Sex and power the economist students 18 19

1. Sex and power: The capitalist case against sexual harassment
How workplaces can rid themselves of pests and predators
By The Economist Oct 21st 2017
“I CAME of age in the 60s and 70s, when all the rules about behaviour and workplaces were different,”
said Harvey Weinstein in response to allegations of sexual harassment, by now dozens of them since
the New Yorker and New York Timespublished the first this month. The film producer is an “old dinosaur
learning new ways”, said a spokeswoman. Mr Weinstein is reported to be seeking treatment for “sex
addiction”.
A throwback who loves women too much, then; a sly old rogue who doubtless holds doors open for
women, too? Nonsense. What Mr Weinstein is accused of was never acceptable. It has never been good
form to greet a woman arriving for a business meeting while wearing nothing but an open bathrobe. His
accusers say he made it clear that rebuffing his overtures would harm their careers. Some accuse him of
rape. American and British police are investigating. Mr Weinstein has apologised for his behaviour in
broad terms. He denies engaging in non-consensual sex.
Not Safe For Women
Mr Weinstein is right, though, that workplace norms have changed over the course of his career. When he
turned 18, in 1970, many offices were a “Mad Men”-style ordeal of leering eyes and roaming hands. When
the Harvard Business Reviewsurveyed its readers in 1980 about workplace sexual harassment, two-thirds
of the men said it was “greatly exaggerated”—as one had it, a non-issue whipped up by “paranoid women
and sensational journalists”. In a case brought in 1989 an American judge ruled that being made to fish
for quarters in her boss’s pocket, though unpleasant, would not cause undue distress to any “reasonable
woman”.
Such dismissiveness is rarer now. Most men and women agree that demanding sexual favours in return
for a job or promotion is harassment; likewise groping and other physical assaults. But disturbingly many
men are still blind to the way that personal remarks, lewd jokes and the like can make a workplace
hostile. Though most rich countries ban sexual harassment at work, half of all women and a tenth of men
say they have suffered it at some point; hardly any make formal complaints. In poor countries, the rate is
surely higher, since women whose children are hungry cannot plausibly quit a job with an abusive boss.
No industry is immune.
The key elements are power, misused by predatory men; impunity, as those who could call a halt do not;
and silence, as witnesses look away and victims fear that speaking up will harm their careers. If firms are
serious about stopping harassment, they will need to tackle all three.
The allegations against Mr Weinstein are unusual only in degree, not kind. Power in Hollywood is held by
big-name producers and directors; their ability to turn a script into a blockbuster buys the complicity of
their entourage. The unknowns desperate for their big break are easy prey. In Silicon Valley investors and
boards have a huge incentive to overlook bad behaviour by men whose ideas can be worth billions. Star
professors attract research funding and help universities rise in global rankings; graduate students rely on
their references when scrambling for a job. The internships and staff jobs that can launch a career in
Washington or Westminster are in the gift of politicians. Their only check is voters, who may neither know
nor care how badly they act behind closed doors.
Women in manual jobs are also vulnerable. When a hotel cleaner or waitress is grabbed by a customer,
her boss may look away rather than lose a client. Multinationals that require their suppliers to keep
premises safe and root out slave labour are generally silent on sexual harassment.
The victims often suffer depression, anger and humiliation. Firms where harassment happens are
eventually harmed, too. Mr Weinstein’s studio may be sued. The company could even be destroyed by the
scandal. Even if one leaves aside all moral arguments—which one should not—failing to deal with
harassment is usually bad for business. Firms that tolerate it will lose female talent to rivals that do not,
and the market will punish them. The costs of decency are trivial; the rewards to shareholders are large.
Granted, there will always be star employees who wish to abuse their power. But that power need not go
unchecked. Firms should ask about harassment in anonymous “climate surveys” to ensure that they get
early notice of problems. Making a complaint should be straightforward. It should be handled quickly and
proportionately. A first complaint about unwelcome remarks or a creepily tactile style merits a warning. A
man who meant no harm will be mortified, and stop.

