4 ms·

Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately. > Men and women need to learn to interact at work. Men should not need sensitivity

by econner 10y ago

Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately. > Men and women need to learn to interact at work. Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ben_jones 10y ago
Consider the case of a small startup with only one or two female employees. If OP does in fact fire him and provide training to staff it wouldn't take much deductive reasoning for the rest of the employees to figure out who was involved with the incident. Maybe the accused was favored in the office and some employees take his side. Maybe some employees have a bias that is set off by what they deem to be necessary sexual harassment training. Just to be clear I think he should be fired, but it's a shitty situation to be in with a small office and a small number of, presumably close, employees.
- econner 10y ago
  This is a fair point. Thanks.
ta_donk_gt 10y ago
> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work. I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country). But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well). Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another. I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to". As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.
- econner 10y ago
  I have no sympathy for the "boys will be boys" side of this argument. I am a male in my early 20's so am familiar with the mindset. Sure maybe zero tolerance is a bit far, but every woman I know has a story like this. Every one has had to deflect some strange workplace advance or some uncomfortable proposition by a superior. The problem is magnified 10 fold when the workplace is so heavily skewed male (as it is in tech). Retroactive sensitivity training isn't going to fix this problem.
zepto 10y ago
> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work. Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.
- econner 10y ago
  Not sure where you're getting the "think they are not sexist" from. Everyone has unconscious biases (men and women). Some are more aware of them than others. This problem is not sexist in and of itself. It would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position in the work place or for a man to put another man in this position, or woman to put another woman etc.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Have you studied sexism at all? It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point. Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
    - econner 10y ago
      I don't understand why you're calling out "people who think they aren't sexist". Why is that point important? (Besides to belittle me?) I'm not claiming to be free from bias here. Everyone has biases both conscious and unconscious. And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.
      - zepto 10y ago
        I'm not calling anyone out or belittling anyone. I am saying that if you acknowledge that you are sexist (as everyone of both genders is), then a zero tolerance policy doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem. For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them. Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?

by econner 10y ago

Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately. > Men and women need to learn to interact at work. Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ben_jones 10y ago

Consider the case of a small startup with only one or two female employees. If OP does in fact fire him and provide training to staff it wouldn't take much deductive reasoning for the rest of the employees to figure out who was involved with the incident. Maybe the accused was favored in the office and some employees take his side. Maybe some employees have a bias that is set off by what they deem to be necessary sexual harassment training. Just to be clear I think he should be fired, but it's a shitty situation to be in with a small office and a small number of, presumably close, employees.

econner 10y ago
This is a fair point. Thanks.

ta_donk_gt 10y ago

> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work. I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country). But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well). Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another. I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to". As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.

econner 10y ago
I have no sympathy for the "boys will be boys" side of this argument. I am a male in my early 20's so am familiar with the mindset. Sure maybe zero tolerance is a bit far, but every woman I know has a story like this. Every one has had to deflect some strange workplace advance or some uncomfortable proposition by a superior. The problem is magnified 10 fold when the workplace is so heavily skewed male (as it is in tech). Retroactive sensitivity training isn't going to fix this problem.

zepto 10y ago

> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work. Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.

econner 10y ago
Not sure where you're getting the "think they are not sexist" from. Everyone has unconscious biases (men and women). Some are more aware of them than others. This problem is not sexist in and of itself. It would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position in the work place or for a man to put another man in this position, or woman to put another woman etc.
- zepto 10y ago
  Have you studied sexism at all? It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point. Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
  - econner 10y ago
    I don't understand why you're calling out "people who think they aren't sexist". Why is that point important? (Besides to belittle me?) I'm not claiming to be free from bias here. Everyone has biases both conscious and unconscious. And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.
    - zepto 10y ago
      I'm not calling anyone out or belittling anyone. I am saying that if you acknowledge that you are sexist (as everyone of both genders is), then a zero tolerance policy doesn't do anything to solve the problem. If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem. For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them. Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?