5 ms·

Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push t

Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) That said, even if it's not clear exactly where the line is—it's pretty easy to see that certain actions would be far across it, and that's largely what's come up in recent allegations. Though I don't think all of them have been super clear cut. 'Simple' is too strong here.

rayiner 9y ago
> Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.
- westoncb 9y ago
  Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the same thing? Obviously that's not the case for those making allegations—but don't you suppose there were also situations where these folks were involved in fully consensual situations which crossed the power line? The rules are there to protect the inferiors, but what if in some situations they do not want that protection at all? To say otherwise is to say that no one ever desires their boss, which is obviously wrong. 'Simple' is just not the right word for it.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Think about it logically rather than emotionally. It’s pretty safe to say that #(women who just want to work and build professional relationships without being propositioned for sex) >> #(women who want to have sex with their boss). Drawing bright-line rules that take sex categorically out of the professional context makes life vastly easier for the former group of women.[1] At slight inconvenience to the latter group. It optimized for the common case. [1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
    - westoncb 9y ago
      > Think about it logically rather than emotionally. If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it. It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place. But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      I'm not sure that you did optimize, actually. Part of the problem is that professional and social lines are regularly blurred, and indeed most workplaces encourage it. I have never worked at a workplace where at least some people did not socialize outside of that workplace and at least a few times, romantic relationships emerged from that. And these situations will have misunderstandings and hurt feelings, but to simply tell a bunch of adults that they cannot pursue social or romantic relationships is impossible. This isn't just true for workplaces, but for clubs, industry groups, etc. etc. Therein lies the problem with these situations and why it's so important to have these discussions and for people to be honest. It's entirely possible I have sexually harassed someone and didn't realize it (though I doubt it, since I've never romantically pursued someone I worked with), simply by expressing interest in them. To not have the discussion is to remove agency from some parties and freedom from others.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Humans are not Vulcan-style compartmentalizing creatures, and no rule can stop love (and lust, contrary to puritanical religious-derived beliefs, lust is also ok), etc 100% from emerging. Tons of very happy marriages and relationships started in professional settings.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Parent wrote sex, not love. You can't stop love (or lust), but you can choose how you act on them. For example, by removing yourself from the context where that is inappropriate.
    - SeanDav 9y ago
      One of the parent posts mentioned that it is difficult to even agree what constitutes sexual harassment, so difficult to know what to act on or how to act in all circumstances. Some consider a hug sexual harassment, some consider touching a knee. What about putting your hand on a person's back? Does it make a difference what part of their back, if so exactly how and where? Sexual harassment should be far more about intention rather than the specific part of the body touched (excluding the obvious no-go areas of genitals and breasts). Generally you should be allowed 1 strike, for mis-reading signals. In a society where men are expected to initiate contact, this is a fraught situation. It is not a simple answer.
      - icebraining 9y ago
        No, sorry, I don't get it at all. Stop trying to read "signals" and get people's actual consent before touching them. It's not difficult or complicated.
        SeanDav 9y ago
        Not sure what you mean - I have been touched by male and female colleagues numerous times. Not once was it sexual, it was just people being people. Are you suggesting that they ask my permission every time before touching my arm or shoulder or slapping me on the back? Can you imagine the following scene: "Gee John, you did a great job there, I would like to shake your hand, or even pat your back (only near the shoulder mind you and no lower than a line formed by the bottom of your shoulder blades). Do you think that would be permissible? I want to reassure you that this touch will not be sexual in any way."
aaron-lebo 9y ago
This case describes a boss trying to kiss his female coworkers and touch their legs. It's not difficult. It's not the appropriate environment to do that and the power dynamic is wrong, too. People know better.
- westoncb 9y ago
  You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple' or 'complex'.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    You responded to me. I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
    - westoncb 9y ago
      Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case. That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general. > We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid. That's pretty much exactly what my comment said.
s73ver_ 9y ago
No, you come on. What is it, specifically, that you find difficult to not do, especially at the workplace?
- westoncb 9y ago
  Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    This isn't an ad hominem. You're saying that these things are hard, so what is it exactly that you find hard about it?
    - icebraining 9y ago
      You're saying that these things are hard No, nowhere in that post did westoncb say anything was hard to avoid doing.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        I'm sorry, but their post is still bullshit. It is incredibly easy to not harass and to not assault people. Claiming that things are "tricky" or "unclear" when they're not doesn't help anyone.
alexqgb 9y ago
Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.
- westoncb 9y ago
  And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case? If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
  - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
    If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    The rule is simple. No messing with your employees. Even if they want you to.
  - siidooloo 9y ago
    Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.
rtpg 9y ago
People might disagree on the line itself, but many of these cases that are publicized are... if you read the details of the interactions they are clearly way over many reasonable people's lines. We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur. It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.
- ebcode 9y ago
  >>It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts. I recommend reading "The missing stair"[0] for an account of how normal this actually is. [0] http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Sorry, I meant to say that it shouldn't be normal. Unfortunately society still has a lot of progress to make.
ggg9990 9y ago
Just don't fuck girls you work with! It's such an easy rule.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  It's a simple rule. Judging from the number of relationships I see spring up in my workplace, I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
  - paganel 9y ago
    > I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow). I stick by the same rule, but other people have not been so smart. Most famous case is Bill Gates, who's now not-happily married to Melinda Gates. Or not. Case in point, it is all debatable and depending on context, like all human interactions, but with witch-hunts like these the context gets totally lost.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Which witch-hunt? The only people being accused seem to have been obviously over all reasonable limits. A side discussion about workplace relationships, without mentioning any names, is not a witch-hunt.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Why do you think they're actually trying to follow it?
kelukelugames 9y ago
What do you think is not super clear cut? Charlie Rose dry humped people and Weinstein and Louie CK masturbated in front of others.