2. For the most serious cases, the law will be needed. Some are not fit for purpose. British employment
tribunals take a dim view of a woman who waits more than three months to complain, and regard cordial
communications with her alleged harasser as undermining her case. But neither delay nor politeness at
work mean she is lying: it is rational to worry about retaliation, and anyone who wants to keep her job
cannot sulk. Such obstacles to justice should be removed.
Firms need to take care that, in their zeal, they do not make matters worse. The no-dating policies
common in America are intrusive, useless and have perverse consequences. People sometimes fall in love
with colleagues. When firms require one half of an office couple to quit, it is usually the woman, who is
typically younger and earns less. That is unfair. Likewise, an atmosphere in which senior men are wary of
mentoring young women for fear of being misunderstood hurts women’s careers. Perfunctory anti-
harassment training, which is also common, can put employees’ backs up and, if it uses absurd examples,
can even make them less sympathetic towards victims and less likely to see borderline cases as wrong.
Dinosaur-free zone
Until surprisingly recently, racist and homophobic remarks were rife in the workplace. Now they are rare,
and likely to be challenged by anyone who hears them. If sexual harassment is to be stopped, it needs to
be called out in the same way—not just by the victims, but by all those who witness it.
A. Find the words / phrases in the text matching the following definitions:
1. Verb phrase. the age or occasion when one formally becomes an adult.
2. Adjective. Clever at tricking people or at secretly doing unfair or dishonest things.
3. Verb. To refuse to talk to someone or do what they suggest.
4. Noun. A suggestion or offer that you make to someone.
5. Phrasal verb. To try to find something by feeling inside a bag, a box etc.
6. Noun. Tendency to react to something in a way that shows you do not think it is worth paying
attention to.
7. Verb. To touch someone sexually in a rough way, especially someone who does not want to be
touched.
8. Adjective. Referring to sex in a rude or unpleasant way. Obscene, vulgar.
9. Noun. A group of people who go somewhere with an important person.
10. Verb. To fail to notice or do something / to choose to ignore a mistake, fault etc.
11. Nominal phrase. The subject has the right / privilege to grant something to someone.
12. Noun. the buildings and land that a business or organization uses
13. Adjective Not very important, serious or valuable.
14. Adverb. Unpleasantly, done in a way that makes you feel nervous or frightened.
15. Verb. To make something or someone become gradually less effective, confident, or successful.
16. Noun. The act of doing something harmful or unpleasant to someone because they have done
something harmful or unpleasant to you.
17. Verb. To be moodily silent. To show that you are angry about being treated badly by looking unhappy
and not talking to anyone.
18. Noun. Eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something: fervor.
19. Adjective. Prevalent especially to an increasing degree: common, numerous.
B. Speaking:
1. Did you experience first hand or witnessed any of this during your internships?
2. Sum up the article's recommendations to companies. To what extent do you agree?
3. Do you think anything else might work to deter predatory men from acting this way?
4. Should the State intervene / further legislate? Why? Why not? How?
5. Do you think things are likely to change in the near future when it comes to sexual harassment in the
workplace? Why? Why not?

3. C. One year on...
Homework: read the following report and answer the questions
After a year of #MeToo, American opinion has shifted against victims
Survey respondents have become more sceptical about sexual harassment
Oct 15th 2018
by THE DATA TEAM (The Economist)
ONE year ago Alyssa Milano, an American actress, posted on Twitter: “If you’ve been sexually harassed or
assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.” Within 24 hours she had received more than 500,000
responses using the hashtag “#MeToo”. Ms Milano’s tweet came days after the New York Times and New
Yorker had published detailed allegations of sexual harassment by Harvey Weinstein, a Hollywood
producer. Mr Weinstein was the first in a long line of prominent entertainers and executives to be toppled
by such investigations, which dominated the headlines throughout late 2017 (see chart below).
Even as these stories broke, it was #MeToo that resonated most on social media, as millions of women
shared their experiences of abuse, intimidation and discrimination. In the past 12 months, the hashtag
has been tweeted 18m times according to Keyhole, a social-media analytics company. The phrase has
come to encapsulate the idea of sexual misconduct and assault. In recent months American journalists
have used the hashtag in their articles more frequently than they have mentioned “sexual harassment”,
according to Meltwater, a media analytics company.
Yet surveys suggest that this year-long storm of allegations, confessions and firings has actually made
Americans more sceptical about sexual harassment. In the first week of November 2017,
YouGov polled 1,500 Americans about their attitudes on the matter, on behalf of The Economist. In the
final week of September 2018, it conducted a similar poll again. When it came to questions about the
consequences of sexual assault and misconduct, there was a small but clear shift against victims.
The share of American adults responding that men who sexually harassed women at work 20 years ago
should keep their jobs has risen from 28% to 36%. The proportion who think that women who complain
about sexual harassment cause more problems than they solve has grown from 29% to 31%. And 18% of
Americans now think that false accusations of sexual assault are a bigger problem than attacks that go
unreported or unpunished, compared with 13% in November last year. (According to the National Sexual
Violence Resource Centre, an American non-profit organisation, 63% of sexual assaults are not reported
to police, whereas between 2% and 10% of assault cases are falsely reported.)
Surprisingly, these changes in opinion against victims have been slightly stronger among women than
men. Rather than breaking along gendered lines, the #MeToo divide increasingly appears to be a partisan
one. On each of these three questions, the gap between Trump and Clinton voters is at least six times
greater than the one between genders.
1. Read between the lines: Whose side would you say The Economist is on? Cite passages of the text to
support your answer. Does it surprise you?
2. Which 3 dichotomies are mentioned in the text?
3 What is the resulting and somewhat surprising polarisation? Does it worry you? Would you say
something along these lines is happening in your home country? Explain.