What do you think?
Rate this book
Power & Consent
The scandal involving Dyson Heydon, former justice of the High Court, confirmed that the scourge of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces was also to be found in the chambers of one of the seven most senior judges in the country.
In Power & Consent, Rachel Doyle, a practising Senior Counsel for over a decade, argues that we need to understand the power relationships at the heart of the modern workplace. Sexual harassment is rarely a ‘one off’. Perpetrators continue their harassment because they are not called to account for their actions. Silence and complicity allow recidivists to go unpunished and normalise the phenomenon of ‘getting away with it’. Perpetrators must be taught what consent means.
This book demands a new response to complaints of sexual harassment; one which recognises the power of strength in numbers, the probative value of multiple complaints, and the restorative power of grievances shared. It also calls for the imposition of new obligations: it asks bystanders to become participants and to take collective responsibility for supporting victims and stopping perpetrators.
In Power & Consent, Rachel Doyle, a practising Senior Counsel for over a decade, argues that we need to understand the power relationships at the heart of the modern workplace. Sexual harassment is rarely a ‘one off’. Perpetrators continue their harassment because they are not called to account for their actions. Silence and complicity allow recidivists to go unpunished and normalise the phenomenon of ‘getting away with it’. Perpetrators must be taught what consent means.
This book demands a new response to complaints of sexual harassment; one which recognises the power of strength in numbers, the probative value of multiple complaints, and the restorative power of grievances shared. It also calls for the imposition of new obligations: it asks bystanders to become participants and to take collective responsibility for supporting victims and stopping perpetrators.
- GenresNonfictionLawFeminism
96 pages, Paperback
Published March 1, 2021
7 people are currently reading
169 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
February 19, 2025An effective and well-written essay by a senior and much respected member of the legal profession, on the whole I think it's a good thing this piece has received the attention and commendation it has. The sections in which Doyle articulates her contention that the tendency evidence rule be applied less rigidly in civil litigation involving sexual harassment are her strongest. It makes no sense to my layperson brain that evidence of relevant past conduct should not be of probative value in a sexual harassment context, especially when sexual harassment is so often opportunistic and can occur in a myriad different circumstances by the same perpetrator. The examples she provides from the Stubley and Hughes cases are especially illustrative (and alarming).
Although I accept I'm reading this late, the rest of the essay did not, at least to me, add much to the already saturated discourse. The parts where she tells people (and she directs this to senior men in the legal profession) how not to sexually harass their colleagues are fine but sort of obvious, and a little bit preaching-to-the-converted. I think the former Justice Hayne expressed it far more succinctly (and dare I say effectively) when he told a packed lecture theatre at a talk I attended a few years ago: 'If in doubt. Don't. Touch.' Granted he was talking specifically about judges and their associates, but really - it's as simple as that.
I did take real issue at the hypocrisy (which Doyle sort of cursorily acknowledges) of her criticisms of the Me Too movement. While I share some of her concerns about 'cancel culture' or whatever, she fails to grapple with why it is that young people have had to resort to social media to ventilate these issues. Here, the essay suffers from a little too much navel-gazing and it's clear the people Doyle spends most of her time around are educated, articulate, privileged, and confident (and most likely seasoned litigators).
Although I accept I'm reading this late, the rest of the essay did not, at least to me, add much to the already saturated discourse. The parts where she tells people (and she directs this to senior men in the legal profession) how not to sexually harass their colleagues are fine but sort of obvious, and a little bit preaching-to-the-converted. I think the former Justice Hayne expressed it far more succinctly (and dare I say effectively) when he told a packed lecture theatre at a talk I attended a few years ago: 'If in doubt. Don't. Touch.' Granted he was talking specifically about judges and their associates, but really - it's as simple as that.
I did take real issue at the hypocrisy (which Doyle sort of cursorily acknowledges) of her criticisms of the Me Too movement. While I share some of her concerns about 'cancel culture' or whatever, she fails to grapple with why it is that young people have had to resort to social media to ventilate these issues. Here, the essay suffers from a little too much navel-gazing and it's clear the people Doyle spends most of her time around are educated, articulate, privileged, and confident (and most likely seasoned litigators).
June 21, 2021
Insightful essay on sexual harassment in the workplace and the difficulties facing complainants in making an individual case. Suggestions for improvement seek a more effective path than the extremes of outing by social media and royal-commission-style investigations where complainants are effectively on trial.
