7 ms·

I know many people like that, and no, they don't derive an enjoyable power trip out of being rejected at all. Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They do

I know many people like that, and no, they don't derive an enjoyable power trip out of being rejected at all. Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They don't know that they are doing it. These people are rarely evil and predatory. They usually genuinely believe that the behavior they are exhibiting is desireable. They think that this is how the game is played, and these things are a form of peacocking. They think confidence is attractive, flattery is wanted, and that women are constantly searching for signals of an Alpha. They also think they're exceptional. They don't understand boundaries, and they don't understand that women have to deal with that shit from other guys who also think that, everywhere they go. Whether it be cat calls at the grocery store or advances at work. I don't know Sacca or McClure, and from their writing and the way they project themselves, I don't think they seem like the type of people I care to spend time around, but it's pretty clear that this is a bad combination of arrogance and ignorance rather than malice. I had to stop reading Sacca's post after the 5th page of him talking about how great he is, but it sounds like he definitely had his Come To Jesus moment and is genuinely remorseful and working on not being an ass. That's a far better outcome than premature ostracization. Save that for the Bill Cosbys. In order to make progress, I think it is important to recognize this distinction. There are no doubt some actual predators out there, but they need to be dealt with very differently than the dumbasses. I say that in part as a recovering dumbass myself, and as someone who faced accusations of malice and manipulation (in matters completely unrelated to women) when that was absolutely not the case. Hanlon's Razor and all.

