The U.S. legal system mirrors our binary culture, where the public -- and, more specifically, the press -- craves either/or decisions. It is in that frame where drama is intensified, and we do love our drama.
The case of the San Diego firefighters forced by their superiors to ride in a fire truck in a gay pride parade shows the limits of binary thinking. Here is a case where everyone is wrong - or, more charitably, where each side is only right enough that they could bring a plausible case to court.
Why on earth did the fire department need to force some unwilling employees to appear in a parade they quite clearly were not anxious to participate in? If there really were not enough firefighters who would voluntarily ride on the truck in the parade, then the department's purported message about being gay friendly would seem to have a hole or two in it.
On the other hand, is riding in a gay pride parade really sexual harassment? Under the creepingly generous interpretations that term has received over the years, that's possible. But, as SNL's Seth Meyers might say, "Really?" Can the reactions of some crowd members in a public event really amount to the kind of sexual harassment envisioned by the long-ago drafters of this law?
More broadly, the firefighters' complaint shows one of the most invidious harms homophobia causes. Many heterosexual men still find it not just unpleasant, but actionable to be viewed as attractive by other men - though this is clearly changing pretty radically. Sexual harassment law provides the only context where being viewed as attractive is something to sue over.
Is the fear of homosexuality really so powerful that heterosexual men would not want to accept this pretty common compliment -- particularly for those heterosexual men who feel free, themselves, to dish a similar compliment out to random women. Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment, guys.
The case is now before a jury for the second time, after a first jury could not come to a verdict. The original jury seems to have got it right.
8 Comments for “San Diego Firefighters Case: Hot or Not?”
posted by jay on
“Is the fear of homosexuality really so powerful that heterosexual men would not want to accept this pretty common compliment…”
“You look nice today” and “That color suits you” are compliments. According to the firefighters, they were subjected to catcalls and simulated sex acts. That is not comparable to a harmless compliment. It’s anti-social behavior meant solely to provoke discomfort and embarrassment in its target.
“…particularly for those heterosexual men who feel free, themselves, to dish a similar compliment out to random women.”
This is a completely dishonest justification. So do you think it’s perfectly fine if men catcall and simulate sex acts towards women?
“Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment, guys.”
This is not one of those times, If these men are telling the truth.
posted by Bobby on
“Why on earth did the fire department need to force some unwilling employees to appear in a parade they quite clearly were not anxious to participate in”
—I’m asking myself the same question. Nobody should be forced to attend parades, salute the flag, recite the pledge of allegiance or anything that goes against that person’s conscience. This is the kind of stuff that makes the right-wing paranoid about us!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If there really were not enough firefighters who would voluntarily ride on the truck in the parade, then the department?s purported message about being gay friendly would seem to have a hole or two in it.
So the theory here is that women who would not voluntarily go to a public parade where naked and semi-naked men would be simulating sex acts, whistling, and making catcalls at them hate all men.
If catcalls, simulated sex acts, and the like that happens in parades like this are a “normal” part of gay behavior, then you might have a point. Is that what you’re saying — that the firemen should know that gays simply behave that way as a natural part of being gay and that there’s nothing that can be done about it?
Jay has it exactly right. If women were forced to ride in a parade where men catcalled, whistled at them, and simulated sex acts in front of them, the trial lawyers wouldn’t be waiting for the plane to land; they’d be parachuting out.
posted by Jorge on
The kind of behavior that is being described is pretty much the definition of “hostile work environment” if you ask me, but it only happened once. I am not convinced a one-time exposure is anywhere near severe enough to really be sexual harassment. More than enough to threaten a lawsuit and give the fire department holy hell.
I think what should decide the lawsuit is whether the fire department took steps, once the problem was brought to their attention, to make things better. Of course, they didn’t get a chance to make things better before the employees sued them. See, how is a reasonable supervisor to know that by participating in a gay pride parade, one will repeatedly receive catcalls and be exposed to simulated sex acts? Come to think of it, how would I as a jury member know? I wouldn’t take the firefighters’ word for it.
posted by Pat on
Since this activity was not of an emergency nature, any firefighter who did not want to participate in the gay pride parade shouldn’t have had to. I’m bothered though that these firefighters were so bothered by a one-time experience of catcalls, etc. No, this in no way shape or form excuses the bad behavior of the participants. Any person engaging in illegal activity should have been arrested. But it does make me wonder about the fitness of the firefighters in the more dangerous situation of say, trying to rescue persons from a fire. I would feel the same way about a gay firefighter who witnessed a sign from a nut saying “Fags burn in hell.”
