After the publication of an explosive article in Asian Correspondent on Monday that detailed the sexual harassment endured by female journalists working in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, our country’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) issued what appeared to be an “official” response to the allegations.
To call it tone-deaf would be giving them way too much credit.
The response, a textbook study in victim blaming that showed an utter lack of respect for women working in the field, and simply ignored the endemic harassment faced by female reporters, sent Twitter into an understandable fury.
They then hurriedly denied it was an official response at all, but rather a follow-up “draft” to questions posed by online news portal Malaysiakini.
Within 24 hours, the union’s “real” statement emerged. One that (surprise!) contained none of the previous, offending content.
If you can’t bear to sift through the terribly spelled, poorly constructed original version that set Twitter ablaze (oh, go on then – you know you want to), allow us to highlight some of the more appalling bits.
It begins with an acknowledgment that sexual harassment within the media industry is rife. Hey, we’re off to a good start!
However, it quickly turns into a victim-blaming dumpster fire of epic proportions.
President of the NUJ Mohd Taufek Bin Razak writes:
“NUJ want to give a fair comment without blaming any parties, as it is human nature that men would be attracted to women while women would want to get the attention of a men they were interested in. The reverse applies.”
Yes, we wouldn’t want to “blame any parties” when it comes to sexual harassment, would we?
In all seriousness, there seems to be genuine lack of understanding about what it means to be in a work-related space, where one is carrying out work-related tasks, versus, oh I don’t know – a bar on a Friday night.
Taufek then goes on to state that the important thing is not to hold politicians and powerful officials accountable for their untoward advances, but to make sure their victims appropriately manage those untoward advances.
You see, it’s the female reporter’s reaction to the harassment that determines whether it was harassment at all.
Funny, we always thought it was the sexual harassment that made something sexual harassment.
Just when you thought that your brow could furrow no further, the president of the NUJ proceeds to find new and inventive ways to step in it.
“In the context of attractive female reporters, this issue could easily happen if both sides do not have one-sided attraction. (there is mutual attraction).
In the context of female journalist especially the good looking ones, this can easily happen if both parties consent to it.”
For the love of all things good and pure, if an “especially good-looking” (yes, good-looking is hyphenated, sir) reporter might consent to sexual advances, then all reporters become fair game? The sexual advances themselves aren’t a problem?
And what exactly does a reporter’s looks have to do with any of this? We’re genuinely confused. And also slightly nauseous.
He then went on to trot out the oldest, dullest, and lamest saw in the “she was asking for it” handbook: The idea that it’s about what a woman is wearing.
He lectures journalists that they should present themselves appropriately while on duty, which includes not dressing in any kind of “overtly sexy” manner, and declining interviews in locations like night clubs or a politician’s home.
So you can’t be a woman in a skirt these days without implicitly inviting an old man to shove his tongue down your throat? That actually happened to one of the brave journalists that Asian Correspondent interviewed, by the way.
Sir, we’ve worked over 10 years in this profession, and have yet to encounter a professional setting, interview, or work situation where a journalist showed up dressed “inappropriately.” It just doesn’t really happen when you’re there to do a job.
Never mind the fact that we’re living in an age when some Malaysian politicians have expanded the definition of “overtly sexy” to include the forearms of the national airline’s cabin crew members. You know what they say: one man’s wrist is another’s titillation.
Addressing the allegations in the article, in which a female journalist detailed her experiences of harassment while trying to interview politicians both in their workplaces and in public settings, Taufek goes on to suggest that a victim’s word is not enough. She should have a recording (bodycams for reporters, anyone?) or a witness. Only then should she lodge a police report.
He added that many women hesitate to report such behavior for fear of ruining good ties with politicos. Or maybe, as our victim detailed when she reported the behavior to her editor, she’ll actually be ordered to milk it for a possible scoop.
Taufek then accused women reporters of lodging complaints only after good relations with a source had cooled, something he likened to “accusations of rape, after a relationship goes bad.”
If you feel like you’ve entered into a Twilight-zone of upside-down thinking, then HEY, we’re right here, tripping out with you.
Apparently, more than a few people agreed with us, as within a day, the resulting firestorm had moved the NUJ to issue it’s “real statement,” one that miraculously made no mention of especially good-looking women goading their interviewees with sexy outfits while subconsciously sending messages of interest.
Instead, this one said all the right things. It highlighted the endemic nature of abuse in situations where journalists are dependent on information only their harassers can provide. It called sexual harassment difficult and humiliating, both accurate, and more on point than say … likening it to faux rape claims.
They also urged editors to take action on behalf of their staff and do away with the “business as usual” attitude towards harassment.
Finally, NUJ added that the way a journalist appeared or dressed was in no way to blame for the unsolicited actions, nor do they endorse such thoughts. A complete 180 from the words uttered by their president not 24 hours earlier.
It’s almost like they … rewrote the entire thing after their initial attempt provoked a wave of public outrage.
On the plus side, they did rewrite it, so that outrage — ours, yours, that of pretty much every right-thinking person who saw it — actually seemed to have an effect. In these troubling times, maybe that’s the most we can hope for. Personally, we’d like to set the bar a bit higher.
#staywoke
Reader Interactions