Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone with the Opposite Sex(mobile.nytimes.com)
mobile.nytimes.com
Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone with the Opposite Sex
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html
169 comments
Your point about having video evidence brings up an interesting question for me, how does the HN community generally feel about pervasive workplace surveillance? It seems based on some of the articles I've read about harassment, that many times people will only feel comfortable coming forward when they have hard evidence such as texts, emails, video, etc against the perpetrators.
Seeing as we, in the US at least, seem to be fairly comfortable with having a pervasive surveillance state(lets ignore for a second whether this is rational, I personally believe the pendulum has swung way too far to the side of surveillance) due to the threat of terrorism, maybe we should also embrace this in our professional lives.
I personally think harassment in the workplace probably affects the day to day lives of more Americans than terrorism does. Is it time to institute these kinds of surveillance practices in the workplace? Maybe have 24 hour video/audio surveillance at work, disallow off work socializing between employees holding differing levels of seniority, only allow approved, and recorded, methods of communication?
For the record, I'm not sure how I would feel about such things, I'm leaning towards it being fraught with all sorts of negative unintended consequences, so if its a stupid idea please let me know, I'm simply curious to hear some opinions.
Edited for clarity.
Seeing as we, in the US at least, seem to be fairly comfortable with having a pervasive surveillance state(lets ignore for a second whether this is rational, I personally believe the pendulum has swung way too far to the side of surveillance) due to the threat of terrorism, maybe we should also embrace this in our professional lives.
I personally think harassment in the workplace probably affects the day to day lives of more Americans than terrorism does. Is it time to institute these kinds of surveillance practices in the workplace? Maybe have 24 hour video/audio surveillance at work, disallow off work socializing between employees holding differing levels of seniority, only allow approved, and recorded, methods of communication?
For the record, I'm not sure how I would feel about such things, I'm leaning towards it being fraught with all sorts of negative unintended consequences, so if its a stupid idea please let me know, I'm simply curious to hear some opinions.
Edited for clarity.
I think having constant surveillance can have a negative impact on work life. I know that when discussions moved to Slack at my work place there was a very different way to communicate due to us knowing our conversations may be read. Not that there were any instances of harassment, but sometimes it can be relieving to tell a coworker that your boss is a dick. It can help get feelings out before they build up.
I do see some value in surveillance, such as the GP's instance (whether or not it's true -- it's a reasonably plausible story). I, however, don't think that constant surveillance that upper management has free reign over is good. I did have an idea about this. Is there a way to have a file (such as video/audio) encrypted in such a way that it can only be decrypted with multiple keys? In GP's case, GP and the employee that made the accusation? That way you can still feel safe(-ish) that your small slacking off won't risk your job, while allowing for evidence in serious situations such as GP's.
I do see some value in surveillance, such as the GP's instance (whether or not it's true -- it's a reasonably plausible story). I, however, don't think that constant surveillance that upper management has free reign over is good. I did have an idea about this. Is there a way to have a file (such as video/audio) encrypted in such a way that it can only be decrypted with multiple keys? In GP's case, GP and the employee that made the accusation? That way you can still feel safe(-ish) that your small slacking off won't risk your job, while allowing for evidence in serious situations such as GP's.
There's also a difference between saving different levels of stuff within Slack. It can go all the way to saving everything including private channels and direct messages: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/220548947-Apply-for... or just for channels: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/203457187-Custom-me...
Make sure you know who's reading your DMs if you use Slack to e.g. complain about your manager. As someone able to make these decisions, make sure you know who has access and audit that. The story of the manager firing someone for performance reasons when the real reason is that they overheard something they didn't like is as old as the hills.
Make sure you know who's reading your DMs if you use Slack to e.g. complain about your manager. As someone able to make these decisions, make sure you know who has access and audit that. The story of the manager firing someone for performance reasons when the real reason is that they overheard something they didn't like is as old as the hills.
[deleted]
> After my manager reviewed the tape with her, it was clear she was lying, so she dropped her claim.
That should not have been the end of that story. Filing a false claim like that damages you and damages other people who actually have been the subject of such harassment by making it easier to claim for perps they made it all up.
That should not have been the end of that story. Filing a false claim like that damages you and damages other people who actually have been the subject of such harassment by making it easier to claim for perps they made it all up.
Oddly enough, I also experienced some weirdness at Best Buy. Worked on the early version of the geek squad (back in 2001 before they had cars and it was just a bunch of computer nerds at a counter). Female store manager made some pretty overt advances, which I declined. I’d had a scheduled vacation the next week. Came back from vacation to learn I’d been fired for inappropriate behavior with the female manager, by the female manager. Nobody wanted to listen to my side of the story or take it seriously. She was still there years later when I happened to go in to buy something.
>they'll drop a low level employee quick just to avoid the slight possibility of looking like they aren't taking sexual harassment seriously.
I've seen a manager vanish in response to an accusation. Under normal circumstances, it would take the company weeks to update the employee listing, but an allegation of sexual harassment? poof
I've seen a manager vanish in response to an accusation. Under normal circumstances, it would take the company weeks to update the employee listing, but an allegation of sexual harassment? poof
I'm really amazed that the data is that close for "having a work meeting." (25% of women say inappropriate vs 22% of men)
That's a lot higher than I was expecting. It makes me wonder why as well. Is it just "inappropriate" (what I imagine Mike Pence thinks)? Does one side think the other side is trying to do something inappropriate or is trying to lead into something?
At least in many jobs I've had, 1:1's were basically required time (though, not usually productive time). It's crazy thinking so many working relationships people might be on edge or think of as inappropriate.
Of course, the source of the data is "registered voters", not people who have jobs.
That's a lot higher than I was expecting. It makes me wonder why as well. Is it just "inappropriate" (what I imagine Mike Pence thinks)? Does one side think the other side is trying to do something inappropriate or is trying to lead into something?
At least in many jobs I've had, 1:1's were basically required time (though, not usually productive time). It's crazy thinking so many working relationships people might be on edge or think of as inappropriate.
Of course, the source of the data is "registered voters", not people who have jobs.
It's also not people who have office jobs, or even jobs specifically in industries where this is very common. At $workplace, managers have 1:1s with their reports basically weekly or bi-weekly, directors with their reports typically monthly, VPs quarterly if they have time. There are tons of 1:1s happening and while some dislike them for various reasons (waste of time, no power to actually change anything, inefficient to discuss a bigger topic with 1 person at a time then have to do that multiple times, etc), I've never heard anyone talk about or suspect that anyone has felt weird about a 1:1 being between two people of different gender. It's a 100% normal part of working at $company, so if we ran the same poll as in the article, I'd be very surprised if it was more than a couple % on each side in the "inappropriate" or even boarder line camp.
Fwiw, all the small rooms used for 1:1s, and all conference rooms for that matter, have at least 1 narrow (but usually wide) full-length window.
Fwiw, all the small rooms used for 1:1s, and all conference rooms for that matter, have at least 1 narrow (but usually wide) full-length window.
For the situations where the manager and the managed are of the opposite sex and one or both are aware of their own ethical and spiritual vulnerabilities maybe it'd be a good idea to have a 2:1 or 1:2 instead of a 1:1.