haikuginger 9y ago
> Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They don't know that they are doing it. These people are rarely evil and predatory. They usually genuinely believe that the behavior they are exhibiting is desireable. At a certain point, one has to believe that another's actions are evil, even if that evil is unwitting. One mustn't actively choose to be "evil and predatory" to be so in fact.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  At a certain point, one has to believe that another's actions are evil, even if that evil is unwitting. One mustn't actively choose to be "evil and predatory" to be so in fact. So something can become so horrible, that even a mistaken action should be defined as evil? Sorry, but that sounds wrong, and itself willfully vengeful. In that case, shouldn't we just do away with manslaughter and just say everyone who has killed someone is a murderer?
  - haikuginger 9y ago
    You're making a false equivalence; often, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is the lack of an actual _intent to kill_, not simply the presence of a mistaken belief that the killing would be welcomed as "a really alpha move". Even in cases where intent isn't there, other factors (for example, hitting and killing someone while driving drunk or too far over the speed limit) can make an accidental killing murder. I don't think that you can make the argument that any of the men in question did not intend to make sexual advances on these women. To horribly misuse Aaron Sorkin: Sam: About a week ago I accidentally slept with a prostitute. Toby: Really? Sam: Yes. Toby: You accidentally slept with a prostitute. Sam: Call girl. Toby: Accidentally. Sam: Yes. Toby: I don't understand. Did you trip over something?
    - greggman 9y ago
      I'm trying to understand the intent of your reference. The scene you're referring to is when Sam finds out after he slept with the woman that she happened to be a prostitute. He didn't pay her as a prostitute. He met a nice woman and they spent the night together. Next morning he finds out she has a job that might get him in trouble. How is that relevant to your point? It seems like the opposite of your point.
      - haikuginger 9y ago
        It popped into my head due to the linguistic disconnect - Sam is saying that he accidentally did something, but Toby is clarifying that, no, he did it on purpose; he just might not have been aware of the circumstances and potential consequences. In other words, while it might be possible to "accidentally sexually harass" a person, there's much more involved than "did the harasser think they were harassing?" Rather, it matters whether the person in question deliberately chose to perform the actions that compose harassment. To use programming terminology, sexual harassment is an interface, not a class. One need not deliberately implement it if all the requirements are met.
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  That might be a reasonable reply if you took that line out of context like you did, totally missing the point being made.
rhizome 9y ago
They also think they're exceptional. They don't understand boundaries, and they don't understand that women have to deal with that shit from other guys who also think that Dark Triad, anybody? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad
stcredzero 9y ago
I know many people like that, and no, they don't derive an enjoyable power trip out of being rejected at all. Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They don't know that they are doing it. These people are rarely evil and predatory. They usually genuinely believe that the behavior they are exhibiting is desirable. Basically, power corrupts. Being a boss, an investor, or an employer comes with power. Just having the cachet of being involved with startups carries a certain small amount of power in itself. Combine this corruption with the powerful instincts around sex and mating, and really bad things can happen. I'm probably going to be attacked for this, but I really wish women would be overt and name such things. (Here, I'm talking about workplace norms in CA in general, not any of the specific situations of women named in the NYT article.) As it is, there are so many provisions for deniability, being second guessed, and not overtly saying "I'm not interested" that it really muddies the waters. I think it would help if women just said, "No. I'm sorry, but I don't think of you this way." or, "No, sorry, but I think I should keep business and personal matters separate." Wasn't clear and direct communication part and parcel of the "no means no" message in the first place? By creating norms where women think it's dangerous to just come out and say no, it's like we're creating an operating assumption where any man who might hear "no" has to be considered some kind of unstable potential attacker. To me, this is the sort of "fainting couch" feminism that regards women as only potential victims who can't stand up for themselves and who must be protected by others. To say the overt "no" -- to directly say what you want and mean -- is to claim agency as an adult. It's a chance for the refused to show acceptance. It's a chance for every party involved to coexist as equals. Disclosure, this comes to mind because of something that happened between me and a colleague of equal rank in a volunteer organization who went directly from "I don't think I can see a movie tonight" to "This situation is making me uncomfortable" with nothing in between. I just don't think this is suitable verbal behavior for supposedly rational adults. Okay, now you angry and misguided young "activists" come and lay on the aspersions that I'm some sort of morally deficient person.
- phlakaton 9y ago
  I think this is suitable behavior for adults, rational or otherwise. We're human and, especially when we're young, inexperienced, or anxious, we don't always navigate the boundaries cleanly. To be honest, I too was told something like that once upon a time – and yeah, you'd better believe I got the message! Hopefully you immediately stopped whatever behavior was making them uncomfortable and apologized.
bobdole1234 9y ago
I think you're completely neglecting the fact that there is a large contingent of women that this behavior WORKS LIKE CATNIP ON. There is a reason why a huge amount of porn in the world (and porn made for women) about boss / secretary, teacher / student, rich person / poor person, mentor / underling power imbalances: it's a major part of our sexuality as social animals. So, these men have often gone through life being wildly successful with this type of behavior up until society started to change around them.
- haikuginger 9y ago
  > So, these men have often gone through life being wildly successful with this type of behavior up until society started to change around them. I feel so bad for them. /s
  - bobdole1234 9y ago
    I'm not saying you should feel bad for them. I'm saying that's why it's so common: It's been a viable strategy for a long time.
    - watwut 9y ago
      I am not radical feminist enough yet to accept that theory.
    - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
      I didn't neglect it, but I did delete it from my reply for the same reason you got flagged down, and thought I could make my point without adding that triggering distraction.
- bt4u 9y ago
  Absolutely, and I believe it's why they're so hated by male feminists: they're supposed to be as sexually frustrated as they are, so they try to use shaming to achieve this even though it won't work. Society might change, but biology takes longer. It's a successful mating strategy today, and it will be successful a thousand years from now, regardless of the kicking and screaming.
thinkfurther 9y ago
