4 ms·

After all the recent high-profile cases the outcome is going to be brutal - zero trust between genders, open door policy for any 1:1 meetings, recorded if law a

by bitL 9y ago

After all the recent high-profile cases the outcome is going to be brutal - zero trust between genders, open door policy for any 1:1 meetings, recorded if law allows; minimal and legally pre-approved communication, covering one's back in all cases, reduced VC spending in opposite gender-led companies, making work a hell where only lawyers would thrive.

DonHopkins 9y ago
And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. As long as Trump and Moore and everyone on down are immune to these accusations, everybody else is just going to have to suck it up.
- bitL 9y ago
  It doesn't change the outcome - a few that poison the well for everyone. Regardless of where the blame lies, everybody would suffer. In Andy's case it's not even clear if he indeed was a harasser or just played favorites/had a perceived bias towards his subordinate girlfriend that was not liked by other women in his team.
  - harryh 9y ago
    Both of the cases you describe in your "not even clear" are problems. If it was either of those things then it would demonstrate that Rubin was acting irresponsibly as a leader.
    - bitL 9y ago
      Not sure if they deserve the same treatment as if he were a harasser though; it's a disproportional justice. I hate when bosses play favorites, but don't demand them to be kicked out of the company for that, as everyone is biased towards people they like, and many people make a career out of "hacking" their bosses.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those doing that lousy extrapolation. The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that "all blacks are criminals" because they know of some black criminals.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there. The idea that "all harassers are harassers" sounds pretty solid reasoning to me.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow focused). I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions about anything related to this story is way too soon.
        coldtea 9y ago
        >So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;) (Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).
mc32 9y ago
We are a nation of contradictions. On the one hand we're puritanistic when it comes to sex and relationships (VP won't dine with opposite sex if not accompanied), while at the same time exalting sexual revolution, freedom of association, etc. But we want to control how people behave at work in a proscripted manner. It's like we can't decide what we want. Obviously harassment is detrimental to the affected, but also, we should not be told to shy away from forming relationships at work. People spend upwards of third of their lives at work. It makes little sense to deny that to people out of hand. That said, clear directives about abuse and harassment are necessary so people can work in an exclusive environment where they feel welcome.
- rayiner 9y ago
  It’s not a contradiction. Our Puritanism is reflected in the extreme value we assign to work. Our feminist movement is no less Puritan—that’s why Hilary Clinton is so exalted for her professional accomplishments. Feminism thus means removing the barriers that women have to maximizing their success at work. Discouraging relationships at work serves that important end. Moreover, it seems that most of the voices demanding the right to inflict romantic overtures on coworkers are comin from men. I’ve never heard a professional woman say “you know, what I really want is for more guys to ask me out at work!”
  - bitL 9y ago
    It's absolutely naïve to think women aren't playing power games to get what they want as well; I see it daily with my sister that is a head of some law agency. She's single as there are few men above her that would date her and her romantic relationships are just for fun, often with (current/former) subordinates (IMO they are co-dependents that need a strong woman to feel good about themselves). There is zero backlash she is getting for that. She's not in the US though.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Doesn't that just reinforce my point? To the extent there are women "playing power games" that's not something the company should tolerate either. And just because the subordinate is consenting or even willful doesn't make dating a subordinate okay. Then it becomes a question of whether the supervisor can maintain objectivity and fairness with respect to the rest of the team.
rayiner 9y ago
The office is a place for work, not for romantic overtures or ribald humor. I’ve made more than my share of jokes, among friends, that I’d never wanted printed and attributed to me. But I’m perfectly happy working somewhere where nobody ever says something offensive or sexual; it’s not hell, it’s professional. And it’s good for women and minorities, who just want to do well at their jobs without dealing with romantic overtures or guys who think they are funny.
- bitL 9y ago
  "Hell" I mentioned relates to the need to second guess everybody else's intentions in every single encounter; your brain capacity would be spent on protecting yourself and playing required "politics de jour" instead of working. That's a recipe for bankruptcy. Societies/companies lacking trust don't survive (alright, I know there is Oracle...).
  - rayiner 9y ago
    None of these harassment allegations involve men who simply failed to play the "politics de jour." That is a complete straw man. This is not about trust or intentions, but rather about boundaries. There is the sphere of work, and there is the sphere of socializing/romance, and as long as you respect that boundary there is no problem. Not trying to date people puts zero demands on your brain capacity (and, in fact, greatly frees your brain capacity, as I learned after getting married).
    - bitL 9y ago
      Look at it from my point of view - I am an attractive male, tall, handsome face , muscular, do photography and compose music, have that creative spark, now run my own company, yet my religious upbringing tells me I can't fornicate freely like the zeitgeist suggests, and can't tell you how many times even married women were hitting on me, willing to dump their husbands immediately - "it's just marriage". Whenever I turn any of them down, I need to have my back extremely well covered as they don't take rejection lightly. I am wondering when in the future some of them accuses me of "abusing" her because she couldn't have me (Potiphar's wife-style). Heck, I even had a female boss once that was luring me to her hotel room. This is what I call "politics de jour", being always aware of actors and nasty games they play to get into power regardless of justice and react on it real-time.
beardicus 9y ago
Your list of potential outcomes seem to assume that people will mainly be wary of false accusations. Maybe — instead of worrying about this low-probability non-issue — people will simply stop abusing power and harassing subordinates due to the increased likelihood of negative consequences?
- bitL 9y ago
  Yes, I am deeply pessimistic about human nature. When weaker men at the lower levels of companies see what happens to strong men at the top, what is the likely outcome? What would natural reinforcement learning tell them on how to maximize their reward/minimize their penalty, given their very limited options?

