4 ms·

I'm not so sure about this one. I think sexual harassment and direct flirtation can become confused depending on the perspective of the recipient. Men have be

by zupreme 11y ago

I'm not so sure about this one. I think sexual harassment and direct flirtation can become confused depending on the perspective of the recipient. Men have been making advances toward women throughout history and, perhaps to a lesser extent, women do the same toward men. Far more workplace flings happen than any company (and even many employees) will admit and it often starts with one party or the other making their desires known to the other party. I've also been part of and present for many very graphic conversations in the workplace involving both sexes and none of these, to my knowledge, were never seen as harassment or reported as such. In reading the linked article the one thing I don't see is where she told the manager "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." Perhaps if she had simply been as direct with him as he was being with her, the entire HR fiasco could have been avoided. It's telling that the female colleague felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances. This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR. I'm sure this won't be a popular view here but I think it's valid. Edit: Replaced "HR Worker" with "Colleague". As some responders pointed out it was not the HR person who told her she was overreacting (thanks for the corrections).

thedz 11y ago
> It's telling that the female HR person felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances. It was a female colleague, not HR. According to the article, HR was fully behind her, as they should be. > This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR. Not just a colleague, a report. This is what's important. HR would have frowned on a manager making advances on his reports, if nothing else. Especially advances on a new report during her first week.
- spoiler 11y ago
  My friend was in the same position about a year ago, and she told her boss (directly, and in private conversation) that she's not interested, after he didn't interpret a few other subtle hints. She still works there. Furthermore, she the boss and some other colleagues were cracking jokes about it during a team building event that I was invited to. Edit: I realise this is anecdotal, but it feels to me like the author of the blog post immediately assumed she's a victim and panicked. Maybe the manager should've been more observant, but pointing fingers is useless without knowing what really happened. We only have her account of the story, which is probably distorted by the discomfort she experienced. This is not to say her discomfort shouldn't be taken into account, and yes I agree that HR should've sided with her, but I don't believe he should've been seriously sanctioned either.
  - thedz 11y ago
    It doesn't sound like he was -- he apologized, and they moved her to a different group
danso 11y ago
You really need to re-read the article. The female HR person did not feel she was "overreacting": > During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me. While there is no explicit mention by the author of her saying, "I told him to back off", there's also nothing to imply that she accepted her manager's advances: i.e. that she went to dinner with him alone, or actually sat on his lap. Reporting to HR is not a "fiasco". It is always difficult -- for the reasons the author states -- to deal with advances by a superior. Not just because of fears of losing her job, but also of self-doubt about hurting the company. Pushing back against him beyond not sitting on his lap leads to fear of retribution. HR is as close to a third-party as she can get for this, and the main question is how it could have been headed off earlier.
Jean-Philipe 11y ago
No, your view is not valid. Assuming you actually read the article, you probably didn't read this part: "In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,” among other wildly discomfiting, work-inappropriate things. Then I was asked to dinner alone." That racist comment alone is reason enough to get the manager fired right away, let alone the rest of that list. And no, she doesn't need to say "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." She doesn't even have to say that. Don't even start using "throughout history" as a justification for anything. A lot of bad things happened throughout history.
- zupreme 11y ago
  Help me understand how it's not appropriate to directly tell someone who is making it obvious that they are attracted to you that you aren't interested. If you make it known that you aren't interested and the person continues. Then it becomes harassment. So I refute your position. We all have to set boundaries in our relationships and the author of the article is no exception.
  - Jean-Philipe 11y ago
    As I understand you, she would have to "opt out" of his advances or otherwise she is implicitly saying "yes", is that how you think? As I see it, she should not have to "set boundaries" nor should she even have to deal with such advances in any way. It's a working environment and not a dating club! What he did (ask her to sit on his lap) has no place in a professional setting.
  - thedz 11y ago
    Because the default state isn't "everyone is attracted to me unless they say otherwise." It's a workplace environment, and a manager <-> direct report relation. Not flirting or making inappropriate advances should be a given.
  - the_af 11y ago
    No. There are many cases where your "explicit opt-out" scenario doesn't work: 1- It's not ok for a colleague to assume they can enter your office naked unless you tell them not to. They cannot assume they have your permission to publicly expose their dangly bits near you simply because you didn't tell them they shouldn't. 2- It's not ok for colleagues to take money out of your wallet and use it unless you tell them not to. The default is "no", your wallet is off-limits, and such an action can and will be considered theft. 3- People who are uncomfortable with sexual intimacy (either because that's their personality, or because they are prior abuse victims, or for whatever reason -- they really shouldn't explain themselves to you) should not have to be exposed to unwanted sexual attention at the office, especially in an asymmetrical situation where the other person holds power over them. The reasonable expectation is that the office is not a place for sexual intimacy by default. Note that the boss here has no way of knowing how the victim will feel about sexual intimacy, which explains why the boss should not attempt it at all in the first place.
mercer 11y ago
Your view is not entirely unreasonable in my mind, insofar that we don't know the actual details of what happened. For all we know the guy thought she was flirting back at him and feels terribly guilty about misreading the situation (although I personally doubt it). I've seen (and experienced, but thankfully not like this) countless men and women make these types of mistakes. Communication is difficult, and flirting all the more. However, and in my opinion it's a very important however, I see two reasons why despite our distance to the situation, we can solidly agree that the manager was out of line: 1. He's a manager. Power is a tricky thing. If you're in a position of power, you need to wield it with responsibility. If it means never having romantic/sexual/flirty interactions with a subordinate, so be it. It's just too risky. My father is a church leader and he never meets women one-on-one, both for his and her 'protection', so to speak. 2. It's a man's world. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where the power dynamics favor men. That also requires some responsibility, as even just superior physical strength unbalances things by default. When I'm walking down a street, I often try to be aware of not 'following' a women if we happen to be going in the same direction (especially if it's a darker or less safe area of town). I do this not because I have to do so, but because I know how unsettling (or scary and threatening) it can to feel like someone is following you, both from stories of my female friends, and from my own (undoubtedly less-scary) experience as a, uh, 'small, skinny boy'. Now there are not always rules or laws that demand all this of a person, but it strikes me as basic decency to regularly reflect on what 'power' you might have, overt or otherwise, and how this might affect others. And if someone who is clearly a subordinate feels threatened, then that makes perfect sense. Part of your job as the one in power is to wield it responsibly. That includes the responsibility to make sure there are no 'misunderstandings'.

