Let me start by saying that putting my thoughts on paper today is not meant as much as a myth buster or a wake up call to anyone around me, but primarily (and rather ironically) it is meant to be a reminder for myself: a reminder that being aware of how I don’t want to be man-handled does not mean I am fussy, or hormonal, or (my favourite) “being such a girl”.
First for a little background: I am a lawyer by profession, with seven years of experience and I work in a reputed firm.
Basically, on paper, I am commonly referred to as being successful.
For the next part I feel compelled to set the scene, to burst the myth of how women get exploited anywhere but America.
It is Thursday night, the meatpacking district in NYC, at drinks with people I have been working with for three years, including a member of the work force I would have probably trusted to drop me home after a particular drunk evening, as this was turning out to be.
I am being held ‘playfully’ in a headlock by that man, in front of my team, being told, ‘kiss me, kiss me’.
In that moment, coupled with the shame associated with drinking openly (a feeling that comes very naturally to me), the easiest thing was to push the man away and walk over to the other side of the room. And there I stayed for the rest of the evening.
it was the behaviour of my other colleagues which bothered me more
To be honest, given the (un)natural shame associated with allowing myself to be treated like a chew toy, I would have just filed this incident as another drunken disorderly behaviour that I have witnessed time and again, except, it was the behaviour of my other colleagues which bothered me more.
First off, although this was a busy Thursday night in a fairly crowded bar, no one batted an eyelid at the man’s behaviour. Second, when I did express my displeasure at being reduced to a plaything, I was told that I was drunk, I was overreacting and that I should “give the man a break”.
Taking a step back, the man in question did not trouble me for the rest of the night (I was told the next day that he had misbehaved with several other women at the bar and was told by the bouncers to mind his manners), I did not stop drinking or end my night early because of his behaviour.
But the question that bothered me is: does the lack of physical violence mean that I should not find his behaviour a concern? Does the fact that he did not try anything more mean that I should absolve him of his behaviour? Well, these are rhetorical questions because the popular opinion is, yes, I should let it go.
And that is what is frustrating, this is what has me so riled up that I lay awake at night planning my escape at future events where this man is expected to show up.
Why should I be forced to make excuses for a man who could not hold his alcohol?
Why should I be told that I was drinking too much when the man in front of me could not keep his hands to himself?
When did it become all my fault?
Rinse, repeat
This is not the first time this has happened of course.
I remember when a senior partner of the Indian law firm I was working with earlier, was behaving inappropriately with a colleague (who was referred to as “one of those girls who smokes openly”), and I was told that we should not file a complaint and ruin the man’s career.
There was little or no concern shown for my friend who was constantly made to feel uncomfortable by the man’s lewd behaviour. I mean, if she could smoke in public then she just needed to ‘man-up’ to being harassed!
Clearly men ... take their role of putting women in their place very seriously
I have lost count of multiple occasions where remarks such as - “she keeps teetering in her Louboutins” – are used rather dismissively by male colleagues in reference to a strong female counterpart to undermine her role on an assignment.
Or how being part of the “boys’ club” at work is great team bonding and something to boast about, but a girl's night out with female work colleagues is trivial and a waste of time.
Clearly men, whether professional or not, take their role of putting women in their place very seriously.
I don’t have a background in feminist studies and neither can I pride myself for ever having actively done anything fruitful or useful in this area but I am a lawyer by choice and somewhat painfully aware of my rights.
being dismissed outright because of my gender is just not going to fly anymore
I do realise that there is a fine line between being an ass in general and acting a jerk because of the feeling of male entitlement, and my intention is not to attack anyone and everyone who raises a question or cracks a joke about a female colleague.
But being dismissed outright because of my gender is just not going to fly anymore.
I work with and have worked with some of the best legal brain's in the country: people who have won several accolades; ‘respectable’ men with wife / daughters / sisters.
I don’t know why I thought things like this don’t happen to people like me (i.e., lawyers).
And yet, when they misbehave, I (with a ‘woman-brain’ and no accolades to speak of), am expected to rise above their behaviour because hey: “Wasn’t it my fault that I was drinking openly in the first place / was in a public place where men were drinking / for stepping out of my apartment that day?”
This is probably the first time since the second year of law school (when we studied subjects like sociology and law and poverty) that I have felt so helpless, angry and just plain shocked at the way things have turned out.
I don’t know why I thought becoming a regular member of the work force would reduce the mistreatment.
I don’t know why I thought education would mature people.
And I don’t know why I thought things like this don’t happen to people like me (i.e., lawyers).
I am not in cahoots with Emma Watson (I wish though) or about to launch a special campaign, but I am no longer going to second guess myself anytime I am made to feel uncomfortable by a man just for being a woman.
I was once asked to describe myself in one word and my immediate response was: I am a lawyer.
In that spirit and as a lawyer, by definition, is someone who practices law, I am going to embody the profession I proudly identify with and start by reminding myself that from this day onwards, the annoyance I feel on being objectified / dismissed because of my gender, is well within my legal rights.
I mean, how can I, in good conscience, protect the rights of others when I treat my own rights with such blatant disregard?
This is not a literary piece or a well-researched article, this is just plain and simple, a note to myself, published in a public forum, to remind me that I am first and foremost accountable to myself and I will not be shamed into giving anyone a “break” just because the person on the other side is a man.
The author is an Indian lawyer currently working in a New York firm.