rayiner 9y ago

> Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.

westoncb 9y ago
Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the same thing? Obviously that's not the case for those making allegations—but don't you suppose there were also situations where these folks were involved in fully consensual situations which crossed the power line? The rules are there to protect the inferiors, but what if in some situations they do not want that protection at all? To say otherwise is to say that no one ever desires their boss, which is obviously wrong. 'Simple' is just not the right word for it.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Think about it logically rather than emotionally. It’s pretty safe to say that #(women who just want to work and build professional relationships without being propositioned for sex) >> #(women who want to have sex with their boss). Drawing bright-line rules that take sex categorically out of the professional context makes life vastly easier for the former group of women.[1] At slight inconvenience to the latter group. It optimized for the common case. [1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
  - westoncb 9y ago
    > Think about it logically rather than emotionally. If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it. It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place. But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    I'm not sure that you did optimize, actually. Part of the problem is that professional and social lines are regularly blurred, and indeed most workplaces encourage it. I have never worked at a workplace where at least some people did not socialize outside of that workplace and at least a few times, romantic relationships emerged from that. And these situations will have misunderstandings and hurt feelings, but to simply tell a bunch of adults that they cannot pursue social or romantic relationships is impossible. This isn't just true for workplaces, but for clubs, industry groups, etc. etc. Therein lies the problem with these situations and why it's so important to have these discussions and for people to be honest. It's entirely possible I have sexually harassed someone and didn't realize it (though I doubt it, since I've never romantically pursued someone I worked with), simply by expressing interest in them. To not have the discussion is to remove agency from some parties and freedom from others.
coldtea 9y ago
>These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Humans are not Vulcan-style compartmentalizing creatures, and no rule can stop love (and lust, contrary to puritanical religious-derived beliefs, lust is also ok), etc 100% from emerging. Tons of very happy marriages and relationships started in professional settings.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Parent wrote sex, not love. You can't stop love (or lust), but you can choose how you act on them. For example, by removing yourself from the context where that is inappropriate.
  - SeanDav 9y ago
    One of the parent posts mentioned that it is difficult to even agree what constitutes sexual harassment, so difficult to know what to act on or how to act in all circumstances. Some consider a hug sexual harassment, some consider touching a knee. What about putting your hand on a person's back? Does it make a difference what part of their back, if so exactly how and where? Sexual harassment should be far more about intention rather than the specific part of the body touched (excluding the obvious no-go areas of genitals and breasts). Generally you should be allowed 1 strike, for mis-reading signals. In a society where men are expected to initiate contact, this is a fraught situation. It is not a simple answer.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      No, sorry, I don't get it at all. Stop trying to read "signals" and get people's actual consent before touching them. It's not difficult or complicated.
      - SeanDav 9y ago
        Not sure what you mean - I have been touched by male and female colleagues numerous times. Not once was it sexual, it was just people being people. Are you suggesting that they ask my permission every time before touching my arm or shoulder or slapping me on the back? Can you imagine the following scene: "Gee John, you did a great job there, I would like to shake your hand, or even pat your back (only near the shoulder mind you and no lower than a line formed by the bottom of your shoulder blades). Do you think that would be permissible? I want to reassure you that this touch will not be sexual in any way."

aaron-lebo 9y ago

This case describes a boss trying to kiss his female coworkers and touch their legs. It's not difficult. It's not the appropriate environment to do that and the power dynamic is wrong, too. People know better.

westoncb 9y ago
You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple' or 'complex'.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You responded to me. I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.) You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
  - westoncb 9y ago
    Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case. That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general. > We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid. That's pretty much exactly what my comment said.

s73ver_ 9y ago

No, you come on. What is it, specifically, that you find difficult to not do, especially at the workplace?

westoncb 9y ago
Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  This isn't an ad hominem. You're saying that these things are hard, so what is it exactly that you find hard about it?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    You're saying that these things are hard No, nowhere in that post did westoncb say anything was hard to avoid doing.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      I'm sorry, but their post is still bullshit. It is incredibly easy to not harass and to not assault people. Claiming that things are "tricky" or "unclear" when they're not doesn't help anyone.

alexqgb 9y ago

Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.

westoncb 9y ago
And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case? If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  The rule is simple. No messing with your employees. Even if they want you to.
- siidooloo 9y ago
  Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.

rtpg 9y ago

People might disagree on the line itself, but many of these cases that are publicized are... if you read the details of the interactions they are clearly way over many reasonable people's lines. We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur. It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.

ebcode 9y ago
>>It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts. I recommend reading "The missing stair"[0] for an account of how normal this actually is. [0] http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html
- rtpg 9y ago
  Sorry, I meant to say that it shouldn't be normal. Unfortunately society still has a lot of progress to make.

ggg9990 9y ago

Just don't fuck girls you work with! It's such an easy rule.

khedoros1 9y ago
It's a simple rule. Judging from the number of relationships I see spring up in my workplace, I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
- paganel 9y ago
  > I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow). I stick by the same rule, but other people have not been so smart. Most famous case is Bill Gates, who's now not-happily married to Melinda Gates. Or not. Case in point, it is all debatable and depending on context, like all human interactions, but with witch-hunts like these the context gets totally lost.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Which witch-hunt? The only people being accused seem to have been obviously over all reasonable limits. A side discussion about workplace relationships, without mentioning any names, is not a witch-hunt.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Why do you think they're actually trying to follow it?

kelukelugames 9y ago

What do you think is not super clear cut? Charlie Rose dry humped people and Weinstein and Louie CK masturbated in front of others.