Enfoque de Desarrollo Organizacional

various techniques of surveillance, including close scrutiny, sexual harassment, assault, and violence.196 _{“[W]ithin these labor conditions of hypervisibility,”}

Simone Browne has observed, “black domestic workers needed to assume a cer- tain invisibility” so that they would be perceived as “readily manageable and nonthreatening.”197

The same conceptions of womanhood that led to the public exposure of black women’s bodies198 _{also led to the control of upper- and middle-class white}

women in the “family home,”199 _{where they enjoyed little or no sexual privacy.}

These women had few opportunities to enjoy solitude and repose in the home.200

John Stuart Mill wrote that husbands colonized wives’ “sentiments” and bod- ies.201 _{Wives were expected to bear children and care for their families, adhering}

to a “cult of domesticity.”202 _{The bourgeois ideal was the white woman working}

at home and the white man working in the community.203 _{The public/private}

196. Id. at 20-22.

197. SIMONE BROWNE,DARK MATTERS:ON THE SURVEILLANCE OF BLACKNESS 57(2015). Browne’s

book is a tour de force on how contemporary surveillance technologies and practices are in- formed by the methods of policing black life under slavery.

198. See McClain, supra note 17, at 770; see also TONI MORRISON,RACE-ING JUSTICE,EN-GENDER- ING POWER:ESSAYS ON ANITA HILL,CLARENCE THOMAS, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOCIAL

REALITY (1992).

199. ALLEN,UNEASY ACCESS,supra note 17. 200. Id.

201. JOHN STUART MILL,The Subjection of Woman, in ON LIBERTY AND OTHER WRITINGS 117, 132

(Stefan Collini ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1989) (1869).

202. Cf. CARL N.DEGLER,AT ODDS:WOMEN AND THE FAMILY IN AMERICA FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT 375 (1980). Working-class women did not fit this model of domesticity given their need to work. Nineteenth-century feminists held views about social purity that led to concerns about prostitution and the erosion of female virtue. See Kathy Peiss, “Charity Girls” and City Pleasures: Historical Notes on Working-Class Sexuality, 1880-1920, in POWERS OF DE- SIRE:THE POLITICS OF SEXUALITY 74, 74-75 (Ann Snitow et al. eds., 1983). Thanks to Linda McClain who helpfully discussed this history of the “sex wars” with me.

203. DEGLER, supra note 202, at 375. Sarah Josepha Hale, a journalist in the 1830s, described women as “God’s appointed agent of morality” with a responsibility to use their power within the family to refine men’s “human affections and elevate [their] moral feelings.” SARAH JOSEPHA

HALE,WOMAN’S RECORD:OR,SKETCHES OF ALL DISTINGUISHED WOMEN, FROM “THE BEGIN- NING” TILL A.D.1850.ARRANGED IN FOUR ERAS.WITH SELECTIONS FROM FEMALE WRITERS OF

EVERY AGE,at xxxv-xxxvii (N.Y.C., Harper & Bros. 1853). The “True Woman was domestic, docile, and reproductive. The good bourgeois wife was to limit her fertility, [and] symbolize her husband’s affluence.” CARROLL SMITH-ROSENBERG,DISORDERLY CONDUCT:VISIONS OF

distinction reflected the differentiation of the male from the family, the family from the state and market, and the superior from the inferior.204

Meanwhile, for much of the twentieth century, workplace sexual harassment was rampant. It was acceptable to gawk at, ogle, and touch women.205 _Sexual

harassment was viewed as a perk of men’s employment rather than as invidious discrimination.206 _{Law and social norms, however, began to shift in the late}

1970s and early 1980s, though change has been slow.207 _{In the wake of Anita}

Hill’s testimony at Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearings in 1991, African American women highlighted the racism and sexism that suffused workplace sexual harassment.208

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, sexual minorities could not draw boundaries around their intimate affairs. State sodomy laws effectively criminalized their intimate interactions.209 _{Until the Supreme Court’s decision}

in Lawrence v. Texas,210 _{the fear of state intrusion hung over intimate interactions}

of LGBTQ individuals. As Anita Allen explains, restroom stalls and bedrooms were “not reliably private for the LGBT community.”211 _{For instance, a gay man}

was arrested and charged with sodomy after someone spied on him in a store’s bathroom. A Georgia appeals court explained that the man had no right to pri- vacy in the bathroom stall, even though he was simply going to the restroom, because the store had an interest in securing restrooms free of crime.212 _Similarly,

after a woman’s ex-husband secretly photographed her having sex with her fe- male lover, the Mississippi Supreme Court found that the woman had no right

204. See, e.g., Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130, 141 (1873) (“Man is, or should be, woman’s protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life . . . . The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother.”). American attitudes reflected Aristotle’s distinction in Politics between the polis, the political realm allo- cated exclusively to men, and the oikos, the domestic realm inhabited by women. See 2 ARIS- TOTLE, Politics, in THE COMPLETE WORKS OF ARISTOTLE 1986, 1999-2000, 2027 (Jonathan Barnes ed., B. Jowett trans., Princeton Univ. Press 1984) (c. 350 B.C.E.).

205. CITRON,supra note 12, at 22. 206. Citron, supra note 14, at 394. 207. CITRON,supra note 12, at 22-23.

208. African American Women in Defense of Ourselves, in DOCUMENTING INTIMATE MATTERS:PRI- MARY SOURCES FOR A HISTORY OF SEXUALITY IN AMERICA 200, 201 (Thomas A. Foster ed., 2013).

209. See Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 192-94 & 192 n.5 (1986); JOEY L.MOGUL ET AL.,QUEER

(IN)JUSTICE:THE CRIMINALIZATION OF LGBTPEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES 11-16 (2011).

210. 539 U.S. 558 (2003).