Resolved: That certain aspects of the MeToo movement infantilize women.
Notice that this was a consensual relationship.
Some people claim that there is no such thing as “consent” when there is a power imbalance.
http://www1.cuny.edu/mu/forum/2012/04/12/safeguarding-the-university-community/
This attitude infantilizes women. This is precisely the same reason why a young child is legally unable to consent to sex. This is treating women as if they were children.
“Power is an aphrodisiac” appears to be true in terms of women being attracted to men. Considering that a guy “at the top” of the company he works for probably has little free time outside of work, he:
Notice that it still violated company policy.
I’m not sure this is true. Guys at the top of companies have some free time, they do have vacations, they can usually find a little bit of time to meet women outside of work. Whether it’s the gym, skiing, tennis, golf, who knows, but they can find a little time.
Workplace relationships create drama. It’s the same reason that adultery is officially illegal in the military (something that a lot of people don’t know.) My best friend is a JAG in the Army and he complains frequently about the shitbirds who he has to defend who wind up getting into trouble that starts with them fucking each other when they’re both married to other people.
NO consent? I don’t know about that. But it’s still a minefield, professionally and legally.
Right. And it’s not about “infantilizing women,” if only because the prohibitions still apply no matter what the genders of the people involved.
I’ve read some posts by radfems (not ‘normal’ feminists): Most “normal” feminists said things like, “Women are strong, confident, self-sufficient, etc.” But the radfems took a quite opposite approach: They were quick to point out that women were weak and easily preyed on by men and that women needed protection because they were weak; in fact, some radfems claim that all sex is rape because consent is not possible.
I’m not sure what you’re objecting to. Do you think that power imbalances do not alter the nature of consent? I think that plainly they do and not just in regards to sexual relationships.
If my boss asks me to dog-sit for her this weekend, the nature of our relationship is such that I am much more inclined to say yes than if it were simply a random co-worker. She has power over me and thus I have to take into account that power dynamic when making decisions. It’s not infantilizing to say that people in power wield influence over their subordinates that can be abused. Would any sexual relationship born out of these power imbalances be rape? I wouldn’t go that far, but I think that a company having a policy that protects subordinates from their superiors is not out of line or infantilizing. It’s simply recognizing that superior-subordinate relationship is something that can be abused and thus should be limited by policy.
How is a random woman he approaches at the gym going to know enough about him to be attracted to him?
Another “blame the female victim” thread. Great.
Are you serious?
Yes.
So what? The issue isn’t that he was treating this particular woman fairly, the issue is that he might be giving special treatment to the employee he’s fucking, at the expense of the employees he’s not fucking. #metoo aside, that’s bad for business on a number of fronts.
No, that’s not the same reason young children can’t consent to sex. Children can’t consent to sex because they lack the mental development to understand what they’re consenting to. The problems with consent between professors and students is that the professor is in a position to do long-term professional harm to students who reject their advances, or if they’re having a domestic dispute. This is also something that works both ways: it’s equally inappropriate for female professors to be having sexual relationships with male students, so no, the policy is not specifically infantilizing women.
Also, neither of these ideas are new to the #metoo movement. The issues of power imbalances on consent have been talked about for decades before the internet was even a thing. I’m genuinely surprised that these sort of student-teacher relationships are still allowed, or that there’s actual pushback against banning them: I’d have thought most universities would have banned them back in the '80s or '90s.
Power imbalance guidelines and rules don’t specify gender. Such rules already exist in the military, and IMO are entirely appropriate for more organizations – significant power imbalances really can affect the possibility of consensual relationships. It’s really not that much of a burden to not mix business (or education) and romance, and in my experience makes for far smoother-running organizations.
It’s not infantilizing anyone – it’s just recognizing a truth about power imbalances and about organization functionality.
Just when you thought it was safe to surf the Dope.
At least this time they started their own thread instead of hijacking someone else’s.
This is not a #metoo issue, nor do such company and university policies protect women only. You could argue that the particular quotes you posted are simplistic, and it’s possible that the people making the statements have views that are all black and white, but its indisputable that relationships with such power imbalances have a very high risk of issues arising from the power imbalance. Not a guarantee no, but why should the company/university risk it?
Too bad I’ve hijacked this thread. Busy guy at a high rank in his organization, has lower ranking women who would be interested in a relationship with him, with no coercion of any kind. Gets to the gym a few times a week. What is the consensus on what he should do? Absolutely no dating anyone at work, and randomly approach women at the gym who know nothing about him?
What is the company policy? The case mentioned in the OP was a result of breaking company policy, y’know.
The problem isn’t coercion. The problem is that there are a lot of people working for Big Shot Executive that aren’t interested in sleeping with him, who are competing with the woman he’s fucking for promotions, pay raises, and plumb assignments. Are they getting a fair shot at those things, or is the BSE’s girlfriend getting an advantage because of her relationship with the boss?
If Big Shot Executive can’t find time to date while being a big shot executive, then he needs to figure out a better work/life balance. We don’t turn the office into a singles bar as a charity to assholes who don’t know how to stop working.
For starters, yes.
But ultimately, this guy is making a choice not to have more time for his personal life, if that’s even the issue (I sincerely doubt it). If he is truly that busy and does not wish to be, he needs to delegate more work or hire more people to help with the work. A person working that much is a drag on productivity and is doing the shareholders no good. He needs to have more personal time just to maintain quality of work. Bone tired CEOs make boneheaded decisions. And if he also wants a healthy adult relationship, he needs to prioritize it and make more time for it.
If he can’t make time for it, he’s either too low on the corporate ladder to do so (not true in this case), poor at his job (possible), or does not actually put enough priority on his personal life to make time for it.
Even at 60 working hours a week, there is still time for both. And if he’s regularly doing more than that, it’s incompetence at his job or a deliberate personal choice.