> They don't understand boundaries, and they don't understand that women have to deal with that shit from other guys who also think that, everywhere they go. At this level of lack of empathy and thought, I see no functional difference between malice and inability. > There are no doubt some actual predators out there, but they need to be dealt with very differently than the dumbasses. How so? Both need boundaries first and foremost. When they don't respect boundaries voluntarily, those need to be enforced, always preferably by the persons whose boundaries they are violating and every witness to it. Beyond that there are the differences. With a dumbass, they may learn not to sting, with someone who got turned into a scorpion, you might have to always wear a glove when feeding them, forever. Which is okay, but it's not okay to leave out the glove because for some of those you're handling without gloves, they might stop stinging at some point. Though I agree in that you should not label people as dumbass or scorpion before hand. Enforce boundaries, explain your reasoning and emotions firmly and repeatedly. As if to your little dumbass brother, theoretically a peer you love lots, but right now someone you put in their place because you love them and they just won't stop kicking dogs or hurting other kids or drinking bleach. This has to be true, this cannot be faked, you have to muster the love too, not just the anger; and even only some will be able to notice and believe that. It will trickle into some, completely wash over others -- but you can only find that out by doing it. This also implies giving everyone the chance(s). But don't go by their words. Don't trust user input, treat all of it like potential exploits. Do what you have to do anyway, and in this case you can go "great, then you won't mind these changes, if you had this Come To Jesus moment. If that was just a bluff, you'll shit bricks, enjoy". Cooperation is very desirable and should always be welcome, but it is not required.
drawnwren 9y ago
I think you're pretty close to 100% correct here. My one addition would be that with our level of connectedness, it would require an insane amount of self control for an individual (male) to be of the mindset 'I take the things I want at work' and not have slip ups of the sort we're seeing here (inappropriate messages etc.) Because this disclaimer seems necessary in posts like this, I am in no way condoning his actions or the actions of people like this. However, it certainly seems like we're looking at an interesting area where the personality characteristics required to be successful may be orthogonal to 21st century social norms. (Venture capital.) I'd argue that another similar area is war fighting, and that this could be a plausible explanation (not excuse) for why sexual harassment can be so high in those areas as well.
- adamsea 9y ago
  To say it requires an "insane" level of self control is ridiculous.
  - FeepingCreature 9y ago
    Different people probably feel impulses with different strength.
- algesten 9y ago
  Oh. You're one of those people: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - qb45 9y ago
    To some extent he may be describing the phenomenon otherwise known as "groupies", to some extent he obviously was taking it too far.
  - 9y ago
acjohnson55 9y ago
> These people are rarely evil and predatory. But then there's the argument of the banality of evil. We spend a lot of time thinking about the black swans of evilness, but I'd argue a lot more damage is done on aggregate by mundane shittiness.
watwut 9y ago
Nope. Are you trying thay rape culture is a thing and dudes really need special courses on how to not be harassers? That does not describe or culture or majority of dudes in any way. Our culture is full of signals that harassment is wrong. It is also quite unlikely that people who climb the ladder and successfully play "impress investors and people around" social skills game are so clueless magically when they are alone with women. Somehow they manage to be cluefull when acting like a peacock would harm their career. I would believe claim about dumbass, if we would talk about dude down in the basement that insulted CEO last week. Then yeah, he is clueless. But in cases here, it is really too much benefit of doubt. Not everyone who likes to take advantage of other person (including when genders are reversed) is clueless. Majority of men including those on the spectrum are not like that. When you claim that this is normal misunderstanding, you throw shadow on them too.
- sbergot 9y ago
  I have witnessed at least 3 people that were in a manager position and had unacceptable behavior. What lawnchair_larry described matches almost perfectly my perception of them. One of them would casually explain in conversations the software he had written to crawl dating website. We was very open with things such as the mirror above his bed, sharing pictures of it. Before leaving the company at last, he had received multiple sanctions including an interdiction to get too close to some women who had worked with him. Had I not met those people, I would be unable to believe that they exist. My theory is that they are bold, assertive and have no shame. They don't "play" with people; people like them. They seduce managers and investors. They try to do the same with coworkers.
  - watwut 9y ago
    "Before leaving the company at last, he had received multiple sanctions including an interdiction to get too close to some women who had worked with him." That sounds quite far away. He did not get info after first two and still honestly does not understand his behavior is not welcome? I mean, if you get the note from HR that you are not allowed to approach person x anymore, then maybe the seducing strategy does not work? Then again, people are not all that rational in general.
02399diii8d8 9y ago
Ughh... this becomes so complicated. In my line of work, which involves authority positions, I see this sort of thing happen a lot (not most of the time, but regularly): Junior female supervisee becomes romantically involved with male supervisor. It's consensual, not predatory at all. Two people working closely together in closely related positions (I'm not talking CEO-secretary here, I'm talking something more closely matched in rank). Female supervisee might even brag about it or something in informal circles. It's obvious that part of what is happening is that the woman is attracted to ambition, authority, power, etc., even if they don't acknowledge this openly at the time (after all, they are seeking this for themselves). Relationship goes south (not always, though, about as often as any relationship), and then female supervisee blames male supervisor for taking advantage of her, brainwashing her, etc. Maybe even accuse supervisor of sexual harassment. What I'm seeing in the NY Times piece is not this. None of the people I'm talking about would ever just proposition a potential hire. However, I think it increases the ambiguity about appropriate behavior. If women in these positions are actively encouraging relationships sometimes (and people hear about this, in sorts of open secret situations), then for people who are already confused, it becomes even more confusing. My guess is these guys are hitting on women in the same way they might anywhere, without realizing the position of power they have. As you say, I think it's a matter of social sophistication more than anything else.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  Then those guys you are talking about need to learn to behave better with responsibility. I am not saying this from a social justice/feminism viewpoint that many other commenters are, but from the point of view of leadership. If you're a man or a woman who gets involved with your subordinates, that's a failure of yours as a leader and it's unethical. It's unethical, because the superior/subordinate relationship makes a romantic affair coercive even if nobody participating intends it to be. It's a leadership failure because the superior should behave better than the subordinate as part of providing their leadership function. Yes, you could say the suborndinate started it or whatever, but the superior is supposed to know better than to get involved with that. If you don't want people to be confused, don't add to the confusion by dipping your pen in the company ink.
- 9y ago

