It’s
no secret that millennials are the most educated generation in history, and one
can only assume that statement will probably continue to apply to gen Z. True, there are data that
show upward mobility is lower for us compared to our parents, but there are a
few variables for why that may be, such as: high bar set by baby boomers (hard
to surpass a relatively prosperous generation); degrees may get you less
glamorous jobs nowadays (think highly educated garbagemen in the future);
etc. Regardless, the amount of the
degree holders by the age of 29 has steadily increased across demographics from
gen silent (1964) to gen Y (2016), irrelevant of the actual employment
quality. Further, it goes without saying
that spaces that once were homogenized relative to race and gender are
beginning to become quite integrated.
And with diversity initiatives on the rise at universities and companies
this trend probably won’t recede anytime soon.
Unfortunately,
when only superficial homage is paid to civility, and the underlying social
issues aren’t resolved, history is bound to repeat itself. What I’m implying is rather than serving as
an ethical call to reform as is advertised, I believe movements like #Timesup
and to an extent #Metoo, are indirect means to enforce classism or, at the very
least, segregation on campuses and in professional environments. This is in response to the cultural
amalgamation that is growing in these spaces, and these movements serve as a
means of defining boundaries, specifically between the sacred white
female and those who otherwise wouldn’t have been in positions to interact with
them; i.e., non-white/European men (of course this could
apply to non-white homosexual women).
I’d
assume the immediate retort to my claim that increased guidelines for behavior
around women in professional settings is that they have nothing to due with
race or class. That they are instead to
promote awareness, safety, etc. However,
the restrictions of the reconstruction era were, similarly, disguised as legit
criteria: necessary to ensure an informed voter; a sentiment which is
reasonable, but we now know wasn’t the true intention. Given, I’m not sure the ethical argument is
solid. Furthermore, it wouldn’t be the
first time steps have been taken to set classist boundaries relative to
gender. New York University history
professor Martha Hodes terms “the sexualization of Reconstruction politics” as
violent tactics enacted by the KKK out of fear that, as Tanya
Hernandez of Fordham University school of Law puts it: “Black male suffrage
meant Black male access to the privileged domain of White Womanhood.” (Hernandez,
“Sexual Harassment…”)
Another
counter to the grandfather clause theory may be that it implies that only white
women make harassment claims. Though, I’d
argue that that is what makes it such an effective cover: one can’t dissect it
without accidentally making more touchy implications. Still, from research I’d assert that the
keyword is probability; as in, the demographic most probable to be offended,
triggered or made uncomfortable by male behavior is white women. Hernandez supports my observation in the
article, insisting at least one study suggests white women, generally, perceive
incidents to be more serious than women of color; they have a wider set of
parameters for what classifies as harassment.
It should be noted that trying to analyze data
relative to social phenomena such as sexual harassment claims is pretty much
useless. This is because there are so
many variables, hidden and documented, that an implication could be made in
either direction. For example,
Hernandez’ article shows how white women accounted for 62% of sexual harassment
charges and 85% of the civilian labor force in 1992. In the same vein, black women accounted for
14.4% of charges but, strangely, made up only 11.5% of the labor force. (Hernandez,
“Sexual…”) Such inconsistencies make the quality of numerical data questionable;
one source uses the word “paucity” to describe the lack of credible sexual
harassment research.
Interestingly,
in another article titled “I’m Not Thinking of It As Sexual Harassment” researchers
use focus groups of Canadian women to analyze how different races label certain
behavior. They showed that there was consistency within white women’s harassment criteria: the boundaries
were more concrete. They note “white women may perceive more opportunities to
file complaints given their privilege in the legal system over other racialized
and noncitizen groups.” (Welsh, “I’m Not Thinking…”) This highlights the chicken/egg dependency
between lawmaking and behavior.
Further, they
explain how the consensus in the group of black women was “sexual harassment”
wasn’t as fitting a term for their experiences in the workplace, compared to
white women. Their discussions often showed black women
felt sexual harassment was “easier to handle” and that racial discrimination
was a more relevant issue. Now, I’d
argue this alludes to the perceived fragility of the white female, but the
researchers seem to imply black women have more tolerance for inappropriate
male behavior. They insist “While not
explicitly discussing a reluctance to report Black male harassers, this group
of women tends to view harassment from Black men as something that is
normalized and hence not defined as harassment.”
