In the direct aftermath of the July 8th Administrative Services Committee meeting, in which Alvin Wire suggested that “enticement” be added to the current personnel policy, claims continue to be made that his words were taken out of context.
As a concession, some of his defenders have encouraged him to apologize for his words being taken out of context.
I find the above statement to be laughable.
To apologize for being taken out of context is a misdirection — a sham. It negates the need to take responsibility for statements made, stances taken. It finds fault in the perspective of others while showing no remorse or attempt at recompense from the speaker.
What is also absent in these statements is an attempt to establish the context of his words. What we do know of the context is telling. He spoke these words during an official meeting, he directly referred to amending current policy, and his only attempt to clarify his meaning of those words includes a disturbing claim that women are deliberately displaying skin to receive an ego boost — helpfully provided by the admiring glances of men.
The irony continues to be that among all the claims that his words were taken out of context, that same context is ignored.
What is the context? Is it the backdrop of working class America, where female workers continue to deal with sexist comments, physical harassment, perceived weakness or harshness when displaying professional traits either feminine or masculine? Is it the already high rate at which these incidents go unreported in the workplace for fear of professional backlash? Could we find it in the closed door meetings where a woman is asked if she did anything to encourage the behavior of the harasser she is accusing, or perhaps in the open air of the office when coworkers discuss amongst themselves whether or not John Doe deserved to be fired when Jane dresses the way she does.
With his responses to questioning and backlash, Mr. Wire continues to show that his naysayers have not taken his words out of context, but that he did not understand the context he was speaking into. He has since claimed that he strongly opposes sexual harassment, and does not justify any kind of rape. He reports that he is happily married and has several children.
Mr. Wire, we are not accusing you of sexual harassment or rape. We are accusing you of blindly attempting to enable it. You can be a good husband and father, but still not understand the perspective of a woman in the workplace. That you realize your words are controversial, enough to claim so while in the process of speaking them, but not have the discernment to understand why, shows a frightening disregard for the experiences of your constituents.
The calls for your resignation are happening because you have painted yourself as an individual who would rather err on the side of protecting the individuals who would gaze at a woman’s body and become defensive when told that this is unprofessional and unwelcome, instead of protecting women in your own workplace. You seem to believe the dress code is insufficient, and women should give special consideration to dressing in a way that could not possibly entice any male coworker in any form–because with your policy, they would need to. Any harassment claim made henceforth would have to be defensible against a responding enticement claim. And while the parameters of harassment in the workplace are clear, enticement leaves a very murky space for any potential harasser to find an excuse for their behavior. That these same potential excuses are already being levied by harassers and abusers across America was not something you considered before speaking.
I, like most citizens, prefer it when my representatives think before speaking.
When addressing a controversial issue, particularly when moving to amend policy regarding it, it pays to do research. Familiarize yourself with similar policies, examine how they are different and give thought to why they might be that way. Become educated about who might be affected by your amendment–why they would be affected and how. Exercise your critical thinking skills to extrapolate what the response to such policy would be.
In simpler terms, become aware of the context. Or, leave your office for someone who will.
Concerned Citizen of Stephenson County,
Chelsea Baker