I hope you're joking, but if you're not, that sounds like a horrible idea to me.
Being a woman, and having had 1:1's with male managers for pretty much my entire tech career, I've never heard of this happening. I don't know what spiritual vulnerabilities you are talking about, but in terms of ethics if you can't work with a female employee, you shouldn't be a manager.
You're basically telling the person that you can't trust them enough to be alone with and honestly communicate with them when times are good. What happens when things get difficult?
Being a woman, and having had 1:1's with male managers for pretty much my entire tech career, I've never heard of this happening. I don't know what spiritual vulnerabilities you are talking about, but in terms of ethics if you can't work with a female employee, you shouldn't be a manager.
You're basically telling the person that you can't trust them enough to be alone with and honestly communicate with them when times are good. What happens when things get difficult?
It's not really about trust. It's just business and mutual protection.
I'm not sure which way to feel on the issue, but it's hard to deny that the recently reported harassment happened while both the victim and the abuser were alone together, or shared a private channel of communication. If you eliminate this aspect, you might eliminate the harassment along with it. That seems like a positive outcome.
In practice, that may not be achievable, or it might be a bad idea for other reasons. But anything that results in a positive impact seems worth considering.
I'm not sure which way to feel on the issue, but it's hard to deny that the recently reported harassment happened while both the victim and the abuser were alone together, or shared a private channel of communication. If you eliminate this aspect, you might eliminate the harassment along with it. That seems like a positive outcome.
In practice, that may not be achievable, or it might be a bad idea for other reasons. But anything that results in a positive impact seems worth considering.
If you're worried about mutual protection, it would seem that you don't trust the person.
You also seem to imply that harassment is more about having opportunities to harass, rather than a person wanting to commit harassment and waiting for the right opportunity. If someone wants to do something, I figure they could be very patient in waiting for their time.
Also, how would you know until everyone is already uncomfortable? The only way it sounds like to fix that is to trust no one, ever, and have everyone travel in groups of at least 3?
You also seem to imply that harassment is more about having opportunities to harass, rather than a person wanting to commit harassment and waiting for the right opportunity. If someone wants to do something, I figure they could be very patient in waiting for their time.
Also, how would you know until everyone is already uncomfortable? The only way it sounds like to fix that is to trust no one, ever, and have everyone travel in groups of at least 3?
Your conclusion sounds completely absurd, but I agree with you. In fact, even walking around in groups of 3 is dangerous if you keep talking because what you said might be interpreted as offensive and all 3 people would hear it.
I guess I don't understand what you would propose as a solution...
Current situation is obviously not working.
Right now the following is happening:
1) Ladies get harassed by those with more power because it's a way to get dates. They could potentially lose their job/opportunity if they disagree to go on a date. This leads to 2.
2) Men get false accusations because women do not currently have to provide proof for low rank employee harassment cases.
3) Culture is changing in such a way that more and more things are considered offensive to say.
4) People are choosing to have fewer 1-on-1 (or at all) interactions with coworkers because of these issues. It's unfair to discriminate against just some coworkers because you might suspect they will be trouble. As a result, you might be forced to not have 1-on-1s. Might be forced to give up all non-strictly-work-related conversations with everyone at work.
At my current work, all of us are now walking as a group to lunch in silence. It is extremely awkward but it seems like this is the only possible outcome of such a system.
I guess my own current solution is to leave US/Bay Area for basically any other country. I rather not deal with these dangers since I want to have friends at work and any non-work related conversation might be considered offensive by someone in a group of 20 or so people.
I guess I don't understand what you would propose as a solution...
Current situation is obviously not working.
Right now the following is happening:
1) Ladies get harassed by those with more power because it's a way to get dates. They could potentially lose their job/opportunity if they disagree to go on a date. This leads to 2.
2) Men get false accusations because women do not currently have to provide proof for low rank employee harassment cases.
3) Culture is changing in such a way that more and more things are considered offensive to say.
4) People are choosing to have fewer 1-on-1 (or at all) interactions with coworkers because of these issues. It's unfair to discriminate against just some coworkers because you might suspect they will be trouble. As a result, you might be forced to not have 1-on-1s. Might be forced to give up all non-strictly-work-related conversations with everyone at work.
At my current work, all of us are now walking as a group to lunch in silence. It is extremely awkward but it seems like this is the only possible outcome of such a system.
I guess my own current solution is to leave US/Bay Area for basically any other country. I rather not deal with these dangers since I want to have friends at work and any non-work related conversation might be considered offensive by someone in a group of 20 or so people.
Legitimately curious: if you walk to lunch in silence, why even go to lunch together? What would you talk about? Purely work? I'm sorry for you, that sounds like a really unfun workplace with bad culture if it's as bad as you say. Why stay there if it's that bad?
It takes a few months to find another gig. Also the main person complaining is about to leave.
Hoping things will go back to normal after that.
Hoping things will go back to normal after that.
I think one aspect that makes it workable is that it's about the power imbalance, not simply being alone with someone. It's ok to date a coworker. It's not ok to express or receive interest in someone who works under you. So it's not that everyone needs to travel in groups of 3, but rather that the people who have power over you are held to a different standard.
What I say applies to the females and males mentioned in the article who indicated they are uncomfortable being in a one on one situation with the opposite sex who is not their spouse, some of whom are already managers. Being outside those organisations I am not in a place where I can demote them, and thereby I made my proposal, maybe it will get picked up by the males and female workers mentioned in the article to reduce disadvantage in not being able to have one on one time with their opposite sex manager.
I encourage you to push your opinions and beliefs within your own organisation. But I hope you don't go around outing people who are uncomfortable with being alone with the opposite sex to get them fired, before they have done anything. (And if anything IMO they ought to be commended for actively avoiding situations where they will have inappropriate thoughts about their colleagues)
I encourage you to push your opinions and beliefs within your own organisation. But I hope you don't go around outing people who are uncomfortable with being alone with the opposite sex to get them fired, before they have done anything. (And if anything IMO they ought to be commended for actively avoiding situations where they will have inappropriate thoughts about their colleagues)
[deleted]
That presumably puts a real damper on the sort of direct communication and private feedback 1:1s are supposed to support.
And chaperons for teenagers!
/s
/s
And yet most public schools (all?) in the US insist on chaperones for dances, anything overnight (where this isn't banned as it was in my district after 9/11...yep, no school-sponsored overnight trips (which includes any which involve travel, and air travel was separately banned) district-wide)), ski trips, whatever. "If you're not in sight of an adult, you're going to use that time to have sex and do drugs" seemed to be the mindset of the administration.
Good point on "the source of the data is 'registered voters', not people who have jobs."
In a round-about way, polling registered voters might make sense, as they have -- however indirectly -- to actually change the system.
In a round-about way, polling registered voters might make sense, as they have -- however indirectly -- to actually change the system.
[deleted]
"At least in many [white-collar office-with-glass-door easy-access-to-legal-and-HR-departments harassment-training-mandated-as-part-of-the-orientation coworkers-not-prone-to-gossip] jobs I've had."