Photo by Arroser
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
What if his actions were playful and didn't really convey years of patriarchal oppression? The fact that he let go, wouldn't that suggest that he was respectful of your boundaries? Isn't it also unfair to project the state of your profession so directly onto his actions of one drunken night, when he may not have intended to "oppress" in you in any way?
Also, considering he was a really good friend of yours, whom you trusted to take you home, wouldn't you grant him the benefit of the doubt in this case?
Even if you can't see how flimsy these sound, then at least please read up a little more: may help.
Had any UNKNOWN drunk guy turned to your girlfriend/wife/sister or just a friend asking him to "kiss me, kiss me", would your reaction be so mild?
Would you, Sir, dismiss it as playful?
I do not think so. And, if you do, that'll not make you "man" enough.
2. Let us now assume that it is this familiar person who has never done a thing in the past, unless my sister or mother or whomever else you may name has an issue with it, I wouldn't want to demonstrate my "manhood" unless I know that there was a genuine issue here. Wouldn't you grant the benefit of the doubt to the person who you would otherwise trust to take them home, like the author did in this case?
P.S. If by the putting the word man in quotes you intended to call me out as someone who is required to validate his gender all the time, I think you've stumbled upon the largest problem that plagues populistic discourse in the world - associating every action that a person does with gender. Is it not my friend, part of the problem also?
What if the chicken did not intend to cross the road?
Isnt the fact that the drunken big star - or the chicken - did not repeat their actions not a sign that they understood the consequences of what they had done?
From the way you've described your office life, it does seem like you've had a raw deal, but is it really fair to project it onto him?
Anyway, i think at this point we are down to the he said, she said debate but i will add this - Of course i am accountable for my behavior - whether drunk or not, but i doubt that the man in this instance would be told that he was drinking too much and should have handled himself better even if he was being accosted by a drunk girl. Also - my professional life over all has been rather fulfilling, this is of course after discounting instances such as above. I am actually surprised that you think i have had a raw deal - in my friend circle most working women have faced situations like this (but then perhaps we all get a raw deal? or gasp - we all project?).
Also when I used the phrase "a raw deal" I was referring to the instances of very obvious patriarchal high handedness that you have been witness to or have experienced yourself. The Louboutins incident being one of them. I'm sure that you have had a fairly successful career despite these, and my point simply was that you probably should not associate these instances with the conduct of this particular guy.
Anyhoo, I will be not be airing my opinion here anymore. I hope you had a chance to talk to this guy and tell him that he was being an a** to you. Good Luck! :)
My belief is that the inequality is very narrow in a professional working place. Of course, there is (and will always be) inequality between superior and subordinate colleagues and, that difference is gender neutral. However, this is not a case (at least from what she has written) of superior / subordinate - so there is no reason to presume a degree of upper hand for the man. On a table where a few colleagues are sharing drinks and jokes, everybody has equal rights and responsibilities towards others. I think the encounters between people on such a table are spontaneous and generally come in the flow of actions and sentiments displayed by those people.
I wonder whether AF's analysis of the situation does take into account the equality of relationships and momentary nature of the man's reaction. I feel the reason the man in question moved away from AF was because he recognised her discomfort and respected (as he should) her reactions. AF's reference to the guy moving to other girls is completely out of place as this pre-supposes that the man carried a mischievous intention and was looking for a easy 'prey' at the pub. Did AF have enough reason or material to make such a determination? What if AF (or any other woman on the table) went ahead and kissed a random guy (something which might not have been out of place in the context of a party) - would that be sufficient marker of her intention and general approach to life? Why can't the action of the man be looked as if he had too much to drink and was having somewhat inhibited fun with men and women on the table! He was quick to respect boundaries the moment AF signalled to hers. On one hand AF makes a point that no one should typify or assume about a woman merely from outward conduct (like drinking / smoking), but on the other hand she has no hesitation in doing exactly so about someone just because he is a man! Isn't there a typical pre decided notion about men that's leading AF to portray the man in question in somewhat poor light? I find that disturbing because such analysis now represents a trend which could be irresponsible if you look at from the perspective of the man - in somewhat equal manner
If you're at a bar with your team in NYC, everyone's drinking, a colleague puts you in a playful headlock, releases you when you complain, apologizes and then doesn't trouble you, that may be unpleasant but it's normal for the context. Your colleagues, even the bouncer, were there to back you up. If you and your US colleague are in your 20s, that guy probably grew up playing soccer with girls, kicking and getting kicked and tackled by them as equals on the field. That's a simple example of how profoundly different his upbringing is from yours. You are highly unlikely to find that same context in India. You objected, he understood, and gave you your distance.
Coupled with your self-confessed shame at public drinking, your narrative suggests a discomfort with or ignorance of American cultural norms. The NYC incident has nothing substantive in common with the systemic, overtly slimy Indian milieu you so accurately describe, where a woman who smokes is a morally lax target, colleagues don't stand up for you and the perpetrator never takes "no" for an answer.
For some data on the comparative status of women in both places, you can check out the latest rankings in an article here: www.dailybusinessreview.com/home/id=1202674939807?slreturn=20141004055049
A better (and free) overview on women's status at work, just released, is available here: forumblog.org/2014/10/2095-year-gender-equality-work-maybe/.
It carries the particularly dismal news that India is the only BRIC market where female participation in the work force is DECREASING. Taken together with the SC decision in the rape case today, and one can questions what we Make in India.
Anyway, sorry to spoil a perfectly charming piece about a privileged young woman who feels done in by the system of worldwide male oppression.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first