What does Mettler mean by “divided citizens”? How did men and women participate differently as a result of New Deal programs?
How does Bumiller explain workers’ reluctance to file EEOC claims?
Women and Law Summer 2019
Women and the Law, Summer 2019, Hunter College
Suzanne Mettler asserts that the New Deal purposely divides women and men socially and economically, causing the public’s view on women to be more on the domestic side with less freedom while the men focuses on the “real work” and have more of a chance to move up on the social status. The federal government’s role in the New Deal deals with mostly white men and how they work and live while the state and local authorities regulates the work and lives of women and minorities. Obviously, the federal government and the state government work in different ways when it comes to regulations: this ultimately forces women to not have a distinct and solid foundation of how they’re supposed to live and have economic freedom unlike white, cis, straight men. (We can relate this to the mythical norm, where society is still creating more situations that allows the “ideal” man to have more advantages in life, solidifying this toxic, patricharical society). For men to receive their checks from the federal government because of the work they’ve done, society already places them on a pedestal for honest work, but for women, the states creates these strict rules and regulations that places them under scrutiny. From the beginning, women have always been placed at a critical disadvantage to move up in life. Society placed women in the domestic sphere, where their only responsibilities is to “raise children to be future citizens” through maternalistic reforms. It gave this illusion that the government really cares for women by allowing financial reimbursement to women with young children that didn’t have financial support from the men in their family. Although this is nice and all, this emphasizes how society is creating this domestic sphere smaller and smaller up to the point where the connotation of a woman is domestic, private, stay-at-home, etc.
Bumiller states that practically, whenever workers are faced to file a claim, most of the times, they place the guilt on themselves. They realize that under the law, their emotions would not matter at all. Whenever placed on trial, some workers stated that they would always have to show that they were doing their best work; in fact, it seemed like instead of being the victim, they were the ones society was going to be against. Obviously, the relationship between employer and employee will be strained which is another reason why workers feel reluctant.
Sadia, I like your summary of Mettler’s paper. As you said, Mettler does argue that the New Deal gave men the opportunity to and encouraged them to participate in the public sphere, while maintaining women’s roles in domestic circles. I like the way that you iterate how the law puts into practice the mythical norm. I would say further that by putting it into practice, the law enforces and maintains the mythical norm. I like the comparison between the honest male work and female work under scrutiny. I think that this is directly tied to their public and domestic roles.
In “Victims in the Shadow of the Law,” Kristin Bumiller discusses the model of legal protection and how certain groups have historically been victims of discrimination and not equally served by the law. In her article, Bumiller explains why some workers are reluctant to file EEOC claims. The EEOC is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is an agency that deals with workplace discrimination. The participants of this study were asked the question, “why didn’t you complain?” Bumiller explains some of the common responses that people said to this question included: it would do no good, not worth it, gave up, fear of retaliation, no evidence, did not know who to complain to, don’t want to cause trouble, etc. These results are very significant. If employees who are facing discrimination are reluctant to file a complaint for multiple different reasons, these victims are ultimately being unfairly treated by their employers. No one should feel discriminated against in his or her workplace. Bumiller describes the issue with the workers’ reluctance to file a complaint when she writes, “their reluctance to cross the boundary between normalcy and victimhood forces them to justify the perpetrators’ actions” (435). It is important for employees to report this discrimination and not let their perpetrators continue to get away with this hurtful behavior. In addition, one of the most interesting results of her study is the lack of knowledge that people have. You cannot file a complaint if you do not even know who to complain to.
I understand why many workers are reluctant to file EEOC claims. Complaints are often inefficient and many victims feel that it is a waste of time. Even more upsetting is that many victims believe that filing their complaints will do them more harm than good, such as being fired or punished. I think it is incredibly upsetting that the fear of retaliation is so strong, that many people allow this discrimination to continue. As we have discussed many times in this class, the law has never been applied to everyone equally. It makes a lot of sense why many people have little faith in the legal system because they would rather continue experiencing discrimination than file a complaint that is ineffective, and ultimately a waste of time. In addition, this is yet another example of victim shaming and not holding the perpetrator accountable for their actions, similar to how society views rape victims and rapists.
I definitely agree with what you said about people having little to no faith in the legal system. looking through the history of the legal system it has failed people many times, which does not leave people feeling confident and also have them thinking that reporting something is a waste of time. I also agree that this is another example of victim shaming, and placing all the responsibility on the victim when there needs to be more talk about the people committing this acts, and how they need to be held responsible for their actions and letting them know that their behavior/actions are not to be tolerated.