June 30, 2022
such an informative essay and definitely a must-read for modern day feminists. doyle emphasises the importance of a perpetrator-centred approach in preventing sexual harassment in workplaces. whilst the author - a barrister - mainly talks about this in a legal workplace, she also touches on how such techniques can be translated into all work environments. she further discusses how such cases are approached in court and how certain systems are problematic. although it was under 100 pages, it took me a little while to get through because the legal metalanguage required some intense concentration on my behalf - after all i was only a student of law for a short 2 weeks 🫡
some of my favourite excerpts!! (i apologise in advance for the length of this review)
After running through the above primer on 'What does she want?', I propose that anyone left in any doubt attempt to apply the following metrics, or 'red flags’ in order to ensure you proceed with caution and in accordance with the law.
First, are you older than the woman you are proposing to touch, kiss or proposition? Is that age gap significant, more than ten years? If so, the first red flag has gone up!
Second, are you more senior than her? Are you
more than one rung higher up in the hierarchy? If so, your second red flag has gone up.
Third, ask yourself this question, and answer it
honestly: do you hope (or even expect or require) that she will keep what is about to happen secret? If so, this is a huge third red flag.
To put it another way: will you be perfectly comfortable if, following this kiss, or lunch or fondle,she tells her mother, best friend, husband-or
your colleagues- what has just happened? Or are you expecting (even requiring) her to keep it secret? If you expect secrecy, then this is your biggest red flag.
If you get to this point and the red flags of age gap,seniority gap and insistence on secrecy have gone up, then be warned. You are entering high-risk territory.
It may be sexual harassment. You need to be careful. You need to do your due diligence. If you genuinely believe that this much younger, more junior Woman, who you expect to keep secret what is about to happen, is genuinely interested after applying the metrics I have
suggested above, then you may proceed with caution.
I suggest that the courts should adopt a less-rigid approach to assessing tendency evidence in civil trials. In civil cases, there ought to be no requirement to demonstrate the existence of a precise modus operandi before material about the alleged harasser's past conduct at work is probative. Surely the fact that a man has previously engaged in sexualised conduct with co-workers or subordinates is the point. This supplies the common thread the courts are looking for
The AHRC has expressed concerns about the use of non-disclosure agreements, including their contribution to a culture of silence, which disempowers victims, covers up unlawful conduct and facilitates repeat offending. Confidentiality clauses not only permit perpetrators to conceal and continue patterns of sexual misconduct, they also stymie discussions in the workplace, denying organisations opportunities to educate staff with lessons learned from the process. This severely limits any deterrent effect the process might otherwise have.
some of my favourite excerpts!! (i apologise in advance for the length of this review)
After running through the above primer on 'What does she want?', I propose that anyone left in any doubt attempt to apply the following metrics, or 'red flags’ in order to ensure you proceed with caution and in accordance with the law.
First, are you older than the woman you are proposing to touch, kiss or proposition? Is that age gap significant, more than ten years? If so, the first red flag has gone up!
Second, are you more senior than her? Are you
more than one rung higher up in the hierarchy? If so, your second red flag has gone up.
Third, ask yourself this question, and answer it
honestly: do you hope (or even expect or require) that she will keep what is about to happen secret? If so, this is a huge third red flag.
To put it another way: will you be perfectly comfortable if, following this kiss, or lunch or fondle,she tells her mother, best friend, husband-or
your colleagues- what has just happened? Or are you expecting (even requiring) her to keep it secret? If you expect secrecy, then this is your biggest red flag.
If you get to this point and the red flags of age gap,seniority gap and insistence on secrecy have gone up, then be warned. You are entering high-risk territory.
It may be sexual harassment. You need to be careful. You need to do your due diligence. If you genuinely believe that this much younger, more junior Woman, who you expect to keep secret what is about to happen, is genuinely interested after applying the metrics I have
suggested above, then you may proceed with caution.
I suggest that the courts should adopt a less-rigid approach to assessing tendency evidence in civil trials. In civil cases, there ought to be no requirement to demonstrate the existence of a precise modus operandi before material about the alleged harasser's past conduct at work is probative. Surely the fact that a man has previously engaged in sexualised conduct with co-workers or subordinates is the point. This supplies the common thread the courts are looking for
The AHRC has expressed concerns about the use of non-disclosure agreements, including their contribution to a culture of silence, which disempowers victims, covers up unlawful conduct and facilitates repeat offending. Confidentiality clauses not only permit perpetrators to conceal and continue patterns of sexual misconduct, they also stymie discussions in the workplace, denying organisations opportunities to educate staff with lessons learned from the process. This severely limits any deterrent effect the process might otherwise have.
