One form of sexual harassment that is rarely spoken about is sexist harassment. It is assumed that “sexual harassment” at the workplace is limited only to ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’. However, the POSH (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment at Workplace) Act 2013 refers to both ‘sexist’ and ‘sexual’ harassment. Inappropriate touching, showing pornography, demand for sexual favours or sexually coloured remarks are more direct sexual forms, but there are others too.
One classic example of ‘sexist harassment’, also stated in the sexual harassment handbook published by the Ministry of Women and Child Development is: the woman is uncomfortable with a man’s personal advances and refuses them, and later he begins to humiliate her in the presence of colleagues, even in public. Such sexist forms of harassment may or may not be combined with ‘unwanted conduct of sexual nature’ as stated in the POSH Act handbook.
Some of the other forms of behaviour listed in the POSH handbook that indicate workplace sexual harassment are: criticising, insulting, blaming, reprimanding or condemning an employee in public, humiliating a person in front of colleagues, engaging in smear campaigns and statements damaging a person’s reputation or career. These sexist forms of harassment need to be nipped in the bud, but are often brushed aside as minor complaints.
Sexist harassment has a long-lasting impact on women and their career, on their life course decision-making. Most aggrieved women or even Internal Complaints Committee (the statutory body to address such cases and complaints) members are not clear about ‘sexist harassment’.
Sexual harassment reports have been increasing in higher educational institutions (HEIs) in India. The University Grants Commission’s decadal data reveals that for HEIs in India, such cases rose from 147 to 296 between 2018-19 and 2020-21, a 50% increase. This is only the tip of the iceberg: the number of complaints officially lodged.
An independent recent study revealed that most cases of sexual harassment are never reported. One out of 10 students of HEIs interviewed in the study had faced sexual assault. Only 15% of the students had filed an official compliant with the Committee against Sexual Harassment (CASH) or Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). This reveals the systemic failure of HEIs.
The problems are multitudinous: social stigma within institutions, a patriarchal mindset, insensitivity in handling such cases, lack of gender sensitisation among faculty, students, including ICC members; a lack of understanding of the law, what constitutes sexual harassment, and appropriate procedures. All this creates apprehension among the aggrieved and also gives courage to perpetrators within the system to commit and repeat offences.
Public humiliation and the silence
Incidences of public humiliation and intimidation implies that there were witnesses. An important question then is: what was their role, what did they do? Some join in the humiliation, while others choose to remain silent. This is a very expensive silence that destroys the integrity and self-respect of the aggrieved. It further adds to the power imbalance between genders.
The incident of sexual harassment is often reduced to a problem between a perpetrator(s) and one victim – which it is not. If the victim is new and on probation, she is obviously a junior in the organisation with few friends/support systems. The perpetrator is most likely a male in a position of power. And then there are those, both men and women, who remain silent witnesses: the perpetrator’s network and friends-circle, and those who pander to him because he is in authority. It is the social systemic inequalities that are reinforced by this system, and targets the aggrieved.
This systemic condition is also reflected in the ICC probes and the judicial procedures that may take place if the aggrieved lodges a formal complaint. In these probes, the victim’s immediate reaction to the harasser’s advances is over-analysed while the perpetrator is given the benefit of the doubt. His intimidation and humiliation of her in public is reduced to mere ‘criticism’ from a senior. Public humiliation is a form of harassment that is experienced by 57% of the 135 women interviewed in the health sector in Kolkata alone. The insensitivity with which some authorities deal with this form of harassment is itself ‘harassment’.
The POSH handbook clarifies that men with a patriarchal mindset tend to perceive what is in fact harassment as “harmless, friendly gestures” to which only over-sensitive women object. Sexist harassment includes unwelcome social invitations from a position of power, gestures of so-called ‘friendship’ which are not reciprocated by the woman, unwelcome and unreciprocated use of terms and signs of endearment by the man in power. This perception percolates into the larger society, prevails amongst some members of the ICC, and even in the legal system. In many cases, the victim resigns from the job with or without reporting the harassment to the authorities. Along with this, she resigns from her self-confidence, integrity and self-respect.
Gender insensitivity and sensitisation
Sexual harassment has its roots in patriarchy and is embedded in a social construction that perceives men as superior to women and makes most forms of violence against women socially acceptable. Gender insensitivity leads to the misunderstanding that male flirtations are harmless that all women should take in their stride. This perception appears in the justifications offered by the perpetrator. He will invariably say that he has invited other women similarly: when they did not have a problem, why is this particular woman having one, or why didn’t she immediately express her discomfort. His supporters will claim that he has always behaved thus with women: so there is nothing unique about this case, almost as though a serial offender must be excused precisely because he has done this to so many women! Such justifications are common to harassment cases, and it is important to understand them in the context of the history of gender discrimination and power inequalities.
POSH states that the aggrieved woman’s feeling of discomfort, and her sense that the man’s invitation is unwelcome, that should be the primary focus. But the reality is: lending a sympathetic ear to the aggrieved woman is supposed to be justice enough. Women are asked to join in expressions of sympathy towards the male, who may be an older man, or this is the first formal complaint against him (although, as noted above, it is common knowledge that this is standard behaviour from him).
This is the gender insensitive system that causes apprehensions among women regarding lodging a complaint, not to mention the ensuing social stigma. Typically, men are warned and women are consoled, and the matter is laid to rest.
Gender sensitisation is required at three levels: the young population through education, employees at all levels and the authorities. Women empowerment and gender sensitisation should be taught at higher secondary and graduation levels. Gender sensitisation teaches both men and women appropriate mutually respectful forms of behaviour. Higher education is a powerful tool through which women begin to understand inequalities, think analytically and address individual and socially discriminatory situations.
In India, the increase in the percentage of women in higher education has not directly contributed to women’s agency or empowerment. Most gender sensitisation sessions focus on the POSH Act and the stipulations of the law. These sessions need to include broader aspects of gender inequalities that touch on daily lives. The authorities also need sensitisation on appropriate ways of dealing with cases of sexual harassment. Otherwise most of the aggrieved will continue to remain silent about the abuse.
(Sheela Suryanarayanan is associate professor at Centre for Women’s Studies, University of Hyderabad. Courtesy: The Wire.)
