"I'm sad. I allowed them to shunt me out- push me around. But I couldn't do anything. Who could I have complained to? the boss? It would've disturbed their cosy little arrangement. I did make a slight fuss but it all snowballed on me. The atmosphere became hostile -I became the problem, alienated, sidelined. How long can you fight? So I skived work, dragged myself in late, left early and finally quit. They won."(A female worker who reacted to her colleague's invasion of privacy, of being too familiar, to face the concomitant ostracization for complaining.)
It is just not in private offices, hospitals or even in government institutions, its endemic at any workplace. Gender discrimination, sexual harassment- call it what you like, it rears its ugly head. It could be something seemingly trivial to something verging on the insidious. From a seemingly innocent remark, of someone being over-familiar to a flagrant violation of personal space, as sexual offences. The obvious definition of harassment includes any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature which results in interference of work performance, is made a condition of employment or creates an intimidating hostile or offensive work environment and the attempt to punish the refusal to comply to such a request. But it includes behaviour which has subtle allusions to gender so as to be discriminatory or belittling, causing discomfort. The intimidating act or behaviour can be of a person in authority who controls conditions of the complainant's employment or from a co-worker, who as a result of intimidation can make the work environment hostile for the complainant.
But that's the problem with gender discrimination Its so hazy, grey, difficult to define, pin down that it often allows the culprit to get away with a lot before realisation sets in.
The same words "You are a beautiful woman, I like you very much." uttered by two different people can make a world of a difference. They could be either criminal and abusive to mere expressions of friendship as Samina Ahmad and Khalid Ahmad acted out in the Award giving ceremony to companies that had adopted the Code of Conduct for Gender Discrimination. The difference lies in the depth of the relationship and the effect. If one of the parties feels uncomfortable and humiliated, its harassment. Are you friendly enough to justify the statement? In their case, they were. As they'd known each other for years as friends and the exchange did not sit awkwardly. However from someone one had worked with for only a month or so it would be an intrusion, a case of over familiarity. For example you would allow a friend to stand in close proximity but not a stranger. From a person in power it would be even more discomforting for the woman could not be curt without causing the wrath of the superior to descend. But even from a colleague it could poison the atmosphere, as in the case above, leading to character assassination and gossip mongering on both sides. Unresolved it would lead to reduced office productivity. The fallout for the victim would be worse, who would usually feel too stressed and uncomfortable to continue with work.
As harassment is supposed to affect almost eighty- ninety percent of women, the Ministry of Women development helped evolve a code to develop a fair accountability system for gender harassment and abuse at the workplace. It was meant for it to be adopted as part of management policies of the government private and civil sector organisations. The code focuses on addressing gender harassment and exploitation faced at the workplace, to facilitate a work environment free of intimidation and abuse. AASHA (Alliance Against Sexual Harassment) together with WEBCOP (Workers-Employers Bilateral Council of Pakistan ) sought to encourage organisations to voluntary adopt the code of conduct. The award giving ceremony was held to award the first ten companies who had adopted the code and included companies such as Novartis, National Foods amongst others.
Gender justice at the workplace includes the concept of equal employment opportunities for men and women, addressing issues of equal pay, fair recruitment and appropriate work conditions for both genders.
The code asks the organisation to conduct much needed awareness sessions about the code and the consequences and to ensure that any complaints would be enquired into impartially
Making the employees aware of proper conduct and the code would be welcome for much of the problem stems from lack of awareness of what is proper behaviour, for both men and for women. And what women should accept or react to. For example, besides the obvious references to sexual favours, acts such as the passing of pornographic material, in print or electronic media or written offensive messages of a sexual nature would also fall into sexual harassment. As would any expression that suggests superiority of one gender over the other, including demeaning jokes or unwelcome reference to a person's appearance or body, brushing past, staring etc. Most Pakistani men seem to have no clue about how to act with females. For most it is their first opportunity to mingle with the other sex. To make up for their lack of exposure and to appear cool, they act more familiar than desired. Any gentleman would know that is most "uncool" to be so personal as to comment on appearance or crack jokes with virtual strangers. Most women would prefer being treated as co-workers and not having their personal appearance commented upon.
But in an over inquisitive society where people ask or comment on the most personal aspects of one's life, at the first meeting, how do you explain the concept of privacy? "Where do you live?", comments on personal appearance habits, at the first meeting at the workplace, seem to be the norm. However, when one's business is everyone's business and to keep aloof is thought of as "social crime," can we really blame the men for overstepping the bounds? For where the boundaries are blurred, where everyone must mingle and share himself or herself, obviously such collisions do occur. Problems arise when demands of an emotional nature are made on employees- not just by men but from women who expect friendship. But it is this very intimacy and over familiarity, which has been pointed out as a factor of low productivity in the December 5, Economist.
And unwanted intimacy works both ways and is as common in the West as here. A friend complained of his female boss "being all over him" and driving him mad at a known bank in the States.
The awareness should instil respect for, not only the other gender, but also for each other's right to personal space. Women too would realise that it's not part of their job to go to lunch with their boss or do other personal tasks and would feel empowered to know that a mechanism exists to deal with such violations. And perhaps would-be-offenders would also be wary of acting so. But in most organisations exploitation and sidelining occurs when duties are not clearly defined. It's just not an issue which women deal with. Even a less assertive quiet male worker can be elbowed out or exploited by someone louder and more aggressive, (male or female) in the office power tussle. With clearly defined parameters of rights and duties, there would be fewer chances of discrimination or exploitation, to the boss and as regards other colleagues.
Women, like any other individual, have to assert themselves and not allow such behaviour. As Sahira Kazmi said that she had faced no problems of this nature. Because, "you have to make others respect you." And when faced with such an issue, one must stand up for his/ her rights.
However, although the code should discourage would- be-offenders and empower women, that is not to say that it would eradicate harassment and is a foolproof system. Even in an international organisation in the United States, the perpetrator of one such crime managed to get away with his reputation untarnished He was too big a personality to touch. The case dragged on for two years and finally ended in a settlement. The victim, even after two years, has still not had the courage to step into office environs again.
Comments
Comments are closed.