... and ain't i a woman?: Harassment, not pornography

April 27, 1994
Issue 

Harassment, not pornography

On April 21 the WA Equal Opportunity Tribunal awarded a $92,000 in damages to two women construction workers. The women complained of harassment by their workmates who made sexually suggestive comments, verbally harassed them and put up pornographic pictures in their workplace. They had been the only two women, along with 600 men, employed on the construction of the Goodwyn A gas platform near Fremantle.

The decision has important and positive implications for women fighting sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour in the workplace.

Heather Horne and Gail McIntosh put up with a great deal before making their complaints. They said they tolerated pictures of naked and semi-naked women in the lunch rooms and offices on the site, regarding them as "incidental to their work in a male environment".

It was only when they complained about a particular picture that other material began to be used in a specific campaign to anger, frighten and harass the two women at work. After they complained about a poster depicting anal sex, verbal harassment combined with the use of graphic pornographic imagery began in earnest.

Clearly in this case the pornographic images were used in a particular way that was totally inappropriate to the work environment. They were used in conjunction with other tactics to attempt to drive the women from their jobs — a series of tactics which were ultimately successful and which formed the basis for their damages claim to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

This case isn't about censoring the pornographic images concerned. Had the images been kept in private areas by those who wished to view them, there would have been no problem. It was not the content of the images themselves that formed the basis for the women's complaint, or the ruling.

Sexual images can be used in many ways that are not intended to harass others. The use of pornographic or erotic images in private is a person's own choice. Sexually explicit images can also be used appropriately in a public environment. For example, an image depicting anal sex may be used in safe sex campaigns within the gay community.

This case concerned these women's right to work, and their right to work in a respectful environment in which they are treated as equals.

Women deserve treatment at their workplace which accords with their ability to perform their jobs and respects their contribution to the work environment, as do all workers. The kind of harassment these women suffered is unacceptable.

By Kath Gelber

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.