By Madhulika Agarwal

In June 2022, the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee of the legislative assembly of Western Australia, Australia released a report based on an inquiry conducted by the Committee into the prevalence of sexual harassment in the mining industry of Western Australia. While the Report derives sexual harassment as a prevalent problem which mainly affects women working in the mining industry of the State on the basis of the testimonies before it, the Report fails to identify sexual harassment as an act of male violence thus obscuring the same in its understanding of sexual harassment. The Report also does not recognise the causal connection of pornography and prostitution with sexual harassment. Consequently, the Report makes no suggestions about addressing prostitution and pornography as possible solutions to the problem of sexual harassment in the mining industry of Western Australia.

The inquiry Report relies on the individual testimonies of women (
and men) and statistical information about workplace harassment in Australia, and concludes that sexual harassment is a prevalent problem which mainly affects women working in the mining industry of the State. The Report quotes the individual experiences of multiple women who report rape, verbal objectification, molestation, and intrusion into their privacy. In addition, the inquiry Report also quotes some individuals who express that they have never experienced sexual harassment or observed the same around them in the industry; or who mention that sexual harassment has relatively reduced in the mining industry of Western Australia. However, whilst the inquiry Report recognises these statements as valid it notes that an individual need not personally experience sexual harassment in order for it to exist as a problem in the mining industry of Western Australia. So, the Commission interprets the experiences of individual women available before it in their totality by focussing on the repetitive incidence of sexual harassment which emerges from the testimonies provided. Indeed, Professor Mackinnon argues in her work on feminist theory that individual women’s varying experiences of sexual violation constitute an ascertainable reality of discrimination against women.

But sexual harassment is rooted in male supremacy because it is a means by which men exercise the power to determine the social conditions of women. This is evident as the threat of sexual harassment of women by men in different parts of the world constricts the mobility of women and the opportunities they can seek in ways which are peculiar only to women - such as monitoring how they dress and avoiding the outdoors during the night.

Feminists often use the term male violence as a descriptor or an indicator of violence, such as rape and sexual harassment, committed by men upon women (and often upon other men) to effectuate their power under male supremacy. However, the use of the term male violence is not to suggest that every man engages in violence all the time - but that men ordinarily engage in violent acts such as sexual harassment which constrict the lives of women. Furthermore, male violence has been recognised outside the confines of academia as a phenomenon responsible for violence inflicted on women. Hence, male violence describes the problem in an active sense as it refers to violence committed in furtherance of specific power interests. Indeed, the inquiry Report quotes individual testimonies which identify men as the perpetrators of sexual harassment. But none of the findings which are based on these testimonies mention that men are commonly or frequently reported as the perpetrators of sexual harassment against women - which may, thus, indicate an underlying pattern of male violence against women in the mining industry of Western Australia. My targeted word search of the inquiry Report shows that there is no mention of the terms ‘male violence’ or ‘men’s violence’ in the 178-pages long document. Instead, the inquiry Report uses words like ‘gender inequality’, ‘disrespect', and ‘incivility’ as factors which make women vulnerable to sexual harassment. However, none of these words help us identify the perpetrator group for the purposes of thinking about reform. Nor do these frames articulate the problem in an active sense. But feminists argue that the failure to identify and name male violence obscures male supremacy and makes sexual harassment appear as a passive phenomenon which just happens to women.

Existing research finds similar reluctance elsewhere to name male violence as a problem which needs to be dealt with in policy - wherein documents identify women as victims more than a thousand times, as opposed to male violence which is named only 8 times (Philips and Henderson 1999 in Romito 2008, pp.45-6). But it is crucial for women as a group to be able to name their oppression and oppressors in clear language to make sense of the reality around them. Hence, in failing to name male violence- the inquiry Report misses on the chance to fully acknowledge the problem of sexual harassment of women in the mining sector of Western Australia.

The inquiry Report also does not recognise the causal connection of pornography and prostitution with sexual harassment, despite there being evidence in the Report itself about the existence of puntering and the use of pornography by men. This is because the individual testimony suggests that it is part of the culture of the mining industry in Western Australia for male workers to punter- and that the same is tolerated. But the inquiry Report does not comment or engage with prostitution any further as it does not explore the prevalence of prostitution in the mining industry of Western Australia; or the relationship between prostitution and sexual harassment. But research conducted on punters in other states of Australia finds that men who buy sex find it normal to violate women’s sexual boundaries.

There are references to the use of pornography in individual testimonies which report the dissemination of pornography; and a statistical figure on the incidents of sexual harassment mentioned in the inquiry Report which figure notes the circulation of pornography amongst other reported acts. One of the testimonies before the Committee suggests that training discourages male employees only against getting caught using pornography on the work premises - as the intruder could construe the act of using pornography on the work premises as sexual harassment. But the Report only recommends the need to make training compulsory and to ensure the involvement of experts in the same- and does not critically engage with the use of pornography. But research finds that the use of pornography in men fosters violent attitudes towards women. Moreover, the treatment of pornography, prostitution, and sexual harassment as separate and isolated prevents a holistic perception of these phenomena as part of a common underlying problem of male supremacy (Kelly 1988 in Romito 2008, p.88).

The failure of the inquiry Report to name male violence reflects in its recommendations - as none of the recommendations consider addressing prostitution and pornography as possible solutions to the problem of sexual harassment in the mining industry of Western Australia. There is no suggestion on the need to penalise the demand for prostitution as a way to prevent the sexual use and abuse of women in the mining industry of Western Australia. Furthermore, there are also no suggestions on the need to spread awareness among the employees in the mining industry of Western Australia about the harms of the use of pornography on women. But so long as male violence is treated as a problem which must not be named, the mining industry of Western Australia will continue to fail its female employees.