Written submission from Tom Farr (SPP0069)

 

Personal Introduction

 

To the Select Committee,

I am writing to submit written evidence with regards to the sexual harassment of women and girls in everyday circumstances, as outlined in the evidence submission brief. When society is built on a power structure such as male supremacy (as a class) at the expense of women, I believe it is the obligation of those that benefit from the oppressive power structures to contribute, support and listen as to how a positive contribution can be made in reducing and dismantling the oppressive systems that benefit so many men at the expense of women. As a middle-class, white, adult male in 2018, there are few more privileged than people of my demographic. Thus, I believe I have a moral duty to challenge normalised behaviour that is harmful and damaging to other groups, specifically women in this instance.

I recently wrote an article on how pornography contributes to and encourages patterns of abuse not only in digital media, but in real, tangible terms for men and women in everyday life. This article has been incredibly well received, and has been shared extensively around the globe by best selling authors, journalists, academics and lawyers as an example of how pornography encourages the degradation and dehumanisation of women and girls. Similarly, I am currently in talks with a major US organisation to take up a role (the title of which is TBC) that presents pornography as a major health crisis in the digital age, and how men and women alike can challenge harmful behaviour to create a more equal society. I am also involved in a legal case with the organisation 'Not Buying It', challenging Sheffield City Council's proposed “No Limit” cap on the number of strip clubs that could potentially be built in the future. 

 

Speaking out against injustice and inequality is not only a passion of mine, but something I hope to spend my life dedicated to. By presenting the following evidence to the select committee, I hope to show you that the responsibility of challenging harmful attitudes and practices should not lie solely with women, but also with the perpetrators of said actions – men.

 

Executive Summary

 

 

 

  1. The prevalence of sexual harassment in everyday society has, up until recently, been the topic of much debate. However, it was arguably the #MeToo campaign that brought to light just how wide spread this problem is.
  2. Women all over the world were engaging with the debate, and finding the courage to come forward with stories of harassment, abuse and harmful behaviour. This was not confined to one particular subset of women, quite the opposite. All the way from wealthy, white film stars to impoverished women of colour in the developing world. This is not to diminish the struggles of white women, but to acknowledge that there are different axis of oppression in society – race, class, economic standing and sexuality (to name just a few).
  3. The fact that women of all different backgrounds came forward highlights that sexual harassment does not discriminate in this capacity. It is not confined to any one particular demographic – other than, of course, being female.
  4. NB – this is not to ignore that men can be on the receiving end of sexual harassment/unwanted advances etc. However, it is important to acknowledge the statistical differences between prevalence. Similarly, to challenge male supremacy and harmful masculine attitudes is also to try and help the men in these situations. Men can be the victims of these harmful attitudes – to acknowledge that it happens because of men and to women (and some men) is not to confine the solutions to solely women. The goal is to eliminate attitudes that promote this behaviour, not to encourage more women to embrace the harmful attitudes in a misguided attempt at equalising the playing field.

 

 

  1. The questions have to be posed – why are the perpetrators of sexual harassment mainly men, and why are the victims usually women?
  2. While there will no doubt be objections of “Correlation not causation” as to why the perpetrator/victim dynamic is so heavily skewed against women, we need only to look at the statistical evidence of male violence to see a pattern emerge. 136 women in the UK killed by men in 2017, 124 in 2016 and 138 in 2015. Similarly, approximately 85,000 women (and 12,000 men) are raped every year in England and Wales alone.
  3. This is not to suggest that all perpetrators of sexual harassment are necessarily capable of killing women, or that all sexual harassment is “rape”. However, when the “ultimate” act of male violence (taking a woman's life) is so common, and the statistics of female/male rape skew so heavily against women, a pattern very quickly becomes clear.
  4. To note, this is not to suggest that sexual harassment by men (or rape, or murder) is an essentialist part of what it is to be “male”. In fact, it is quite the opposite. To argue that men sexually harass, rape and murder because they're men is to suggest that these are inevitable outcomes of our species. The argument is that society teaches that these things are okay, and thus encourage such behaviour.

