Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2018, 02:09 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,727
#MeToo backlash is hurting women (Bloomberg article)

Gist/summary (in case the article is behind a paywall): The #MeToo movement has lead to a backlash that now is hurting women in the workplace because it makes employers reluctant to hire women, men reluctant to mentor women or help women up the corporate ladder, a lot of men simply shy away from women, etc.

The "Pence Rule," or some spinoff of it, is being de facto adopted in many workplaces and in many instances, the casualties are collateral damage: #MeToo has made a lot of innocent men fearful of being falsely accused of harassment or a sexual offense (who have no realistic need to be fearful) and it has dampened career opportunities for a lot of women who would never make a false accusation against a man. The article notes that this fear/paranoia makes it all the harder for women to advance up the company ranks into higher positions at a time when women are/were already underrepresented.

Suppose we could backtrack a few years, before #MeToo took off. The need for something like #MeToo was/is obvious; something had to be done to put an end to sexual harassment. At the same time, though, the backlash is harming a great deal of women in the workplace, whether they were involved in #MeToo or not. Is there a way this could have been done differently so as to end sexual harassment while also not leading to fear or overreaction paranoia?
  #2  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:13 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 20,617
I read that yesterday. I note that it is light on numbers.

I will say, however, that I think that we do have a problem in our society in that we are rejecting the current method for men and women to date, but no one is suggesting an alternative. We don't have a new standard, and most people are still using the old one because, even though it has its annoying downsides, who is to decide the new way? And it's a bit silly to say things like "Don't objectify the women you meet" at the same time as we are saying "We encourage you to go to a location where you can't hear people talk, so that you have no reason to approach someone of the other sex except looks, get slightly sloshed, and start grinding on one another under strobing lights." Everything about how dating is done today is basically completely counter to logic or pleasant experiences for women, except through luck of the draw. (And, notably, love marriages have about the same success rate as arranged marriages - strongly implying that our results are just random.)

We should probably start to teach dating in schools, with a specific set of steps outlined, that allows for proper consent, no mixed signals, and starts from the position of shared world outlook and interests rather than physical appearance and "chemistry" (aka, the mutual desire to start boning). Once that standard is set, I would expect it to migrate up into the adult world.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 12-05-2018 at 03:15 PM.
  #3  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:33 PM
clairobscur clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
We should probably start to teach dating in schools, with a specific set of steps outlined, that allows for proper consent, no mixed signals, and starts from the position of shared world outlook and interests rather than physical appearance and "chemistry" (aka, the mutual desire to start boning). Once that standard is set, I would expect it to migrate up into the adult world.
I see no point in reducing the importance of physical attraction and desire in dating. I think it can't be done, and that even if it could it would be a net negative. The reason why we're dating is that we're seeking sexual partners. If it weren't about sex, we would just seek friends. Attraction and chemistry are fundamental. If you were actually raising people to date on the basis of mutual interests rather than chemistry, the result would be a massive level of hypocrisy from people who wouldn't conform to the model, and a lot of misery and insatisfaction from people who would.

Desire isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, a great thing. I worries me a lot how it currently tends to be demonized. Being attracted by someone's, say, IQ or social status isn't in any way nobler than being attracted by his body or face. And "chemistry", which isn't only (or even mainly) about physical appearance, is fundamental if you want to have a remote chance of being happy in your couple. Having "common interests" isn't in any way a guarantee that your couple will successful and long lasting. I would even say that it's barely relevant. Not having "chemistry", on the other hand, is a recipe for disaster.

And finally, not everybody is in for a long relationship based on shared interests/world outlook or whatever else. Plenty of people just want to fuck, and for this pretty much the only thing that matter is chemistry.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.

Last edited by clairobscur; 12-05-2018 at 09:33 PM.
  #4  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:18 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Gist/summary (in case the article is behind a paywall): The #MeToo movement has lead to a backlash that now is hurting women in the workplace because it makes employers reluctant to hire women, men reluctant to mentor women or help women up the corporate ladder, a lot of men simply shy away from women, etc.
Forgive me, but is the argument that it's the Me Too movement that is hurting women, and NOT the male dominated culture that has supported sexual harassment since forever and continues because it doesn't want to deal internally with harassers and would rather do away with the women?
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #5  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:26 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity
Is there a way this could have been done differently so as to end sexual harassment while also not leading to fear or overreaction paranoia?
I think what your question boils down to is "Is there a way that the long-entrenched social toleration of sexual harassment could be replaced by condemnation and rejection of sexual harassment, without upsetting and alarming a lot of people who have been socially conditioned to regard sexual harassment as no big deal?"

And I think the answer is probably "no".
  #6  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:51 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 12,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Forgive me, but is the argument that it's the Me Too movement that is hurting women, and NOT the male dominated culture that has supported sexual harassment since forever and continues because it doesn't want to deal internally with harassers and would rather do away with the women?
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise. If a man thinks that as long as he doesn't harass women, he won't be accused of harassment, then he wouldn't feel the need to go far out of his way to avoid women - he'd just continue interacting with them, non-harassingly, as before. But if a man thinks he could be accused even if he's done nothing wrong, then he will feel the need to take far-reaching precautions.
  #7  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:53 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise. If a man thinks that as long as he doesn't harass women, he won't be accused of harassment, then he wouldn't feel the need to go far out of his way to avoid women - he'd just continue interacting with them, non-harassingly, as before. But if a man thinks he could be accused even if he's done nothing wrong, then he will feel the need to take far-reaching precautions.
Men who believe this are delusional and so indoctrinated by the patriarchal bent of society at large (and especially the most powerful and wealthy institutions and organizations) that they are incapable of seeing such things accurately.
  #8  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:13 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Men who believe this are delusional and so indoctrinated by the patriarchal bent of society at large (and especially the most powerful and wealthy institutions and organizations) that they are incapable of seeing such things accurately.
Do you not believe that false accusations occur?
  #9  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:17 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you not believe that false accusations occur?
They're so rare as to be virtually nonexistent.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...ccused-of-rape
The best data we have — the number of people prosecuted for making false allegations — suggests that the average adult man in England and Wales has a 0.00021281 per cent chance of being falsely accused of rape in a year. (That’s based on 35 prosecutions for false rape allegations in 2011 compared to 16.5 million men aged 16 to 59 living in England and Wales at the time).

By this measure, a man is 230 times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape.

And let’s put the stats through an even stronger test. Imagine for a second that you believe that every single one of the men prosecuted for rape in England and Wales in 2016-17 was falsely accused. Even if that unlikely scenario were true, there would still have been more adult male victims of rape (8,000) than men prosecuted for those rapes they “didn’t commit” (5,190).
And keep in mind, they're talking about men getting raped. Men get raped at an incidence rate far lower than women. If you're more worried about false accusations than being raped, your priorities are backwards. If the main contribution you have to society's conversation about the non-stop pandemic of sexual assault and rape is "but what about the tiny percentage of men who get falsely accused of abuse?!", then there's something really wrong.
  #10  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:00 PM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you not believe that false accusations occur?
I believe cannibalism occurs with about the same frequency, yes.
  #11  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:27 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you not believe that false accusations occur?
Serious question.

You hear that a man has been accused of harassing a female subordinate. Is 'false accusation' your first thought?

I mean, yes, false accusations occur. But they are, by every definition, rare. But it seems that you think that possibility of a false accusation is far worse than the everyday actual sexual harassment that nearly all women have had to put up with.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #12  
Old 12-05-2018, 09:39 PM
TimeWinder TimeWinder is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Men who believe this are delusional and so indoctrinated by the patriarchal bent of society at large (and especially the most powerful and wealthy institutions and organizations) that they are incapable of seeing such things accurately.
Or they're Republican, where the idea that most--probably all--of these accusations are false is basically canon.
  #13  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:18 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 17,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise. If a man thinks that as long as he doesn't harass women, he won't be accused of harassment, then he wouldn't feel the need to go far out of his way to avoid women - he'd just continue interacting with them, non-harassingly, as before. But if a man thinks he could be accused even if he's done nothing wrong, then he will feel the need to take far-reaching precautions.
You may be surprised to learn that many villains do not see themselves as villains.

Back in the day when woman fist started complaining about sexual harassment. I saw a program (Donahue, maybe) where a a man in the audience was lamenting that he now couldn't compliment on how woman looked good that day, that he couldn't kiss her on the cheek or hug her or rub her shoulders fearing that he might get accused of sexual harassment.

He did not see that all of this behavior was sexual in nature.

Now, if you are saying now that it is not sexual at all, just polite interaction......I would ask you......would you give this kiss on the cheek, this hug, this shoulder rub to Frank the facilities guy? No?Would you like it Frank did this to you? Why not? Because it be weird and creepy?

That's right. It is weird are creepy. You are initiating contact that is way too familiar and intimate and IS sexual and flirty. Guys do it because they think the workplace situation gives them cover to do it.

Men who make the decision to exclude women for fear that they might be accused are actually harassers.
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #14  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:39 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false
The question is, why would a man think that? He'd have to believe that making accusations of sexual harassment is somehow significantly beneficial to women, to the extent that women would be significantly motivated to make such accusations falsely.

Any man who believes that has not been paying attention to, say, the venomous attacks on Christine Blasey Ford or Anita Hill. There is really no reliable payoff for women in claiming that men have harassed or assaulted them, even in situations where the claims are definitely 100% true.

Sure, some men may be plagued by fears of some kind of Scheming Villainess scenario, where a woman cold-bloodedly plots to destroy a completely innocent and inoffensive man by concocting complete fabrications about his behavior, which somehow manage to convince everybody without any valid evidentiary support and result in his downfall. And I'm not trying to argue that such a scenario can absolutely never happen. But anybody who believes that it's typical or likely has got a seriously delusional mindset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity
and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise.
Must be nice to have that kind of institutionalized power, I guess?

"Whoa, some unscrupulous members of this historically disadvantaged group might possibly do us significant harm by making up false accusations against us? Must protect ourselves from that extremely unlikely outcome by relentlessly discriminating against all members of that group and discrediting all such accusations whether false or true! Fortunately our historically privileged position enables us to implement this strategy effectively! High five, dudes!"

Last edited by Kimstu; 12-05-2018 at 04:40 PM.
  #15  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:39 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise. If a man thinks that as long as he doesn't harass women, he won't be accused of harassment, then he wouldn't feel the need to go far out of his way to avoid women - he'd just continue interacting with them, non-harassingly, as before. But if a man thinks he could be accused even if he's done nothing wrong, then he will feel the need to take far-reaching precautions.
Has he done nothing wrong, or does he think (or claim) that he did nothing wrong.
Let's consider Les Moonves, that poor victim. Among the many accusations, apparently verified by the law firms CBS hired, was that a subordinate regularly performed oral sex on him. He claims this was consensual. Given the other verified charges, it seems unlikely that he didn't initiate this. Would he be correct in thinking that a #Me Too accusation from this woman was false?

We men have grown up thinking unacceptable and harassing behavior is acceptable. It is not surprising that when men are called on it they think they are innocent and being accused unfairly. That could happen - but I suspect it's not common. Asking someone out five times, and being refused each time, is not being persistent. It is being harassing. And obnoxious.
  #16  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:33 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the idea is that many men in the workplace think that a substantial number of #MeToo accusations are false and hence feel the need to protect themselves from false accusations by eliminating situations where false accusations could arise. If a man thinks that as long as he doesn't harass women, he won't be accused of harassment, then he wouldn't feel the need to go far out of his way to avoid women - he'd just continue interacting with them, non-harassingly, as before. But if a man thinks he could be accused even if he's done nothing wrong, then he will feel the need to take far-reaching precautions.
No, it's the attendant "believe all women" meme, not that a substantial number of accusations are false.

It's that accusations are to instantly be treated as true or as evidence of a crime, regardless of male behavior. Since women span the same gamut of law-abiding to criminal that men do as a gestalt group, even a man who has done absolutely nothing can face a false accusation. This happened to a college student in the last few years- his face was plastered all over campus as something like "Rapist of the Month"; he was essentially randomly pictured (no rape, he was in fact a virgin) to "bring attention to the problem" by an activist group. While straightened out formally, the social impacts can and do last.

Is it likely that any individual woman will make a false accusation, or an accusation based on incomplete context? Absolutely not. Are there women who will? A small minority. Is there any way of identifying who might wield this power arbitrarily? Nope, not unless they've developed such a pattern and documentation to this extent is provable (Tawana Bradley's escalating accusations against men who poked holes in her story, her identifying as rapists the men it was most convenient for her to have raped her in an escalating story is such a pattern). Solution: Avoid the situation, eliminate the risk.
  #17  
Old 12-05-2018, 03:33 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,609
It shouldn't be a surprise that male-dominated institutions will continue to harm women and use something like #MeToo as an excuse. And that's all it is -- an excuse. It's not a real reason -- there's no reason to believe that being respectful and decent towards women in the workplace can cause one to have a high likelihood of being falsely accused of assault or harassment.

Any "backlash" is bullshit, to the extent of any legitimate fear. Sure, some people are pissed off and fearful about #MeToo, but those people are assholes who probably should retire and stop harming others with their dinosaurian and misogynistic behavior.
  #18  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:06 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Any "backlash" is bullshit, to the extent of any legitimate fear. Sure, some people are pissed off and fearful about #MeToo, but those people are assholes who probably should retire and stop harming others with their dinosaurian and misogynistic behavior.
I think your brush is too broad.
  #19  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
I think your brush is too broad.
I'm open to persuasion. Under what circumstances is it reasonable for someone to be upset about #MeToo?
  #20  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:52 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm open to persuasion. Under what circumstances is it reasonable for someone to be upset about #MeToo?
The circumstances don't even have to be reasonable in order for your brush to be too broad. They just have to be attributable to something besides misogyny or assholishness—like paranoia, or naivety, or misunderstanding what's going on.

If I understand correctly, the point of the OP and its linked article is that a significant number of men are reluctant to hire, mentor, or work closely with women, because they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment.

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that the only men who would think that way are the assholes—those who actually do or would engage in skeevy behavior, and/or those who are looking for excuses not to work with women anyway.

I suspect that that applies to some of the men in question, but not all of them. There is a real, small but nonzero, chance that an innocent man who works closely with a woman would be accused of sexual harassment, out of malice or opportunism or delusion or misinterpretation of innocent gestures. And, since humans are notoriously bad at intuitive risk assessment, I can easily believe that an innocent man might overestimate the chance of such a thing happening to him and become fearful of working with women.
  #21  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:07 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
The circumstances don't even have to be reasonable in order for your brush to be too broad. They just have to be attributable to something besides misogyny or assholishness—like paranoia, or naivety, or misunderstanding what's going on.

If I understand correctly, the point of the OP and its linked article is that a significant number of men are reluctant to hire, mentor, or work closely with women, because they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment.

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that the only men who would think that way are the assholes—those who actually do or would engage in skeevy behavior, and/or those who are looking for excuses not to work with women anyway.

I suspect that that applies to some of the men in question, but not all of them. There is a real, small but nonzero, chance that an innocent man who works closely with a woman would be accused of sexual harassment, out of malice or opportunism or delusion or misinterpretation of innocent gestures. And, since humans are notoriously bad at intuitive risk assessment, I can easily believe that an innocent man might overestimate the chance of such a thing happening to him and become fearful of working with women.
Even falsely accused men should realize that their cases are extremely rare and do not reflect upon the broader movement. I'll amend my statement that extremely ignorant men could also be fearful of #MeToo, but such an extreme level of ignorance (which may still be relatively common, of course) would render them morally unqualified to be in any position of power whatsoever -- even the lowliest supervisor. Now sure, we should want to educate the ignorant, but that doesn't mean when trying to objectively analyze the situation (such as in a thread like this) we need to be reticent to accurately characterize them.
  #22  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:16 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
There is a real, small but nonzero, chance that an innocent man who works closely with a woman would be accused of sexual harassment, out of malice or opportunism or delusion or misinterpretation of innocent gestures. And, since humans are notoriously bad at intuitive risk assessment, I can easily believe that an innocent man might overestimate the chance of such a thing happening to him and become fearful of working with women.
Try turning that around with regard to sexual harassment itself, though, rather than accusation of sexual harassment, and see how it sounds:

"There is a real, small but nonzero, chance that an innocent woman who works closely with a man would be subjected to sexual harassment, out of malice or opportunism or delusion or misinterpretation of innocent gestures. And, since humans are notoriously bad at intuitive risk assessment, I can easily believe that an innocent woman might overestimate the chance of such a thing happening to her and become fearful of working with men."

Would anyone seriously argue that the "fearful" woman in this case should, or realistically could, "protect herself" from such a chance by means of broad-based discrimination against men as a group?

And of course, the chance that a woman actually will be sexually harassed is vastly greater than the chance that a man will be falsely accused of harassment.

This is why the notion of women being somehow responsible for an anti-woman "backlash" from #MeToo sounds to so many people like a bunch of butthurt bullshit. Women routinely put up with, and are routinely expected to put up with, a realistically significant risk of career damage and personal distress due to bad behavior from men. This overall injustice has essentially zero real-world negative consequences for men as a group.

Yet when men become aware that they might have to endure a far slighter risk of career damage and personal distress due to bad behavior from women, they're supposed to be able to throw conniption fits of sexist discrimination all over the workplace? And women as a group are supposed to take responsibility for having inspired "fear" in men, and the subsequent sexist discrimination that the poor fwightened men have perpetrated in order to protect their privileged asses from this comparatively minuscule threat?

I think you probably can see why that attitude might be generating a fair bit of anger and scorn.
  #23  
Old 12-06-2018, 02:55 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm open to persuasion. Under what circumstances is it reasonable for someone to be upset about #MeToo?
Well, under these circumstances, for one example.

It's a very long thread but you participated in it so I'm sure you're familiar with the content. I think it's fair to say that Hardwick being immediately terminated was indicative of the networks and various media taking his accuser seriously, and Hardwick being fully reinstated following an investigation can reasonably be taken as indicative of his innocence (not that he's perfect, but that the seriousness of some of the allegations was not supported by the evidence). So the conclusion appears to be that in this case, his accuser was being unfairly vindictive -- a fact that remains a fact even if in her own mind she was being forthright. And these accusations were given tremendous weight in the public perception by #MeToo -- a weight that is independent of their truthfulness. Also in that thread is an anecdote about a false accusation that I happen to know about, again strengthened by #MeToo.

One of the problems, as I think was indicated in that thread, is that #MeToo started as a movement for women who were victimized by real and serious sexual abuse, and has been morphing into a movement that supports women who bring forward a vast range of relatively benign complaints dressed up as "sexual abuse".

I understand that the problems #MeToo is addressing are real, deeply entrenched, and deeply serious. I'm just saying that there are two sides to this, and we're seeing some of the downsides of it. The same sort of thing happened with MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) which was formed to deal with an equally serious problem, and whose impetus largely came from those who had lost loved ones to drunk drivers -- certainly a group one can empathize with. But over time, as with any bureaucracy, it has started to morph into an intransigent advocacy empire -- for example, pushing for increasingly draconian penalties that have been shown to less effective than education and training for normal people and completely ineffective for chronic alcoholics, and, incredibly, at one point suggesting that all new cars -- all of them -- should be equipped with mandatory breathalyzer interlocks! There is nothing inconsistent with saying "I strongly oppose drunk driving" and at the same time, "in some areas MADD has lost its way and gone around the bend". It's potentially the same with #MeToo.
  #24  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:31 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Typo Negative View Post
Forgive me, but is the argument that it's the Me Too movement that is hurting women, and NOT the male dominated culture that has supported sexual harassment since forever and continues because it doesn't want to deal internally with harassers and would rather do away with the women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It shouldn't be a surprise that male-dominated institutions will continue to harm women and use something like #MeToo as an excuse. And that's all it is -- an excuse. It's not a real reason -- there's no reason to believe that being respectful and decent towards women in the workplace can cause one to have a high likelihood of being falsely accused of assault or harassment.

Any "backlash" is bullshit, to the extent of any legitimate fear. Sure, some people are pissed off and fearful about #MeToo, but those people are assholes who probably should retire and stop harming others with their dinosaurian and misogynistic behavior.
I agree. The fundamental problem here is sexism and that's what needs to be addressed.
  #25  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:36 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,227
Suppose a business decided to "protect" itself by refusing to hire any men. After all, if there are no men in the workplace then none of the women who work there can accuse any man of sexually harassing them. So the business would just be taking reasonable steps to avoid all potential accusations of sexual harassment.

Would the OP be okay with that?
  #26  
Old 12-05-2018, 07:21 PM
Two Many Cats Two Many Cats is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I agree. The fundamental problem here is sexism and that's what needs to be addressed.
Except that every time a woman addresses sexism, she's labeled as a feminazi SJW harpy.
  #27  
Old 12-05-2018, 04:03 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,662
The implications aren't surprising nor should they be unexpected. On balance, I think the #metoo movement is a tremendous net gain for society as a whole. But it shouldn't be surprising that in some instances it is a negative for certain people at certain times.

Pretend that you're a hiring manager, and a statistical analysis shows that you perform better at choosing candidates than all of your peers. Say, 70% turn out to be good hires and 30% need to be terminated. If there are two equal candidates, except A is easy to terminate if you have to, and B is difficult to terminate if you have to, doesn't it make sense to favor candidate A? Your all in costs are lower with A.

This calculus applies to all protected classes actually. From a social justice point of view it shouldn't make a difference, but from a purely dollars and cents point of view, it does.

Last edited by Bone; 12-05-2018 at 04:04 PM.
  #28  
Old 12-05-2018, 06:27 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The implications aren't surprising nor should they be unexpected. On balance, I think the #metoo movement is a tremendous net gain for society as a whole. But it shouldn't be surprising that in some instances it is a negative for certain people at certain times.

Pretend that you're a hiring manager, and a statistical analysis shows that you perform better at choosing candidates than all of your peers. Say, 70% turn out to be good hires and 30% need to be terminated. If there are two equal candidates, except A is easy to terminate if you have to, and B is difficult to terminate if you have to, doesn't it make sense to favor candidate A? Your all in costs are lower with A.

This calculus applies to all protected classes actually. From a social justice point of view it shouldn't make a difference, but from a purely dollars and cents point of view, it does.
I am a hiring manager, and an owner, (which means I am also in charge of raises, promotions, discipline and termination)but I am confused by this.

What do you mean candidate A is easy to terminate, but B is difficult?

Are you keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions? If so, then it does not matter what demographic you are terminating, it should all be exactly as easy or as difficult as your policies make it.

If you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, then you may find yourself in a situation where it is believed that you have terminated someone due to their demographics, rather than their performance or discipline, and you may find it difficult to prove that you didn't. However, if you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, you may actually be acting on prejudice, and not even realize it.

Essentially, your complaint is only something that would be feared by poorly run or ignorant management or owners. Unfortunately, such people are not all that rare. Even your cavalier admission that you expect that people are terminated based on ease of termination due to their demographic status, rather than based on their performance and disciplinary history, shows that that attitude is very dangerously rampant.

I can agree with the OP. I can see many businesses refusing to hire women because they are afraid of being accused of sexual harassment. However, those businesses are poorly run, and they are run by sexists. What percentage of companies hold to these outdated values of undervaluing women is a question that we may see an answer to sooner than later, as they unravel themselves by demonstrating their bigotry.


Full disclosure: Out of my 13 employees, 12 are women.
  #29  
Old 12-05-2018, 08:16 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,520
If there is a backlash, the blame and shame goes to the ones who are "backlashing." Not to the ones who say "hey, stop doing wrong things".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Stephen Zweig has got it in one:
“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
If you have a workplace policy of never being alone with any employee regardless of gender, then I don't see anything discriminatory about that.

The problem is not men "protecting themselves" by maintaining gender-neutral high standards of dignified professionalism in their workplace behavior: the problem is men "protecting themselves" by discriminating against women.
Right. A uniform policy by which all interactions among members of the work team are carried out on clear sensible professional terms and nobody risks a compromising situation or the appearance thereof is advantageous, it is not that absurdly complicated to establish, and FWIW non-fraternization policies between higher and lower echelons have existed for lifetimes even before there were that many women in some workplaces.

What the OP article describes is a reactive(reactionary?) defensive-flailing response, not duly pondered, whereby the workplace leaders, rather than think it through and face the challenge of change, take the path of least resistance in running away from it. They suffer from a Failure of Imagination. Instead of coming up with a new better way to engage with a part of the workforce in everyday personal interaction, in a way that makes that part of the population more confident to contribute to the business, they'd rather not even try. And there you get into what Zweig points out, and as has been mentioned...
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, then you may find yourself in a situation where it is believed that you have terminated someone due to their demographics, rather than their performance or discipline, and you may find it difficult to prove that you didn't. However, if you are not keeping proper documentation and records of performance and disciplinary actions, you may actually be acting on prejudice, and not even realize it.

Essentially, your complaint is only something that would be feared by poorly run or ignorant management or owners. Unfortunately, such people are not all that rare. Even your cavalier admission that you expect that people are terminated based on ease of termination due to their demographic status, rather than based on their performance and disciplinary history, shows that that attitude is very dangerously rampant.
...the attempt at not risking an accusation of discrimination on the job, will result in you being nailed for discriminating before the job.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 12-05-2018 at 08:18 PM.
  #30  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:12 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The implications aren't surprising nor should they be unexpected. On balance, I think the #metoo movement is a tremendous net gain for society as a whole. But it shouldn't be surprising that in some instances it is a negative for certain people at certain times.

Pretend that you're a hiring manager, and a statistical analysis shows that you perform better at choosing candidates than all of your peers. Say, 70% turn out to be good hires and 30% need to be terminated. If there are two equal candidates, except A is easy to terminate if you have to, and B is difficult to terminate if you have to, doesn't it make sense to favor candidate A? Your all in costs are lower with A.

This calculus applies to all protected classes actually. From a social justice point of view it shouldn't make a difference, but from a purely dollars and cents point of view, it does.
I agree. The #metoo movement is a good thing. I don't know why its not enough that #metoo is 90% goo and 10% side effects. The cancer of sexism in places like wall street is particularly metastatized and chemotherapy has some side effects. Hopefully we will get to the point where the chemotherapy is no longer needed ad we have the wisdom to stop using it.
  #31  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:41 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 25,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
#metoo is 90% goo
This is a typo, right?
  #32  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:02 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,783
Let's face it. As a man chances are at some time in your working life, you WILL be accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I dont care how careful you are, it WILL happen.
  #33  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:07 AM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,783
Forget rape accusations. I know a guy in hot water for saying a female looked good in a short skirt.
  #34  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:11 AM
Airbeck Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Let's face it. As a man chances are at some time in your working life, you WILL be accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I dont care how careful you are, it WILL happen.
This is not true. Of all of the men I've known in my life including me, no accusations have ever been made. Either my circle of family and friends is extremely lucky, or alternatively, we aren't creeps that take liberties with women we work with. I'm going with option B.

It's not hard to not harass women. This is only a scary issue to men that have engaged in questionable behaviors in the past and are now worried that maybe some of the creepy stuff they've done may come to light.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #35  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
It’s gone out with other quaint things, like the “things have degrees”, and chance to defend oneself.


You mean how Aziz Ansari took a few lumps in the public eye and got right back on the horse, whereas Kevin Spacy will probably never work in Hollywood again and Bill Cosby will die in prison? And how Neil DeGrasse Tyson responded to his accusers elegantly and got a generally good reception (while simultaneously rejecting the claims made)? This is the silly strawman version of #MeToo people were afraid of in the wake of that Babe article. The version that never actually happened. If anything, we've been entirely too lenient, as evidenced by Louis CK's return.

Again, the legal standard is not the standard we apply in our day to day lives. It's not the standard we apply when judging others. It's not the standard we apply to employees or expect our bosses or potential employers to apply to us. It is the standard we demand before allowing the government to strip us of our fundamental human rights, potentially for years at a time. Demanding we apply it to claims of sexual assault in the public sphere, when all that's at stake is someone's reputation, is an absurd isolated demand for rigor that ensures that abusers, harassers, and rapists will face no social social repercussions for their actions in addition to no legal repercussions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Let's face it. As a man chances are at some time in your working life, you WILL be accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I dont care how careful you are, it WILL happen.
I think that this might be more of a "you" problem.

EDIT: Oh wow I made this post before seeing your comment about the short skirt. Totally vindicated. It's DEFINITELY a "you" problem - if you can't spot anything wrong with that, then it's no surprise you'll get in hot water. Go take a seminar on this shit or something, jeez. ��
__________________
If you want to vote for people who will attack the rights of me and those close to me, we cannot be friends, and I will not accept that you're a good person.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 12-06-2018 at 11:54 AM.
  #36  
Old 12-06-2018, 12:20 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager Voyager is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 44,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Let's face it. As a man chances are at some time in your working life, you WILL be accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I dont care how careful you are, it WILL happen.
Never happened to me in 35 years of work. Never heard of it happening to other men, and I was a manager.
It's easy to keep it from happening - just don't be a sexist pig. Like the guy who thought it fit to comment on the skirt.
  #37  
Old 12-06-2018, 01:19 PM
Railer13 Railer13 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Kansas
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
Let's face it. As a man chances are at some time in your working life, you WILL be accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I dont care how careful you are, it WILL happen.
I'll add to the litany of responses to this ridiculous claim.

I recently retired after 40+ years of working in the white-collar world, the last 17 of which was spent in management. I was never accused by a woman of sexual harassment. And all but one of the men with whom I worked were not accused, either.

The one example I remember of a guy being accused of such was many years ago, when a co-worker somehow climbed atop the copier with his pants down and took a picture of his junk, and then gave said picture to another co-worker, who was a single woman. She immediately reported it to her supervisor and the offender was fired the same day. I often wondered how he explained to his wife how he lost his job.
  #38  
Old 12-10-2018, 12:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
This is a typo, right?
Yes. It should read #metoo is 90%good and 10% side effects.
  #39  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:12 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Gist/summary (in case the article is behind a paywall): The #MeToo movement has lead to a backlash that now is hurting women in the workplace because it makes employers reluctant to hire women, men reluctant to mentor women or help women up the corporate ladder, a lot of men simply shy away from women, etc.

The "Pence Rule," or some spinoff of it, is being de facto adopted in many workplaces and in many instances, the casualties are collateral damage: #MeToo has made a lot of innocent men fearful of being falsely accused of harassment or a sexual offense (who have no realistic need to be fearful) and it has dampened career opportunities for a lot of women who would never make a false accusation against a man. The article notes that this fear/paranoia makes it all the harder for women to advance up the company ranks into higher positions at a time when women are/were already underrepresented.

Suppose we could backtrack a few years, before #MeToo took off. The need for something like #MeToo was/is obvious; something had to be done to put an end to sexual harassment. At the same time, though, the backlash is harming a great deal of women in the workplace, whether they were involved in #MeToo or not. Is there a way this could have been done differently so as to end sexual harassment while also not leading to fear or overreaction paranoia?
No.

The reaction of any given man when told that another man sexually harassed or assaulted a woman is, very often, going to be disbelief. I'm not sure why - it just is. Maybe they identify with the perpetrator rather than the victim. Maybe they're naive about how common sexual assault is. Maybe the high-profile nature of cases like the Duke Lacrosse case blew the issue of false allegations way out of proportion. Maybe they were taught to respond that way by high-profile cases that implicated people they idolized. Maybe they're just misogynistic pricks.

But look at the responses to basically any case. There are always people denying it. People didn't believe Bill Cosby was a rapist until dozens of women came forward. There were recent allegations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and before even hearing his side of the story or basically any details, there were tons of people who categorically denied that he did anything wrong. Bring up the accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Brett Kavanaugh, and you'll have half the country (maybe less than half in Clinton's case) rejecting the accusers categorically. Even in cases where the accused immediately copped to it, you have countless people arguing that it "wasn't that bad", like with Louis CK, and concern trolling about "HAS #METOO GONE TOO FAR?!!1". And of course, online discourse is flooded with anti-SJW assholes who push a complementary narrative about feminist "professional victims" (and don't get me started on how awful those fuckers are).

Now consider that 81% of women have experienced sexual harassment.

81%.

Someone's doing all that harassing. A lot of someones. That's a lot of someones with a strong, personal vested interest in painting #MeToo as being as hysterical and insane as possible. A lot of someones who have a personal stake in both believing and spreading the above views. A lot of someones who want to see themselves as good people, and thus want to believe that what they've done is no big deal.

We're dealing with a major cultural upheaval. For the first time, sexual harassment is being taken seriously. People in positions of power and authority who were heard and often trusted by default are no longer getting away with doing whatever they wanted. And given how culture looks, this was always going to end up looking kind of ugly. There was always going to be a shitty, misogynistic, self-serving backlash. Let's be clear here - if you hear that someone is accused of sexual harassment or assault and your default sympathies are with the accused rather than the accuser, well, that you're really bad at statistics is probably one of the nicer things that can be said about you.

The solution here is to push even harder. Men who support the Pence Rule deserve to be fired. Full stop. If your response to "people accused of sexual assault have to face the music" is to shut women out of your company, get the fuck out. Their misogynistic fearmongering is baseless and hurting those around them. Every single one of the 30 executives Bloomberg interviewed deserves to be named and shamed and fired. They should not get to keep their jobs, because their shitty, toxic attitudes are legitimately harmful, and their own small-minded idiocy is leading to them, at the very least, making fucking terrible HR decisions. Stephen Zweig has got it in one:
“If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment,” he said, “those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint.”
Yeah! Good! Because the correct response to "sexual assault victims are being heard" is not "gosh, I'd better never be around women in private any more", it's "gosh, I'd better not sexually harass women"!
  #40  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:25 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,068
I've seen a disturbing amount of sexual harassment in my workplace. Sometimes it's been so overt I am left in a bit of shock "did he really just say/do that?".

I don't know why these women put up with it.

Ever since I was 17 and started dating the woman who would become my wife, I've lived by something like the "Pence Rule". Because of that, I've never been in a situation where I could even be credibly accused or suspected of anything untoward.
  #41  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:30 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 31,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I've seen a disturbing amount of sexual harassment in my workplace. Sometimes it's been so overt I am left in a bit of shock "did he really just say/do that?".

I don't know why these women put up with it.
Glad that you recognize this.

Quote:
Ever since I was 17 and started dating the woman who would become my wife, I've lived by something like the "Pence Rule". Because of that, I've never been in a situation where I could even be credibly accused or suspected of anything untoward.
Are you in a position with any power (i.e. a supervisor)? If so, how many women have missed out on instances of experience that could be useful to their career and potential advancement because of your fear of being alone with a woman?

Perhaps you should change this policy (you can still have a "no closed doors" policy applied to everyone that doesn't discriminate at all).
  #42  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:36 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Are you in a position with any power (i.e. a supervisor)? If so, how many women have missed out on instances of experience that could be useful to their career and potential advancement because of your fear of being alone with a woman?
Yes, I supervise 7 women, 6 directly, and no men.

None have missed out on anything. There is nothing in this job that would require me to be alone with any of them.

BTW, it's not fear, it's prudence.
  #43  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:43 PM
enalzi enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 7,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
Yes, I supervise 7 women, 6 directly, and no men.

None have missed out on anything. There is nothing in this job that would require me to be alone with any of them.

BTW, it's not fear, it's prudence.
What if one of your subordinates needs to discuss something with you privately?
  #44  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:49 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
What if one of your subordinates needs to discuss something with you privately?
My office has a door with a big, clear window.
  #45  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:35 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I've seen a disturbing amount of sexual harassment in my workplace. Sometimes it's been so overt I am left in a bit of shock "did he really just say/do that?".

I don't know why these women put up with it.
Good on you for being so woke and in tune with the realities of daily work life for wom-

Quote:
Ever since I was 17 and started dating the woman who would become my wife, I've lived by something like the "Pence Rule". Because of that, I've never been in a situation where I could even be credibly accused or suspected of anything untoward.
God dammit.
  #46  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:41 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I've seen a disturbing amount of sexual harassment in my workplace. Sometimes it's been so overt I am left in a bit of shock "did he really just say/do that?".

I don't know why these women put up with it.

Ever since I was 17 and started dating the woman who would become my wife, I've lived by something like the "Pence Rule". Because of that, I've never been in a situation where I could even be credibly accused or suspected of anything untoward.
Why aren't you afraid that a man that you've been alone with will falsely accuse you of sexual harassment?
  #47  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:44 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Why aren't you afraid that a man that you've been alone with will falsely accuse you of sexual harassment?
Just curious, in the universe of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace, what % of them come from women vs men?
  #48  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:57 PM
Lemur866's Avatar
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 22,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Just curious, in the universe of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace, what % of them come from women vs men?
Just curious, in the universe of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace, what % of them are just completely made up out of whole cloth?

See, I understand where you're going with this. Your theory is that sexual harassment complaints by men against other men are pretty rare, so it's an acceptable risk to be alone with a man.

If you won't be alone with a woman because she might be a psychopath who will falsely accuse of of sexual harassment, do you think men are less likely to be psychopaths than women? After all, we're not talking here about legit sexual harassment complaints, we're talking about malicious false complaints, right?

I get it, you're not gonna proposition some dude for sex, that would be disgusting, right? But we're not talking about what you would do, we're talking about what some other person might falsely accuse you of.

So why is it that you might think a false accusation by a woman is much more likely than a false accusation by a man? Thing is, we can pretty safely say that genuine sexual harassment by men against women is more common than by men against men, right? Or if we can't say that, then what you're arguing is that men are less likely to snitch after getting harassed, and so it's safer to harass them?
  #49  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:48 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
Why aren't you afraid that a man that you've been alone with will falsely accuse you of sexual harassment?
Incidentally, that kind of thing does happen in my workplace.

I can't think of a time I've been alone with a man here either.
  #50  
Old 12-05-2018, 05:55 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
I can't think of a time I've been alone with a man here either.
If you have a workplace policy of never being alone with any employee regardless of gender, then I don't see anything discriminatory about that.

The problem is not men "protecting themselves" by maintaining gender-neutral high standards of dignified professionalism in their workplace behavior: the problem is men "protecting themselves" by discriminating against women.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017