The Wash Rag Issue 1.2 October, 1992 SEXUAL HARASSMENT PANEL HELD AT USD he Southeast South Dakota chapter of NOW, Barbara E. Goodman of Vermillion, President, sponsored a panel discussion titled "Sexual Harassment: Is It Real?" at USD in April, 1992. Participants included Anne Hajek, a Sioux Falls Attorney who serves on the Sioux Falls Human Rights Commission, Noel English, USD Affirmative Action Officer, Nancy Christopherson, Vermillion, Counselor, and Martha Davis, from the Personnel Department at Citibank. Some of the questions which were presented to the panelists were: What is the legal definition of sexual harassment? What South Dakota laws apply to sexual harassment? How does one file sexual harassment charges? How are sexual harassment complaints dealt with in South Dakota? What is the prevalence of sexual harassment in South Dakota? Where can one go for help with a sexual harassment situation? How does the new Federal civil rights act impact on women and sexual harassment cases? What responsibilities do employers have for considering sexual harassment cases? How does sexual harassment effect the victim? The panel was represented at the Women's Research Conference at the University of South Dakota. In addition to the Women's Research Conference, the Midwest Women's Studies Association meeting and the Regional Conference of the National Organization for Women were held simultaneously. The panel presentation was well attended and numerous excellent questions were discussed. Barb Goodman served as moderator for the discussion. Nancy Christopherson began with the personal and counseling aspects of harassment. Then Noel English talked about how the University was set up to deal with harassment and what the response should be. Martha Davis discussed the corporate response to sexual harassment and what her company is doing. Finally, Anne Hajek discussed the legal aspects of sexual harassment and what the new decisions about the Civil Rights act would mean. During the informal discussion period some individuals described some of their experiences with harassment. The overwhelming consensus was that sexual harassment is definitely real and Anita Hill was right! uuu THE WASH RAG will be published approximately bimonthly by Tesseract Publications, RR #1 Box 27, Fairview, SD 57027 (605) 987-5070 Fax (605) 987-5071. ISSN 1068-2449. Subscription price is $10.00. Freelance submissions encouraged. uuu A purchasing clerk for the VA Hospital in Decatur, GA, Sharon Capell, has filed a sexual harassment suit against the hospital. FINALLY! onsider these excerpts from an article which appeared in the July, 1992 East River Guardian written by Vincent Protsch, General Counsel of the East River Electric Power Cooperative: Sexual harassment has an adverse impact on the employer. The negative publicity may cause the loss of good employees and customers may shun the employer's business [We can only hope!] and further All males should respect their female coworkers and remember that their mother, their wife and their daughter(s) are females and they should be accorded the civilities due all persons, male and female. This is your chance to help clean up the system! Letters concerning this issue will be printed. We can withhold your name at your request. Please don't slander any person or company. The situation can be of almost as much importance as specifics. Newspaper or magazine clippings related to sexual harassment would be appreciated. TAILHOOK OBSERVATIONS alk about someone being broken hearted, you should have seen my hang-dog face when the tailhook scandal broke! You see, two of the happiest and most care-free years of my life were spent in the Navy, where I was fourth in my class of over a hundred sailors in Electronics school, and made Aviation Electronics Technician in one year, the minimum time possible at that time. By and large, I was babied by my instructors, supervisors and co-workers. Granted, I was eighteen and slender, and photos taken at that time indicate that I was attractive. But other than the last supervisor I had in the Navy, I was treated kindly and given every opportunity to advance. The supervisor to whom I refer apparently detested me and felt that I did not have a single positive contribution to make. He apparently intended to make my life miserable whenever he could, and he could do so quite often. I was married and three months pregnant, and at the time, pregnancy meant an automatic medical (honorable) discharge. I was always sick when pregnant, so I just turned myself in at sick bay and was out of the Navy (and that obnoxious chief's way) in a few weeks, I believe before he could give me a bad review. We had not intended for me to get out until later on, and we missed my pay checks. I have always resented the way that last supervisor treated me, but that was 1956, and no one had heard of sexual harassment complaints. Indeed, it was two decades before I realized that I had been exposed to sexual harassment. My affection for and pride in my uniform had no doubt blinded me to the unfair treatment I had received from that person. It did help me understand why so many women were willing to testify for Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill, though. When