I wonder if these firefighters called the police as soon as the harassment, or any other illegal activity they witnessed, occurred. That should have been their first action. If it was the police that failed to respond, well, there’s the problem.
I’m with Jorge. This was, hopefully, a one-time deal. If the fire department then forced these firefighters to attend a pride event again, their claims would be legitimate.
posted by David Link on
I think it’s valuable to step back and look at the role the lawsuit played in the way the firefighters characterized what was happening. Once they filed suit, their interest in winning it (which I assume they wanted to do) was to dramatize their experience to make it look as bad as possible. That’s the effect lawsuits have — they require the parties to take almost melodramatic postures.
Here is what the report says:
“The firefighters said that not only were they victimized during the parade, they also suffered headaches, anxiety, anger and other stress-related issues because of what they heard and saw: catcalls, insults, simulated sex acts, public nudity, and men touching themselves and each other.”
In a specific workplace, “catcalls” “simulated sex acts,” “nudity” and men touching themselves would most likely amount to sexual harassment. However, any of them could also be overcharacterizations of ordinary activity — with the exception of nudity. A shout of “Hey Beautiful!” across the office could be characterized as a catcall, as well as one of “Nice rack!” The point is that there are precious few facts in the article to tell us what was meant by “catcalls,” or “simulated sex acts” (which could have been the kind of dancing most high school students now do at proms) or “men touching themselves,” which could be either masturbation or scratching.
I haven’t seen any evidence, so I don’t know what the jury was told about each of these — but the fact that the first jury couldn’t reach a verdict leads me to think that there was, at the least, ambiguous evidence on each of these. For those who don’t know, San Diego is hardly either Sodom or Gomorra. It’s an old school military town, primarily Republican, and a far cry from New Orleans at Mardi Gras — or even San Francisco.
The temptation is to read these characterizations and assume the worst — which is why no more specifics are provided. Imagination is a potent factor in our modern politics. Having seen images of San Francisco gay pride parades, my guess is the intent here was to have people call up those kind of images, rather than something a bit more mundane. Because the firefighters did not want to be there in the first place, I’m sure they would have given the most sexualized interpretation of any actions or comments they encountered from the crowd, and would have edited out the vast numbers of perfectly ordinary crowd support, love and exuberance that most parades, gay pride or not, convene to foster.
Again, I don’t know the specifics. But in the press, and particularly in the second trial, if the firefighters didn’t have much more than the thin evidence and self-serving characterizations to offer a reporter, then I doubt there is much more there there.
On the other hand, as I stressed in my post, the fire department itself seems to have been wrong to have put them into this situation in the first place. Once the lawsuit was filed, it is then in their interest to characterize the firefighters in the most extremely homophobic way possible — again, a perfectly natural effect of the filing of a lawsuit. That, too, was a shame.
Whoever wins the lawsuit — and I hope no one does — this was all a regrettable affair, and I hope its lesson is not lost on anyone.
posted by Mike on
Just a cursory google search found this:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/outthere/2008/04/calendar_firefighters_at_expo_1.html
Meet firefighters who are in a 2008 calendar during an event at the Head to Toe Women’s Expo at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. The expo runs Friday through Sunday, and the firefighters will be there Friday at 2:30 p.m.
Twelve Carlsbad firefighters posed for the calendar to raise money for the Burn Institute in San Diego and to remodel the gym at Fire Station 1 in Carlsbad. The calendar can be purchased for $17.99 plus tax.
Pictured is Mr. September, firefighter Danny Glessner of Carlsbad station No. 1.
Now that was from the San Diego newspaper — and notice that they were firefighters who are actively seeking objectification (in this case going to a “Womens Expo” where presumably they might be subjected to catcalls, etc.)
posted by Bobby on
Mike, those firefighers where willing participants in the Calendar. And I’m willing to bet ugly, old, or any firefighter that doesn’t fit preconceived notions wasn’t invited to the event.
The firefighters at the gay pride parade where NOT willing participants. The city has no right to use public servants for entertainment purposes. They should allow public employees to volunteer, if they can’t get enough volunteer, offer to pay them for their services.