I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make?
It's been shown, especially recently, that HR and legal are not necessarily on the side of employees wronged by sexism in the workplace. Harassment training is an ongoing joke.
Or are you saying in other jobs men and women are less likely to work together alone, so people might think it's more inappropriate?
It's been shown, especially recently, that HR and legal are not necessarily on the side of employees wronged by sexism in the workplace. Harassment training is an ongoing joke.
Or are you saying in other jobs men and women are less likely to work together alone, so people might think it's more inappropriate?
> It's been shown, especially recently, that HR and legal are not necessarily on the side of employees wronged by sexism in the workplace.
Nor are they on the side of employees accused of sexism. They will do whatever is in their best interest. Which can mean both ignoring sexism or wrongfully firing the employee with no proof.
The cost of ignoring sexism is a potential PR nightmare. The cost of wrongfully terminating the accused employee is maybe a low 7 figure wrongful termination suit at the worst.
Nor are they on the side of employees accused of sexism. They will do whatever is in their best interest. Which can mean both ignoring sexism or wrongfully firing the employee with no proof.
The cost of ignoring sexism is a potential PR nightmare. The cost of wrongfully terminating the accused employee is maybe a low 7 figure wrongful termination suit at the worst.
Exactly, HR and legal are there to protect the business, not the employees.
They only protect the employees when it could harm the business.
They only protect the employees when it could harm the business.
I've worked in retail, in warehouses, in call centres, as a medical technician, and now in tech, and never with a half-decent HR dept. At no point in any of my jobs was there a norm for people to be wary of 1:1 meetings with the opposite gender.
[deleted]
I'm also surprised by such a large percentage. I suppose that the problem of having a "work meeting" is that some workplaces are very uneven - i.e., management position is only hold by men.
I think the questioning might have also been strange. How would you even phrase it?
"Do you think it's appropriate for a man and a woman to have a private work meeting?"
Sounds like a way to lead to no.
But if you asked, is it fine for two people to have a private work meeting together, and (follow up) what if they were different genders?
"Do you think it's appropriate for a man and a woman to have a private work meeting?"
Sounds like a way to lead to no.
But if you asked, is it fine for two people to have a private work meeting together, and (follow up) what if they were different genders?
Here in Japan I regularly hear about women or families saying Japan isn't as safe as it appears. I never understood it, because the data doesn't back it up, and I've never experienced any trouble in nearly 5 years here.
I don't have a TV. When I catch TV though, the news programs can harp on a minor crime here in Tokyo like a convenience store robbery for a good thiry minutes. These friends watch a lot of TV. I think media narratives drive these paranoias.
I don't have a TV. When I catch TV though, the news programs can harp on a minor crime here in Tokyo like a convenience store robbery for a good thiry minutes. These friends watch a lot of TV. I think media narratives drive these paranoias.
I live in Phnom Penh and I'd say the crime here is about as bad as an average larger American city, but in a different way. There is more petty crime, especially theft. I've lived here 4 years and never had any problem really, but I see visitors and expats alike getting robbed frequently. I've avoided it because I don't carry anything worth stealing and I am not the type of person that thieves target.
How do you avoid being the type of person a thief targets? Is it a brawny/threatening look, or just not using an iPhone in public?
Both if possible. Don't look wealthy, do look like you can defend yourself, being male helps, being young helps. It's unfortunate, but there are reasons that I don't get messed with ever and yet other people set foot off the plane and are robbed mere hours later (my uncle for example, who visited me in Phnom Penh).
I don't mean to blame anyone for being robbed, but being a little clueless and careless is definitely one of the main causes too. People forget that the cost of a new iPhone is almost the same as the average yearly wage in Cambodia. It's like seeing someone walking in a big US city with 20,000$ in hand, from the thief's perspective.
Cambodia is a very nice place in general though.
I don't mean to blame anyone for being robbed, but being a little clueless and careless is definitely one of the main causes too. People forget that the cost of a new iPhone is almost the same as the average yearly wage in Cambodia. It's like seeing someone walking in a big US city with 20,000$ in hand, from the thief's perspective.
Cambodia is a very nice place in general though.
> People forget that the cost of a new iPhone is almost the same as the average yearly wage in Cambodia.
Good point!
From a thieves perspective it is probably not just the value of the visible goods - it's also about the arrogance such behavior exhibits - people who show off kind of deserve to get a reality check.
Good point!
From a thieves perspective it is probably not just the value of the visible goods - it's also about the arrogance such behavior exhibits - people who show off kind of deserve to get a reality check.
Not the OP but when I'm overseas I try to blend in in terms of attire and so on (dress down and don't be flashy). I mean, dress like normal locals dress.
Basically don't stick out as a shining target.
Basically don't stick out as a shining target.
Doesn't work when you're 6'5" white guy traveling in most countries outside of North America and Europe.
The 6'5" could be problematic, but as a very white guy I've had very positive experiences by just acting like I belong (acting slightly bored by everything around me while secretly enjoying the new sights, avoiding stops at subway maps and the like, dressing the part, etc.).
Most places I've visited have at least enough white people for me to appear 'local poor expat', but I can see how being the only white or only really tall person throws a wrench into that approach.
Most places I've visited have at least enough white people for me to appear 'local poor expat', but I can see how being the only white or only really tall person throws a wrench into that approach.
While people do notice faces and thus skin tone, one more obvious identifier, besides height, is gait and walk cadence.
Most foreigners will walk a different way from locals and it's really noticeable.
But dress is really important. Locals will wear some locally available brands, foreigners typically will keep on wearing the same brands they wore back home.
All that said, being 6'5" where just about everyone else is at least 6" shorter is a pretty unavoidable distinguishable difference.
Most foreigners will walk a different way from locals and it's really noticeable.
But dress is really important. Locals will wear some locally available brands, foreigners typically will keep on wearing the same brands they wore back home.
All that said, being 6'5" where just about everyone else is at least 6" shorter is a pretty unavoidable distinguishable difference.
It's a cultural issue with Americans. There seems to be a belief there that equality is not really equality but a battle of the genders imo. Women and men alike obsess over the differences and have very traditional dating structures/marriages. Gender equality in Europe makes the states look like a joke
Hit the nail on the head. Americans are in constant battle, whether sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. It's not as 'equal' as it seems, and if it is, it's because persons go out of their way to cater to those groups. It would be nicer just to see them no differently at all, but I digress.
> just to see them no differently at all
I agree but you can't say this sentiment out loud in some US big tech companies. In fact, saying it out loud may lead to social outrage + job loss + career suicide.
A closely related issue to the main one being discussed here.
I agree but you can't say this sentiment out loud in some US big tech companies. In fact, saying it out loud may lead to social outrage + job loss + career suicide.
A closely related issue to the main one being discussed here.
I've noticed a huge difference between China (and the greater Chinese speaking community throughout Asia) and the US, too. I also see a lot of hostility between the sexes in the US. Part of that is due to differences in how people use social media for public shaming and to share "outrage porn", but even in offline interactions there are just fundamentally different expectations.
It's absolutely striking how few American couples pour their resources together and run a business together. There are still some family businesses, but it seems like most are run by immigrants. To me, it seems like such a natural thing to band together with and feel you are on a team with the person you've decided to spend your life with. Of course not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but it also looks uncommon in the US for people to significantly invest in their partner's careers either. The focus is more personal.
Us vs them has some problems with nepotism and cases of corruption, but it does a lot better than "us vs us", IMO.
It's absolutely striking how few American couples pour their resources together and run a business together. There are still some family businesses, but it seems like most are run by immigrants. To me, it seems like such a natural thing to band together with and feel you are on a team with the person you've decided to spend your life with. Of course not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but it also looks uncommon in the US for people to significantly invest in their partner's careers either. The focus is more personal.
Us vs them has some problems with nepotism and cases of corruption, but it does a lot better than "us vs us", IMO.
>Of course not everyone can be an entrepreneur, but it also looks uncommon in the US for people to significantly invest in their partner's careers either
About 30% of mothers are stay at home moms and the majority of them are supporting their husband's careers by running the household. The majority of the women who do work, still do the majority of house work and childcare.
>It's absolutely striking how few American couples pour their resources together and run a business together.
Health insurance has a lot to do with that. It's common for one spouse to work just for insurance. Obamacare helped with that, but with it's future uncertain...
>but it seems like most are run by immigrants.
This depends heavily on location. And there are few factors at play.
-Many immigrants to the US come here specifically with a plan to start a business, and in order to become a permanent resident there are financial requirements.
-Immigrants from many countries have historically faced discrimination, and self-employment was their only available option. The networks in place to support self-employment in these communities still exists and self-employment is encouraged within these communities.
-Immigrant owned businesses often cater to immigrant communities that are ignored by larger chain stores that have driven many small retail stores out of business.
About 30% of mothers are stay at home moms and the majority of them are supporting their husband's careers by running the household. The majority of the women who do work, still do the majority of house work and childcare.
>It's absolutely striking how few American couples pour their resources together and run a business together.
Health insurance has a lot to do with that. It's common for one spouse to work just for insurance. Obamacare helped with that, but with it's future uncertain...
>but it seems like most are run by immigrants.
This depends heavily on location. And there are few factors at play.
-Many immigrants to the US come here specifically with a plan to start a business, and in order to become a permanent resident there are financial requirements.
-Immigrants from many countries have historically faced discrimination, and self-employment was their only available option. The networks in place to support self-employment in these communities still exists and self-employment is encouraged within these communities.
-Immigrant owned businesses often cater to immigrant communities that are ignored by larger chain stores that have driven many small retail stores out of business.
>Gender equality in Europe makes the states look like a joke
Not necessarily true when you consider all of Europe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/10/25...
Not necessarily true when you consider all of Europe.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/10/25...
What are people so uptight about?
Not that I understand why, but it makes some sense if religious people are somehow shy to that, but atheists?
Are people afraid of perception or afraid of misinterpretation or afraid physically, are there that many unhinged people out there?
You can totally make friends with people of the same sex you are generally sexually attracted to and it does not mean or have to end up in a weird uncomfortable moment. Just be people. Think how you made friends pre-puberty. You just went and talked.
Not that I understand why, but it makes some sense if religious people are somehow shy to that, but atheists?
Are people afraid of perception or afraid of misinterpretation or afraid physically, are there that many unhinged people out there?
You can totally make friends with people of the same sex you are generally sexually attracted to and it does not mean or have to end up in a weird uncomfortable moment. Just be people. Think how you made friends pre-puberty. You just went and talked.
I am surprised about this as well: here (EU) people I know have no issues with this at all. Friends are both male and female, for my wife and me, and we meet, alone, with them often. Colleagues as well; I often have lunch/dinner/car rides alone with my colleagues of the opposite sex and never thought about this. They are colleagues and we are there to do a job. I have never, only for highschool teachers, heard anything different than this in NL: my parents did and do the same for instance.
Probably in the group you hang around with, but you can't generalize that. There are definitely people in the Netherlands who will actively avoid situations where they are 1:1 with mixed genders, and not only in work settings. Since I have children, I meet much more people who are 'different' from my 'normal' crowd (which are successful university educated upper middle and upper class professionals) and I havr painfully felt this more than a handful of times the last two years - to the point where I've started to somewhat dread situations where this sort of awkwardness might happen.
Additionally, and this is even worse, it is starting to reinforce some stereotypes in me, and is making me less tolerant of those who are uptight like that about it. And this is not something against muslims either; I've had muslim women excuse themselves from me and I just thought 'oh well, when in Rome, do like the Romans'. It's when people are more 'like me' and behave like this that I get annoyed and think less of them (and their background) for it. As bad as that is.
(Edit: but what I hate even more is that this is making me adjust my own behavior as well. I start to feel 'uncomfortable' (oh what a horrible word) now in those situations because I realize others might be, and I certainly don't want others to feel like they somehow 'have' to be around me. I'm turning into a product of the society that produces millions of precious little snowflakes with the mental resilience and self-awareness of 2 years olds. I hope it's just part of the transition into being part of the 'old people'. At least that would make it 'normal'.)
Additionally, and this is even worse, it is starting to reinforce some stereotypes in me, and is making me less tolerant of those who are uptight like that about it. And this is not something against muslims either; I've had muslim women excuse themselves from me and I just thought 'oh well, when in Rome, do like the Romans'. It's when people are more 'like me' and behave like this that I get annoyed and think less of them (and their background) for it. As bad as that is.
(Edit: but what I hate even more is that this is making me adjust my own behavior as well. I start to feel 'uncomfortable' (oh what a horrible word) now in those situations because I realize others might be, and I certainly don't want others to feel like they somehow 'have' to be around me. I'm turning into a product of the society that produces millions of precious little snowflakes with the mental resilience and self-awareness of 2 years olds. I hope it's just part of the transition into being part of the 'old people'. At least that would make it 'normal'.)
You are right, cannot generalize. But as it's not a common subject in NL (we usually hear about things that actually happened like the Judo thing); I would find it horrible to have to be careful with everything I do because people might feel 'uncomfortable' (like you I do not like this word; I think uncomfortable is an indigestion type of thing). But this is not at all to belittle people who are generally threatened as yes, that happens, but 'we' (in NL) (and in UK I see it as well) do not have that feeling generally and that's better than this 'let's not go for a drink because I might end up fired'. It widens the gender gap considerably as well as you cannot treat others like equals. You would have that drink with a male colleague, alone etc.
I went (as a white guy) to a mostly muslim highschool in Utrecht (Kanaleneiland in the 80s) and besides guns, knives and streets fights, this feeling wasn't there either. But real (in the much more than uncomfortable range) things ofcourse happened, it just didn't leave this kind paranoia behind. If paranoia at all.
I went (as a white guy) to a mostly muslim highschool in Utrecht (Kanaleneiland in the 80s) and besides guns, knives and streets fights, this feeling wasn't there either. But real (in the much more than uncomfortable range) things ofcourse happened, it just didn't leave this kind paranoia behind. If paranoia at all.
