April 9, 2013

• Jezebel’s approach to sexual harassment

  I have mixed feelings about this article on Jezebel. Obviously sexual harassment is a problem, and we do need to talk about it… but is this the right way to talk about it? 

  (By the way, as to what Obama said, here is the full quote: “You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,” the president said. “She also happens to be, by far, the best looking attorney general in the country.” I honestly have trouble seeing this as offensive. He was layering on compliments, most of them relevant to her position, and then happened upon a generic statement of physical attractiveness. Would it be insulting or sexist of me to say that I think Obama is not only a better President than George W. Bush, but also far better-looking?

  Like many feminist responses, I think it doesn’t work hard enough to understand the psychology of men who are responsible for inadvertent sexism.

  We need to make a distinction here: There are some men who intentionally insult, degrade, and humiliate women. They are beyond the pale, and your words are unlikely to reach them anyway. 

  But there are also other men, who really are honestly confused about where the boundaries are supposed to be. And yes, much of that is their internalized gender norms, and some of it is ultimately founded upon misogynistic ideas. But at a conscious level, they don’t think they are being harmful. They aren’t trying to cause insult or injury. And so, when you tell them, “Just treat women like people! Respect them!” it makes no sense to them, because they thought they WERE respecting them. They didn’t understand why their behavior was inappropriate.

  I come at this from the perspective of someone mildly autistic; the social norms of our culture are in large part things I have had to consciously formulate and actively direct my behavior toward, rather than things that simply come naturally as part of normal functioning. A lot of those norms are sensible; most are arbitrary; some are outright nonsensical. But I am expected to follow all of them, every moment of every day, and make it appear effortless. And if you aren’t on the autism spectrum, you may just do so, literally effortlessly; but I assure you, I do not. Just knowing how to start a conversation, how much to give eye contact, how close to stand; these are things I had to actively learn, and while I’m rather good at them now, they still aren’t quite effortless. 

  So I can appreciate what it must feel like to be told that you are disrespecting people by violating some norm that you didn’t even know was in place. It must be all the more frustrating to be told, “What’s wrong with you? It’s OBVIOUS.” No, it isn’t obvious, not always. It may seem obvious to you because you have internalized it; but that doesn’t mean it’s obvious to everyone.

  Indeed, I know what it feels like for such challenges to be attached to sexuality in particular. I think the reason that I spent such a long time sexually frustrated was that I didn’t know how to navigate the complex social norms of sexual overtures. I didn’t know when it was appropriate to make a sexual advance, or what was an appropriate method of doing so. So, typically… I didn’t. And that basically meant never having sex with women, ever, because men are expected to make the first move. (I realize a lot of feminists don’t like that either; but the norm is still here, and it’s important to understand inadvertent harassment in that context.) With men it was a little easier, since sometimes they would make the first move. But then there was the barrier of heteronormativity, the cultural shunning of LGBT people. So I was still, in some sense, forced to break norms.

  I do like some of what this post says; particularly, the part about focusing on context is a very good one. What it would be appropriate to say in a bar is typically not appropriate to say in a business meeting. I also like the idea of gauging reaction, moving slowly, and apologizing if you overstep boundaries.

  But what really annoyed me about this was the “it’s not a game”. No, actually, it totally is. Social norms have a complex system of arbitrary rules that are attached to incentives. Not only is it a game in the mathematical sense, it’s really pretty much a game in the traditional sense as well. Men aren’t supposed to wear dresses, you’re supposed to make eye contact 40% of the time and stand 0.6 meters away, this uncomfortable thing around your neck makes you look formal, shorter sleeves are more casual, these are swim trunks (acceptable) but these are boxer shorts (unacceptable), these are the appropriate euphemisms for this context… there are literally hundreds if not thousands of rules, and many of them are completely arbitrary.

  And if you don’t think the rules are arbitrary, well… you clearly know nothing about cultural variation, which makes your arguments for cultural inclusivenses and intersectionality fall pretty damn flat. Not all social rules are arbitrary, but the ones that people most often slip up on generally are. There is no inherent reason why 70% eye contact is creepy or standing 1.2 meters makes you aloof; but in American culture, you WILL be read that way.

  So these men are struggling with the fact that the norms they learned before are now invalid. Maybe they should always have been invalid; maybe they’re bad rules (some of them clearly are). But the fact remains that when these men learned them, they understood them to be “the way it’s done”. It seemed, well, OBVIOUS. Men open doors, tell women they’re pretty, always pay for the meal. Men are aggressive, women are meek; that’s how it’s “supposed to be”. It no more seems sexist to them than gender-segregated bathrooms seem sexist to most people (even though, in a strict sense, they really are).

  You need to approach them with that in mind, actively pointing out the norms you are challenging and the norms you want to replace them with. Don’t try to pretend that your way is the obvious and natural system, because it isn’t; there is no such obvious, natural system, and actually if there were one, it would probably be quite sexist. The Onion is oft insightful.

  And no, I DON’T think you get to use all the other sources of sexism that women face when addressing a particular comment. Because the man speaking that comment IS NOT RESPONSIBLE for all of that, and may well oppose it as strongly as you do.

  I guess I can see why some level of sensitivity might be in order, but it only goes so far. Here’s an analogy: You were attacked by a cat as a small child, and as a result have a paranoid phobia of cats. You can’t stand to look at, think about, or have any interaction with cats. Knowing this, I should rightly be careful about bringing up cats around you; but if I should slip up and show you a picture of a cat, you really have no right to blame me for causing you psychological damage. Showing a picture of a cat is, in fact, an inherently harmless activity. Now, if I knew of your phobia and went out of my way to show you pictures of cats in order to cause you distress, that would indeed be wrong; but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Obama does not have an established pattern of sexual harassment (unlike, say, Herman Cain).

  • 5:29 pm
  • 2 Comments