This particular edict is in response to a re-education document released by the government designed to enforce guidelines on sexual discrimination at work. The document bans 'suggestive remarks or lewd conduct that denigrates or ridicules or is intimidatory or physically abusive of an employee because of their sex which is derogatory, or insults which are gender related." It then continues to say that "the use of affectionate names such as 'darling' will also constitute sexual harassment."
Whilst I am all too aware that sexual harassment can be a vicious and painful experience for its victims, I was more than a little surprised that the powers that be felt that banning the word 'darling' might offer part of a solutions package to workplace bullying at its worst.
I did hope that this was simply a cynical treatment of a government directive by the theatre-world lovies to demonstrate how ridiculous this particular part of the ruling is! Even more ridiculous is that those already incumbent staff at ENO have permission for continued use of the offensive word - it's only incoming staff who will not have that privilege and - according to an ENO spokesman - those who breach the guidelines can expect to be disciplined.
I wonder how the new member of staff will know which staff members are allowed to call him or her darling? Will those at the top of the hierarchy get badges or special T shirts identifying them from the riff-raff? Or maybe a darling ID card? After all, how is the fresher on the staff to know if the person that's just called them darling is simply being a lovie or - God forbid - sexually harassing them?
There's a lot more to sexual harassment than the offensive use of a word. To ban it in isolation is to say that that word is offensive in isolation - we all know this is not true and this further proves how little those that manage these environments understand the issues that arise in them. Surely the only way this word or many others are offensive is in the context that they are used and, if we take this latest guideline to its logical conclusion, any word in our extensive vocabulary could be found to be offensive. How many words are we going to have to ban before we are satisfied that our language is sanitized enough even for the most sensitive of souls?
To be honest, something as ridiculous as this particular interpretation of a government directive makes me think that the ENO is simply trying to raise its profile after its huge refurbishment, they surely can't be serious - can they darlings?(Sarah Rushton-Read)
