Last night a few things popped up in my Twitter feed about an editorial given by Paul Murray on his television program Paul Murray Live. The subject was a stunt that took place last week between Sydney radio presenters Fitzy and Wippa and the Sunrise co-host Samantha Armytage. Armytage was led into a dark “panic” room, blindfolded, where she discovered a naked Fitzy. At the time she laughed and afterwards they sent her flowers and apologised. She accepted their apology but was that the end of it?
No. The radio station Nova FM was flooded with complaints, commentators took the presenters to task and the company removed the video from the website and issued an apology.
That critical response and, in particular a column written by Clementine Ford, was the subject of Murray’s frustration. In the segment called “The Outrage Machine” he made these comments:
“Welcome to the world where other people are offended on behalf of others. [Armytage] has publicly said she has no problem with it. Whether she is offended is her business. Not ours. There is only one person who had a right to be offended and that’s Samantha.”
At the end of his editorial he said he expects a backlash of sorts for saying what he did; that his comments will place a target on his back and that he will report back in 24 hours. I can’t resist responding – not because I am manufacturing outrage – but because there is an important issue at stake and there is an opportunity for dialogue to be exchanged. It might be in vain but I’ll attempt to influence what Murray reports back tonight anyway.
I understand where he is coming from. I get that on the surface it seems as simple as he said. That if Samantha herself wasn’t offended – which she has said she wasn’t – why should anyone else be? I understand why to Paul and Samantha it seems like the story should end there. In a different world it might, but unfortunately, in this world, it doesn’t.
Just this morning the Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick is giving a speech to launch an initiative called Know Where The Line Is encouraging Australians to stop and think about sexual harassment. That program has not been developed or designed to address a hypothetical problem. It has been instigated because sexual harassment in Australian workplaces is a legitimate problem. One in five Australians has been sexually harassed at work from the age of 15.
Broderick explains the rationale behind Know Where the Line Is: “We’re not going to make any real headway until everyone has a shared understanding of what sexual harassment actually looks like in everyday work life.” But critically she also says this:
“…until people in workplaces of all sizes start realising that sexual harassment is serious and harmful, not only for the person who is experiencing the harassment, but for the broader work environment and the productivity of the business, they’re not going to see it as something they need to speak out about.”
Victims of sexual harassment are often reluctant to speak up. This might be because of a power imbalance, if it’s their boss or an important client for example, but it’s also for fear of being cast as a troublemaker. It’s exacerbated when the behaviour is less explicit – is it even harassment a victim might wonder when her co-worker alludes to his sex life?
The impact is substantial because it means the behaviour itself often remains unchecked. Victims might just leave the workplace or do what they can to avoid the person who makes them uncomfortable, rather than facing the rigmarole of making a formal complaint. The perpetrator isn’t disciplined so likely continues behaving the way they have.
It’s because of this insidious cycle that the impact of Fitzy and Wippa’s radio stunt is not limited to just Samantha Armytage. It’s not as simple as concluding that if Armytage isn’t offended, there is no other perspective to consider.
There are very few workplaces where a co-worker or a client getting naked is even remotely appropriate. When a successful and high-profile radio presenter does that on a national breakfast show as a joke it sends an ambiguous message to an audience of thousands and thousands of young Australians. Armytage was not offended by the prank, which is her prerogative, but it’s not to say she, or anyone else, should be expected to accept that type of behaviour.
Identifying the prank as offensive is not about casting Fitzy or Wippa as villains or Armytage a helpless victim. It’s about stopping to consider and recognise the standards this prank accepts and promotes. Standards that I am sure, Fitzy, Wippa or Armytage wouldn’t want to knowingly promote.
Condemning this stunt is about making it perfectly clear to other young men – in any industry –that “pranking” their female co-workers by getting naked is absolutely unacceptable. It’s about sending a message to young women that if their male co-workers lark about naked, they’re not expected to accept that.
Elizabeth Broderick is asking all Australians – victims, perpetrators and bystanders – to stop and think when it comes to sexual harassment. We all have the power to reject certain behaviour and that power is amplified, exponentially, where those who hold it have a national platform. Fitzy, Wippa, Armytage and Murray all have powerful platforms. I ask that they stop and think about the bigger picture – specifically about unambiguously rejecting sexual harassment – when they use it.