It's very common in all western countries, there's nothing special about Europe, the Netherlands or the UK. Go talk to some male primary school teachers about their experiences - if you can find any.
I'll speak up with an example from a man's perspective; it has nothing to do with attraction or religion, it's just not worth the risk.
If I'm one-on-one with a woman and a misunderstanding makes her feel uncomfortable or threatened and she accuses me of misconduct or sexual harassment I'm at an enormous disadvantage without any witnesses. When even being accused could be career ending it's best to bring someone else along.
I have absolutely no problem going one-on-one with my friends who are women but I can't say the same for strictly co-workers.
If I'm one-on-one with a woman and a misunderstanding makes her feel uncomfortable or threatened and she accuses me of misconduct or sexual harassment I'm at an enormous disadvantage without any witnesses. When even being accused could be career ending it's best to bring someone else along.
I have absolutely no problem going one-on-one with my friends who are women but I can't say the same for strictly co-workers.
I understand your PoV. I would say it would be extremely rare for a woman (or man) to make baseless accusations from uncertain interpretations.
People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward thing done to them repeatedly.
That said, one has to acknowledge there are genuinely malicious people --but they typically have a pattern and it will not be their first time making false accusations.
That said, one has to acknowledge there are genuinely malicious people --but they typically have a pattern and it will not be their first time making false accusations.
Risk = Probability x Severity x Exposure
This is elementary risk analysis. While the probability might be low, the severity is super high (career end). So to mitigate, you reduce exposure to as close to zero as possible.
This is elementary risk analysis. While the probability might be low, the severity is super high (career end). So to mitigate, you reduce exposure to as close to zero as possible.
>> People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward thing done to them repeatedly.
Sounds like you've already pre-inclined towards a guilty party then, before you even heard evidence from both sides. And if there is no evidence, the man is in a world of trouble.
I have personally witnessed a man in the office be fired for "sexual harassment" shortly after escalating an accounting audit issue. Convenient timing and very effective way of dealing with an accounting issue.
Sounds like you've already pre-inclined towards a guilty party then, before you even heard evidence from both sides. And if there is no evidence, the man is in a world of trouble.
I have personally witnessed a man in the office be fired for "sexual harassment" shortly after escalating an accounting audit issue. Convenient timing and very effective way of dealing with an accounting issue.
Sure. I know one person who claimed sexual assault to try to get a better business deal. But in my experience, the opposite is way more common. Among my wife's circle of friends, several have been literally raped without consequence for the perpetrator. Nevermind things like groping, now you're looking at a 100% hit rate.
I don't doubt that can happen --there are vindictive, retributive people out there. That kind of person would not need a 1:1 or drive home, etc., to bring forward an accusation.
This is true, but it would be more difficult for the mud to stick if it hard for that person to prove you spent large amounts of time alone with them.
note: I don't believe that many people would be vindictive like that, but the impact of such an accusation is so large means that even a very small chance of it happening is something worth protecting oneself against.
note: I don't believe that many people would be vindictive like that, but the impact of such an accusation is so large means that even a very small chance of it happening is something worth protecting oneself against.
You are right, most people are not like that. How many people are? 1%? 2%? 0.5%? I work with hundreds of people, we have dozens of meetings a month, we might meet with over a thousand people a year in a large company.
Not throw in tough situations. People trying to cut legal/ethical/accounting corners to make their numbers. People hoping not to get caught. People doing whatever they need to to prevent getting fired. People trying not to be in the bottom 10% (and thus let go.) In the context of all this -- yes, people start using every tactic and social weapon in their toolkit. It takes 1 accusation and you are done.
Not throw in tough situations. People trying to cut legal/ethical/accounting corners to make their numbers. People hoping not to get caught. People doing whatever they need to to prevent getting fired. People trying not to be in the bottom 10% (and thus let go.) In the context of all this -- yes, people start using every tactic and social weapon in their toolkit. It takes 1 accusation and you are done.
So when there is no evidence one way or the other, you're saying you'd believe the accuser. This pretty much supports the grandparent's statement.
I know of a woman who has made a successful career of extorting "settlements with mutual confidentiality agreements" out of a succession of positions as a PA to multiple high level executives, with each exec settling for tens of thousands to avoid this person leveling damaging public accusations against them. She can get away with it because there is a general consensus that without evidence, the "victim" should be believed and that men are probably guilty.
I know of a woman who has made a successful career of extorting "settlements with mutual confidentiality agreements" out of a succession of positions as a PA to multiple high level executives, with each exec settling for tens of thousands to avoid this person leveling damaging public accusations against them. She can get away with it because there is a general consensus that without evidence, the "victim" should be believed and that men are probably guilty.
I don' think you understood what I said.
My point is that a woman (or man) will not come out of a 1:1 or a drive home or talks over dinner and take an ambiguous statement or thing they thought they saw or heard and run to HR. People are rather loath to make the wrong conclusion and will give other the benefit of the doubt.
Now, bad, vindictive, extortionists, etc., will not need you to take them out for drinks or have a 1:1 to get their way. So it's beside the point. I'm speaking of interpersonal communication, work relationships, etc. with normal people. We need not fear normal people.
My point is that a woman (or man) will not come out of a 1:1 or a drive home or talks over dinner and take an ambiguous statement or thing they thought they saw or heard and run to HR. People are rather loath to make the wrong conclusion and will give other the benefit of the doubt.
Now, bad, vindictive, extortionists, etc., will not need you to take them out for drinks or have a 1:1 to get their way. So it's beside the point. I'm speaking of interpersonal communication, work relationships, etc. with normal people. We need not fear normal people.
> Now, bad, vindictive, extortionists, etc., will not need you to take them out for drinks or have a 1:1 to get their way.
This is the key. It is so foreign to me the idea that I would be afraid to be alone in a room with a woman. In the rare case that someone is actually that crazy and malicious, they will fabricate a private meeting entirely if need be, and as was said before, the accusation can be enough to damage a career. How is it even possible to avoid brief periods of private communication with the opposite sex all day every day?
This is the key. It is so foreign to me the idea that I would be afraid to be alone in a room with a woman. In the rare case that someone is actually that crazy and malicious, they will fabricate a private meeting entirely if need be, and as was said before, the accusation can be enough to damage a career. How is it even possible to avoid brief periods of private communication with the opposite sex all day every day?
The problem - of course - is that bad, vindictive, etc, people can appear completely normal.
They can even be unusually charming and disarming.
They can even be unusually charming and disarming.
I was responding to the part of your comment where you wrote:
> "I would say it would be extremely rare for a woman (or man) to make baseless accusations from uncertain interpretations. People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward thing done to them repeatedly."
To me, this sounds like your default position would believe the accuser over the accused where no evidence exists. Apologies if this is not what you were trying to convey.
I do agree that vindictive individuals are probably rare, but I do believe that they are out there and I also believe that there are lot of people in the world who look to take offense in innocent situations as I have been confidants of such people in the past and things that I interpret as innocuous can easily be interpreted in a poor light if the person has their "default" mindset to interpret things in a negative light.
And yes, your point about vindictive people is a good one, but I still think that avoiding 1:1 situations would make it much more difficult for such accusations to have as big an impact.
