When #MeToo takes aim at the totally harmless. Blatchford,
Playful note, charity raffle draw fresh ire
The letter — anonymous, of course — made it all sound quite egregious.
The note, dated last month, was positively bristling with injury.
The writer said that a male supervisor in the office, a lawyer by training, had sent “a sexually explicit message about a female colleague’s lingerie” and had further encouraged “all recipients of the email to approach the female colleague about it.”
It was an example, the writer said, of “sexual harassment of each and every female employee” at the professional organization. And worse, the organization “has not taken action. Those victimized … have not received an acknowledgement, an apology or an offer of counselling for the abuse.”
Why, said the writer, the man “must be sanctioned.” He must be both fired and disciplined by the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Attached to the letter was the actual offending email.
Alas and alack, there was nothing offensive about it.
The National Post is not identifying the sender of the email, the woman mentioned in it, or the organization. But I have spoken to both sender and recipient. My purpose in writing about this is not to embarrass anyone, though if I could shame the anonymous letter-writer I would be delighted to do so, but rather to suggest that it speaks to the current super-heated temperature of the culture.
Last fall, this organization held its annual companywide raffle of donated prizes, with all proceeds going to a wonderful charity that employs developmentally handicapped people.
On Nov. 10, a female manager sent out a notice to employees on two particular floors, with a list of winners attached, and asked them to come and pick up their prizes.
The email was addressed to “everyone.”
Other floors, she said, would soon be called for their prizes.
About 20 minutes later, a male manager replied, also to “everyone,” and said “Just to clarify … X secretly wanted the leopard print lingerie basket bustier and put my name in the hat so as not to appear greedy in winning that AND the rose lace chemise with black g-string (one size) with wrap.
“Congratulations, X … you got both prizes you really wanted.
“Please congratulate her should you see her in the hallway.
“All in the name of a good cause,” he said.
Please note: These were real prizes in a real charity raffle. X confirmed that she did put his name in the hat for the bustier.
She was absolutely mortified that someone had complained about the note. She took no offence at all, she told the Post in a short phone interview. There was no offence to be taken. The man is a lovely colleague, she said. “We’re friends.” She appeared worried that now, this would somehow follow him.
Them an was ag hast and shaken. He is fully supportive of his organization’s anti-harassment policies; he repeated that several times. He didn’t know if anyone had complained internally; the call from me was the first he’d heard. And there you have it. With the list of prominent men accused of sexual harassment or — the new term for behaviour that is not criminal — “misconduct” growing almost by the day, # MeToo has now spread to the ranks of non- prominent Joes and Jills.
Clearly, the expectation t hat accusers must and should and will always be believed — mouthed with nauseating regularity by every political leader in the country, among others — has permeated the ordinary workplace.
This writer expected that when I read the email he or she attached, I would be outraged and accept on faith the complaining version that this was somehow explicit and improper. Why else would the writer have attached the actual email?
That this in any way constitutes “victimization,” that t he organization should make “an offer of counselling for the abuse,” is insane. What abuse?
There isn’t an adult in the world, male or female, who should have taken offence at that email; there was nothing offensive about it. Praise Allah that the woman mentioned in it is capable and smart, that she had the wherewithal to speak up for her colleague and friend, and that the organization hasn’t punished or disciplined him.
But, as the letter writer said with unsettling confidence, “Today’s society does not condone or tolerate the actions” of the man.
The writer was wrong, but just barely, just this time.
There are other organizations and companies and public institutions where such an anonymous note, whether sent to the press or circulated internally, might have inflicted real or lasting damage. After all, one of the guiding principles of #MeToo and # IBelieve is that every person who makes such an allegation is a noble truthteller, and that what matters most is how the self- proclaimed victim feels.
It was a close call. Not everyone will be as lucky.