by bitL 9y ago

DonHopkins 9y ago

And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. As long as Trump and Moore and everyone on down are immune to these accusations, everybody else is just going to have to suck it up.

bitL 9y ago
It doesn't change the outcome - a few that poison the well for everyone. Regardless of where the blame lies, everybody would suffer. In Andy's case it's not even clear if he indeed was a harasser or just played favorites/had a perceived bias towards his subordinate girlfriend that was not liked by other women in his team.
- harryh 9y ago
  Both of the cases you describe in your "not even clear" are problems. If it was either of those things then it would demonstrate that Rubin was acting irresponsibly as a leader.
  - bitL 9y ago
    Not sure if they deserve the same treatment as if he were a harasser though; it's a disproportional justice. I hate when bosses play favorites, but don't demand them to be kicked out of the company for that, as everyone is biased towards people they like, and many people make a career out of "hacking" their bosses.
coldtea 9y ago
>And all of the blame for this inconvenient atmosphere lies squarely with the harassers. So direct it at them, not the victims. If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those doing that lousy extrapolation. The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that "all blacks are criminals" because they know of some black criminals.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there. The idea that "all harassers are harassers" sounds pretty solid reasoning to me.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Notice that the comment mentioned harassers not "men", so maybe you are jumping the gun a bit there I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow focused). I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions about anything related to this story is way too soon.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >So you are making a general argument on the toxic role such generalizations have? ;) Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;) (Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).

mc32 9y ago

We are a nation of contradictions. On the one hand we're puritanistic when it comes to sex and relationships (VP won't dine with opposite sex if not accompanied), while at the same time exalting sexual revolution, freedom of association, etc. But we want to control how people behave at work in a proscripted manner. It's like we can't decide what we want. Obviously harassment is detrimental to the affected, but also, we should not be told to shy away from forming relationships at work. People spend upwards of third of their lives at work. It makes little sense to deny that to people out of hand. That said, clear directives about abuse and harassment are necessary so people can work in an exclusive environment where they feel welcome.

rayiner 9y ago
It’s not a contradiction. Our Puritanism is reflected in the extreme value we assign to work. Our feminist movement is no less Puritan—that’s why Hilary Clinton is so exalted for her professional accomplishments. Feminism thus means removing the barriers that women have to maximizing their success at work. Discouraging relationships at work serves that important end. Moreover, it seems that most of the voices demanding the right to inflict romantic overtures on coworkers are comin from men. I’ve never heard a professional woman say “you know, what I really want is for more guys to ask me out at work!”
- bitL 9y ago
  It's absolutely naïve to think women aren't playing power games to get what they want as well; I see it daily with my sister that is a head of some law agency. She's single as there are few men above her that would date her and her romantic relationships are just for fun, often with (current/former) subordinates (IMO they are co-dependents that need a strong woman to feel good about themselves). There is zero backlash she is getting for that. She's not in the US though.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Doesn't that just reinforce my point? To the extent there are women "playing power games" that's not something the company should tolerate either. And just because the subordinate is consenting or even willful doesn't make dating a subordinate okay. Then it becomes a question of whether the supervisor can maintain objectivity and fairness with respect to the rest of the team.

rayiner 9y ago

The office is a place for work, not for romantic overtures or ribald humor. I’ve made more than my share of jokes, among friends, that I’d never wanted printed and attributed to me. But I’m perfectly happy working somewhere where nobody ever says something offensive or sexual; it’s not hell, it’s professional. And it’s good for women and minorities, who just want to do well at their jobs without dealing with romantic overtures or guys who think they are funny.

bitL 9y ago
"Hell" I mentioned relates to the need to second guess everybody else's intentions in every single encounter; your brain capacity would be spent on protecting yourself and playing required "politics de jour" instead of working. That's a recipe for bankruptcy. Societies/companies lacking trust don't survive (alright, I know there is Oracle...).
- rayiner 9y ago
  None of these harassment allegations involve men who simply failed to play the "politics de jour." That is a complete straw man. This is not about trust or intentions, but rather about boundaries. There is the sphere of work, and there is the sphere of socializing/romance, and as long as you respect that boundary there is no problem. Not trying to date people puts zero demands on your brain capacity (and, in fact, greatly frees your brain capacity, as I learned after getting married).
  - bitL 9y ago
    Look at it from my point of view - I am an attractive male, tall, handsome face , muscular, do photography and compose music, have that creative spark, now run my own company, yet my religious upbringing tells me I can't fornicate freely like the zeitgeist suggests, and can't tell you how many times even married women were hitting on me, willing to dump their husbands immediately - "it's just marriage". Whenever I turn any of them down, I need to have my back extremely well covered as they don't take rejection lightly. I am wondering when in the future some of them accuses me of "abusing" her because she couldn't have me (Potiphar's wife-style). Heck, I even had a female boss once that was luring me to her hotel room. This is what I call "politics de jour", being always aware of actors and nasty games they play to get into power regardless of justice and react on it real-time.

beardicus 9y ago

Your list of potential outcomes seem to assume that people will mainly be wary of false accusations. Maybe — instead of worrying about this low-probability non-issue — people will simply stop abusing power and harassing subordinates due to the increased likelihood of negative consequences?

bitL 9y ago
Yes, I am deeply pessimistic about human nature. When weaker men at the lower levels of companies see what happens to strong men at the top, what is the likely outcome? What would natural reinforcement learning tell them on how to maximize their reward/minimize their penalty, given their very limited options?