We've been hearing this a lot over the past few weeks in apologies from men accused of workplace or other inappropriate sexual behavior.
I beg to differ - YES! that is who your are!
I don't believe that many of these men set out to be predators but their actions were supported and encouraged by years -- centuries -- of conditioning and laws, promulgated by patriarchal cultures and religions. But a profound difference is in the sincere apologies of the men who own their actions and those who try to equivocate, justify or downright lie about what they did.
The "owners" will admit they were wrong, thoughtless and did not consider the harm they have done. They feel they are accountable and will seek to find ways to make amends, understanding that they can't change the past, and are open to discussion of what can be done differently in the future. They welcome the opportunity to be better informed and are supportive of the person confronting them.
The "equivocator" uses his position of power to diminish the seriousness of his acts, infering that his position is too important to be side railed by an insignificant accusation. There may be a history of monetary "reparation", non-disclosure agreements and religious justifications. They continue to view women and girls as property to be bought and used.
It is only recently that women have felt free to challenge the "blame game" that has silenced them for so long. For many of my generation, the response to workplace intimidation and harassment has been to "tough it out", especially for those working in traditionally male dominated fields such as medicine, police work, tech jobs or the military. It was common kowledge that complaining or accusing would result in intensified harassment as "the boys" banded together or, in the case of sexual harassment, shaming of the victim.
As you peel away the layers, two things stand out -- a male sense of entitlement, bolstered by cultural, economic and religious norms, and the threat to masculinity and macho egoism as women assume their place in the sciences, industry and commerce. Both are visible in the male tribalism found on college campuses, in sports, in gangs and in patriarchal religions.
In instances of sexual assault, male tribalism argues that it is the fault of the victim - from provocative clothing or behavior to simply being female. This is exceedingly evident in radical Muslim, Christian and other religions which require covering the female body so as not to entice the male - freeing the male from the requirement to have any responsibility for his own thoughts or actions.
But is the female "victim" never at fault?
Women, as well as men, are subject to the influences of old and new culture. There will probably always be some level of "Daddy's little girl" and a desire by daughters to seek their fathers' approval, but more men are turning to encouraging their daughters to be strong and independent through education, sports and including them in what were once male only activities. However, many role models for young girls appear sexually provocative - especially entertainers and female athletes in skimpy revealing costumes which young girls desire to emulate. It's also no longer uncommon to see a female runner or bicyclist in a skimpy sports bra and minimal shorts running along a public roadside or little girls parading through Walmart in thier gymnastics leotard. Should this be considered provocative - and a possible defense for a male who assaults her? Should parents be held accountable for how they dress their daughters?
The idea that a woman walking nearly naked or in revealing clothing in front of a group of men is not provoking is an extreme example of "what I wear shouldn't matter" but is it the wrong message backlash to years of repression? Should any mode of dress in any environment now be acceptable and a "right" to be claimed?
I even find the current changes in suitable "business" attire to be a bit disconcerting at times. There seems to be a trend to sleeveless dresses, cleavage and extreme makeup - from the halls of government to the newsroom. There is a sliding scale from "professional" to "bimbo", including dress, hair, makeup and conspicuous display of leg, which coincides with a sliding scale of respect for the person speaking. While traditional male business attire can be quite uniform and restrictive, how would we feel if we saw our government leaders show up to work in a sleeveless shirt sans necktie -- no matter how stylish or expensive? While some women in the public eye seem to be displaying their plumage during working hours, it would be a bit dismaying to see men doing the same.
And, finally, are there "degrees" of harassment or intimidation? Are rape, sexual conduct with a minor, a "friendly" pat on the butt, or a stupid prank equivalent? Are these also equivalent to other forms of workplace pressure when done because of gender difference such as a male co-worker taking credit for her work or undermining job safety to make her look incompetent?
In some ways, yes they are as they all reflect an existing cultiral bias toward and dimishment of women. Men may find it confusing that they are encouraged to appreciate the appearance of females in their presence but rebuffed or rebuked when they try to respond. On the other hand, the male who feels entitled to act inappropriately - whether testing the waters with a "love pat" or by forcible intimidation san not be tolerated.
We're becoming aware that this is a major cultural shift and actions which were once tolerated are being exposed as unacceptable. Does this mean that past behavior in a different time and place should have the same consequences as if it occurred today?
I think it goes back to YES! that is who your are! and if you are an accountable owner of your actions or an equivocator in denial.
