but because we tend to be more forgiving to people who don’t know yet what our specific vulnerabilities are.
axxyaan, the post you are commenting on was specifically about sexual harassment (read this post and the comments for some context). The paragraph that you seemed to take issue with specifically said that “there is no “safe level” of sexism” (emphasis added). So whether or not I would “act in someway, when that act carries with it even the smallest risk of getting you a “no” reaction” in every other context is irrelevant. I wouldn’t refrain from asking a colleague to answer the phone for me just in case they said no if that’s what you mean, but no particular “line” would be crossed if I did.
I’m under no illusion that I’m immune to the subconscious biases that we all have, but I really do try to live by the rule of thumb described in comment #3, or, for that matter, iknklast’s rules in comment #2. This has never been much of a challenge to me since I’m kind of a loner by nature and not at all into flirting anyway. If others want to flirt, that’s none of my business, but I do think it should be opt in and not opt out. I.e. the burden should be on those who want to be flirted with / hit on to say yes. It should not be up to the rest to say no.
Bjarte Foshaug,
The principle that you rely on in that last paragraph seems to be a very general principle. So I don’t see why I should a priori limit its application to just sexism. So I don’t agree that looking at that principle in other contexts is irrelevant.
But since it seems I’m the only want who want to look at this a bit broader, I’ll go back to lurk-mode now.