by zupreme 11y ago

thedz 11y ago

> It's telling that the female HR person felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances. It was a female colleague, not HR. According to the article, HR was fully behind her, as they should be. > This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR. Not just a colleague, a report. This is what's important. HR would have frowned on a manager making advances on his reports, if nothing else. Especially advances on a new report during her first week.

spoiler 11y ago
My friend was in the same position about a year ago, and she told her boss (directly, and in private conversation) that she's not interested, after he didn't interpret a few other subtle hints. She still works there. Furthermore, she the boss and some other colleagues were cracking jokes about it during a team building event that I was invited to. Edit: I realise this is anecdotal, but it feels to me like the author of the blog post immediately assumed she's a victim and panicked. Maybe the manager should've been more observant, but pointing fingers is useless without knowing what really happened. We only have her account of the story, which is probably distorted by the discomfort she experienced. This is not to say her discomfort shouldn't be taken into account, and yes I agree that HR should've sided with her, but I don't believe he should've been seriously sanctioned either.
- thedz 11y ago
  It doesn't sound like he was -- he apologized, and they moved her to a different group

danso 11y ago

You really need to re-read the article. The female HR person did not feel she was "overreacting": > During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me. While there is no explicit mention by the author of her saying, "I told him to back off", there's also nothing to imply that she accepted her manager's advances: i.e. that she went to dinner with him alone, or actually sat on his lap. Reporting to HR is not a "fiasco". It is always difficult -- for the reasons the author states -- to deal with advances by a superior. Not just because of fears of losing her job, but also of self-doubt about hurting the company. Pushing back against him beyond not sitting on his lap leads to fear of retribution. HR is as close to a third-party as she can get for this, and the main question is how it could have been headed off earlier.

