A senior civil servant, Secretary General of the Higher Council for Professional Equality and member of the High Council for Equality between Women and Men, Brigitte Grésy handed over a few weeks ago to the Minister of Social Affairs, Health and Women's Rights, Marisol Touraine and the Secretary of State for Women's Rights, Pascale Boistard, a comprehensive report on sexism in the world of work.
The result of extensive research carried out with the legal expert Marie Becker, involving academics, actors from the business world, social partners and associations, this report is the richest ever produced on the subject. From essential definitions to precisely define the issue to useful recommendations for action, This document, as captivating as a novel, finally offers a fair vision of sexism in all its dimensions (its origins, its manifestations, its ambiguities, its effects, its legal framework, the best practices to counter it...).
Brigitte Grésy (speaker at EVE) gave us an exclusive interview about this report.
Eve the blog: Hello Brigitte. From the very first lines of your report, you highlight a semantic problem. We would not all agree on the definition of the word " sexism ". Why this latent polysemy?
Brigitte Grésy: In France, there is a kind of unease around the word " sexism ". This is partly due to the fact that for a long time, it was an academic " non-subject " (referred to activism or intellectuals-feminists but little addressed by the social sciences until the 1990s) and a subject not taken into account by labor law, as far as ordinary sexism is concerned, and therefore little treated by the business world.
Confusion has set in, between " machismo ", " misogyny ", " phallocracy " and " sexism ". This has created real fears. One can think that these fears have to do with the apparently militant (but apparently only) aspect of the subject, which raises a hint of ideology. But it seems to me that beyond that, what causes anxiety in the apprehension of sexism is that women and men live together permanently, on a daily basis, all day and throughout life, in all their activities. So, questioning what their relationships are and pointing out dysfunctions also means shaking up other conceptual schemes, including the separation of public and private life. For example, everyone very quickly realized that raising the question of the equality of women and men at work would require raising the question of the distribution of domestic tasks but also, much more broadly, to instruct what all exchanges between women and men are made of, including seduction, desire, complicity, trust, humor...
This fear, which can be understood in substance, since it is indeed a question of calling into question a social order based on a fixed distribution of roles, has also been much instrumentalized: the threat of a restriction of freedoms, of an excessive moralization of sexual relations that would sterilize the relationship of seduction, has been brandished. " political correctness " that would make the bed of a hypocritical society. It is an astonishing paradox when the fight against sexism, which is very subversive in nature, fundamentally turned towards the freedom of all, is seen as something conservative and liberticidal. That is why I thought it was essential, in this report, to take stock of the concept of sexism very precisely, in order to dispel fantasies and finally be able to deal with this sensitive issue in a tone of expertise.
Eve le blog: You remind us that historically, the word " sexism " was constructed by analogy with the word " racism ". Is this a good way to think about gender inequalities?
Brigitte Grésy: It was in the 1960s that the word " sexism " appeared in the United States (editor's note: it should be noted that it only entered the French dictionary in 1978). This is attributed to the academic Pauline Leet, who, in a speech on the absence of women in the recruitment of an art school, questioned the argument, still at work at the time, according to which women were worse writers than men, and that there was therefore no reason to let them apply!
Leet recalled, in the midst of the civil rights movement, that excluding individuals on principle on the pretext that they are a priori less " made " for an activity is only ever the logic of racism.
This analogy is quite relevant: prohibiting women from accessing certain spaces is discrimination based on a criterion of visible difference to the equivalent of discrimination based on skin color.
And it remains a good reading grid when we no longer talk about formal exclusion but when we are interested in everything that discourages people from trying to access a space (real, such as a public place; or symbolic, such as taking responsibility) and what, even when these people are admissible in principle, allows them to be treated less well than others.
So, yes, the analogy between racism and sexism is correct. This is not a comparison, it is not an extrapolation, it is that we are talking about the same thing: unequal treatment based on apparent difference and the stereotypes associated with it.
Eve le blog: In your report, you make a kind of mapping of sexism: you reveal its multiple facets and demonstrate that sexism can be found almost anywhere, even with the best of intentions...
Brigitte Grésy: We can distinguish three stages of sexism: hostile sexism, subtle sexism and ambivalent sexism.
Hostile sexism seems to be the most obvious, it is that which is expressed through a characterized misogyny by claiming that women have less abilities than men or that they have no place in certain spaces. This hostile sexism is quite legible, but it is not that much on the way to disappearing and we should not believe that it is only embodied in gossip and direct insults.