September 24, 2022
On addressing the problem by encouraging victims to speak up: "If we think about sexual harassment by analogy with road safety, a message like this would not go far: 'If you get hit by a criminally negligent driver who is speeding in proximity to pedestrians, the good news is that we have a system that supports victims to commence litigation against the driver, and to obtain medical treatment and rehabilitation.' "
On how to not be a perpetrator: "are you expecting (even requiring) her to keep it a secret? If you expect secrecy, then this is your biggest red flag."
I'm a little bewildered by the final advice in this book to 'trust the system' (round up other victims and report the perpetrator together?) given that most of the book illuminates the flaws in the system, but otherwise, a timely and thought-provoking read.
On how to not be a perpetrator: "are you expecting (even requiring) her to keep it a secret? If you expect secrecy, then this is your biggest red flag."
I'm a little bewildered by the final advice in this book to 'trust the system' (round up other victims and report the perpetrator together?) given that most of the book illuminates the flaws in the system, but otherwise, a timely and thought-provoking read.
June 12, 2022
Really good to have a different voice on this issue. Doyle comes at sexual harassment from the other side.... instead of the harassed carrying the responsibility to stop it, a range of suggestions that potential harassers can think about BEFOREHAND. This book is not a total solution but certainly acts as a conversation starter.
October 16, 2024
Ends with us
Rachel provides a rich exposition of an extraordinarily challenging aspect of Legal Working Culture. The abuse of power is important and unacceptable. The hope is that together we can change the future experience for the next generation of lawyers.
Rachel provides a rich exposition of an extraordinarily challenging aspect of Legal Working Culture. The abuse of power is important and unacceptable. The hope is that together we can change the future experience for the next generation of lawyers.
April 11, 2021
4 stars
April 7, 2023
Rachel gets into the nooks and crannies of this topic.
October 19, 2021
It is pocket size, easy to read, part of the 'in the National Interest' collection published by Monash University Publishing. It begins with the fall from grace of Honourable Dyson Heydon AC QC when an independent investigation found that he harassed six former court staff members when he was a High Court judge.
Rachel Doyle provides a broad view of the challenges of tackling sexual harassment in the legal profession and the urgency to switch the victim-focused approach to the perpetrator-focused approach. After all, the legal profession - as well as medicine and the military- are hierarchical professions with clearly designated ranks and age is a good proxy for seniority and status. It is common for senior male judges to decide on promotions for young female lawyers (and therefore fertile ground for sexual harassment). However, the author notes that even women in powerful positions are sometimes harassed by men who hold less powerful positions, often by derogatory gender-based comments or sexist jokes.
As a test, she addresses men with a simple rule of three red flags. I listed it below, just in case you want something simple to use when men in your family start the old adagio 'not all men':
1-Are you older than the woman you are proposing to touch, kiss, or proposition? Is the age gap significant, more than 10 years? If so, have the first red flag.
2-Are you more senior than her? Are you more than one rung higher up in the hierarchy? If so, have a second red flag.
3-As yourself this question: and answer it honestly: do you hope (or even expect or require) that she will keep what is about to happen secret? if so, congratulations, you have earned the last red flag.
In the author's words: You are entering the high-risk territory. It may be sexual harassment. You need to be careful. You need to do your due diligence. If you genuinely believe that this much younger, more junior woman, who you expect to keep secret what is about to happen is genuinely interested after applying the metrics I have suggested above, then you may proceed with caution.
Rachel Doyle provides a broad view of the challenges of tackling sexual harassment in the legal profession and the urgency to switch the victim-focused approach to the perpetrator-focused approach. After all, the legal profession - as well as medicine and the military- are hierarchical professions with clearly designated ranks and age is a good proxy for seniority and status. It is common for senior male judges to decide on promotions for young female lawyers (and therefore fertile ground for sexual harassment). However, the author notes that even women in powerful positions are sometimes harassed by men who hold less powerful positions, often by derogatory gender-based comments or sexist jokes.
As a test, she addresses men with a simple rule of three red flags. I listed it below, just in case you want something simple to use when men in your family start the old adagio 'not all men':
1-Are you older than the woman you are proposing to touch, kiss, or proposition? Is the age gap significant, more than 10 years? If so, have the first red flag.
2-Are you more senior than her? Are you more than one rung higher up in the hierarchy? If so, have a second red flag.
3-As yourself this question: and answer it honestly: do you hope (or even expect or require) that she will keep what is about to happen secret? if so, congratulations, you have earned the last red flag.
In the author's words: You are entering the high-risk territory. It may be sexual harassment. You need to be careful. You need to do your due diligence. If you genuinely believe that this much younger, more junior woman, who you expect to keep secret what is about to happen is genuinely interested after applying the metrics I have suggested above, then you may proceed with caution.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews