My Life of Feminist Privilege...At Law School?

It's late and I can't sleep. I'm not sure why, but maybe because I was up late reading Next Time She'll Be Dead for my feminist legal issues class. God, it makes me angry. And I'm still all keyed up about the Jane Doe Conference this weekend. Wow, was that ever great. The fact that a conference on sexual assault sold out is a really good sign among lots of not so encouraging news.

One of the great things about it was meeting other women in law school, new generation feminists who are committed and thoughtful and so smart. I sometimes wonder where we all are and wish we could find each other and work together more. Hopefully some of those connections were made during the conference and will endure.

I learned an astonishing thing, though. Compared to probably every other law school in Canada, my law school (uOttawa) is largely a place of safety for feminists. It's definitely not perfect. All of my colleagues here have at least one story where we have witnessed some form of anti-woman, heterosexist, homophobic, classist, racist, or colonialist displays that have gone unchallenged in the classroom (and outside the classroom). But I have, to a very large extent, been able to craft for myself a feminist legal education, taught by real feminists who declare their principles loudly. My classrooms have largely been a place where I felt safe to speak from a feminist perspective. Even where I knew I was not with a feminist prof, I was at least tolerated and not humiliated (had I taken evidence, it probably would have been the exception). Always, if I needed to, there was a feminist woman professor to whom I could turn.

Not so in other faculties, apparently. I probably should not have been quite so surprised. It's not as if I'm not totally aware of the treatment of women at the hands of the justice system (why would the education system that spawned the players be any different?). I just didn't realize how bad it was in other places. I thought that at least maybe people (profs and students alike) were affected enough by political correctness to pretend to be tolerant. Apparently being around feminists for the past three years has both distorted reality for me and made me less cynical and more hopeful about my place in the world. (Sort of.)

I've been experiencing a mounting anxiety about leaving a place that has been so openly supportive of my feminism. This is in direct contradiction to being utterly desperate to get out of law school, but that's definitely not because of the feminists. I'm feeling nervous about finding a community of feminists in a small, conservative (and Conservative) region. I wonder if I will be mocked and discounted if I am open about my feminism (in spite of the fact that I'm going to be a hell of a good lawyer). I'm spending a lot of time right now thinking about how I will locate a community of women, whether they will be feminists (openly or not), how I will contribute to my professional practice in accordance with my feminist values, and how I can contribute to my community in a positive, feminist way. I may have to do it quietly.

The past couple of years have made me realize how critical and relevant feminism is today. Before law school, I had no formal feminist education, and it's been both a privilege and a surprise to get it here. It's part of me now and I have to be a part of it.

Because North American Men Are Never Sexist

I'm in a class called Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes this semester to fulfill my oral advocacy requirement, which I need to do in the moments leading up to The End of Law School. I figured I could do Trial Advocacy, and pick up skills I will use 10% of the time, or ADR, and pick up skills I will use 90% of the time. Lawyers don't actually spend much time in court. So, we've got this textbook called Dispute Resolution Readings and Case Studies.* In the section called "Mediation Styles and Strategies"this example** was used:

[A] male and a female employee....were arguing over behavior that the woman felt was sexist, demeaning, and harassing on the part of the man. She asked him to stop the behavior, but he failed to do so. Finally, she went to her supervisor, explained her view, and asked that he be told to stop making comments about her appearance, touching her on the shoulder, and constantly asking her to go out. The supervisor, on hearing the woman's description of the situation and learning that the man was a recent immigrant, speculated that the dispute might have arisen because of cultural differences regarding behaviors between the sexes. Nevertheless, in terms of the organization's regulation and the relevant laws, the man's behaviour was unacceptable.

Am I the only one irritated by the fact that someone chose to use an "othered" (i.e. immigrant) man as the sexist perp in this case of workplace sexual harassment? I find it very problematic. It reinforces the notion that other cultures are sexist instead of reflecting the fact that every culture is sexist. The manager pins the sexism on cultural differences apparently based primarily on the fact that the man was a recent immigrant. Based on what? Because every other place in the world is less progressive than North America and must be sexist, obviously.