It takes forms of aggression that are less directly palpable, such as the refusal to help a colleague in difficulty on the pretext that " since she wanted to do something too hard for a woman, let her manage! or the derogatory comment in case of failure, such as " you should never trust women ".
Subtle sexism can take quite perverse forms, as in the case of " masked sexism" which assumes an unequal treatment but prepares the parade to the accusation of sexism by covering its tracks.
For example, we refuse to promote a woman, either because we prefer to promote a man, or because we more or less assume that we don't trust women as much as men, but we dress it up with other arguments, in bad faith, and too bad if it makes the woman who is excluded doubt her own abilities.
But subtle sexism can also be unconscious and unintentional : for example, it is anything that will validate gender stereotypes, by declaring that it is a bit exaggerated to " cry " about discrimination when unequal situations seem to be the result of a form of " common sense " or states of affairs against which nothing can be done.
Eve le blog: And then there is ambivalent sexism, which you say is a kind of cocktail between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism....
Brigitte Grésy: Benevolent sexism is anything that consists of attributing supposedly positive qualities to women by seeking their " added value " (as Réjane Sénac explains well ) and everything that overlaps with a form of paternalism.
It can take seductive forms at first, it can seem flattering and even comforting, in a context where you don't really feel admitted or not quite confident, to benefit from a protective gaze or to be valued as a woman.
But the researchers who have worked on this subject (editor's note: including Marie Sarlet and Benoît Dardenne – Benevolent sexism as a process for maintaining social inequalities between the sexes, PUF 2012), clearly highlight the deleterious effects of this so-called benevolent sexism when it only reinforces beliefs in the complementarity of the sexes (and therefore hinders mixing).
We don't want women because they are peers but because they would be complementary, and in doing so, we are once again naturalizing gender roles. Moreover, this benevolent sexism quickly joins hostile sexism, as soon as a woman steps out of what has been assigned to her as a " role".
What will only be the affirmation of autonomy will be experienced as ingratitude and/or cause displeasure: " I supported her at the beginning, when she wasn't leading the way, but now, she asks too much, she goes too far!" .
Eve le blog: What you say in your report is that sexism in the world of work also harms men and the entire organization. So it's not just a " women's affair"?
Brigitte Grésy: I have long been convinced that men have an interest in equality. We see this when many of them say that the weight of so-called masculine norms exhausts them, when they are also delighted to benefit directly from measures to balance life times to reinvest in spaces other than just the professional sphere.
That men are also the objects of sexist stereotypes is now almost commonplace, but I believe that you don't even have to be a direct victim of sexism yourself to suffer from it.
The climate created by ordinary sexism impacts everyone's well-being: seeing people excluded, despised, denied, sometimes harassed, is not without consequences on self-esteem and is not conducive to mutual trust or trust in the organization.
There is passive sexism, just as there is passive smoking. It is a pollution of the social atmosphere.
Eve le blog: So you encourage organizations to take up the issue of sexism and to be particularly vigilant not to produce " institutional sexism". Can you clarify this notion?
Brigitte Grésy: Institutions, in their language and their cultural production in the broad sense, spread and reinforce sexism.
Let's take the example of official distinctions, such as the Legion of Honor: for a long time, almost only men were promoted. The argument justifying this was not overtly sexist: it was the eternal " of women to be distinguished, we searched, but we didn't find it! ".
In order to establish a balance between women and men, it was therefore necessary to carry out real investigative work and to create a breeding ground. It was also necessary to question the criteria that govern the official recognition of merit, to question what forges the conviction that a person is legitimate.
I think that this is the whole point of quotas: it encourages the institutions to ask themselves good questions. And this is important because when it is the institution that produces sexism, it gives credibility, rationalizes and ultimately reinforces the sexism of individuals. Institutions and organizations must instead work to break down false certainties about the differences in ability between women and men.
Eve le blog: You also say that institutions, from labor law to the business world, including all " legal persons", must look sexism in the face and in particular name and evaluate it. We shouldn't beat around the bush anymore?
Brigitte Grésy: We must indeed call sexism by its name, not confuse it with something else.
A large part of the litigation on moral harassment is in fact reclassified sexism. This is partly due to the fact that women themselves find it more bearable to look at themselves as abused humans than as discriminated women. They also make a kind of cost calculation, knowing that denouncing sexism will be more difficult and that the price to pay will be higher when they are made to look like " annoyers " or " mourners". So, many also prefer to remain silent, if not forget the sexism they suffer.
We tell ourselves a different story: a story of isolated acts, of unimportant things, of little jokes that are not really mean that would not really have to do with discomfort at work and loss of self-esteem. It's a laundry: from euphemization to requalification, there are real phenomena of whitewashing sexism.
Eve le blog: But we know that women, especially when they know they are capable, have a real aversion to victimhood postures...
Brigitte Grésy: The victim posture flatters no one, neither women nor men. But I believe that it is the very notion of victim that must be made to work in people's minds to get out of denial.
The traditional strategy of the oppressors is to convince the oppressed of their responsibility: responsible for their situation, responsible for not getting out of it, responsible for the possible consequences of their protest.
I believe that, on the contrary, a victim who denounces and defends himself is a person who takes his condition head on. He's anything but someone who lacks courage! It is not about being complaining, it is about becoming active again for oneself and on one's environment.
Eve le blog: In addition to the principled encouragement to name and evaluate sexism in the workplace, you make very concrete recommendations to fight against it. In particular, you propose changes to labour law, and the inclusion of sexism as a psycho-social risk...
Brigitte Grésy: Sexism is indeed a psycho-social risk, as evidenced by its effects: stress for individuals and teams, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, situations of exhaustion, the difficulty of deteriorating health, etc.
Labour law has constructed the notions of occupational risk and arduousness at work with a fairly masculine prism: risk is associated with outdoor work, the use of machinery, exposure to chemical components, etc.
The risks associated with so-called feminized jobs have been more or less left aside: carrying heavy loads for people who take care of children and the elderly, confrontation with the public for people who work in shops... There are undeniably occupational health issues that particularly affect the female workforce. And this represents a huge human and economic cost.
Eve le blog: Your report provides an overview of all the tools that can be used to fight against sexism in the workplace, some of which are under-exploited, such as the internal regulations...
Brigitte Grésy: The internal regulations are an interesting tool because they are a legal obligation for companies with more than 20 employees (i.e. a very large number of them, not only large groups) and because they are precisely made to set rules of hygiene, health and discipline.
Reminding people that sexist behaviour is prohibited as well as reminding people that moral and sexual harassment is forbidden (which is a mandatory clause) is very easy, very quick and inexpensive. Of course, it remains to ensure the communication of this regulation, which is today a little too often distributed like paperwork at the time of hiring, when it deserves to be reinvested with meaning and scope.
Eve le blog: You also mention codes of ethics, which come to us more from the Anglo-Saxon world...
Brigitte Grésy: Codes of ethics are self-regulatory instruments that companies voluntarily set, and which bring a kind of extra soul, by expressing the organization's policy in terms of interpersonal relations and employees' relations with the company's environment (customers, service providers, etc.).
The development of these tools is in line with the spirit of CSR. This is not without arousing a little mistrust among some social partners who are worried both about seeing companies set their own rules (but it should be remembered that the code of ethics does not replace the internal regulations) and that these are just fine words.
My opinion is that all tools have their place, that everything that helps to regulate relationships between individuals and to give meaning to their action can and must contribute to the fight against sexism.
Eve le blog: The social partners, since you are talking about it, where do they stand with this issue?
Brigitte Grésy: The survey on sexism at work that we conducted in 2013 revealed that the social partners were very rarely called upon by victims of sexism: only 3% to 4% called on them. This generally overlaps with the low rate of people who are victims of sexism who ask for help, but in 2013, they were still twice as likely to talk to their superiors.
The subject has somehow escaped the social partners until now, and probably because they had not put it sufficiently on their agenda.
Things are changing: all the major trade union organisations were involved in the preparation of the report on sexism in the world of work and all validated it. This is a major step forward, as is the inclusion in the draft law on social dialogue of measures for a balanced representation of women and men within staff representative bodies.
The social partners have acquired that this is a matter of concern for them, both in the context of their function in the company (for example, the CFDT's Flash surveys, the publication of a training brochure on gender issues in negotiations by the CGT, etc.) and as organisations (which are now also concerned about gender diversity and parity in their governance, etc.).
Eve le blog: Finally, we would like you to react on the labels . Do you think they are good instruments for change?
Brigitte Grésy: Here again, labels cannot do everything and I insist on the fact that we need joint and coherent measures to fight against sexism.
But I see two great merits in labels: firstly, as an evaluation approach, they have the principle of qualifying, measuring and comparing, which is in line with the number 1 objective of getting out of denial; Secondly, labels, such as the signing of charters (parenthood, diversity, etc.) send strong signals to all the company's audiences, its employees, but also its shareholders, its customers, etc.
The certification process commits to behaving as a company where it is good to work, good to buy and therefore also good to invest. It positions equality in value.
But I nevertheless insist on the importance of collective bargaining and the signing of equality agreements.
