![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lydyAn organization with which I am involved (Minnesota Science Fiction Society) is in the throes of developing an anti-harassment policy. This is a good thing, hard work, and well, subject to the usual stress. I wrote this for an email discussion, and decided to drop it here, as well, in case you aren't following that particular discussion. I realize it isn't anything that hasn't been said before.
******
Someone, I don't remember who as I deleted the email, said something about the harassment policy existing for "protected classes." While I realize that almost everybody understand that this is, in fact nonsense, and that there is a very high likelihood that the person who said it isn't interested in why this is not the case, I thought I'd give it a go, anyway. After all, it's 4 a.m., I can't go to bed yet, and what the hell.
The protected class is actually people. All people. People, as it turns out, come with a number of characteristics. There is a long history of making fun of, harassing, or otherwise belittling certain normal human characteristics. The most common are gender, race, ethnicity (those two actually being basically the same thing), religion, and sexual orientation. Trans is somewhat more recent on the list because the whole option of transitioning genders in public where people can see is a relatively (as in, just barely within my lifetime) deal.
I think that one of the reasons people talk about "protected classes" when this comes up is because they misunderstand something. It is a type of reading incomprehension. I believe it was Samuel Delaney who first talked about the "unmarked state". In our culture, unless otherwise identified, people are assumed to be male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, and usually protestant. So when a policy prohibits harassment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., I believe that people accidentally misread this as "female, black, gay, trans, and religion-I-don't-practice." Because the other simply, you know, goes without saying. If you say gender, what they hear is "female" and perhaps even more importantly, "not me."
In point of fact, the harassment policy totally also prevents people from harassing people for being white, for being male, for being straight, or for any other basic human characteristic. Properly written, it also leaves a room for addressing harassment that doesn't fall under the laundry list of most likely things. If someone develops a seriously prejudicial attitude towards people whose names are David, if someone habitually says negative things about the sexual proclivities, reliability, desirablity, and general worthiness of someone named David, the policy should allow us to address that. And most policies do.
The reason the laundry list exists is an important one. These are the specific characteristics which have a serious historical context. These are the characteristics that have been very commonly used to denigrate and make miserable other human beings. Also, it is important to note that we, as a culture and a sub-culture, are attempting to address and change a situation which has a great deal of historical inertia. It has often been the case that this kind of behavior was at minimum tolerated, and at maximum encouraged by our culture and community. Policies like these are a tool in attempting to change and correct old wrongs. By specifically citing these particular issues, we are acknowledging that there is a specific problem here, that we know about it, and are trying to fix it. And this is a good thing.
People. They should get to be people without being hassled for being who they are. And that totally includes you, whoever you are. This is not about protected classes. You, too, are a protected class.
_______________________________________________
******
Someone, I don't remember who as I deleted the email, said something about the harassment policy existing for "protected classes." While I realize that almost everybody understand that this is, in fact nonsense, and that there is a very high likelihood that the person who said it isn't interested in why this is not the case, I thought I'd give it a go, anyway. After all, it's 4 a.m., I can't go to bed yet, and what the hell.
The protected class is actually people. All people. People, as it turns out, come with a number of characteristics. There is a long history of making fun of, harassing, or otherwise belittling certain normal human characteristics. The most common are gender, race, ethnicity (those two actually being basically the same thing), religion, and sexual orientation. Trans is somewhat more recent on the list because the whole option of transitioning genders in public where people can see is a relatively (as in, just barely within my lifetime) deal.
I think that one of the reasons people talk about "protected classes" when this comes up is because they misunderstand something. It is a type of reading incomprehension. I believe it was Samuel Delaney who first talked about the "unmarked state". In our culture, unless otherwise identified, people are assumed to be male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, and usually protestant. So when a policy prohibits harassment based on gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., I believe that people accidentally misread this as "female, black, gay, trans, and religion-I-don't-practice." Because the other simply, you know, goes without saying. If you say gender, what they hear is "female" and perhaps even more importantly, "not me."