Obviously. Because North American men are never sexist. Because we don't have a culture here that subordinates women. No, not us. By "othering" the sexist man in that example, we're allowed to lay blame on other cultures and call them less progressive, less equality-seeking, and more backwards, while simultaneously ignoring the very obvious sexism that exists right here in our own backyard. It even allows us to say that the sexism here isn't homegrown, but comes from other places. (Which, technically, it does--uhm hello? Colonization?! Colonial subordination of women in matriarchal Aboriginal societies?! Anyone? But I digress...) Those damned immigrants are the root of all our problems, including sexism! This type of case study gives us an excuse to be both xenophobic and ignorant of our own sexist ways.

Let us also reflect for a moment (three, actually) on language. What does it mean to use the phraseology "the woman felt the behaviour was sexist, demeaning and harassing"? It implies that behaviours in the workplace such as commenting on appearance, touching, and repeated requests to go out, are only problematic if the woman perceives them as problematic. Are these behaviours not problematic in and of themselves? Would it not have been accurate to write "a male and a female employee were arguing over behaviour that was sexist, demeaning, and harassing on the part of the man"? In using that construction the author reveals his own beliefs about sexism.

Next, what do we mean when we use the term "cultural differences"? It reminds me of being an exchange student, when were were encouraged to think of our new homes and locations and cultural experiences not as "good" or "bad" but as "different." That idea may hide all manner of sin within it. Any culture that finds in acceptable to objectify, demean, or harass women has a cultural problem not a cultural difference. Calling it a difference suggests that somewhere in this world it's okay to treat women like that. It's not. And anyway, remind me again how that would be different from our own culture?

Reinforcing that last point, the author finishes up with "Nevertheless, in terms of the organization's regulation and the relevant laws, the man's behaviour was unacceptable." Meaning: We acknowledge and accept your cultural propensity to treat women this way, but our regulations and laws tell us that you've been a bad boy. Apparently supervisor doesn't find anything inherently wrong with treating women as described. It's only wrong because some rule/law says so.***

The scenario goes on to say (in the dispute resolution portion of the exercise) that the man explained his behaviours were not meant to devalue his woman colleague, but "that his attention signified liking and admiration, and that touching was part of his life and culture." I fully acknowledge that some behaviours have different meanings in different cultures. It may very well be true that the particular culture imagined in this scenario incorporated more physical contact in general. For example, when I went to Italy as a wee 16-year-old from a small town, I thought there were a lot of out gay men because those guys kiss, hug and link arms a lot. There was more touching and much of it was identifiably related to cultural norms about touching between people and not about sexism towards women. Those cultural differences are okay, but behaviours that target women specifically are unacceptable in any culture. The scenario muddies this position by describing the problem both as "cultural differences between the sexes" and that touching was part of "the life and culture" of the man. Notice that it doesn't say "life and culture between the sexes."

In case you're wondering, the man agrees to stop touching her, she agrees to "accept his praise of her attractiveness as long as it was very general" (now that she understands his culture), and they both agree that now is not a good time for him to keep asking her out. Curiously, I feel as if that solution allowed what could be seen as universal sexism to continue (commenting on appearance) while stopping the culturally different (the touching of the shoulder, which, even though culturally explicable, the woman had every right to demand that it stopped. Also, in most workplaces, anything beyond handshaking is generally just kind of icky).

What I think is really interesting and problematic about this choice of scenario is that it presents a situation of workplace sexual harrassment that effectively explains away the harrassment. The "othering" of the man tells us first that North American men don't engage in workplace sexual harrassment and that when harrasing behaviours do occur, it's all just a big cultural misunderstanding. What would the resolution have been if the man was a North American, white, heterosexual male without the "cultural difference" crutch to stand on? How would he have explained those behaviours away? And why did the author chose to present workplace sexual harasment as he did instead of chosing a scenario that genuinely reflects the experiences of women at work?

Maybe it was just a case study and I shouldn't be reading in to it so much. But it's never just a case study, is it?
_____

*Julie Macfarlane, ed., 2nd ed. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Ltd, 2003). The section is at 292-298, the quoted material is at 295.
** excerpt from Christopher Moore, The Mediation Process, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996) at 41 and 44-52.
***Admittedly, this section was about mediators whose substantive interests in conflict resolution are institutionally or legally mandated. But still. Isn't equality institutionally and legally mandated? Why wasn't the behaviour framed as unacceptable in relation to women's substantive rights to equality instead of to its relation to institutional regulation and law?

Holy Crap, It's March!

How did that happen?

I only have eight more weeks of law school.

I don't know whether I should be panicking or rejoicing.

I'll let you know.