haikuginger 9y ago

> Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They don't know that they are doing it. These people are rarely evil and predatory. They usually genuinely believe that the behavior they are exhibiting is desireable. At a certain point, one has to believe that another's actions are evil, even if that evil is unwitting. One mustn't actively choose to be "evil and predatory" to be so in fact.

stcredzero 9y ago
At a certain point, one has to believe that another's actions are evil, even if that evil is unwitting. One mustn't actively choose to be "evil and predatory" to be so in fact. So something can become so horrible, that even a mistaken action should be defined as evil? Sorry, but that sounds wrong, and itself willfully vengeful. In that case, shouldn't we just do away with manslaughter and just say everyone who has killed someone is a murderer?
- haikuginger 9y ago
  You're making a false equivalence; often, the distinction between murder and manslaughter is the lack of an actual _intent to kill_, not simply the presence of a mistaken belief that the killing would be welcomed as "a really alpha move". Even in cases where intent isn't there, other factors (for example, hitting and killing someone while driving drunk or too far over the speed limit) can make an accidental killing murder. I don't think that you can make the argument that any of the men in question did not intend to make sexual advances on these women. To horribly misuse Aaron Sorkin: Sam: About a week ago I accidentally slept with a prostitute. Toby: Really? Sam: Yes. Toby: You accidentally slept with a prostitute. Sam: Call girl. Toby: Accidentally. Sam: Yes. Toby: I don't understand. Did you trip over something?
  - greggman 9y ago
    I'm trying to understand the intent of your reference. The scene you're referring to is when Sam finds out after he slept with the woman that she happened to be a prostitute. He didn't pay her as a prostitute. He met a nice woman and they spent the night together. Next morning he finds out she has a job that might get him in trouble. How is that relevant to your point? It seems like the opposite of your point.
    - haikuginger 9y ago
      It popped into my head due to the linguistic disconnect - Sam is saying that he accidentally did something, but Toby is clarifying that, no, he did it on purpose; he just might not have been aware of the circumstances and potential consequences. In other words, while it might be possible to "accidentally sexually harass" a person, there's much more involved than "did the harasser think they were harassing?" Rather, it matters whether the person in question deliberately chose to perform the actions that compose harassment. To use programming terminology, sexual harassment is an interface, not a class. One need not deliberately implement it if all the requirements are met.
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
That might be a reasonable reply if you took that line out of context like you did, totally missing the point being made.

rhizome 9y ago

They also think they're exceptional. They don't understand boundaries, and they don't understand that women have to deal with that shit from other guys who also think that Dark Triad, anybody? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad

stcredzero 9y ago

I know many people like that, and no, they don't derive an enjoyable power trip out of being rejected at all. Theybdon't know they can get away with it. They don't know that they are doing it. These people are rarely evil and predatory. They usually genuinely believe that the behavior they are exhibiting is desirable. Basically, power corrupts. Being a boss, an investor, or an employer comes with power. Just having the cachet of being involved with startups carries a certain small amount of power in itself. Combine this corruption with the powerful instincts around sex and mating, and really bad things can happen. I'm probably going to be attacked for this, but I really wish women would be overt and name such things. (Here, I'm talking about workplace norms in CA in general, not any of the specific situations of women named in the NYT article.) As it is, there are so many provisions for deniability, being second guessed, and not overtly saying "I'm not interested" that it really muddies the waters. I think it would help if women just said, "No. I'm sorry, but I don't think of you this way." or, "No, sorry, but I think I should keep business and personal matters separate." Wasn't clear and direct communication part and parcel of the "no means no" message in the first place? By creating norms where women think it's dangerous to just come out and say no, it's like we're creating an operating assumption where any man who might hear "no" has to be considered some kind of unstable potential attacker. To me, this is the sort of "fainting couch" feminism that regards women as only potential victims who can't stand up for themselves and who must be protected by others. To say the overt "no" -- to directly say what you want and mean -- is to claim agency as an adult. It's a chance for the refused to show acceptance. It's a chance for every party involved to coexist as equals. Disclosure, this comes to mind because of something that happened between me and a colleague of equal rank in a volunteer organization who went directly from "I don't think I can see a movie tonight" to "This situation is making me uncomfortable" with nothing in between. I just don't think this is suitable verbal behavior for supposedly rational adults. Okay, now you angry and misguided young "activists" come and lay on the aspersions that I'm some sort of morally deficient person.

