There is a humorous series of videos featuring a character named Dan Doofus. His behavior and choices illustrate points relative to fire safety for the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). There is one on escape routes and fire alarms, kitchen safety, and electrical issues. The short films sometimes conclude with the admonition "Don't be a doofus."
It is not kind to call someone a doofus. The Urban Dictionary says that "doofus" refers to someone living in "blissful ignorance of the world, fashion, personal hygiene and social skills." It is not a kind or gracious reference. However, the reference came to mind this morning as I contemplate the next edition of Hot Seat this Thursday. Our subject is Sexual Harassment in Workers’ Comp: Ignorance, Stupidity or Evil?
It seems to me that some measure of inappropriate behavior that we see in the workplace is not the result of malice or intent. I was reminded of this recently when a gentleman reminded me of a former judge who found it inappropriate for women to wear pants to a hearing and would voice his perspective insisting on dresses or skirts. Doofus - what she wears is her decision. Some months ago, I discussed a situation in which a manager described that a female employee had complained of being "ogled," and the work supervisor discounted the employee's concern with "you should see what she wears to work." Doofus - what she wears is not an excuse.
I recall being at a legal proceeding years ago. A gentleman attorney became intense, frustrated, and angry when examining a reluctant and evasive witness. His demeanor was revealing and his emotions obvious. Later, in the same proceeding, a female attorney also displayed frustration with a different witness. During a brief break in the proceedings, and with the female attorney not present, the male attorney mentioned her frustration. He, jokingly or not, implied that her frustration was related to her gender, hormones, etc. I recall my perception of hypocrisy, remembering his similar, and markedly more intense and immature, behavior in the same proceeding. Doofus - we all have reactions and frustrations.
Maybe all of these examples might be attributed to the ignorance or even stupidity categories? Maybe these can be attributed to bias (regarding wardrobe) or just lack of introspection and empathy (hypocrisy of faulting others for behavior we ourselves exhibit). Perhaps these examples we can address? It is possible that we all have said things that impacted people in ways we did not intend? Have we each allowed our bias or worldview to interfere with our interactions at some point? Who should answer that? Can introspection alone lead us, or would discussion help?
There has been a great deal in the news about harassment, but "harassment" is a general term that is ill-defined. That description is being used for everything from inappropriate comments (ignorant or stupid) to violent physical assault (criminal) and much behavior in between. Labeling has also been made an issue more specifically, with questions of whether particular behavior fits the "me too" movement and discussions. There is seemingly some disagreement about categorizing various behaviors. Perspectives are different, and we struggle to both categorize and define them.
Just this week, a female gubernatorial candidate in New York "blasted Gov. Cuomo" for “mansplaining.” Webster's defines "mansplaining" as:
It's what occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of
That could include an awful lot. I know that I have been spoken to condescendingly by a great many people over the years, men and women, young and old, experts and fakers (September 2019). For some reason, some people who lack knowledge nonetheless pontificate authoritatively (often regurgitating sound bites they have gleaned from a speaker or panel at the very seminar at which they have cornered me). I perceive that this is more prevalent once the cocktails are served, but I could be remembering that wrong.
Somehow, by repeating bits of what we have both just heard in a lecture hall, and doing so as if they comprehended some import which I have clearly missed, they reinforce their worldview. Their condescending pity for me is genuine, as I have clearly (as they see me) missed either the point of the preceding gospel, or I am too dense to comprehend it. But, as genuine as is their pity, so is their hubris, bias, and stubbornness. I have been mansplained to by men and women.
I see value in hearing perspectives, conclusions, and data. That is not to say I cannot be stubborn (I can). But, I am a fan of those who can engage in discussions about issues and both raise valid points and remain respectful of those with whom they may disagree. I am impressed with people who understand that we each have biases and world views. I respect those who struggle against these challenges. These are people of intelligence with whom one can have a serious conversation about the challenges of the world around us.
I strive to question my bias. I consistently remind myself that not everyone shares my worldview. While I am comfortable conversing with those who do, I find that conversations in which I engage with those who have differing world views are very rewarding and valuable. If we listen carefully, we may start to understand the conclusions or postulates of the speaker. We may learn data or facts that are new to us. Or, at least, we may better understand how the speaker reached opinions on those data or facts; opinions or conclusions that might differ from ours. Even if we walk away unpersuaded, honestly and openly listening will aid our growth.
Back to the gubernatorial candidate's "mansplaining" story. The female candidate accused the current governor of "mansplaining and lecturing women on sexual harassment.” She faulted the governor for the development of "sexual harassment policies that are being discussed behind closed doors without a single woman present?” She faulted the efforts directed at sexual harassment for excluding women but including a man "accused of sexual misconduct himself."
Being no expert regarding the ongoing New York process that was being discussed, I did reach some conclusions. It seems an inclusive conversation would be more productive than one which did not include women. It seems that an open discussion would be preferable to one "behind closed doors." While the presence of an accused offender in the discussion may be troubling, someone being "accused" of wrongdoing should not exclude that person; not in the land of due process.
From my perspective, there is plenty to talk about as regards sexual harassment in America. It is a subject that is perhaps best understood by those who have experienced it. However, that does not mean that those who have not been the target are necessarily incompetent or clueless. Perhaps we are all capable of challenging our own worldviews and bias. Perhaps if we put those aside and really listen, then we can comprehend the effect and perceptions of behavior and words? Perhaps, we may be able to understand, empathize, and sympathize, despite never having been the target?
The point of the Hot Seat discussion is not to solve all of the potential occurrences and effects of harassment (we have an hour after all). The point is to have a conversation and to listen to the perceptions of others. For the Hot Seat, we have (Bob Wilson has) recruited a great panel to discuss perceptions and conclusions about harassment in the workplace and workers' compensation. We will hear about law, employment, and workers' compensation. If you tune in and listen, really listen, it is possible that you will learn something new; and perhaps better appreciate dealing with ignorance and bias.
It is not too late to register, though space is limited. Register now, "Don't be a doofus."