> "I would say it would be extremely rare for a woman (or man) to make baseless accusations from uncertain interpretations. People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward thing done to them repeatedly."
To me, this sounds like your default position would believe the accuser over the accused where no evidence exists. Apologies if this is not what you were trying to convey.
I do agree that vindictive individuals are probably rare, but I do believe that they are out there and I also believe that there are lot of people in the world who look to take offense in innocent situations as I have been confidants of such people in the past and things that I interpret as innocuous can easily be interpreted in a poor light if the person has their "default" mindset to interpret things in a negative light.
And yes, your point about vindictive people is a good one, but I still think that avoiding 1:1 situations would make it much more difficult for such accusations to have as big an impact.
I'm not even considering the case where the woman is being malicious; even in the case a misunderstanding her feelings could be completely valid. For example, she could take me buying her a drink as an advance when I'm really just getting the next round. Or I could be venting or speaking passionately about something and have it come off as scary; I'm a pretty big dude and I have a hearing problem so I talk too loud sometimes.
Then just say that's what you're doing. Ask her if she feels uncomfortable and say you want to have a productive but professional working relationship.
I dislike the use of the word 'just' in these kinds of discussions. If it were 'just' a matter of doing x, we wouldn't be discussing it.
I can't think of any recent professional interaction with a woman (I'm a man) where the mere act of 'asking if she feels uncomfortable' or underlining how this is not a outside-of-work-type situation wouldn't be enough to make the whole thing uncomfortable.
It'd a milder form of saying 'I don't want to have sex with you, just to be clear.'
I'm sure there are situations where this can and should be said, and where this might be done in a non-awkward way, I'm just saying that in many cases it's not that simple. Being explicit can be creepy.
I can't think of any recent professional interaction with a woman (I'm a man) where the mere act of 'asking if she feels uncomfortable' or underlining how this is not a outside-of-work-type situation wouldn't be enough to make the whole thing uncomfortable.
It'd a milder form of saying 'I don't want to have sex with you, just to be clear.'
I'm sure there are situations where this can and should be said, and where this might be done in a non-awkward way, I'm just saying that in many cases it's not that simple. Being explicit can be creepy.
> When even being accused could be career ending
I'm surprised by this. Would you really be damaged if someone makes an accusation against you without any evidence?
I'm surprised by this. Would you really be damaged if someone makes an accusation against you without any evidence?
Well, you could be fired, so it depends on whether you consider that "damaged".
Can you point to an example in the US where someone has been fired based on an accusation without any evidence?
Since the US generally has at will employment and doesn't require identifying the reasons—much less the evidence supporting them—for terminations, you would never be able to point to an example if it existed.
(Also, since the claims of the alleged victim or anyone else are evidence, it would never happen; there's always some evidence.)
(Also, since the claims of the alleged victim or anyone else are evidence, it would never happen; there's always some evidence.)
It's not easy.
Social relationships where there are strict rules of engagement (e.g., professional environments) and where the other person is different than you (e.g., power, sex, age, familial background, religion, etc.) can be extremely difficult to navigate. Dealing with these relationships isn't "natural," and going into it solely based on gut feeling often ends badly. The good news is that it can be taught and learned from experience, but sadly, many receive neither.
Social relationships where there are strict rules of engagement (e.g., professional environments) and where the other person is different than you (e.g., power, sex, age, familial background, religion, etc.) can be extremely difficult to navigate. Dealing with these relationships isn't "natural," and going into it solely based on gut feeling often ends badly. The good news is that it can be taught and learned from experience, but sadly, many receive neither.
It helps to understand features of conservative religious communities:
1) sex, marriage, and family are still inseparably linked and are believed to be foundational to life and human flourishing. Thus, breaking marital vows reflects a profound failure of character. 2) individuals within Convervative Christian have a deep mistrust of their own capacity to resist moral failures.
From my conversations, the individual isn't avoiding awkward situations but fears that, should a mutual attraction develop, he would potentially lack the moral resolve to stay faithful.
Interestingly enough, I've talked to a few conservative Christian counselors with 25+ years of counselling experience about this issue. They all responded that they actually felt more strongly than when they started counseling about avoiding circumstances that would allow romantic relationships to develop because they had seen so many people ruin their families, reputations, and careers this way.
Outside Christian communities, sex, family, and marriage are not inherently related so the priorities seem bizarre or sexist. it largely boils down to a different understand of what it means to he human.
1) sex, marriage, and family are still inseparably linked and are believed to be foundational to life and human flourishing. Thus, breaking marital vows reflects a profound failure of character. 2) individuals within Convervative Christian have a deep mistrust of their own capacity to resist moral failures.
From my conversations, the individual isn't avoiding awkward situations but fears that, should a mutual attraction develop, he would potentially lack the moral resolve to stay faithful.
Interestingly enough, I've talked to a few conservative Christian counselors with 25+ years of counselling experience about this issue. They all responded that they actually felt more strongly than when they started counseling about avoiding circumstances that would allow romantic relationships to develop because they had seen so many people ruin their families, reputations, and careers this way.
Outside Christian communities, sex, family, and marriage are not inherently related so the priorities seem bizarre or sexist. it largely boils down to a different understand of what it means to he human.
From a quick google search surveys show that American's almost unanimously find cheating morally wrong, and 60% of all children in America are born to married parents.
>Outside Christian communities, sex, family, and marriage are not inherently related
I don't think you can say that at all. Looking at the marriage rates in looks like the majority of sex is probably happening in married relationships, even outside of conservative Christian communities. The average American may be OK with sex outside of marriage, but I think they're still pretty related in most people's minds.
>Outside Christian communities, sex, family, and marriage are not inherently related
I don't think you can say that at all. Looking at the marriage rates in looks like the majority of sex is probably happening in married relationships, even outside of conservative Christian communities. The average American may be OK with sex outside of marriage, but I think they're still pretty related in most people's minds.
[deleted]
I wrote this when the Pence story broke in March.
>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to write this yesterday, but thankfully I didn't, because Jia Tolentino did a much better job than I would have in the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-m...
What bothers me about Pence's "no meals alone with women who aren't my wife" and "no working late with female aides" rules isn't that he's trying to protect women from himself. He rightly understands that he's a powerful man, and many women have been harmed, sexually or otherwise, by people remarkably like him. Kudos to Mike Pence for getting that, even if he also doesn't get that many men have been harmed in just the same way.
What bothers me is that he (apparently) pays no heed to the question of how to protect women from himself while still ensuring they can have equitable careers. "You go home, honey; Jack will stay and help me" is saying that women and men have different roles to play in Pence's staff, and that's quintessential sexism (and may be illegal). And as the article points out, "no successful woman could ever abide by [Pence's no-meals-alone rule]."
Anyway this article frames the issue really well.
>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to write this yesterday, but thankfully I didn't, because Jia Tolentino did a much better job than I would have in the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-m...
What bothers me about Pence's "no meals alone with women who aren't my wife" and "no working late with female aides" rules isn't that he's trying to protect women from himself. He rightly understands that he's a powerful man, and many women have been harmed, sexually or otherwise, by people remarkably like him. Kudos to Mike Pence for getting that, even if he also doesn't get that many men have been harmed in just the same way.
