bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1992) — Winter 1992 // Hiver 1992, pp. 2–3
A strike brings out a number of sensitive issues in addition to the major point over which it is called, and the public service strike last fall certainly revealed a dark side at this Department.
External Affairs exhibited its own style of protest. On the one hand, there appeared to be more collegiality among employees. Many PAFSO members offered moral support to those on the line: provided refreshments; wore pins; walked in solidarity; lent umbrellas during the heavy rains; or donated financially to PSAC. This was the “positive” side of the strike — the “human” face of which was a difficult, expensive and bitter situation that continues to reverberate.
A disturbing side to the strike, however, remarked upon at the time by many on both sides of the line, was the evident sexism that occurred repeatedly. This aspect is the more worrisome fallout from the strike, and it crystalized concretely a problem in the Department that requires immediate remedial action.
Time after time, it was women, either on the line or trying to cross it, who were singled out as specific targets of physical and verbal abuse. This was particularly exhibited at External Affairs which, according to a government survey, has the ignominy of the second worst record throughout the federal government for its treatment of women employees. When it comes to a penchant for systemic sexism or sexual stereotyping, only the record of National Defence is worse.
Some PSAC women members themselves targetted other women, probably because they also suffer from the same myopia as do many of their male colleagues about the sexual stereotype at External Affairs. The media image of the Department on television and in the newspapers (even the Financial Post) became the blonde in the hockey mask who lunged obligingly at her targets in front of the cameras.
In one instance, a female member of senior management was accosted by a male PSAC member who shouted at her not to cross her union’s picket line. When she indicated who she was, and that she was not a PSAC member, the angry striker then yelled that she was “just a ’damn’ secretary trying to cross the line”! This was not an isolated incident. Several female PAFSO members were similarly attacked, verbally and physically, and were restrained from crossing the line for several hours.
Perhaps the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in the USA have helped to diagnose an overall atmosphere and strong misogynist chord at External Affairs. Although the allegation in the Thomas/Hill instance was clearly one of sexual harassment, the broader, subtler and more pervasive issue is one of sexist harassment, sexism or sexual stereotyping. Sexism is a gender-based difference in the treatment of women to the detriment of the values placed on their abilities, accomplishments, and sense of self-worth.
Glamour stated that the Thomas/Hill case demonstrated concretely to American women that “when the equality of rights music stopped, it was women who found themselves without chairs.” Flashbacks of the media coverage support this view. President Bush made a public statement on nationwide television supporting Thomas even before Hill was given a chance to state her case. This is surely a fundamental denial of natural justice, if not an abuse of human rights. The most vocal male senators shouted that now Hill would feel “real” harassment and not “just” sexual harassment!
This case has angered women across North America. As women now know, if they are not in the room, their views are not being supported. If women are not in middle and senior management, women’s ideals are not being put forward.
In Esquire, Roger Rosenblatt equates sexual harassment with bigotry, and notes that the issue is ultimately one of power. When a man calls a female colleague “honey”, but does nothing else suggestive other than drop the term into the middle of a professional work situation, disagreement, or competition among views, there is no sexual intent. Rather, the intent is to attack the woman by using a term of endearment as a form of derision and as a deliberate belittling of her.
The man is really saying, “O.K. You’ve got a big, responsible job now. But this is a man’s world, honey, and I’m going to try and make you as uncomfortable in it as I possibly can.” The idea is to make the woman feel that she does not belong, or that she exists at his sufferance. This is the real and brutal motive behind most sexual bigotry — to keep a woman in her “place” whenever she emerges into a “man’s place”. Rosenblatt concludes, “No law can prove it, but the heart knows when it is being assaulted as something less, not worthy, not human. The man who does anything… to intentionally make a woman feel not human is no different from the coward Klansman hiding his hatred under a sheet. He’s not making love, he’s making war.”
What is sexism? It is automatic, even unconscious behaviour in multitudes of incidents which cloud the work atmosphere and bombard women continually. Laura Fraser (Vogue) describes these “micro-inequities” or little instances of subtle discrimination which are difficult to respond to because, taken individually, they seem so trivial. In the same article, Mary Rowe, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has studied micro-inequities in the workplace for nearly two decades, says that small things — using degrading language, ignoring people, leaving them out of important meetings — have made it difficult for women and minorities to succeed in professions. “Micro-inequities work by excluding a person and making her less self-confident and less productive.”
The Vogue article refers to Robin Lakoff, linguistics professor at the University of California (Berkeley), who says that such seemingly trivial comments have a profound effect on ability to succeed. “Workplaces are defined by language, and sexist language is a covert definition of who belongs there and who does not.” Sexism increases in professions where women have the fewest numbers. “In all occupations that were previously closed to women, the blatant barriers have been removed before the environment has substantially changed.” Behaviour and attitudes always lag behind. Demeaning language, hints and clues from colleagues that women do not belong, can not perform the job, or should not be in charge — these attitudes are pervasive and entrenched in the profession of diplomacy and in particular personalities.
Why should External Affairs worry about this problem? Aside from its legal obligation, sexism is a debilitating phenomenon which detracts from the abilities of women to perform their jobs, lessens their commitment to their work and to the organization, and undermines the institution. As the Globe and Mail indicated recently, sexism is also expensive in terms of lost productivity, high turnover and absenteeism, the expense of outside assistance, defending against complaints, damages awarded in lawsuits, and the damage to the organization’s reputation.
How can External Affairs become a more “woman-friendly workplace?” Report on Business provided a number of steps. All employees must be trained about what sexism is. A policy statement should “make clear that [sexism] involves unwelcome, sexually-oriented conduct, comments, gestures, or contact that is offensive, hostile, threatening or demeaning to people — usually women. It includes not just demands for sexual favours, but also sexist jokes and comments, leering, sexually suggestive gestures, visual displays … and derogatory comments, even if no job-related threats or benefits are associated with these.”
The Department’s position should be made a matter of record. Employees must become familiar with the policy; managers and personnel must be trained to deal with it; complaints must be handled with sensitivity; unions must be involved in the process; appropriate penalties must be imposed; and the policy must be audited to ensure compliance. In essence, management must become good role models.
Everyone has a right to work in an atmosphere of sexual equality. To develop a new ethos in the department, senior management must be openly committed to change; must continue in their positions for several years; must hold managers and employees alike accountable for their actions; and (together with all levels of the organization) must draw up an action plan which outlines specific goals and timeframes to achieve them. Only in this manner will External Affairs become a woman-friendly workplace.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1992) — Winter 1992 // Hiver 1992, pp. 2–3. Read the rest of this issue →
