Julie Roginsky’s newly filed sexual harassment suit against Fox News and others alleges, among other things, the following:
[Roger] Ailes cynically toyed with Roginsky, saying that he would really like to give her a permanent spot on ‘The Five.’ Immediately after this statement, Ailes remarked that ‘if it wouldn’t get us both into so much trouble’ he would take Roginsky ‘out for a drink.’ It was clear that Ailes had sexual intentions toward Roginsky given the history of his conduct toward Roginsky and the fact that there was no reason why Roginsky and Ailes would have gotten ‘into trouble’ if they had simply conducted a professional meeting over drinks.
This comes on the heels of recent press reports that Vice President Michael Pence refrains from dining alone with another woman or showing up unaccompanied by his wife at events at which alcohol is served to guests, in the name of “building a zone” around his marriage. These two items, read together, are interesting.
While reason would dictate that yes; there was, in fact no reason that Ailes and Roginsky should have gotten “into trouble” had they gone for a professional drink, the fact is that many professional men routinely make jokes about “getting into trouble” over a professional drink or meal with a female colleague, irrespective of whether they plan on making an inappropriate advance. Joking comments, and some men’s hesitancy to be alone with a woman, or even without their wives at all in a professional setting, are profoundly troubling for several reasons. The rationales for such avoidance can range from eliding temptation, to foreclosing a false accusation from the woman that something illicit or untoward went on, to avoiding the perception by any onlooker or by the public generally of some impropriety.
Each of these rationales reinforces a different way in which this behavior systemically disadvantages women in the professional arena, even as it derides, defames, and stereotypes them. Not to mention the impact of permitting men, unchallenged, to bemoan how absolutely helpless they may become when confronted with the “temptation” of being alone with women. It is particularly chilling to think about the impact of this behavior on the careers of working women, for whom mentoring, networking, and professional relationship building is their lifeline to career advancement and professional survival.
“Losing a seat at the restaurant or private club table so often is, effectively, losing women seats at the boardroom table.”
The notion that a woman should not be dined or socialized with in order for a man to avoid temptation conjures up restrictive dress codes enacted everywhere from schools to airlines that appear to target women in the name of protecting men, even as the women are shamed and objectified. The idea that men in the professional world should entirely forego routine social interactions with women unless other men are around to preclude false accusations is not only insulting to women, but effectively isolates women from men, who hold so much power in corporate America, and siphons off their access to the social circulation that is the lubricant for generating business, forging meaningful client and mentoring relationships, and accessing the social and reputational benefits that come with professional socialization. Fears of the perception of impropriety by others pander to the basest and most sexist assumptions about women with the audacity to venture out in commercial, educational, or other professional spheres unaccompanied by a spouse. And they reinforce the most invidious stereotypes about the role of women in the workplace and the specious limits placed by too many on the relationships, dynamics, and interactions between men and women at work. These rationales are, in short, limiting and insulting.
Ultimately, losing a seat at the restaurant or private club table so often is, effectively, losing women seats at the boardroom table. It is difficult, if not impossible, for women to ascend the career ladder, to attract clients and develop professional relationships, to mentor and be mentored, to build a reputation in a field, or to gain the trust and respect of those who will promote, hire, and recommend them, if they do not have full and unfettered access to not only those who lead and drive commerce and the professions, but to all who participate in them. This should be axiomatic, but until those who persist in ignoring this truth and clinging to outdated notions of women as the catalysts of their own opt-outs and limitations cease doing this, we cannot have an honest conversation about the so-called glass ceiling and its causes.
Simple awareness that these beliefs and behaviors systemically disadvantage women while perpetuating invidious stereotypes can go a long way toward informing discussions about everything from how to effect sex parity in the workplace, to how to evaluate, assign, and train employees, to how to create better opportunities for mentoring and networking for all employees. But this only gets us so far. Women who do not operate as employees under the auspices of people and organizations with the power to formally promote, assign, and mentor them cannot benefit as meaningfully from much of this. Until it becomes taboo to voice aloud one’s apprehensions about doing something as innocuous as dining with a woman in a professional context, as it is to voice one’s belief that women do not belong in the workplace at all, women as a group will continue to have this harm conferred on them.
Formal laws and policies mandate nondiscrimination when it comes to more tangible and official acts such as hiring, firing, and promoting. But without a proper understanding of how less formal acts, like choosing to take a junior employee to lunch, to mentor someone, or to simply socialize with someone at an event can affect the bona fides like skills, access to resources, rainmaking ability, and others that inform legitimate, nondiscriminatory decisions― the significance of a stance like the vice president’s and others’ is lost. “Soft,” casual interactions can and do predicate who will be assigned the best work, be given the best people to work for, and bring in the most business. Many have bemoaned the relative failure of women’s empowerment programs throughout corporate America to effect their intended transformations in sex parity in the workplace when it comes to power and compensation. Until we factor in beliefs and behaviors such as these into our discussions of change, that parity will grow more and more elusive as the disparities become harder to see.
The whole point of Julie Roginsky’s allegation in her lawsuit was to convey her belief that Ailes had more on his mind than professional drinks with her as he contemplated her promotion. But it is important to think about all of the men who make comments and jokes about “getting into trouble,” even as they disclaim to themselves and others that they would ever make an actual sexual advance. We are all too informed about quid pro quo sexual harassment and the countless incidences of women who are propositioned and threatened with adverse consequences if they do not acquiesce. It is time to start thinking about the invidiousness of the behavior of those who merely make the comment or joke without necessarily planning to follow up with an advance.