you have not experienced the same treatment, you cannot be expected to testify to anything but what you yourself experienced. It seems that those who sexually harass their female employees are getting more and more covert in that activity. They do not let their target have any witnesses to the crime. This leaves her in the same position as Anita Hill, a victim with no corroborating witnesses unless she can find other women who have had similar complaints -- the more the merrier. The one saving grace in the tailhook affair is that so many women came forward to repeat their stories. To see the Secretary of the Navy resign, two admirals relieved of their commands and one reassigned is one of the greatest achievements in the history of sexual harassment. What began with winks and snickers finally was given the highest consideration, and the statements of the current Secretary of the Navy have left no doubt that Sexual Harassment will not be tolerated in the Navy. Although we wait to see whether the rank and file Navy man will follow through, I frankly think that if the top brass is serious, that is how it will be. Navy discipline is very strict, and the offenders will soon find themselves getting poor job reviews which will put them very quickly out of the Navy in these days of military cut-backs. Although I feel that the tailhook scandal did tarnish the Navy's image, and I regret that it ever happened, in light of the Navy's response, I feel that my loyalty towards the Navy has been justified, and I forgive it for the one rotten apple who so spoiled by last weeks in the Navy. It deserved my loyalty. CLASS ACTION WAY TO GO! eems like whenever I hear "class action" relevant to a sexual harassment suit, I also hear about hefty cash settlements. I recall that the Bank of America in San Francisco was forced by the courts to provide women executives with the training that they needed to qualify for promotions and to bring their numbers of women promoted into line with the number of men promoted. The settlement ran into seven digits. The Winter 1992 Feminist Majority Newsletter details that 67 female employees won an eighteen year suit against the Navy's hiring and promotion practices, and the settlement was for $670,402. WHY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES THE WAY IT DOES or How The System Uses Sexual Harassment To Keep Women Out Of High Level Management ne cannot spend close to forty years in the job market and not develop some pretty specific impressions about what makes the system work. I have very often observed that the women being promoted were not the finest and best qualified women. I have repeatedly observed a bizarre discrimination against women, often times by other women, not only against me, but against other women who should have been promoted, gotten a raise, or been hired. First of all, I am completely convinced that some employers will give preference to a class of women smart enough to follow orders but not smart enough to give them. They thereby free themselves of any future possibility that any of the women in their employ will make it into upper management. They need never fear any embarrassing questions about their "glass ceiling." They will periodically promote one of their mediocre women into a position she cannot handle, and then they use her incompetence as an excuse for not having more women managers. If there are better qualified women who are passed over, they cannot claim that they were discriminated against, even though they were (because they were too smart!) A side benefit to this approach is that these women are easy to get rid of, as they are unqualified and incompetent, and almost any man who follows them will look good. I have even suspected that this was done to soften up a spot for some basically incompetent male the employer wanted to take care of -- a relative, close friend or political ally. The women who are thus exploited seem to never "get it," but go on eternally fouling up the whole management field for capable women. Some employers will indeed hire women who are capable and well-qualified. This seems to be more because there are not enough of the previous kind of women around to fill their needs than out of any charitable attitude towards well-qualified women. They then go into a state of testing these women's responses to various management actions: Does she follow orders without ever questioning them? Will she provide sex in return for preferential treatment? Is she now or can she be manipulated into a situation where she is under some kind of masculine control? When she is "stepped on," does she squawk, or does she just lie there and beg for more, or even better, does she not even realize that she has been stepped on? If she fails in any of these areas, they begin a campaign to get rid of her. Her abilities don't matter. Her willingness to do the work assigned to her doesn't matter. All that matters to these particular employers is that no woman who is not 100% under male domination and willing to give men the benefits from their efforts should be allowed to penetrate their hierarchy. These situations are, I believe, the largest source of sexual harassment complaints, since the first