Yes, of course her actions were rational as she followed protocol. But then they became irrational when she decided to stay, even after she found out that nothing would be done about the harassment, after she found out how backwards and stupid the Uber's policies are.
If it helps, try pretending that she was treated this way because she was black. Would she still be "irrational" to want to stay in a job and earn a good wage without harassment and degradation?
Would I have quit? You bet. But you have to understand that my freedom to do so is conditioned by a few assumptions:
1) I have the financial freedom to quit.
2) Working conditions are appreciably better at competing companies.
3) I'm able to land another job with comparable pay.
4) Quitting won't have negative repercussions on my future career.
Can you say, unequivocally, that all these conditions (and more) are met for her? I can't. Nobody knows that but Susan.
I understand you don't mean to, but you're coming awfully close to blaming the victim. Her quitting would have done nothing to change the environment except to reinforce the culture further, and we have no window into her personal reasons for staying. The point that everyone in this subthread keeps harping on is that they are not at all relevant. Period.
That she stayed is completely immaterial. That's -- legally -- her choice. The fact that, by choosing to stay employed, she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment and misogyny is as deplorable as it is illegal.
It seems you're speaking to whether her staying has potentially positive outcomes for others. My read of the comments upthread is that they're viewing the events through the lense of what's good for her personally and immediately.
Which, as an aside, I suspect is how most Americans view conflicts with management of any stripe.
My read of this is that most on this thread would say that it would be commendatory for her to stay and fight for change, but 100% ethical for her either to stay in her situation hoping for improvement or leave for a better place to be, and that in her shoes they would opt for the latter.
To me this would not meet the plain language meaning of 'blaming the victim', but I recognize that plain language is not always so plain. I would like to better understand if it is victim blaming and, if not, if there are ways you know of to communicate the distinction being drawn above well. If it is, could you highlight what makes it so? Obviously it is not your responsibility to help me learn to communicate, but I would appreciate it if you did.
And just to make sure it's clear: the behavior of the other employees mentioned is illegal and unbelievably unethical, and I am not in any way condoning or making excuses for it.
smhost said that her actions became "irrational when she decided to stay" after her initial interactions with HR turned out so badly. My point was that we have no idea why she stayed, nor is it even remotely relevant.
People who say "Well I would have left" when they hear a story of abuse are missing the point entirely. By focusing on what they would have done in the victim's place, they're re-framing the event as somehow the victim's choice and thus, at least partially the victim's fault.
That is a form of victim blaming. Full stop.
Focus on the abuse. Leave the victim out of it. Without context, you can't know what you'd do in the same situation. As I noted, if I -- a white, well-to-do male with no debts and no professional entanglements -- suffered that type of abuse, I would have left. But that's irrelevant, because she's not me. To say that she should have left, or that she was "irrational" for not doing so is to make a mountain of assumptions about her situation.
As noted in TFA, she was young, on a sponsored scholarship, and in the middle of writing a book. To switch jobs immediately could have had lasting career implications, cost her an education, and ruined her ability to finish the book. Surely those considerations weighed on her decision to stick it out.
Without insight into her personal affairs, we can't know how much pressure she felt to stay in the job in spite of the abusive environment. Ultimately, whether she left or not is totally immaterial.
Hmm. Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I'm still not clear on this. It's possible I'm beyond help.
I can see how the statement that it was irrational of her to stay makes potentially invalid assumptions. It seems appropriate to me to asterisk that with something like "if my boss did this to me I'd leave", which I suppose is how I was reading the earlier statements anyways.
Having said that, the amended statement seems innocuous to me and could be read positively ("I wouldn't be as tough as she is in this situation"). Reading the rest of your response it seems this kind of what-if is the core of the issue to you. Is that correct?
You're really twisting the GP's words there. Converting a sentence condemning her for being "irrational" into one claiming "I wouldn't be as tough as she is in this situation" is a mighty big leap. Even as you amended it ("if my boss did this to me..."), it's still irrelevant and focuses on the victim's behavior after the harassment, not the act itself.
Now, if what you want to say is "I wouldn't be as tough as she is...", then simply go for it. It's still irrelevant, but can at least be construed as supportive to the victim.
The original statement -- that she was "irrational" for staying -- cannot, and is wildly inappropriate.
> By focusing on what they would have done in the victim's place, they're re-framing the event as somehow the victim's choice and thus, at least partially the victim's fault.
That is a form of victim blaming. Full stop.
I think I understand what you're saying, but that's a pretty extreme stance and one that I don't agree with. You seem to be saying that a person's actions and decisions can not possibly have any effect on the situation, simply because the situation is undesirable and because the person is a victim. That view removes any notion of agency in the person in question. It removes the acknowledgement of free will and offends the dignity of the individual as an architect of their life. It's a kind of extreme infantilization.
Now, before you're led to believe that I'm advocating some kind of honor killing of adulterers, let me assure you that I absolutely am not. I find that extreme to be completely abhorrent and void of reason. From my vantage point, I believe that I'm standing precisely in the middle of the two extremes, being careful not to fall into the trap of either view.
Nope. You're the one leaping to extremes. I'm saying it's blaming the victim. A crime took place, and she was its victim. To question her reaction after the crime is, literally, blaming her for any remaining harassment. You can call it "acknowledging her free will" all you like.
Now, some victims share more of the blame for their situation than others. But without any insight into their reasons for tolerating abuse, it's presumptuous to assume someone has total agency to change their circumstances. She did some calculus and concluded that the costs to leave were steeper than staying.
That was her choice but, as I've said a half dozen times already, it's completely irrelevant. If I'm mugged, it's no less a crime if I also happen to be black or gay or in the "wrong" part of town. Regardless of her reasons for staying, what happened was wrong, and no person should be forced to make the choice she did.
If you actually read what I said, you'd realize that you're arguing against something that you made up in your head. At this point, there's no reason for me to believe that you will even bother trying to understand my point of view, but I'll give it one last go.
If you're mugged, the crime is a crime by the very definition of a crime. Since you seem to think that I'm an idiot, I'll point out that the victim's identity doesn't play into the definition of a crime. The mugger deserves to be punished according to the laws that we've agreed on as a society, and this is true whether you're a purple Martian or a lizard person.
But none of that has anything to do with the fact that it was your actions that brought you into the situation. Only you have the power to be where you are. Whether you were ignorant of there being a mugger down the street is irrelevant to the fact that it was you who walked there. It's not an extreme statement, upon hearing that you were mugged, to suggest that you avoid that street from now on, to try a different route, and be more vigilant in the future. It's not an extreme thing to say that it's unwise to go down the same street again.
You're twisting my words into making it sound as if I'm saying that a mugging never occurred, or that mugging is not a crime.
