Sam the Sexual Harassment Man – Sexual and Gender Issues in the Workplace
By Michelle Jelley
In 1990, Concordia University’s The Link published an article named Sam The Sexual Harassment Man which described a student named Paula
Luther who elicited a formal complaint against her former employment to
Quebec’s Human Rights Commission. The complaint sparked following two incidents
of sexual harassment from her head manager Joseph Rakita at Sam The Record Man prior
to her suspected unjust dismissal. Luther alleged that she had been wrongly
dismissed and that her desire to cut her hair short and wearing women’s rights attire
directly influenced Rakita to let her go. With the rise of Third Wave Feminism
during these years, it is evident that Luther’s case illuminates the ways that sexuality
and gender were challenged in a workplace environment. Due to problematic gender
politics in the workplace, heteronormative ideas of gender representation and traditionalist
views of women, Luther’s case highlighted the importance of anti-discrimination
laws during this time.
The Third Wave of Feminism, which commenced in the
early 1990s, attempted to confront the ways that society understood sexuality
and gender while rights claimants were advocating for a new approach of gender
equity. While philosophies of gender and sexuality were being reformed during this
wave, it was also a time where anti-discrimination laws were being emphasized
amongst various mediums.[i] This was notably
with regards to gender politics around labor.[ii]
Sexual harassment in the workplace had not been regarded as a problematic and
the victims of this form of violence were not protected through laws or labor
policies.[iii]
Paula Luther described this subject further through her claims of sexual
harassment in her workplace. She explained that sexual harassment at work should
not solely comprise of “sleep with me or you’re fired”, but rather an attack
upon one’s gender or sexual representation.[iv]
Luther exposed her sexual harassment history with her former boss, Rakita, who
dismissed her shortly following confrontations regarding her requests. Rakita labelled
her chosen haircut as only being acceptable for men and declined her inquiry. Later,
Luther was designated a different task at work following a discussion of her
boss’ decision with colleagues, asserting that she was thirty-one dollars short
on her cash one time. Subsequently, Rakita dismissed Luther on the basis that
there were “operational irregularities” and no further positions would be
available to her.[v] Luther
understood that it was not due to a lack of work or operational issues but made
the connection towards an issue of gender politics in the workplace regarding
her hair. This exercise of discrimination from her superior was a crucial issue
concerning feminism during this time, thus urging Luther to have advocated for protection
of gender and sexuality representation.
Luther’s claims to rights regarding sexual harassment
in the workplace presented several issues on how society in the early 1990s
understood gender and sexuality. Judith Butler, a gender theorist, formed the
notion of gender performativity as a way to defy the typical understanding of
gender and sexuality representation. Moreover, Butler contested gender as an
identity but rather as a performance that is “produced and reproducible” centering
on gender characteristics.[vi] This performativity
analyzes the innate framework of what it means to be a man or a woman and focusses
on challenging heteronormative and cisgender ideals. Through a repetition of
behaviors, actions and appearances, the individual would be able to mimic societal
norms of gender independent of one’s biological sex.[vii]
This concept was applicable to Luther’s experience regarding her wish to have
short hair. When Luther requested to cut her hair like her male colleagues,
Rakita contested, noting that short hair was destined for men only. The concept
of performativity came into play through Luther, who challenged Rakita’s view
of women requiring longer hair than men.
Furthermore, Luther also attempted to go against the innate framework of
heteronormativity by wanting short hair like the men she worked with. With that
said, it is important to recognize that gender performativity may be
misinterpreted easily by the audience who may not approve the individual’s
representation.
While the misconstrued nature of Luther’s
performativity perhaps motivated her dismissal, traditionalist views of gender may
also have forced her to launch a complaint. To better cognize the nuances of
gender, Judith Bennett, a historian, studied the concepts of “singlewoman” and
“lesbian-like” in her work. The concept “singlewoman” was used historically to
describe women who did not follow traditional, dominant gender roles.[viii]
Due to the supposed abnormality of these actions, it was often thought that if
a “woman thinks alone, she thinks evil.”[ix]
This may comprise of independent women who rejected the traditional view of
marriage and lived without the support of a man. Bennett utilized the concept
of “singlewoman” regarding their notion “lesbian-like”. This re-evaluated
behaviors that society may or may not normally identify as “lesbian” without
necessarily identifying as a lesbian sexually.[x]
For example, women who had chosen to live amongst same-sex individuals or who
were independent from men would be considered “lesbian-like”.[xi]
With reflexivity in mind, Rakita’s motives of having rejected Luther’s requests
for short hair was undefined; however, “lesbian-like” and “singlewoman” appear
to have been pertinent to Luther’s case. These concepts allow further analysis
of power dynamics and how heteronormative stereotypes reinforced this power. With
the idea of power dynamics, Rakita held a form of power that controlled whether
or not Luther would keep her job. He often strengthened this power by moving
her normal position at work from a cashier to working on the floor. Similarly,
power dynamics were also apparent through intimidating comments such as a
reminder of how he could hire “prettier women than her.”[xii]
Rakita’s
power reinforced the notion of “singlewoman” and how this concept was attempt
for Luther to step back and recognize his authority. Power dynamics were also evident
when Luther wore a sweatshirt that said, “No Means No”, and Rakita comments
that he assumed no meant maybe. The “No Means No” slogan represented a women’s
group against sexual violence, which was one of objectives that the
anti-discrimination groups formed in the Third Wave.[xiii]
This problematic comment reinforced a rape culture which believed women
secretly desired to be submissive to men and ambiguity of what a woman said
versus what she meant. The dynamics between Luther’s feminist views against Rakita
created a power struggle which appeared to have ultimately cost Luther her job.
While Luther’s sexual harassment case highlighted some
of the most important issues regarding gender and sexuality during the Third
Wave, it is prevalent that the notions of gender performativity and “singlewoman”
interplay. Noting that the Third Wave movement encouraged anti-discrimination
laws to be enacted, Luther’s case brings up the problematization of overt gender
and sexual representation which were not deemed applicable for a woman.
Rakita’s reaction to Luther’s gender performativity may reflect how some
individuals were ascribed to heteronormative ideals while confronting a
discomfort with women disowning traditional values. Though it is uncertain how
the case had been handled through Quebec’s Human Rights Commission, this
article reflected these deep-seated notions in a workplace environment and the
importance of taking a stand for rights regarding gender and sexuality.
[i] Alexandra
Ketchum, “Sexual Diversity and Social Movement(s)” (GSFS: 250 class lecture, McGill
University, Montreal, Quebec, May 2, 2018).
[ix] Heinrich
Kramer and Jacob Sprenger. Montague Summer, trans., “The Malleus Maleficarum” (New
York: Dover Publications, 1971): 43, quoted in Judith M. Bennett, “‘Lesbian-Like’
and the Social History of Lesbianisms,” Journal
of the History of Sexuality 9, no. 1/2 (2000): 21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704629.
[xi]
Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment