by Frances A. Edwards, Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney
Some comments on a book and a talk by Helen Garner.
On Sunday 22nd April, I went to hear Helen Garner speaking at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, on the subject of her recent book, The First Stone. Some questions about sex and power (Picador, Pan Macmillan, Australia, 1995). This book has raised an enormous amount of controversy amongst feminists and in my view an inexcusably defensive reaction in many cases. It is inexcusable because the defensiveness has often taken the form of refusing to read the book, even claiming that it should never have been written - thereby refusing, in principle, the right to a possibly different view from that of a particular brand of feminism.
The subject of the book is sexual harassment and, as the author is in her early fifties, one of the points raised in the question time following her talk and book reading was why younger women's voices are not heard more often on this question. The implication was that, being past the age at which she was likely to suffer from these types of attentions, she was unqualified to comment.
I suspect it was necessary for a writer to be firmly established and old enough to have sufficient confidence in her own feminist views, to raise a reasonable voice amongst the emotion of feminist rhetoric. The reason a younger woman has not been the first to raise a moderating voice on these issues may well be that the 'voice of feminism' (as opposed to the true body of feminism) is too often loud, bullying and defensive, so that a young woman trying to establish herself as a writer or journalist would be reluctant to express a view not directly in line with the feminist purists.
I invite WISENET members to contribute to the discussion of these issues and to publicise their views. After all, women in the fields of science and engineering work in the most male dominated of all environments.
Helen Garner's book evolved from an article she wrote expressing her concern about two charges of sexual harassment brought to the police in 1992 against the Master of Ormond College at the University of Melbourne. While one case was dismissed, the other was upheld by the magistrate. In this latter case, the Master was alleged to have placed his hand on the breast of a student while dancing with her, at her invitation, during a drunken student party. On appeal to the County Court, however, the magistrate's finding was dis-missed, the Master was found not guilty and the Crown was ordered to pay costs for both trials.
Despite the not guilty verdict, it became necessary for the Master to resign his post at the college, and although initially supportive, previous employers in the Education Department at Monash University also found themselves 'unable' to reemploy him. In short, his career was finished and his family deeply affected by the incident.
Helen Garner wrote about the case as she felt the consequences for the accused man were quite disproportionate to the crime allegedly committed. So, although a committed feminist, she wrote a commentary of the events which, while not dismissing the women's charges or the existence of sexual harassment, was sympathetic to the man involved and raised questions about the directions of present day feminism.
The point of these comments is not to discuss the facts or rights and wrongs of the story in Helen Garner's book, but to highlight what I believe is a very important wider issue raised by the book and, more particularly, in subsequent discussions of it. While I do not agree with Helen Garner on all points, the book and the furore of reaction to it, have, I believe, opened the way for much long overdue discussion.
I will focus my discussion on whether sexual offences by men should be classified (eg in terms of severity) or whether they are, as some would have us believe, a continuum of the one offence. There is a growing tendency towards severe retribution or punishment for a single incident of inappropriate behaviour. The question arises: Is this the appropriate response?
Helen Garner's point is summarised in the following passage from her book.
But I know that between 'being made to feel uncomfortable' and 'violence against women' lies a vast range of male and female behaviours. If we deny this, we enfeeble language and drain it of meaning. We insult the suffering of women who have met real violence, and we distort the subtleties of human interaction into caricatures that can serve only as propaganda for war. And it infuriates me that any woman who insists on drawing these crucial distinctions should be called a traitor to her sex.
In other words she claims firstly, and I agree with her, that sexual harassment in the work place (without rape or violence) is a different offence to sexual assault and to class them as one is to belittle the massive trauma associated with the latter. Although there are undoubtedly situations where the borders become blurred, I would contend that the vast majority of cases of sexual harassment in the work place involve men who would no more commit sexual assault than wantonly crash their cars. Moreover the discomfort caused to the women involved is of a quite different magnitude to the trauma caused by sexual assault or other violence. While certainly not condoning sexual harassment in any form, the amount of real damage done in different cases and the increasing trend towards using public prosecution to deal with such cases should be open to discussion. I find offensive the suggestion that a wolf whistle is a minor form of rape.
