5 ms·

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than t

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.

rayiner 8y ago
What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-sexual-revolution-was-bad-for-women-according-to-ginger-rosa/274274 https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se.... Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).
- kinggfx 8y ago
  What are the constraints?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.
    - sverige 8y ago
      I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me. It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended consequences for a long time now. It's closer than ever, I can feel it in my bones.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - harryh 8y ago
        Intentionally hindering the careers of people that report to you makes you a crappy manager. Doing it in a sexist way makes this doubly true. You should stop doing that.
        sverige 8y ago
        I never said I hindered their careers. I have promoted and supported quite a few women over the years. In fact, one of them is now a senior VP at a Fortune 100. I take no credit for that. She was extremely talented. OTOH, I certainly could have hindered her advancement but did not obviously. In fact I warmly recommended her for a promotion and later gave her very good references when she moved on to other companies. These were important steps in her career. Others have continued to advance as well, if not quite as spectacularly. What I did say is that there are some who I did not help as much as I probably could have. They could have possibly benefited from some private coaching. I am not a crappy manager for not doing that. I am a good husband and provider for never allowing a situation to occur that could have put my career in jeopardy. I didn't make the rules, the government (and especially the courts) did. And calling me sexist is a cheap shot that only proves my point. Accusations are easy; proof is hard. This is especially true when you take a defensive position against the known risks of being falsely accused, as I have been several times.
        tptacek 8y ago
        You literally just said you hindered their careers, in those exact words. The comment you wrote is there for everyone to read. Your edit to that last comment doesn't clear anything up. It's non sequitur logic. "I'm not a crappy manager, I'm a good provider"?
        sverige 8y ago
        I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (Here is where you tell us all how you would choose to risk your career to advance your female employee "because it's the right thing to do.") It's exactly this sort of rhetoric that makes it difficult to have any rational discussion about how best to develop talent (whether men or women) in the current climate. The thesis that MeToo is more harmful than helpful is unpopular, I know, but thankfully no one has to defend its helpfulness because discussion of the realities involved is forbidden.
    - DanAndersen 8y ago
      As someone who has never used Tinder (and doubt any success if I were to try), my impression was that it was more of a one-night stand / casual hookup sort of thing rather than looking for long-term relationships. Is this an incorrect perception I have?
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      > They view it as an imposition. Are you arguing that women would never want a relationship with someone they met at work?
      - tptacek 8y ago
        He's arguing what he said he's arguing: that women he's talked to or heard about view being asked out on dates by coworkers as an imposition. I've heard exactly the same thing.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Do people ever like being asked out by people they are not attracted to? Isn't that always an imposition, regardless of the venue?
        tedunangst 8y ago
        If too many bros hit on you at the bar, you can leave and go to the bar next door. If too many bros hit on you at work, sure, you can quit, but that's rather more disruptive to your life.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        I've seen many coworkers have passionate love affairs and marriages. Are they monsters? Would you deny them?
        tptacek 8y ago
        No, but I would discipline a subordinate who was the subject of complaints about hitting on coworkers, and fire a subordinate who hit on one of their own subordinates.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion. BTW, if someone continues to ask for dates after being told "no", then I'd agree that is harassment and must stop.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Just don't do it. That is the safest position to take.
- squarefoot 8y ago
  "constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)." That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    There is this great app called Tinder where you can make romantic overtures to people who are voluntarily there for that purpose, and do so on your lunch break!
    - naasking 8y ago
      Yup, because when I think "romance", the first thing that's pops into my head is "Tinder".
      - harryh 8y ago
        You know what's a lot more romantic than Tinder? Hitting on coworkers at the office when they're just trying to get their work done. Oh wait.
        pen2l 8y ago
        It really just depends. I can literally count dozens of acquaintances who met their significant other at work, just in the past few years -- who are really happy together. I mean, compare being at a place with like-minded people, people who likely share some of your interests, education background, etc. vs. swiping right/left for the 2-thousandth time so much so that you are fucking exhausted and questioning your self-worth after having been denied for months on end. It's totally okay if you've started a romantic relationship at work. Just don't be an ass about it is all -- let HR know as needed, keep it professional, and all of the other obvious stuff.
        yellowapple 8y ago
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    Why are you making this about laws? This is about people that are employed voluntarily needing to follow certain rules of conduct for their continued employment. This is not about some constitutional right to fuck your subordinates.
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      Legal consenting adults do have a constitutional right to engage in consensual relationships, regardless of laws and moral codes otherwise. And history amply shows they will do so regardless. Case in point - Clinton/Lewinski. That was a textbook case of sexual harassment according to Federal regulations, except that Lewinski maintains to this day that the only abuse she suffered was from the media.
      - cycrutchfield 8y ago
        That's nice, but completely irrelevant.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Oh, it's completely relevant to the claim that there cannot be consensual affairs between people at different power levels, and it doesn't get much more different than literally the most powerful man in the world and an intern.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Your case in point is not in fact on point. Lewinsky described what happened to her as a "gross abuse of power", just a few months back. Moreover, what happened to Lewinsky served to corroborate the stories of several other women, most of whom have stories about WJC far darker than hers.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > and it's not appropriate in the workplace It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.
  - apersona 8y ago
    I think if there's a difference in power, the person on the lower end should have a way to say no to his/her boss's advances. I think the culture today where you can talk to the media about it is a valid option and the boss should be punished for it. But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Someone close to me got into a relationship with their boss a few years ago. The problems my friend was facing wasn't that they felt forced into it, instead, what my friend talks about is how it was everyone OUTSIDE of their relationship that's making them uncomfortable. Some of my friend's coworkers think that they didn't get into a relationship because of romantic reasons, but because of financial reasons (but in a more blunt and straight up insulting way). It's frustrating how people are so judgmental (even in different ways) just because of the position the two have.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but telling a story about how people commonly drawn the inference that the participants in such a relationship are engaging in an improper sex-for-job-rewards exchange with toxic effects on personal and working relations is an odd choice to support that claim.
- otherworld 8y ago
  Maybe. I don't know Dworkin's work well enough to agree or not. From the little I've read I'm hoping that's not the case but I think we may disagree on whether that's a good thing. I'm going to have to disagree on your last statement too. "it's not appropriate in the workplace". People do meet at work. Bluntly hitting on someone is not socially acceptable and could even get you fired but minor flirtation happens all the time. I think that's a gray area and not likely to go away. I don't know that "women are renegotiating" anything so much as twitter people and bots are taking extreme positions (on both sides and not just on this issue). I think this is just one case where more nuanced, moderate discussion gets turfed in favor of extreme, us-against-them position taking.
- apersona 8y ago
  I don't think putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is the right way. The root of the problem is the fear of losing one's job. I think what should happen is that anyone can say "no" to an advance without fear of repercussions, not forming moral laws for where you can/can't form romantic relationships.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Right ... that seems to be the obvious answer so I don't get why nobody is discussing it? Firing should be a structured process, it shouldn't be possible for a manager to fire a subordinate simply because he/she wouldn't sleep with them. Certainly in every case I've fired someone I had to build a written case and collect evidence justifying it. Is this "I worried I might get fired if I didn't sleep with my boss" thing really a serious concern at most well run companies these days?

rayiner 8y ago

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-sexual-revolution-was-bad-for-women-according-to-ginger-rosa/274274 https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se.... Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

kinggfx 8y ago
What are the constraints?
- rayiner 8y ago
  It's a process that's still shaking out. I strongly suspect dating coworkers will be on the chopping block. Anecdotally: I've never heard a woman say "you know, I wish more people would ask me out at work." They view it as an imposition. Driving those changes will be technology like Tinder. By making the market for dating more efficient, it will reduce the need to permit romantic solicitations in other contexts.
  - sverige 8y ago
    I've had that rule my entire career. I also avoid ever being alone with women at work so that there is no question that I could have done something untoward without a witness. That has prevented a lot of problems for me. It has also probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports, but that's not my problem. I've been waiting for the legislation against those unintended consequences for a long time now. It's closer than ever, I can feel it in my bones.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - harryh 8y ago
      Intentionally hindering the careers of people that report to you makes you a crappy manager. Doing it in a sexist way makes this doubly true. You should stop doing that.
      - sverige 8y ago
        I never said I hindered their careers. I have promoted and supported quite a few women over the years. In fact, one of them is now a senior VP at a Fortune 100. I take no credit for that. She was extremely talented. OTOH, I certainly could have hindered her advancement but did not obviously. In fact I warmly recommended her for a promotion and later gave her very good references when she moved on to other companies. These were important steps in her career. Others have continued to advance as well, if not quite as spectacularly. What I did say is that there are some who I did not help as much as I probably could have. They could have possibly benefited from some private coaching. I am not a crappy manager for not doing that. I am a good husband and provider for never allowing a situation to occur that could have put my career in jeopardy. I didn't make the rules, the government (and especially the courts) did. And calling me sexist is a cheap shot that only proves my point. Accusations are easy; proof is hard. This is especially true when you take a defensive position against the known risks of being falsely accused, as I have been several times.
        tptacek 8y ago
        You literally just said you hindered their careers, in those exact words. The comment you wrote is there for everyone to read. Your edit to that last comment doesn't clear anything up. It's non sequitur logic. "I'm not a crappy manager, I'm a good provider"?
        sverige 8y ago
        I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (Here is where you tell us all how you would choose to risk your career to advance your female employee "because it's the right thing to do.") It's exactly this sort of rhetoric that makes it difficult to have any rational discussion about how best to develop talent (whether men or women) in the current climate. The thesis that MeToo is more harmful than helpful is unpopular, I know, but thankfully no one has to defend its helpfulness because discussion of the realities involved is forbidden.
  - DanAndersen 8y ago
    As someone who has never used Tinder (and doubt any success if I were to try), my impression was that it was more of a one-night stand / casual hookup sort of thing rather than looking for long-term relationships. Is this an incorrect perception I have?
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    > They view it as an imposition. Are you arguing that women would never want a relationship with someone they met at work?
    - tptacek 8y ago
      He's arguing what he said he's arguing: that women he's talked to or heard about view being asked out on dates by coworkers as an imposition. I've heard exactly the same thing.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Do people ever like being asked out by people they are not attracted to? Isn't that always an imposition, regardless of the venue?
        tedunangst 8y ago
        If too many bros hit on you at the bar, you can leave and go to the bar next door. If too many bros hit on you at work, sure, you can quit, but that's rather more disruptive to your life.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        I've seen many coworkers have passionate love affairs and marriages. Are they monsters? Would you deny them?
        tptacek 8y ago
        No, but I would discipline a subordinate who was the subject of complaints about hitting on coworkers, and fire a subordinate who hit on one of their own subordinates.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion. BTW, if someone continues to ask for dates after being told "no", then I'd agree that is harassment and must stop.
- sverige 8y ago
  Just don't do it. That is the safest position to take.
squarefoot 8y ago
"constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)." That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.
- rayiner 8y ago
  There is this great app called Tinder where you can make romantic overtures to people who are voluntarily there for that purpose, and do so on your lunch break!
  - naasking 8y ago
    Yup, because when I think "romance", the first thing that's pops into my head is "Tinder".
    - harryh 8y ago
      You know what's a lot more romantic than Tinder? Hitting on coworkers at the office when they're just trying to get their work done. Oh wait.
      - pen2l 8y ago
        It really just depends. I can literally count dozens of acquaintances who met their significant other at work, just in the past few years -- who are really happy together. I mean, compare being at a place with like-minded people, people who likely share some of your interests, education background, etc. vs. swiping right/left for the 2-thousandth time so much so that you are fucking exhausted and questioning your self-worth after having been denied for months on end. It's totally okay if you've started a romantic relationship at work. Just don't be an ass about it is all -- let HR know as needed, keep it professional, and all of the other obvious stuff.
        yellowapple 8y ago
skookumchuck 8y ago
Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.
- cycrutchfield 8y ago
  Why are you making this about laws? This is about people that are employed voluntarily needing to follow certain rules of conduct for their continued employment. This is not about some constitutional right to fuck your subordinates.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    Legal consenting adults do have a constitutional right to engage in consensual relationships, regardless of laws and moral codes otherwise. And history amply shows they will do so regardless. Case in point - Clinton/Lewinski. That was a textbook case of sexual harassment according to Federal regulations, except that Lewinski maintains to this day that the only abuse she suffered was from the media.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      That's nice, but completely irrelevant.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Oh, it's completely relevant to the claim that there cannot be consensual affairs between people at different power levels, and it doesn't get much more different than literally the most powerful man in the world and an intern.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Your case in point is not in fact on point. Lewinsky described what happened to her as a "gross abuse of power", just a few months back. Moreover, what happened to Lewinsky served to corroborate the stories of several other women, most of whom have stories about WJC far darker than hers.
jacquesm 8y ago
> and it's not appropriate in the workplace It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.
- apersona 8y ago
  I think if there's a difference in power, the person on the lower end should have a way to say no to his/her boss's advances. I think the culture today where you can talk to the media about it is a valid option and the boss should be punished for it. But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Someone close to me got into a relationship with their boss a few years ago. The problems my friend was facing wasn't that they felt forced into it, instead, what my friend talks about is how it was everyone OUTSIDE of their relationship that's making them uncomfortable. Some of my friend's coworkers think that they didn't get into a relationship because of romantic reasons, but because of financial reasons (but in a more blunt and straight up insulting way). It's frustrating how people are so judgmental (even in different ways) just because of the position the two have.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but telling a story about how people commonly drawn the inference that the participants in such a relationship are engaging in an improper sex-for-job-rewards exchange with toxic effects on personal and working relations is an odd choice to support that claim.
otherworld 8y ago
Maybe. I don't know Dworkin's work well enough to agree or not. From the little I've read I'm hoping that's not the case but I think we may disagree on whether that's a good thing. I'm going to have to disagree on your last statement too. "it's not appropriate in the workplace". People do meet at work. Bluntly hitting on someone is not socially acceptable and could even get you fired but minor flirtation happens all the time. I think that's a gray area and not likely to go away. I don't know that "women are renegotiating" anything so much as twitter people and bots are taking extreme positions (on both sides and not just on this issue). I think this is just one case where more nuanced, moderate discussion gets turfed in favor of extreme, us-against-them position taking.
apersona 8y ago
I don't think putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is the right way. The root of the problem is the fear of losing one's job. I think what should happen is that anyone can say "no" to an advance without fear of repercussions, not forming moral laws for where you can/can't form romantic relationships.
- repolfx 8y ago
  Right ... that seems to be the obvious answer so I don't get why nobody is discussing it? Firing should be a structured process, it shouldn't be possible for a manager to fire a subordinate simply because he/she wouldn't sleep with them. Certainly in every case I've fired someone I had to build a written case and collect evidence justifying it. Is this "I worried I might get fired if I didn't sleep with my boss" thing really a serious concern at most well run companies these days?