I like your response and opinion on the matter raised in the article. Examples of Carmen and John are very unfortunate, but well-chosen. They represent not only certain people or even a group, but overall a large number of people of different races, ages, sexes and occupations. People who have very little faith in the legal system as you are saying. I think a big portion of this fear and hesitation to speak up or be a part of change, comes from history and particularly, from US Supreme Court decisions representing acting regime and its interests. Many decisions as well as the fact of dual federalism, favor certain interests which are not the interests of a regular employee. Thus, their psychology is ‘I am replaceable, I am not going to change Big Things, I need a paycheck for my bills’. I am looking forward to discuss thoughts and SOLUTIONS for this thinking and bringing change in class.
Great summary Olivia. I agree with you it is really upsetting to see victims paralyzed by the fear of retaliation. Perhaps if the victims had better support and protection against retaliation it would be easier for them to deal with the psychological burden.
Victims in the Shadow of the Law: A Critique of the Model of Legal Protection talks about organized groups creating anti-discrimination legal protections, such as the The EEOC which is an agency that deals with workplace discrimination. She explains why some people are unwilling to file a claim. The law in such cases places responsibility on the victim to speak up in order for the perpetrator to be held accountable. She talks about how the law basically expects the victims to take up this burden of identifying and reporting the violations done to them. She talks about how such a system alienates the victim. She mostly focuses this essay on women and women of color, because these struggles are more relevant to the implementation of anti-discrimination policies. It is a study of sexual and racial oppression. They did a research project which measured the incidence of civil disputes by use of a household survey. The survey ended up probing the question “why didn’t you complain” she also talks about the fact that the legal concept of discrimination has a historical and analytical basis.
What struck me about this essay was the part about the victims and how they have to be the ones to bring up injustices that happen to them. Even though this was mostly about workers and their reluctance to file claims for various reasons, this made me think of rape cases and how a lot of people do not come forward and the rapist usually do not get convicted. Although this is a bit different the facts are the same. Without them coming forward there is nothing that the law can do, and sometimes when they do come forward, they still do come off Scott free. It was interesting to me that she divided each part into sections and even did a research study on oppression.
I agree with your discussion about the struggles of coming forward to report abuse. An additional struggle in this process could be navigating the bureaucracy. Red tape often makes this process lengthy and difficult to achieve. This is especially true in the instance of hourly workers. More often than not these workers cannot afford to miss shifts or else they lose their job. This is problematic as institutions in the bureaucracy are only open during the traditional week day 9-5 window, making it impossible for people to deal with the system.
Kristine Bumiller in her article “Victims in the Shadow of the Law” talks about discrimination based on gender, class and race relations. The author believes, that despite the existence of anti-discrimination laws, the majority of victims of discrimination won’t report the incident. Victims often feel intimidated and overpowered when fighting for their rights against a more powerful opponent. As Kristine Bumiller writes in her article: “The situation creates a paradox of irrationality, in which people engaged in discrimination conflicts believe they are better off if they decide not to pursue their interests”. Those people who found themselves in a disadvantaged situation, especially in the work place, often weigh all of the material and psychological consequences associated with filing a formal complaint and then they stay silent. According to research, some victims believe that their chances of success are very low, some claim that they don’t know whom to complain to, while other victims are simply too scared to lose their job. Kristine Bumiller summarizes all of these factors in her article under the term of “ethics of survival”.
In my opinion, Kristine Bumiller raised in her article a very important problem. Yes, our society created certain laws and organizations in order to protect victims of discrimination, however, it is often not enough. Because of the various reasons listed in the article, “Victims in the Shadow of the Law”, victims often decide that they are going to be better off if they decide not to pursue their interests. This is a very sad state of reality and in my opinion, the workspace shouldn’t be a place where people feel uncomfortable and or threatened, because it’s not only not healthy for the victim, but it’s also not productive for the company.
In “Victims In The Shadow Of The Law” Bumiller through a series of interviews points out the problems that exist with the Model of Legal Protection. According to Bumiller, it fails to protect victims of discrimination because it puts all the responsibility on the victim. It ignores the psychological burden of reporting the unlawful conduct and the potential cost associated with filing a complaint. She focuses on the groups that are affected the most which included Women and people of color. She found that most victims were reluctant to file EEOC claims for different reasons. Some fear retaliation, others believed it was not worth it, or simply didn’t know how to file a complaint. It is problematic to not report incidents of discrimination, however, the law needs to redirect the responsibility and provide better support for the victims.
I wasn’t surprised by the response of the victims in this essay. In many cases of discrimination if the victim files a complaint they face immediate consequences. As we have mentioned in class if a minimum wage worker loses their job it affects their livelihood, employers are aware of this and they take advantage of it. I do agree with Bumiller it is problematic to not file a report, this will continue to happen unless we provide better support for all victims.