3 ms·
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 po
by 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 agoThink 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 agoI'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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rayiner 9y agoYou can socialize without bringing sex into the equation (which is how guys interact with each other). Talking about “removing agency” is disingenuous. It’s like saying that banning telemarketing calls is “removing agency” from people who really do want to be solicited. Women aren’t sitting around wishing their boss (or guys from work generally) would hit on them. We don’t need to construct the rules with an eye toward maximizing the contexts in which men can pursue sexual relationships.