phlakaton 9y ago
I think this is suitable behavior for adults, rational or otherwise. We're human and, especially when we're young, inexperienced, or anxious, we don't always navigate the boundaries cleanly. To be honest, I too was told something like that once upon a time – and yeah, you'd better believe I got the message! Hopefully you immediately stopped whatever behavior was making them uncomfortable and apologized.

bobdole1234 9y ago

I think you're completely neglecting the fact that there is a large contingent of women that this behavior WORKS LIKE CATNIP ON. There is a reason why a huge amount of porn in the world (and porn made for women) about boss / secretary, teacher / student, rich person / poor person, mentor / underling power imbalances: it's a major part of our sexuality as social animals. So, these men have often gone through life being wildly successful with this type of behavior up until society started to change around them.

haikuginger 9y ago
> So, these men have often gone through life being wildly successful with this type of behavior up until society started to change around them. I feel so bad for them. /s
- bobdole1234 9y ago
  I'm not saying you should feel bad for them. I'm saying that's why it's so common: It's been a viable strategy for a long time.
  - watwut 9y ago
    I am not radical feminist enough yet to accept that theory.
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    I didn't neglect it, but I did delete it from my reply for the same reason you got flagged down, and thought I could make my point without adding that triggering distraction.
bt4u 9y ago
Absolutely, and I believe it's why they're so hated by male feminists: they're supposed to be as sexually frustrated as they are, so they try to use shaming to achieve this even though it won't work. Society might change, but biology takes longer. It's a successful mating strategy today, and it will be successful a thousand years from now, regardless of the kicking and screaming.

thinkfurther 9y ago

> They don't understand boundaries, and they don't understand that women have to deal with that shit from other guys who also think that, everywhere they go. At this level of lack of empathy and thought, I see no functional difference between malice and inability. > There are no doubt some actual predators out there, but they need to be dealt with very differently than the dumbasses. How so? Both need boundaries first and foremost. When they don't respect boundaries voluntarily, those need to be enforced, always preferably by the persons whose boundaries they are violating and every witness to it. Beyond that there are the differences. With a dumbass, they may learn not to sting, with someone who got turned into a scorpion, you might have to always wear a glove when feeding them, forever. Which is okay, but it's not okay to leave out the glove because for some of those you're handling without gloves, they might stop stinging at some point. Though I agree in that you should not label people as dumbass or scorpion before hand. Enforce boundaries, explain your reasoning and emotions firmly and repeatedly. As if to your little dumbass brother, theoretically a peer you love lots, but right now someone you put in their place because you love them and they just won't stop kicking dogs or hurting other kids or drinking bleach. This has to be true, this cannot be faked, you have to muster the love too, not just the anger; and even only some will be able to notice and believe that. It will trickle into some, completely wash over others -- but you can only find that out by doing it. This also implies giving everyone the chance(s). But don't go by their words. Don't trust user input, treat all of it like potential exploits. Do what you have to do anyway, and in this case you can go "great, then you won't mind these changes, if you had this Come To Jesus moment. If that was just a bluff, you'll shit bricks, enjoy". Cooperation is very desirable and should always be welcome, but it is not required.

drawnwren 9y ago

I think you're pretty close to 100% correct here. My one addition would be that with our level of connectedness, it would require an insane amount of self control for an individual (male) to be of the mindset 'I take the things I want at work' and not have slip ups of the sort we're seeing here (inappropriate messages etc.) Because this disclaimer seems necessary in posts like this, I am in no way condoning his actions or the actions of people like this. However, it certainly seems like we're looking at an interesting area where the personality characteristics required to be successful may be orthogonal to 21st century social norms. (Venture capital.) I'd argue that another similar area is war fighting, and that this could be a plausible explanation (not excuse) for why sexual harassment can be so high in those areas as well.

adamsea 9y ago
To say it requires an "insane" level of self control is ridiculous.
- FeepingCreature 9y ago
  Different people probably feel impulses with different strength.
algesten 9y ago
Oh. You're one of those people: "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- qb45 9y ago
  To some extent he may be describing the phenomenon otherwise known as "groupies", to some extent he obviously was taking it too far.
- 9y ago

acjohnson55 9y ago

> These people are rarely evil and predatory. But then there's the argument of the banality of evil. We spend a lot of time thinking about the black swans of evilness, but I'd argue a lot more damage is done on aggregate by mundane shittiness.

watwut 9y ago

Nope. Are you trying thay rape culture is a thing and dudes really need special courses on how to not be harassers? That does not describe or culture or majority of dudes in any way. Our culture is full of signals that harassment is wrong. It is also quite unlikely that people who climb the ladder and successfully play "impress investors and people around" social skills game are so clueless magically when they are alone with women. Somehow they manage to be cluefull when acting like a peacock would harm their career. I would believe claim about dumbass, if we would talk about dude down in the basement that insulted CEO last week. Then yeah, he is clueless. But in cases here, it is really too much benefit of doubt. Not everyone who likes to take advantage of other person (including when genders are reversed) is clueless. Majority of men including those on the spectrum are not like that. When you claim that this is normal misunderstanding, you throw shadow on them too.

sbergot 9y ago
I have witnessed at least 3 people that were in a manager position and had unacceptable behavior. What lawnchair_larry described matches almost perfectly my perception of them. One of them would casually explain in conversations the software he had written to crawl dating website. We was very open with things such as the mirror above his bed, sharing pictures of it. Before leaving the company at last, he had received multiple sanctions including an interdiction to get too close to some women who had worked with him. Had I not met those people, I would be unable to believe that they exist. My theory is that they are bold, assertive and have no shame. They don't "play" with people; people like them. They seduce managers and investors. They try to do the same with coworkers.
- watwut 9y ago
  "Before leaving the company at last, he had received multiple sanctions including an interdiction to get too close to some women who had worked with him." That sounds quite far away. He did not get info after first two and still honestly does not understand his behavior is not welcome? I mean, if you get the note from HR that you are not allowed to approach person x anymore, then maybe the seducing strategy does not work? Then again, people are not all that rational in general.

02399diii8d8 9y ago

Ughh... this becomes so complicated. In my line of work, which involves authority positions, I see this sort of thing happen a lot (not most of the time, but regularly): Junior female supervisee becomes romantically involved with male supervisor. It's consensual, not predatory at all. Two people working closely together in closely related positions (I'm not talking CEO-secretary here, I'm talking something more closely matched in rank). Female supervisee might even brag about it or something in informal circles. It's obvious that part of what is happening is that the woman is attracted to ambition, authority, power, etc., even if they don't acknowledge this openly at the time (after all, they are seeking this for themselves). Relationship goes south (not always, though, about as often as any relationship), and then female supervisee blames male supervisor for taking advantage of her, brainwashing her, etc. Maybe even accuse supervisor of sexual harassment. What I'm seeing in the NY Times piece is not this. None of the people I'm talking about would ever just proposition a potential hire. However, I think it increases the ambiguity about appropriate behavior. If women in these positions are actively encouraging relationships sometimes (and people hear about this, in sorts of open secret situations), then for people who are already confused, it becomes even more confusing. My guess is these guys are hitting on women in the same way they might anywhere, without realizing the position of power they have. As you say, I think it's a matter of social sophistication more than anything else.

thehardsphere 9y ago
Then those guys you are talking about need to learn to behave better with responsibility. I am not saying this from a social justice/feminism viewpoint that many other commenters are, but from the point of view of leadership. If you're a man or a woman who gets involved with your subordinates, that's a failure of yours as a leader and it's unethical. It's unethical, because the superior/subordinate relationship makes a romantic affair coercive even if nobody participating intends it to be. It's a leadership failure because the superior should behave better than the subordinate as part of providing their leadership function. Yes, you could say the suborndinate started it or whatever, but the superior is supposed to know better than to get involved with that. If you don't want people to be confused, don't add to the confusion by dipping your pen in the company ink.
9y ago