3 ms·

>I refer to them as "women", never as "ladies" or "girls" or other nonsense. Should we discriminate against people who come from a minority dialect where this

>I refer to them as "women", never as "ladies" or "girls" or other nonsense. Should we discriminate against people who come from a minority dialect where this is less common? >I don't engage in, or tolerate, any sexist ... conversations. Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. Congratulations, you are now excluding women from a class of social interactions that you have with men. This means that it will be harder for them to develop the type of interpersonal relationships with you that help them advance in the workplace. This is the exact same problem as not taking women out to lunch (for fear of accusastion of harrasment), just to a lesser degree. Maybe the benifits of these policies are worth it, maybe not. However, it is far from simple. Especially if you have truly bought into the notion that any form of sexism is wrong, because the standards of conduct expected of you (or, at least, as you are describing them) are still inherently sexist. Further, I think this type of comment does another disservice. It makes it sound like the types of harrasment we are talking about are just normal interactions where one side happens to be a women. However, when you look at the actual instances it is almost always the case that the behaviour is unambigously bad, and would still be so regardless of the genders. Seeing comments like yours generates alot of pushback from people who read it and then misunderstand what the original problem that we are talking about is.

hasenj 9y ago
> Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. No matter what you say or do, someone will find a way to call it sexist.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. Please explain how this is not sexist.
  - hasenj 9y ago
    Please explain how it's sexist?
    - gizmo686 9y ago
      Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male employees. That seems to be a clear example of sexism. We can disagree on what the consequences of this sexism is; and even if this is good sexism or not; but I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t
      - hasenj 9y ago
        > attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. > I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. Because you are implying it's a bad thing. You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.
        comstock 9y ago
        Many things are true on the level of groups, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to apply them as general rules on an individual level. Women maybe weaker than men in general. There are however many women stronger than many men. Where possible it is therefore better to evaluate individuals based on their individual merits. This is not only more efficient, but creates a fairer and hopefully happier society.
noobermin 9y ago
With regards to your last paragraph, OP uses words like "never" and "always" so it doesn't sound like just unsavory situations, it sounds like rules he uses for all interactions with women in his company. In this case, since OP put it forward, I think the onus is on him for clarifying what he means.

hasenj 9y ago

> Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. No matter what you say or do, someone will find a way to call it sexist.

gizmo686 9y ago
>Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. Please explain how this is not sexist.
- hasenj 9y ago
  Please explain how it's sexist?
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male employees. That seems to be a clear example of sexism. We can disagree on what the consequences of this sexism is; and even if this is good sexism or not; but I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t
    - hasenj 9y ago
      > attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. > I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. Because you are implying it's a bad thing. You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.
      - comstock 9y ago
        Many things are true on the level of groups, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to apply them as general rules on an individual level. Women maybe weaker than men in general. There are however many women stronger than many men. Where possible it is therefore better to evaluate individuals based on their individual merits. This is not only more efficient, but creates a fairer and hopefully happier society.

noobermin 9y ago

With regards to your last paragraph, OP uses words like "never" and "always" so it doesn't sound like just unsavory situations, it sounds like rules he uses for all interactions with women in his company. In this case, since OP put it forward, I think the onus is on him for clarifying what he means.