 

and

 

  1. As mentioned above, the argument is not to suggest that attitudes of harassment are an intrinsically “male” trait, but that society is developing in such a way as to encourage these behaviours. So why is this?
  2. Historically, society has always been set up to benefit men. For example, lack of access to certain job roles/fields in prior centuries due to a perceived “inability” of women to be able to think a certain way; or the lack of access to education as women were seen as “home makers”; or the lack of access to exercise their democratic right to vote. The list is exhaustive.
  3. If you accept this, it is not an unfair assertion to suggest that while society may be advancing in its attempts to “even the playing field”, there is still progress to be made. If this is the case, then it follows that negative attitudes towards women (ranging from believing women should only do one type of job, to seeing them as nothing more than sexual objects) still exist in some capacity. Thus, these attitudes remain normalised, especially if passed down through familial generations.
  4. While there may be some attempts to negate or oppose harmful attitudes and views of/toward women through education, our hypersexualised society works to counter this in a number of ways (which will be touched upon shortly). To focus on education – this still fails women and girls from the go. Sex education for example rarely focuses on the dynamic of mutual consent or pleasure. Often it is confined to a purely biological analysis, and if aspects of non-biological education (i.e., personal pleasure) are examined, it more often than not focuses solely on how men can achieve pleasure. After all, how common is the trope of “unsatisfied woman” in media, even now in 2018. If education is failing at an early age, it is no wonder that men grow up to see women as conduits for their sexual pleasure (and consequently reducing them to objects that do nothing more than provide sexual satisfaction), thus increasing the likelihood of unconsensual sexual behaviour that in their mind, has been totally normalised since early years.
  5. Hypersexualisation of women is also a major factor. Pornography is an enormous industry that is literally built on the commodification of women as sexual objects. The prevalence of how many men watch porn cannot be understated. Pornography as sexual education is being increasingly normalised and increasingly accessible as we move further into the digital age. In these films, women are on the receiving end of increasingly abusive and violent behaviour, with no regard for consent or mutuality. When children as young as 10 (and sometimes younger) are accessing this, it is natural to assume that it will mould and shape their sexuality and attitudes towards women as they grow older. In these films, women are shown to enjoy any and all sexual situations, regardless of how violent, abusive or degrading they may appear (or actually be). Whether the women in the films enjoy this or not is irrelevant when looking at how it impacts society at large. It reinforces the belief that women are there solely to provide a vessel for a man's sexual fantasies. Men view it in pornography, and then expect the same behaviour from women they encounter in the real world. When they don't have their desires fulfilled, they often become violent and/or just decide to live it out anyway (hence sexual harassment and rape – it is about power after all).
  6. Similarly, modern media uses a plethora of overtly sexual imagery to sell their products. As we move further into digitalised capitalism, women's bodies have become an advertising board for whatever product companies are trying to sell. Because of this barrage of objectification, it's no wonder that men are moulded to believe women's bodies can be owned and controlled. Sexual harassment is not confined to “just” physical contact, it can be verbal abuse too, and is borne of a pre-existing attitude. If in a man's mind he sees women as nothing more than sexual objects there to be used for anything from an advertising billboard to a living sex doll (to use two extremes), then acting on those preconceived notions is a given. Media is telling him that it's okay to see women this way, so why can't he act on that belief?

 

and

 

  1. As shown by the prevalence of the #MeToo campaign, the fact that women are still on the receiving end of these attitudes means the government has failed along the way somewhere in doing its duty to protect its citizens. Philosophically speaking, government and the social contract is a tool that we have bought in to to protect ourselves from the more damning aspects of human nature. Depending where you sit on the political spectrum, broadly speaking there is an agreement that certain freedoms have to be diminished in order to offer further protections. The question then must be, why do men continue to have the freedom to behave in this way with little punishment, at the expense of women who should have the freedom from this harmful and dehumanising behaviour?
  2. So what can be done about this? There needs to be pragmatism with theory. It is no good suggesting that this can only exist in the theoretical or as an abstract metaphysical exercise. Education is key – exposing men to normalised behaviours and pointing out that they may be contributing to it without even knowing. Encouraging self reflection so the decision can be made to not behave in a certain way. As mentioned in the executive summary – it is not a moral crusade in the name of authoritarianism. It is not about “banning” certain thoughts or activities wholesale – rather it is about asking these questions and shining a light on the root cause of the problem so a fundamental change can take place, to allow the reframing of culture as a whole, and not just focusing on the individualist aspects of the debate. Although this comes with a notable anti-authoritarian bias, it is important to acknowledge the role that punitive action can play when dealing with guilty parties. The justice system often fails women, and a close examination of how that can be amended needs to take place. While harassment should not be discouraged solely by punitive measures, those found guilty should of course feel the full weight of the law – if those who have self reflected and educated still feel the need to sexually harass others, then they tacitly give up their freedom from punishment.

 

 

 

 

March 2018