What bothers me is that he (apparently) pays no heed to the question of how to protect women from himself while still ensuring they can have equitable careers. "You go home, honey; Jack will stay and help me" is saying that women and men have different roles to play in Pence's staff, and that's quintessential sexism (and may be illegal). And as the article points out, "no successful woman could ever abide by [Pence's no-meals-alone rule]."
Anyway this article frames the issue really well.
If it's done properly, there are alternatives. Instead of having drinks one-on-one, you invite a mutual friend, or you go for lunch, coffee, or a jog. I don't think these alternatives are natural to most people, but I do think they can be taught. In good organizations, they are.
There are two factors at play here:
1. General religiously-driven norms, which are shifting in the US (e.g., VP Pence)
2. Concern, or overly-cautious / over-concern over what happened last week with Binary Capital. Clearly there is a middle ground between the frat-house that Binary Capital was and the monastery environment VP Pence might suggest.
1. General religiously-driven norms, which are shifting in the US (e.g., VP Pence)
2. Concern, or overly-cautious / over-concern over what happened last week with Binary Capital. Clearly there is a middle ground between the frat-house that Binary Capital was and the monastery environment VP Pence might suggest.
I think people might underestimate the religious side to this. I'm Dutch, and the vast majority of Dutch Evangelical pastors, elders, or youth leaders avoided meeting church members in a 1-on-1 situation across gender.
There are some obvious reasons for this, like false accusations by the many less-than-stable members, as well as the therapeutic nature of many meetings (rife with possible line-crossing from both sides, psychologically).
Less obvious reasons would include a more fundamental belief in the 'sinful' nature of the flesh. Again, the vast majority of Evangelical leaders I know strongly believe that even the best of people can be tempted into sinful acts, and a pragmatic solution is to avoid the temptation in the first place.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that society in the USA, on the whole, and even now, leans a bit more toward puritanical and/or Evangeical beliefs, or at the very least they're part of mainstream thought. If true, it could explain how so many Americans are wary of being alone with the opposite sex.
For example, I find that in my Western European surroundings casual hookups seem much more part of the day to day fabric than they seem to be to my American friends. It strikes me as not unreasonable to conclude that if casual sex is more acceptable here than in the USA (publicly, anyways), what constitutes crossing the boundaries of propriety in the USA might not be considered in the same way over here.
Specifically, I've worked in more than one relatively boring, conservative corporations where at the bigger parties various people 'hooked up' with various other people, some of them involving clear power-discrepancies. Nobody batted an eye and the whole thing seemed to be a 'what happens in vegas' type of thing, warranting some juicy gossip at most.
I'm not saying that this is how things should be, to be clear, just that generally my impression is that the USA is generally more uptight (best word I can think of, but I don't mean it disparagingly) about these things.
There are some obvious reasons for this, like false accusations by the many less-than-stable members, as well as the therapeutic nature of many meetings (rife with possible line-crossing from both sides, psychologically).
Less obvious reasons would include a more fundamental belief in the 'sinful' nature of the flesh. Again, the vast majority of Evangelical leaders I know strongly believe that even the best of people can be tempted into sinful acts, and a pragmatic solution is to avoid the temptation in the first place.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that society in the USA, on the whole, and even now, leans a bit more toward puritanical and/or Evangeical beliefs, or at the very least they're part of mainstream thought. If true, it could explain how so many Americans are wary of being alone with the opposite sex.
For example, I find that in my Western European surroundings casual hookups seem much more part of the day to day fabric than they seem to be to my American friends. It strikes me as not unreasonable to conclude that if casual sex is more acceptable here than in the USA (publicly, anyways), what constitutes crossing the boundaries of propriety in the USA might not be considered in the same way over here.
Specifically, I've worked in more than one relatively boring, conservative corporations where at the bigger parties various people 'hooked up' with various other people, some of them involving clear power-discrepancies. Nobody batted an eye and the whole thing seemed to be a 'what happens in vegas' type of thing, warranting some juicy gossip at most.
I'm not saying that this is how things should be, to be clear, just that generally my impression is that the USA is generally more uptight (best word I can think of, but I don't mean it disparagingly) about these things.
I've never had that thought or known anyone else. What states are those? There's gotta be a major difference between areas. In my area, if anything, meeting with the opposite sex can insinuate something.
> When he needs to meet with women at work or his church, he makes sure doors are left open and another person is present.
Saint-Simon, the memorialist descibing life at the court of Louis XIV of France in the late 17th century, tells how, when the King had a meeting with his current mistress, he would leave all doors open so that no one would wonder about what was going on.
The problem was, when the King met with other women (or men) he would have the doors closed, so the fact that the doors were open was a tell! ;-)
Saint-Simon, the memorialist descibing life at the court of Louis XIV of France in the late 17th century, tells how, when the King had a meeting with his current mistress, he would leave all doors open so that no one would wonder about what was going on.
The problem was, when the King met with other women (or men) he would have the doors closed, so the fact that the doors were open was a tell! ;-)
Two surprises about this article: 1 - 25% of women think it's inappropriate to have a work meeting with a man. 2 - 41% of men think it's appropriate to have a drink one-on-one with a women.
Yeah the drink thing is definitely inappropriate.
This article and thread have been fascinating to me. I am from NZ, so maybe this is a US-cultural thing?
The idea that getting a drink with a women-not-your-spouse being inappropriate is so crazy and weird to me! Do you not have female friends? How do you spend time with them?
The idea that getting a drink with a women-not-your-spouse being inappropriate is so crazy and weird to me! Do you not have female friends? How do you spend time with them?
I'm an American (male) and I find it crazy as well. I don't see anything inappropriate about any of the topics in that graph, although the work meeting strikes me as "risky" rather than "inappropriate". Reading this article feels like I'm reading about space aliens rather than my fellow human beings.
If you're married or in a relationship in NZ, your spouse is fine with you getting drunk alone with someone of the opposite sex?
You can't drink without getting drunk?
(To answer your main question though: I'm OK with it, maybe that's just me though. I know we are a small nation but I don't know everyone.)
Edit: Since we're on the subject, I just spent a week living in an AirBNB apartment with a female work colleague (work meetup in a different city). Just us two. Before this thread I didn't even think that was weird. Americans: is that weird?
(To answer your main question though: I'm OK with it, maybe that's just me though. I know we are a small nation but I don't know everyone.)
Edit: Since we're on the subject, I just spent a week living in an AirBNB apartment with a female work colleague (work meetup in a different city). Just us two. Before this thread I didn't even think that was weird. Americans: is that weird?
Bad phrasing. Do you think the average New Zealander is ok with their spouse going out for drinks alone with someone of the opposite sex?
I'm pretty sure that most Americans wouldn't like that, and I think jealousy and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all countries.
About the AirBNB thing--it's pretty context dependant. If you are both single and working for a small startup and you did it voluntarily, I think most Most Americans under 40 wouldn't find it too weird.
If you're working for a large company, or your startup made you share, I think most of us would think it's strange.
If you're in relationships, I don't know very many people who would be fine with their spouse/SO doing it.
I'm pretty sure that most Americans wouldn't like that, and I think jealousy and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all countries.
About the AirBNB thing--it's pretty context dependant. If you are both single and working for a small startup and you did it voluntarily, I think most Most Americans under 40 wouldn't find it too weird.
If you're working for a large company, or your startup made you share, I think most of us would think it's strange.
If you're in relationships, I don't know very many people who would be fine with their spouse/SO doing it.
So I think they would be, but yeah, I can only really speak for myself. I have rolled back through my memory, and I have had drinks with women alone before, though not much, but probably as many times as I've had drinks with guys alone before.
I just asked my SO and she is OK with it, and thinks people here (we live in London now) would think similarly.
> I think jealousy and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all countries.
So right, this is interesting! To be clear: if my SO went out for drinks with a guy from work I probably would be jealous and insecure about it, at least a little bit. But that's my failing, not hers, and is for me to get over. It's not fair for me to stop her from chilling out with a friend just because said friend is a dude.
So maybe that's the main difference?
I just asked my SO and she is OK with it, and thinks people here (we live in London now) would think similarly.
> I think jealousy and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all countries.
So right, this is interesting! To be clear: if my SO went out for drinks with a guy from work I probably would be jealous and insecure about it, at least a little bit. But that's my failing, not hers, and is for me to get over. It's not fair for me to stop her from chilling out with a friend just because said friend is a dude.
So maybe that's the main difference?
The thing is most people realize that their SO would be bothered by it, and won't do it.
He/or she doesn't have to freak out and demand you stop to be "not OK with it". You clearly wouldn't be OK with your SO doing this despite saying you are, and she'd likely pick up on your feelings.
He/or she doesn't have to freak out and demand you stop to be "not OK with it". You clearly wouldn't be OK with your SO doing this despite saying you are, and she'd likely pick up on your feelings.
Why is it inappropriate?
There are a lot of ways it could be made appropriate, e.g., group setting, a long work-history together, very equal power dynamic. But the idea of a superior bringing out a female for a drink one-on-one is almost certainly a recipe for disaster. Go for lunch, coffee, or a game of golf instead.
At least as it's presented in the article, the question wasn't about a superior or just a work colleague at all, but about any man/woman?
You are talking about a superior; then you have to be a bit more careful. What if equal colleagues? I cannot why that is a problem. It is just a drink.
In theory, I agree, but in practice, no two are exactly equal. Even if they have the same title, some have more influence, connections, respect. And if it's just a drink, that's totally fine too. The concern is that if one, the other, or both become intoxicated, it may become more.
The solution isn't hard, bring a buddy with you, or do something that doesn't involve drinking.
The solution isn't hard, bring a buddy with you, or do something that doesn't involve drinking.
But what is so bad about drinking particular? It might be a cultural difference again, but really nothing goes on here with an afterwork drink...
Mike Pence, Americans and pretty much all of humanity up until the last two generations or so (in most cultures).
Sex is one of the greatest things both now and in the past of bringing out stupid behavior in people. The number of people who have destroyed their wealth, jobs, and/or reputations is staggering. It is not just of matter of more training or consequences. Even with such punishment as being impaled alive http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/03/15/1718-stepan-glebov-l...
or with the threat of eternal damnation, people still had sexual relationships that were deemed illicit.
I doubt our worst punishments will come anywhere close to that which was inflicted in the past, and if punishments and stigma in the past could not control sex, I doubt they will now. The underlying issue is that sex is driven by the limbic brain and is not entirely susceptible to reason. This is a hard problem and one that society will struggle with for a long time.
or with the threat of eternal damnation, people still had sexual relationships that were deemed illicit.
I doubt our worst punishments will come anywhere close to that which was inflicted in the past, and if punishments and stigma in the past could not control sex, I doubt they will now. The underlying issue is that sex is driven by the limbic brain and is not entirely susceptible to reason. This is a hard problem and one that society will struggle with for a long time.
As dumb as it is, it's also the only reason you are alive. Some people see their main goal in life as to find the best partner they can.
Sex is closely related IMO.
Sex is closely related IMO.
> it's also the only reason you are alive
Yep, sex is the recursive part of a function that is life.
Yep, sex is the recursive part of a function that is life.
Seems like a function without a purpose.
There's hope that convincing simulation technology can remove other humans from the equation and keep the stupidity contained, the way we've done with other intoxicants.
But that's a chicken and egg problem, because a prerequisite is getting society to accept it as ok to be sexually fulfilled by technology when your tastes are considered illicit. People still get sent to jail for having racy cartoons in some parts of the world.
But that's a chicken and egg problem, because a prerequisite is getting society to accept it as ok to be sexually fulfilled by technology when your tastes are considered illicit. People still get sent to jail for having racy cartoons in some parts of the world.
At some point if we can augment humans to separate reproduction from sex (act of sex), we can free sex from the 'heavy' meaning it receives in social contexts being the subject of so much drama and tragedy. When sex and reproduction divorces, we ll pave a new way for reproduction to be made more reasonably and sex to become more abundant - by implanting Krause bodies all around the human skin not only few current locations.
As a man in a position of power women will sexually harass you in a "good way".
To a religious conservative, i.e. Pence, these women are just like drug pushers.
To a religious conservative, i.e. Pence, these women are just like drug pushers.
Wasn't the problem less about his personal dining habits, and more about cutting off female lobbyists, given his role in politics? No-one cares if Bob down the road is uncomfortable eating 1:1 with a woman not his wife, because he's not a political powerbroker.
dijit(6)
aiyodev(8)
[deleted]
I made one of the cashiers mad by reprimanding her, and she decided to get back at me by claiming that I grabbed her and shook her while we were in the cash office.
I never touched her, and luckily we still had video from the day she claimed it happened. After my manager reviewed the tape with her, it was clear she was lying, so she dropped her claim.
Despite what we might wish, society treats men and women differently, and women are viewed as being particularly vulnerable. If a man had accused me of something similar, no one would have cared. When a woman accused me, without that video, I would have been fired.
It's a complex situation. In many cases, people don't believe women when they really are assaulted, or they're force to share the blame when they're blameless. But in other cases the pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction. Like many things it's primarily a function of the relative power of the victim and the accuser.
A powerful man can get away with harassing much less powerful women. But a relatively powerless man will quickly find himself in a world of hurt with just the hint of an allegation. A company doesn't want to fire their CEO without hard proof (or at least a lot of bad press), but they'll drop a low level employee quick just to avoid the slight possibility of looking like they aren't taking sexual harassment seriously.
I'm not going to let that experience keep me from being alone with a women at work--I don't think I'm very likely to run into another women like that again and avoiding being alone with a women in a modern workplace is just too difficult. But I do understand the rationale driving people to be cautious.
I do want to make it clear that I think that the vast majority of times when a women reports assault or harassment, they're telling the truth. But I do think that in some situations where we've started to completely shift the burden of proof to the accused (some employers, certain colleges etc..), we run the risk of creating perverse incentives and punishing an awful lot of innocent people.