Granted, I’d usually be
willing to admit that this excerpt disproves my theory. However, since the trigger word “harassment” was used, instead of a more neutral word like behavior,
especially considering the women were hesitant to use the former, I must
disregard the quote due to bias.
Nevertheless,
there are other significant observations.
Ones in which the professional status of the women was more uniform, and
where ideology was still split among race; which leads me to believe the
heightened awareness around sexual harassment is more a classism enforcement
scheme than a step towards female empowerment.
An example that comes to mind was episode 128 from Season two of Steve
where the guests were: Areva Martin, Terri Vaughn, and Venus Nicolino (aka Dr.
V). Although I generally don’t give too
much credence to talk-shows, I think this case serves as a good reference
point; given the women were all successful and of relatively equal
attractiveness. So, hypothetically,
“lower standards” can’t be blamed for differing opinions. Shortly put, the question posed was whether
it is ok for a man to hit on them in the office. Why was I not surprised that all three poc’s
on the panel, including Steve, felt that when executed respectfully it isn’t a
big deal. Keep in mind, Areva and Steve are
married. The sole objector was Dr
Nicolino, who is Italian and married as well.
It’s in
instances like above where I apply applications of science to social
issues. For example, utilizing the methods of circuit
analysis, I relate inequality to voltage, aka potential difference. Doing this allows me to focus on the disparity
(analogous to magnitude), which is more informative than trying to categorize the behavior as
“good” or “bad” (analogous to direction). Of course, on a multiple-choice Physics test,
a student should probably know what direction the voltage drop is in. However, on an open answer section I think
any professor would be glad to know a student can at least obtain the
magnitude.
To clarify, one can’t help but
notice the contrast of opinion among the panelists: if Dr. Nicolino’s objection
was really about safety, then it would’ve been more unanimous. So, I can only assume from such examples that these social boundaries are continually being set to preserve
the white/European supremacy.
I’m also
aware that a lot of recent major sexual harassment claims have been enacted
towards white men. Though, I’d argue
that rather than serving as counterexamples to my theory, they are mere casualties of war, so to speak. Like how
the voting requirements instituted by the southern states in the 1800’s
affected not only blacks: poor whites and Hispanics were also caught in the
crossfire, hence the need for special clauses that granted exemption; the
intention was still stopping blacks from registering to vote. So, no matter how much collateral damage the
anti-harassment movements have accumulated or will in the future, my classism
assertion still holds.
Overall,
the suddenly increased guidelines for cross gender interaction in professional
settings are not unlike the grandfather clauses of the reconstruction era. The purpose may seem admirable on the surface,
but the calls for heightened awareness relative to sexual harassment are actually
subtle forms of social filtering, meant to solidify class boundaries in an
increasingly integrated America.
Further, this sentiment perpetuates the notion that white and/or
European women are of greater value, or delicacy; given that this demographic is
usually the most vocal about harassment and, as exemplified before, have the
most rules about how/when to communicate with them. Throughout other blogs, I’ll question the
root cause(s) of classism and inequality, and pitch solutions: some of which
may be radical. Until next time, thanks for
reading my blog and, as usual: stay pissed.
References
Graff,
Nikki. “Today’s young workers are more
likely than ever to have a bachelor’s degree.” http://pewrsr.ch/2qruRby.
Greeenblatt,
Alan. “The Racial History of the
‘Grandfather Clauses’.” www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/10/21/239081586/the-racial-history-of-the-grandfather-clause
Tanya
K. Hernandez, Sexual Harassment and Racial Disparity: The Mutual Construction
of Gender and Race, 4 J. Gender, Race and Just. 183 (2000-2001) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/12
Welsh,
S., Carr, J., MacQuarrie, B., & Huntley, A. (2006). "I'm Not Thinking
of It as Sexual Harassment": Understanding Harassment across Race and
Citizenship. Gender and Society, 20(1), 87-107. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from
www.jstor.org/stable/27640867
Comments
Post a Comment