After spending more than a decade
of life in the Army and college, I’ve had plenty of time to observe the “real
world” in action. This view of the world has been largely influenced by the
incongruity of assumption and reality in most people I encounter. Thus it
shouldn’t come as a “surprise” that I tend to approach the world “solo.” I like
to keep my world neat and tidy without unwanted interference, particularly by
those who without care disorganize something I had worked hard to organize to
make my living as painless as possible. I doubt that I am alone in this desire.
Unfortunately, we live in a world
where you have to make “compromises” in order to “get along”—especially when
the “system” is more favorable to some than to others. This is quite often the
case in the workaday world. I knew of one workplace where no fairly-drawn workplace
standards seemed to be enforced; and not only was there no comprehension of
this inequity by management, it was condoned and deliberately used as a tool to
enrich those in-favor and punish those out-of-favor; sometimes the compensation
discrepancies could be so vast that it could have been described as violating
fair labor practices.
I knew of another workplace where
the issue that caused the most conflict was the lack of adequate equipment to
perform one’s job, especially somewhat operational vehicles which are essentially
indispensible appendages to one’s daily functioning, like a horse was to the
cowboys of the Old West. These conflicts often reached the stage where people
are forced to resort to petty maneuvering like hiding away equipment in some
remote boondock, for fear that they may be “stolen.” Such acts are the subject
of much bitterness and vows of retribution. Management and supervisors knew
very well that there was a need to improve both the quantity and quality of the
equipment; they just couldn’t convince the people who paid the bills of the
need for it. And so the cycle of conflict went on and on without end. Some
people took it all in stride, because they felt there is nothing that can be
done about it; but others are frustrated by the constant search and seizure
routine.
It shouldn’t be surprising that
in such a culture, the belief in “victimization” can easily arise—especially one
where racial or “ethnic” cliques exist, or more often, in an environment where
women also actively participate in, and any discussion any criticism of their
part in this can be deliberately “misconstrued.” It is also a good probability
that if you confront a female who is causing a “hostile” work environment by
making derogatory or means-spirited comments about co-workers (they call it
“sarcasm”), they can claim that they are being “targeted” merely because they
are a “female.”
So instead of addressing the
issues that create conflict, a training guide on “sexual harassment” might find
its way on a table to “remind” people of policy. The photos in one such guide I
perused showed pictures of attractive women, of the sort that are generally
outside my social or workplace circle, and who I would likely find self-absorbed
and conceited. Frankly, most of the places I have worked did not employ anyone
who would evenly remotely excite a “sexual” response from even the most
desperate character—yet still can be the cause of those “damned if you do,
damned if you don’t” syndromes.
Sometimes it is hard to avoid “victims.”
I was once in a QFC grocery store in Seattle, and while I was walking down an
aisle I could discern peripherally that one of those self-absorbed
superstars-in-her–own mind white female types was walking in the opposite
direction with beady eyes glued at me with a look of contemptuous expectation.
Just before we crossed paths, I returned her gaze, to which she triumphantly
inquired “Looking at my boobs?” Fortunately, she gave away a ready retort: “No,
I’m looking at a Boob.”
This person apparently stereotyped
me as a “leerer and ogler” because of my presumed “ethnicity.” I must have “disappointed”
her immensely. I’d say 95 percent of the time I have a squinty-eyed scowl
(think Clint Eastwood) on my face, and 95 percent of the time it isn’t
conveying anything in particular. It only softens or hardens slightly depending
upon how I am feeling at the moment. This person meant nothing to me; I would
likely never encounter her again. Why would I waste my time “looking” at her
when I likely wouldn’t have the foggiest notion of what she looked like an hour
later? But one thing is certain: All she saw was someone she took to be of a
certain group to be stereotyped—rather than a person who could have thought of
her as nothing more than one of the local Nazis.
I sometimes see women, who
apparently see themselves as “attractive,” wearing sunglasses indoors. Why are
they hiding their eyes? Some people (usually men) think it is a “cool” look I
suppose, but I think it is just ridiculous. Women, I suspect, want to conceal
their eyes so that you don’t see that they are looking at other people, perhaps
to see if someone is “leering” at them. My own reaction of people of this sort
are that they conceited, obsessed-with-self types who believe they are the
center of the universe—in other words, morons. Some women want you to “look” at
them to satisfy their own beliefs about men. On the other hand, even if you
make a point of not looking at them,
this can also be construed as “sexist” because you are denying their belief in
their own self-importance.
We know what is not acceptable
behavior to a “reasonable” woman—whatever that is. “Making sexual gestures or
displaying sexually-suggestive images” according to that training guide,
“making ‘sexual’ comments about a person’s figure, making ‘unwanted sexual
advances’ or ‘physically touching someone in a sexual way.’” Some of the
offending behaviors, however, seem to be defined by people who chooses to see an action as
being “gender” related—or find it useful to call it so—such as “blocking or
impeding someone’s movements.” One suspects, moreover, that accusations of
“sexual harassment” are sometimes just an effort to avoid confronting one’s own
personal failings, and an attempt to nullify the person making such an
“offensive” insinuation.
“What about “super-sensitive”
people, or people who just try to get others in trouble by complaining about
them all the time? It doesn’t seem fair that they would control the workplace.
What about my rights?” Well, you
don’t have “rights,” so that’s not a “problem.” The test is: “Could this
conduct offend a reasonable person in this person’s situation, taking into
account the setting and context of the behavior? If a reasonable person could find the conduct offensive, and
the complainant did find it offensive,
then it has crossed the line and should stop.” Again, the tendency is for the bar of
“reasonableness” is be quite low, and the complainant may only seeking sympathy
in order for some personal fault to be overlooked.
Of course, there will
be a “full and fair investigation” of the complaint, but then the training
guide goes on to say that false complaints are “very rare.” How can there be a
“fair investigation” if that assumption is the standard? Well, such is the
society that has been created for us. “Compromise” with injustice and live with
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment