Ah, but I’m not those men, and any relationships I establish with any individual, regardless of gender, are our relationships. I’m no more guilty of what your father/brother/uncle did to you than you are of what my father/brother/uncle did to me. I’m only accountable for treating you with respect- which yes, should include being considerate to sensitivities and issues you may enter into new relationships with as a courtesy- but you are accountable for the same, in my view.
You aren’t thousands of years of women any more than I’m thousands of years of individuals either. We’re the result, but we’re also our own persons.
Honestly, there’s truth to that, but the problem is it’s upsetting to business dealing norms.
Not that they’re right or wrong, but the handshake interpersonal deal has been part of business- the interpersonal trust side- and so it needs a replacement with removal. Instead, women are being unfairly shut out.
I am aware of how to treat other people. You seem to be the one having such difficulty with the concept. I’m trying to help you see that you are overcomplicating things. Paralysis by over-analysis is the phrase that comes to mind.
We should all be so lucky to be Aziz Ansari. He’s got a major comedy tour coming up, and is already selling out shows. So much for, “If you are even falsely accused of misconduct, your life is DESTROYED!!!1!!”
This is hilarious. I’m sorry some men didn’t get it. You might have to interrupt them to explain it, maybe in a condescending tone. Sometimes our little brains can’t keep up with complex ideas.
I don’t understand this. Is it supposed to be sarcasm? I’m not trying to start an argument or anything. I just genuinely don’t know what is meant by this. If I’m being courteous and professional, why should that treatment vary by person?
We don’t actually know what the punishment was, just that it was “hot water.”
I will go ahead and say that if it is literal, in that they are boiling this guy alive a punishment, then that may be a bit unfair.
He could show the documentation on the incident. I am sure that she will be so excited to receive a facsimile of his manliness that all will be forgiven.
So, what I hear you saying here, is “Don’t believe women.”
A popular position, and one that has been the guiding principle for our patriarchal society for quite a while. Why fix what ain’t broke, amiright?
Just for shits and giggles though, lets sit down and actually listen to what they have to say. We can always go back to patronizing later.
So, what I hear you saying here, is “Don’t believe women.”
A popular position, and one that has been the guiding principle for our patriarchal society for quite a while. Why fix what ain’t broke, amiright?
Just for shits and giggles though, lets sit down and actually listen to what they have to say. We can always go back to patronizing later.
The first three things he did are fine. Talk about yourself and your job in the company. Ask how they are doing in the company, ask what they are doing in the company. Great.
Then you ask about where you live, and what you do outside of work. Does that not seem to be at least a bit invasive? That a complete stranger is coming up and demanding to know these things?
And if it is a man, then the man is probably thinking “Who the eff does this guy think he is, demanding to know all this about me?” But yeah, he finds it tiresome and boring, especially if this is the nth such conversation he has had today while he is just trying to get on the elevator, but as a guy, he may find it less threatening than if it were a woman.
If he is unable to separate work conversation from his social life, then that may be for the best. People are there because they want a paycheck, they are not there to listen to your stories and answer your questions about their personal lives.
The difference between social and work interactions, is if you are a bore or worse in a social interaction, they can just stop interacting with you. If it happens at work, they cannot do that without quitting.
And there is no burden on the young worker who has this old guy coming up and demanding to know where they live and what they do outside of work?
It should have also made some people rethink the way that they interact with people. That someone being uncomfortable with the way that you approach them may be actually on the way that you approach them, not on them for being creeped out by your approach.
Judging by this thread, we have a ways to go.
I think I see the problem. You are doing “friendliness” wrong. That’s not how it works.
This may be the wisest thing you have ever said on these boards.
IIRC, in many workplaces, there was always the unofficial policy that when a boss has to fire an employee, there should always be a 3rd person present in the office to serve as a witness, because the fired person has incentive to distort or create false accusations about what went down in that conversation in the office. This would be one main area where the Pence Rule (not just applied to women, but all employees in general) would be perfectly logical. In a situation where an employee has cause for revenge/grievance (as a fired employee may feel,) don’t give them ammo. A fired woman may feel incentive to fabricate a false accusation against a male boss if it’s just him and her in the office.
I disagree with your characterization of that thread (and the topic in general). There’s nothing wrong with women coming forward and telling their stories honestly, and we’ve received no indication that the accuser of Hardwick wasn’t being honest. Maybe the network conducted a full and thorough investigation and reached the correct conclusion, or maybe not – it’s very possible we’ll never know. But tons of people (don’t recall if you were one of them) were all too happy to denigrate Hardwick’s accuser when there was no reason to believe she was not being honest – and such denigration is actively harmful to the cause of doing a better job of being compassionate to those with stories to tell, and treating those stories with seriousness.
So I don’t believe you’ve offered any good reason why someone could reasonably be upset about the #MeToo movement in general.
I’m saying that demonstrating how woke you are by insisting on action now, or that only dealing with things by going to HR instead of going first to the coworker themselves or their boss, is believing that women are never wrong, mistaken, or malicious, and that’s not right.
MeToo hasn’t morphed into “believe all women,” it’s morphing into “If you don’t take immediate action that’s publicly visible, you’re showing you don’t believe women.” Pendulum’s too far for justice and fairness. Particularly the public part bothers me. A private reprimand- or even a private “Hey Paul, someone took that remark as sexual and this is how and why. You understand that you shouldn’t do that, even if it didn’t used to be that way?” is acceptable to actually correct behavior. Even a “Hey, Paul, I find that kind of offensive.” Not “Paul should be publically reprimanded.”
I had a coworker rush another coworker to the hospital at 1am (we are 24 hour) with a heart attack because there was no-one on site that could use the defibrillator. Saved her life, apparently, but was a complete violation of the safety guidelines. So he had a private “Don’t do that” from his boss, and we all had to take safety training. No names were ever named publically. That’s a fair handling of an honest error.
Warning: Telling a Lame Joke in an Elevator can Endanger Your Career This is an example of a generational reference being taken as sexualized, and therefore offensive. They investigated (fair), concluded he had done nothing inappropriate and she had misunderstood him (OK), and fired him anyway (ridiculous).
Maybe some reading comprehension is needed.
Or maybe the air is too thin up there on your horse.
Because, if you aren’t an asshole, the false ones are the ones that worry you. You are happy they get all the bastards, but the ones against good guys are the ones that could, improbably, hit you.
It should, but it doesn’t. In practice, BAW means men have to prove their innocence.
Everyone believe the women who accused Kavannaugh and then she recanted.
As you note, though, we as individuals are the outcome of thousands of years of social conditioning in unequal relationships. Nobody in society, including you, can magically shuck off all vestiges and effects of that conditioning just by consciously recognizing that the inequality was wrong. And you are being selfish and unreasonable if you expect other people to assume that you have.
You don’t get to decree, as an individual, that although you automatically benefit from having the advantage of your historically privileged status, everybody else is required to give you the (very unrealistic) benefit of the doubt that your historically privileged status has absolutely zero effect on your views or actions.
With that post I was trying to speak in his language so he’d better understand what I was trying to say, that’s one example. I’m a tech director at a school. The way I explain things when coworkers need help depends on what level of tech knowledge they have, that’s another example. I pay attention to how people talk to me, and the things they talk about, so that when I have conversations I’m taking that into consideration. I just mean treating people as individuals, and respecting every individual. that’s all.
