![[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: 2013-09-15 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-15 04:16 pm (UTC)To use in a sentence - One can train one's palate to discriminate between regions in which wine grapes are grown.
no subject
Date: 2013-09-16 08:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-09-16 11:52 am (UTC)Have a nice day.