4 ms·

> where any playful transgression between genders is rendered impossible. As it damn well should be. To be clear: if you're making unwanted 'transgressions' a

by s_kilk 9y ago

> where any playful transgression between genders is rendered impossible. As it damn well should be. To be clear: if you're making unwanted 'transgressions' against women in your workplace then you are in the wrong. Women are not your playthings.

coolcat84 9y ago
I don't believe the original comment was referring to anything other than banter among a group. I have been in perfectly reasonable conversations within a group where a woman has taken a statement so wildly out of context that frivolous reports are filed and it hurts the credibility of any truly meaningful incidents that may have happened. > Women are not your playthings Yeah, you're right. Neither are the livelihoods of men who have to police perfectly normal speech for fear of being purposefully twisted. I'm obviously not referring to the Caldbeck situation.
- xwvvvvwx 9y ago
  I have been in perfectly reasonable conversations within a group where a woman has taken a statement so wildly out of context that frivolous reports are filed Why do you think you have the right to decide whether someone else should find a comment inappropriate or not?
  - coolcat84 9y ago
    Because when it's clearly frivolous and results in no action by management (who deem it a non-issue), all it does is create a work environment where people aren't comfortable talking about ANYTHING. I'm not talking about clearly inappropriate speech in the workplace, I'm talking about normal conversation that is twisted and misconstrued to attack others. I have witnessed this happen multiple times and it is baffling.
  - almccann 9y ago
    Subjectivity versus objectivity is the crux of the issue with standards of behaviour. I understand a common idea nowadays is the subjective standard of any group member (victim) is considered paramount in assessing conduct. But this descends into meaninglessness because all people tolerate others' conduct at differing levels. This is why the common law has long assessed standards of behaviour using the "reasonable person" as a hypothetical objective measure of appropriate conduct in the given circumstances.[1] The commenter may not have the right to decide appropriate behaviour, but at some point we must ask "would the reasonable person in X situation presented with Y conduct be harmed?". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
philfrasty 9y ago
playful (mutual) != unwanted
michalu 9y ago
>As it damn well should be. I met my current girlfriend, I saw her on the street coming out of the metro, we exchanged eye contact and I walked over, talked, flirted and asked for the number... We met the same night and she thanked me for coming over to talk to her. She's from France, I'm from Eastern Europe... we'd never meet otherwise and over the last year we experienced the most beautiful thing, that people call love. In some places, like Manchester, this is now sexual harassment... I feel sorry for the world you live in...
- csomar 9y ago
  You met her on the street, not on the workplace. You started with an eye contact and then escalated as you were getting approval of your actions. There is nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of a single reason to do that in a workplace (correctly), let alone with people you are directly working/involved with. It seems to be careful not to date them. There are tons of people outside (or maybe inside the same company but in different departments you don't deal with).
  - michalu 9y ago
    yes but that was not the subject of the original comment - "both at work or elsewhere" ... my parents, and parents of most of my friends met in the workplace... ... there's recent legislation in Manchester, where if you talk to a woman on the street she can just accuse you of sexual harassment ... I guess we're running out of places to meet women we actually want to get to know and heading towards a world where your only 'safe' options are a lifetime porn (or sexbot) or waiting for some woman to choose you whether you like it or not ... not a nice place to be in my opinion but good luck to those aiming for it
    - csomar 9y ago
      > there's recent legislation in Manchester, where if you talk to a woman on the street she can just accuse you of sexual harassment Link to the legislation in question? (or maybe news link about it?)
omginternets 9y ago
You're assuming the transgression is against the woman, which is clearly not what the OP meant. More to the point, this kind of "no sex with coworkers" mentality has many of us Europeans rolling our eyes at the New World. It's absolutely possible to both respect women and have sexual encounters with people we meet at the workplace and do so in a professional manner. There's a huge difference between playful, consensual flirting and fucking on the photocopier. My experience is that the people who fail to make these distinction constitute -- in fact -- a highly ideological minority.

by s_kilk 9y ago

coolcat84 9y ago

I don't believe the original comment was referring to anything other than banter among a group. I have been in perfectly reasonable conversations within a group where a woman has taken a statement so wildly out of context that frivolous reports are filed and it hurts the credibility of any truly meaningful incidents that may have happened. > Women are not your playthings Yeah, you're right. Neither are the livelihoods of men who have to police perfectly normal speech for fear of being purposefully twisted. I'm obviously not referring to the Caldbeck situation.

xwvvvvwx 9y ago
I have been in perfectly reasonable conversations within a group where a woman has taken a statement so wildly out of context that frivolous reports are filed Why do you think you have the right to decide whether someone else should find a comment inappropriate or not?
- coolcat84 9y ago
  Because when it's clearly frivolous and results in no action by management (who deem it a non-issue), all it does is create a work environment where people aren't comfortable talking about ANYTHING. I'm not talking about clearly inappropriate speech in the workplace, I'm talking about normal conversation that is twisted and misconstrued to attack others. I have witnessed this happen multiple times and it is baffling.
- almccann 9y ago
  Subjectivity versus objectivity is the crux of the issue with standards of behaviour. I understand a common idea nowadays is the subjective standard of any group member (victim) is considered paramount in assessing conduct. But this descends into meaninglessness because all people tolerate others' conduct at differing levels. This is why the common law has long assessed standards of behaviour using the "reasonable person" as a hypothetical objective measure of appropriate conduct in the given circumstances.[1] The commenter may not have the right to decide appropriate behaviour, but at some point we must ask "would the reasonable person in X situation presented with Y conduct be harmed?". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

philfrasty 9y ago

playful (mutual) != unwanted

michalu 9y ago

>As it damn well should be. I met my current girlfriend, I saw her on the street coming out of the metro, we exchanged eye contact and I walked over, talked, flirted and asked for the number... We met the same night and she thanked me for coming over to talk to her. She's from France, I'm from Eastern Europe... we'd never meet otherwise and over the last year we experienced the most beautiful thing, that people call love. In some places, like Manchester, this is now sexual harassment... I feel sorry for the world you live in...

csomar 9y ago
You met her on the street, not on the workplace. You started with an eye contact and then escalated as you were getting approval of your actions. There is nothing wrong with that. But I can't think of a single reason to do that in a workplace (correctly), let alone with people you are directly working/involved with. It seems to be careful not to date them. There are tons of people outside (or maybe inside the same company but in different departments you don't deal with).
- michalu 9y ago
  yes but that was not the subject of the original comment - "both at work or elsewhere" ... my parents, and parents of most of my friends met in the workplace... ... there's recent legislation in Manchester, where if you talk to a woman on the street she can just accuse you of sexual harassment ... I guess we're running out of places to meet women we actually want to get to know and heading towards a world where your only 'safe' options are a lifetime porn (or sexbot) or waiting for some woman to choose you whether you like it or not ... not a nice place to be in my opinion but good luck to those aiming for it
  - csomar 9y ago
    > there's recent legislation in Manchester, where if you talk to a woman on the street she can just accuse you of sexual harassment Link to the legislation in question? (or maybe news link about it?)

omginternets 9y ago

You're assuming the transgression is against the woman, which is clearly not what the OP meant. More to the point, this kind of "no sex with coworkers" mentality has many of us Europeans rolling our eyes at the New World. It's absolutely possible to both respect women and have sexual encounters with people we meet at the workplace and do so in a professional manner. There's a huge difference between playful, consensual flirting and fucking on the photocopier. My experience is that the people who fail to make these distinction constitute -- in fact -- a highly ideological minority.