Jean-Philipe 11y ago

No, your view is not valid. Assuming you actually read the article, you probably didn't read this part: "In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,” among other wildly discomfiting, work-inappropriate things. Then I was asked to dinner alone." That racist comment alone is reason enough to get the manager fired right away, let alone the rest of that list. And no, she doesn't need to say "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." She doesn't even have to say that. Don't even start using "throughout history" as a justification for anything. A lot of bad things happened throughout history.

zupreme 11y ago
Help me understand how it's not appropriate to directly tell someone who is making it obvious that they are attracted to you that you aren't interested. If you make it known that you aren't interested and the person continues. Then it becomes harassment. So I refute your position. We all have to set boundaries in our relationships and the author of the article is no exception.
- Jean-Philipe 11y ago
  As I understand you, she would have to "opt out" of his advances or otherwise she is implicitly saying "yes", is that how you think? As I see it, she should not have to "set boundaries" nor should she even have to deal with such advances in any way. It's a working environment and not a dating club! What he did (ask her to sit on his lap) has no place in a professional setting.
- thedz 11y ago
  Because the default state isn't "everyone is attracted to me unless they say otherwise." It's a workplace environment, and a manager <-> direct report relation. Not flirting or making inappropriate advances should be a given.
- the_af 11y ago
  No. There are many cases where your "explicit opt-out" scenario doesn't work: 1- It's not ok for a colleague to assume they can enter your office naked unless you tell them not to. They cannot assume they have your permission to publicly expose their dangly bits near you simply because you didn't tell them they shouldn't. 2- It's not ok for colleagues to take money out of your wallet and use it unless you tell them not to. The default is "no", your wallet is off-limits, and such an action can and will be considered theft. 3- People who are uncomfortable with sexual intimacy (either because that's their personality, or because they are prior abuse victims, or for whatever reason -- they really shouldn't explain themselves to you) should not have to be exposed to unwanted sexual attention at the office, especially in an asymmetrical situation where the other person holds power over them. The reasonable expectation is that the office is not a place for sexual intimacy by default. Note that the boss here has no way of knowing how the victim will feel about sexual intimacy, which explains why the boss should not attempt it at all in the first place.

mercer 11y ago

Your view is not entirely unreasonable in my mind, insofar that we don't know the actual details of what happened. For all we know the guy thought she was flirting back at him and feels terribly guilty about misreading the situation (although I personally doubt it). I've seen (and experienced, but thankfully not like this) countless men and women make these types of mistakes. Communication is difficult, and flirting all the more. However, and in my opinion it's a very important however, I see two reasons why despite our distance to the situation, we can solidly agree that the manager was out of line: 1. He's a manager. Power is a tricky thing. If you're in a position of power, you need to wield it with responsibility. If it means never having romantic/sexual/flirty interactions with a subordinate, so be it. It's just too risky. My father is a church leader and he never meets women one-on-one, both for his and her 'protection', so to speak. 2. It's a man's world. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where the power dynamics favor men. That also requires some responsibility, as even just superior physical strength unbalances things by default. When I'm walking down a street, I often try to be aware of not 'following' a women if we happen to be going in the same direction (especially if it's a darker or less safe area of town). I do this not because I have to do so, but because I know how unsettling (or scary and threatening) it can to feel like someone is following you, both from stories of my female friends, and from my own (undoubtedly less-scary) experience as a, uh, 'small, skinny boy'. Now there are not always rules or laws that demand all this of a person, but it strikes me as basic decency to regularly reflect on what 'power' you might have, overt or otherwise, and how this might affect others. And if someone who is clearly a subordinate feels threatened, then that makes perfect sense. Part of your job as the one in power is to wield it responsibly. That includes the responsibility to make sure there are no 'misunderstandings'.