Perhaps more contentious is the question of how to classify offences within the definition of sexual harassment and the most appropriate ways of dealing with such offences. We risk getting to a stage of paranoia about this subject which is destructive to communication and which could lead to sterility in the daily interactions between men and women. An occurrence of inappropriate behaviour (such as that alleged to have been committed by the Master of Ormond College) is very different from a situation of consistent use of power to get away with repeated sexual harassment. To class the two as equal may prevent the latter being managed appropriately and result in severe injustice for certain individuals. As Helen Garner points out, to reason that some individuals must suffer injustice so we can change the system, is completely unacceptable in a democracy.
Dr Elsa Garmire, when speaking to WISENET members and others on 'Issues facing women in science and engineering' (see article this issue), pointed out that we can all quote occasions in which men have made inappropriate comments or actions which could be classed as sexual harassment. One example from my own experience occurred at a crowded American conference when I introduced myself to a professor with whom I had had correspondence. He screamed, grabbed me by the shoulders and warmly kissed me on both cheeks. I stood there stammering in embarrassment, while he explained in his very French accent that he had 'thought I was a hairy old Englishman'.
I have always told this as an amusing story; I was not scarred, nor even really offended by the experience. However, I could have taken offence, as his whole attitude was most definitely sexist. I might say that afterwards he did not take my science any less seriously because I was a young woman rather than a hairy old man. If he had, my attitude to the affair would undoubtedly be quite different. Tolerance of occasional lapses of decorum and a sense of humour make life much more enjoyable, rather than automatic-ally taking offence on every occasion.
Undoubtedly encounters, even individual ones, within one's own work place may be more difficult to brush off than the incident I describe above. Nevertheless, we must decide how to react to such encounters, at what level a sexual innuendo or physical contact warrants action, and what response is most appropriate. I would contend that, unless they will cause ongoing stress or make us change the way we go about our work, going to court or taking major offence over individual interactions which cause us irritation or minor discomfort, is seldom appropriate.
The increasing tendency towards punitive public action for minor offences is destructive to communication between men and women. I am not suggesting that men and women cannot communicate without sexual innuendo; I assume most business encounters are achieved in a 'gender neutral' manner. However there is bound to be, at some level (however subliminal), a sexual response between men and women, or the human species would die out. To try to legislate away any level of this natural sexual tension in a working day is an unrealistic, perhaps even destructive task, which will only increase stress levels for both men and women.
Whether it should be ignored, dealt with privately, or whether more direct action is needed must depend on the intent, the context and the effects it has on the woman concerned. A woman needs to understand that she has choices in how she reacts, and every institution must have in place mechanisms which support her in deciding upon and pursuing a course of action.
We have to accept a degree of imperfection in ourselves and our colleagues in most matters. Why is this so different? If we get to the stage where aware, sensible men have to worry before making a moderate comment or break into a sweat because they unconsciously touch a woman, I think we are on the wrong track.
By these comments I do not mean to excuse sexual harassment. We have all come across men, for whom we have no respect, who use positions of power (often minor power), to make inappropriate comments or even physical advances. These individuals are often more pathetic than evil, but nevertheless must be made to understand the nature of their offence. While confident women may be able to cope with such advances, finding them an irritation without causing psychological damage, other women have less confidence and undergo major stress in such situations and such situations cannot be tolerated.
However, even in these cases, I believe that the initial response should be to attempt to change the behaviour and attitudes of the man before a punitive approach is taken. Women need to be active in rational discussion of such issues and in establishing appropriate procedures for bringing such matters to light quickly. Support for the complainant during and after the proceedings is essential, so that a woman will not feel that she, as the victim, has to leave her job. Very often such problems are left to become too serious and emotionally charged before official complaints or unofficial action is taken and the chance for rational approaches is lost.
In conclusion, I believe that a real problem exists and should be dealt with but over-reaction, leading to tension and paranoia in perfectly inoffensive men, will only lead to a greater separation and lack of communication between men and women. Perhaps even more importantly, we need to be aware that vital causes, such as feminism, can get muddled and politicised to such an extent that communication even between women becomes hampered.
I would like to congratulate and thank Helen Garner for being brave enough to open up these subjects for discussion. Improving communication and activating broader discussion can only be positive for the cause of feminism.
Editors' note: readers' comments on this topic are invited.