You've probably already seen the amusing series of photos depicting Katherine Harris playing footsie with a young male reporter for a college newspaper. Prepare to be shocked: I don't believe that she has done anything terribly wrong in this instance. Granted, she displayed poor judgment -- yet another reason to vote against her.
Here's what bugs me. If a male politician her age (especially one named Clinton) had acted in a precisely similar fashion with a young female reporter, pundits would immediately reach for terms like "sexual predator" and "sexual harrassment." Few would use such terms to describe Katherine Harris.
An essentially silly situation thus leads us to ponder a rather serious conundrum. Can we -- should we -- define the term "sexual harrassment" in an equitable fashion? Must one own a penis to qualify for that charge?
5 comments:
hm. the fatal attraction question.
it is a bit skewed, so to speak. but i submit that the tilt is influenced by the social and historical facts that
1. sexual harrassment of women by men virtually always places the woman in the vulnerable position, which can thus also include assault, especially if the woman rejects the man.
2. also, until only recently, men were virtually always - always - in social positions of dominance such that the women being harrassed had more than physical integrity to lose. though women have gained some power socially in some cases, overall the playing field is hardly equal.
so. though i understand the concern you're expressing, and in a totally perfectly balanced world, sure, we should of course hold up a perfectly straight ruler. but not only are men and women not yet truly socially equal, they will never be physically equivalent in physical matters, especially sexuality.
we may want to draw some affirmative action analogies here. i have to doubt you really want to start sounding like one of those southern white bigots who are convinced they're the ones being discriminated against. you've proven yourself far too enlightened for that.
The fact is, Harris was in the dominant position in this case. The young man probably felt very intimidated- he had to get a story, and crying foul would only get him ridiculed and lose him the story.
yes, harris was in the social position of power here. but i was addressing the generic situation that might help us explain why it is that we are not as horrified as we would be if she were a learing old male lech and the reporter were a sweet young thang.
I honestly wish the answer was yes, Joseph. I wish the world was a much fairer place, and that we were ALL on that mythical level playing field.
Yes, Harris' behavior appears to be highly inappropriate and very pathetic. Yes, this young man did seem to feel somewhat uncomfortable and intimidated. And yes, this is very unfortunate and Harris deserves all the ridicule she has coming to her. However, does she control his income? His livelihood? Even his reputation?Probably not.
To compare this incident to real sexual harrassment is to trivialize the very real harrassment that occurs every day between men with power and women who do not.
For a somewhat stereotypical but true glimpse into this issue, I highly recommend "North Country."
Sorry, I meant to sign the above post.
Kim in PA
Post a Comment