category of women are basically too dumb or too naive to realize that they have been had. I have myself been in both of these categories. I was naive and was used to perform tasks I did not understand without question. After I went back to college and put myself into the position of understanding what I was doing, I automatically went into the second category. In case anyone hasn't read or figured it out for themselves, I am going to repeat that sexual harassment never has anything to do with love or even any sexual attraction. Sexual harassment has to do with power and nothing but power. To put myself out on a limb, I am going to make some guesses about the women who testified for Clarence Thomas. We already know that Anita Hill was a bright, talented, independent women. Those who Thomas did not sexually harass were either not too bright and never a threat to him or were under some kind of male control. If I could put the word "independent" in neon lights or drape it with bright red streamers, I would. Independent women are the object of this type of employer's greatest anxiety, and when dealing with an independent woman, they have no morals, no scruples, and no consideration for either the best interest of the business or agency they represent or the welfare of the woman or anybody dependent on her. It took me many years to realize why this is so. We are all taught that if we get the know-how, we will be able to compete with men, but this is not necessarily so. Men have manipulated and exploited women for eons and many are not going to give up their control gracefully. I am convinced that they will only give in if forced to do so -- if they are humiliated into changing their attitudes, or they must answer so many law suits that it becomes financially impossible to retain their former attitudes, or if they cannot complete economically with the women they are able to convince to work under these conditions. I am reminded of Huxley's book, Brave New World, which I don't recommend to anyone in a stressful situation. I was depressed for weeks after reading it. In this book, women donated their eggs to the reproduction of the species once in their life, and these were duplicated thousands of times. Part of the eggs, all put in mechanical incubators, received the correct nourishment and went on to develop with normal intelligence, while part were deprived of certain nutrients so they developed unintelligent beings who cleaned, hauled the garbage and cooked for the others. Sounds like what women have been doing over the centuries. The employers who operate in the manner that I have described have no interest in the activities of the business or agency they are managing, and in my opinion are totally unaware of the damage that they do to our society as a whole. They simply don't want things to change. They are afraid that if they do, they themselves will be cleaning toilets, which is where some of the management I've seen functioning in this manner belongs. u u u If you would like to take part in a sexual harassment study, send a SASE to "Study," RR #1 Box 27, Fairview, SD 57027-9719 FEMINIST MAJORITY FUND DRIVE TO AID SEXUAL HARASSMENT VICTIM A physician named Dr. Heidi Weissmann was plagiarized by her division chief. She won a decision against him in court. The matter was investigated by a congressional committee, and confirmed. Dr. Weissmann was nonetheless fired from her position, and her former supervisor was promoted. She is trying to fight this injustice. You can contribute by mailing donations to the Feminist Majority Foundation, P. O. Box 96780, Washington, DC 20077-7277. I have gotten the impression from some women that because they are working in low-paying jobs with no responsibility, they should not support women who have good educations and responsible positions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any progress made in the field of women's rights has usually been made by the women with good educations and responsible positions. When one of them gets a right for herself, others follow. My aunt recently shared with me how she had to fight to keep her teaching position after she became pregnant. Now it is routine for women with children to work, even in the military. But I was astounded to learn that at that time (the '50's) women lost their jobs when it was learned that they were going to be mothers. When we support women like Dr. Weissmann in her fight to get compensation for the job she lost because she took legal action when her male supervisor flagrantly plagiarized her work, we give notice to every male manager who pretends that his office would collapse without his supervision when in fact his secretary is managing it. We are warning the owner of a housekeeping company that if he steals his housekeeper's inventive methods to clean rust from linoleum or get mildew off shower walls, he may lose his company paying for legal action. One of the reasons that men are running this world is because men give respect to other men who have leadership qualities. Unless women can respect and support women who have leadership potential, women will never make it to the top levels of management, and unfortunately, neither will their daughters or granddaughters.