4 ms·
> With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he go
by Splines 10y ago
> With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down.
I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management.
OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid.
- ownagefool 10y ago> I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management. I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. It's entirely possible, that the female employee, as an employee of a startup, is inflected by the same hyper-sensitivity that plagues communities such as ourselves. Conversely it's also entirely possible that male employee is a complete and utter dickhead. I wouldn't bet my life on either one being the truth. > OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid. Well yeah, the OP hasn't given us enough info to really comment and he'll need to use his own personal judgement on whether the messages were over the line or whether he was just being a guy. I'm just trying to remind people that whilst we should be professional at work, we aren't automatons and normal people are going to continue dating and bonking their colleagues or attempting to do so and whilst that's sexual, it doesn't necessarily constitute harassment.
- Splines 10y ago> I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. Uhh... seriously? I hope I'm misreading what you wrote here.
- ownagefool 10y agoWhy? Your no smoke without fire argument relies on the lady in question not being touchy or unresonable. I'd argue donglegate shows that, despite having an army of men willing to defend them, sometimes this is the case. It's also poor form to skip the context like that.
- nurettin 10y agoDunno, I'd kinda assume people are being reasonable by default. That's how societies are built by the majority so that a minority of cynics can find the luxury to make sexist remarks within that established framework.
- ownagefool 10y agoWell, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.
- louduh 10y agoYou forgot "actually" after your "Well"
- nurettin 10y agoExcept I wouldn't ignore textual evidence "because women can be unreasonable" or "men can be assholes".
- Chris2048 10y agoStraw-man. Or possibly framing the original argument stereotypically/in bad-faith. Concluding you only have one side of the story, is not the same as, nor necessitates ignoring it. One alternative is getting the other side of the story. I also find the phrasing "because women can be unreasonable" to be suspicious - there is no reason to put it this way rather than "people can be unreasonable"; OP made no claim that only women should be treated with skepticism. - are you trying to invoke the historical meme of women being dismissed as irrational?