In point of fact, the harassment policy totally also prevents people from harassing people for being white, for being male, for being straight, or for any other basic human characteristic. Properly written, it also leaves a room for addressing harassment that doesn't fall under the laundry list of most likely things. If someone develops a seriously prejudicial attitude towards people whose names are David, if someone habitually says negative things about the sexual proclivities, reliability, desirablity, and general worthiness of someone named David, the policy should allow us to address that. And most policies do.
The reason the laundry list exists is an important one. These are the specific characteristics which have a serious historical context. These are the characteristics that have been very commonly used to denigrate and make miserable other human beings. Also, it is important to note that we, as a culture and a sub-culture, are attempting to address and change a situation which has a great deal of historical inertia. It has often been the case that this kind of behavior was at minimum tolerated, and at maximum encouraged by our culture and community. Policies like these are a tool in attempting to change and correct old wrongs. By specifically citing these particular issues, we are acknowledging that there is a specific problem here, that we know about it, and are trying to fix it. And this is a good thing.
People. They should get to be people without being hassled for being who they are. And that totally includes you, whoever you are. This is not about protected classes. You, too, are a protected class.
_______________________________________________
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-09-11 04:37 pm (UTC)I have an awful lot of experience with men telling me that they have experienced discrimination, but who are unable to describe a specific situation, or end up describing a situation that happened to a friend of a friend... and not a lot of experience with men who have actually had this happen to them personally. So I am more skeptical than perhaps I should be. If you're comfortable with trying to discuss this, and are willing to do the work, I'd be very interested in hearing about your experiences, and in any insights you have as to how to have these discussions so that they don't end up attacking people of good will. I understand that you are not required to do the work for me, and am not demanding that you fix me. But if you're comfortable with the discussion, I am interested in the things you have to say.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-11 05:28 pm (UTC)But OK, easy recent personal example:
I've been going to the zoo a whole lot lately, cause, baby tapir. There are a lot of kids at the zoo with their parents, and the tapir exhibit has a play area on one side and the tropical fish on the other, so there are quite a few loose little kids, and a surprising number of them come up and start conversations with me, mostly because they're interested in cameras and the idea that some grownup can stand around taking pictures of animals all day. Mostly this is fine and we talk for a minute and they go away, or their parents notice and apologize for their kid bothering me. (And I find that idea baffling.)
But about once a week some parent completely freaks out and treats the situation like their kid has jumped into the tiger cage. They do it Minnesotan-like, so they're trying their best not to make a scene, but obviously this guy with the scraggly beard who has nothing better to do at ten o'clock on a Wednesday morning than smile at their kid and talk about cameras and tapirs is Up To No Good and they have to get their kid away as fast as possible.
This happens in pretty much any situation where I'm interacting with a kid. It used to happen more, but over the years I've put a lot of effort into non-threatening, open body language, and having the camera helps with the parents' perception that I'm actually there for something. (At least for little kids. For parents of teenagers it can make it worse.) Also, my dad is really, really good at this, and I've learned from him.
This is pretty minor, but being treated like a threat is painful, and when it happens over and over again it can be really destructive. I'll think about whether I want to make a post about the more difficult personal examples, and how racism and sexism have sabotaged friendships and romantic relationships for me. I'm not going to do that on open LJ though.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-12 12:50 pm (UTC)Recently, in the last two or three years, I've had this kind of reaction myself -- a couple of times at the Biodome, and once with a neighbour refusing to let her kid play on my balcony with another neighbour's kid I was minding at the time. I think I may have crossed an age barrier from "clearly a mom, safe" to "maybe a witch, scary".
no subject
Date: 2013-09-12 04:13 pm (UTC)This is part and parcel of trying to parse the world in gender-essentialist terms. Women are nurturing, men are predators. Such incredibly, horrible nonsense.
I am currently contemplating exactly what the term harassment means, and if this is harassment. It is clearly prejudice. It is clearly wrong.