6 ms·

I am not an academic and not in this field. I have dealt with harrassment issues in business though. I hear do much nonsense about 'grey areas' and 'men and w

I am not an academic and not in this field. I have dealt with harrassment issues in business though. I hear do much nonsense about 'grey areas' and 'men and women would never meet if we followed HR'. I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social distance'. Don't smack their bum, don't message them about their holiday photos on FB. If they come to you tired and emotional, sit them down on the other side of your desk and ask them what is wrong. Tell them you are sorry they feel that way. Talk for hours if you need to...at work. Keep your trousers zipped up. Is it that hard? If your team socialize, then by all means go with them. If you find there is only two of you left, then go home. I think it is very easy for a decent human being to avoid.

ealexhudson 9y ago
It's not really even about power: if they're a colleague or your boss, it's inappropriate too. I've never heard of a man being ignorant enough to hit on a female boss, but it wouldn't surprise me. Even if people don't follow the platinum rule, they should surely recognise that there are interactions they would have a problem with. The people happy handing out "hugs" to people they are attracted to are surprisingly unwilling to receive them from people they find unattractive. Everyone should be given social space until a mutual agreement that something else happens. This is especially important if there are significant cultural differences between people.
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago
  >I've never heard of a man being ignorant enough to hit on a female boss, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's far less common, but it certainly does. You just won't hear about it if they find each other attractive.
NotOscarWilde 9y ago
Disclaimer: I am an academic, not in this field. I have never approached any colleague with any intimate or other inappropriate topics. Here are two points I consider interesting: * In academia, the only time when you have no power over anyone else is when you are an undergraduate student. After that, almost everyone can be thought to wield some power over anyone, either directly (professor -> student, full professor -> junior professor, senior/accomplished PhD student -> new PhD student) or indirectly (almost everyone you meet is a potential reviewer of your papers, many professors sit on boards which decide postdoc/faculty positions). I would say that the power is more perceived than real -- having a bad name with one professor outside your university likely does not kill your career -- but I would consider it natural to feel uneasy if such a professor expressed intimate interest in you and you had to turn them down. * I have a feeling that for many people, already a single bit of information -- namely knowledge that an person with some amount of power considers you attractive -- is something that would cause them uneasiness (in academia or otherwise). And this uneasiness would be permanent and is not dependent on how this bit propagates to you; from the most innocent (an invitation for coffee that is turned down, a smile in a professional discussion that never veers off-topic) to the most inappropriate (as described in the original post). If that is true, the only solution I can think of is to make sure no such information is shared among any people in your organization -- I abide by that rule personally, but I can understand people opposing such a dehumanization of the work environment.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thomasahle 9y ago
> I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social distance'. > If you find there is only two of you left, then go home. This seems dangerously close to the Pence view of not socializing alone with women. Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with anyone they have power over, rather than just women?
- DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
  I'm not sure what Pence's view is. But as a married man, I absolutely believe the best policy for myself, and probably most married men, is to avoid situations that increase the odds of my infidelity. And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive.
  - benrbray 9y ago
    Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Do you really not trust yourself?
    - backpropaganda 9y ago
      I think for some definition of "not in control", I would agree that men are not in control of their sexual urges. More specifically, while I think in most situations I'd be fine, but if I've had one too many drinks, and the social situation "feels" appropriate to me, it might be possible that I do something which I'd later regret.
    - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
      Short answer: would you say the same thing to a recovering alcoholic regarding hanging out with his old drinking buddies at a bar? tl;dr For me, it's a matter of risk tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for the risk of cheating on my wife. So based on my best understanding of the circumstances that tend to increase the likelihood of infidelity, I try hard to avoid those circumstances. > Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? First, "stereotype perpetuation" isn't something that just happens to people. A person has some ability to accept or reject adopting belief in a stereotype. So I'll let other people take responsibility for what they believe regarding this topic. Secondly, what you're seeing is a male being in control of his sexual urges. My post was simply giving insight into one of the mechanisms by which I do it. > Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Well ideally, yeah. But I didn't design the human condition. > Do you really not trust yourself? I try to have an accurate understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and to plan accordingly.
noobermin 9y ago
I might lose karma over this, but there must be something here that must be said. What the medium post reports is not just a gray area, it is clear sexual assault and unwanted creepiness. I'm starting to wonder if the people upvoting these posts that suggest people dehumanize themselves in order to keep from being accused (!) of sexual assault are doing as some sort of reverse psychology in order to push back against the #metoo movement. That's because such an attitude is exactly the wrong take away from this. If you cannot find the line between assaulting someone and being their friend, I think the problem might lie with your interpretation of people and their feelings, and not with "being too friendly" whatever that means.
- tgb 9y ago
  I strongly agree with you, but I suspect this is a confusion due to the changing of the URL (see dang's post). The idea that my fellow men might be barely controlling their urge to sexual assault any woman they have power over is - I hope! - absurdly wrong. The actions accused are not at all a matter of "oops, I shouldn't have done that with someone I have a position of power over," they're things that should just never be done in any situation. And it's easy enough to separate these actions from benignly asking someone on a date.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  >What the medium post reports is not just a gray area No it is completely obscene. I hope it is severely dealt with, and all of the people who were around and didn't criticize, and promoted even tough they knew are dealt with too. What I was commenting on is that every time the subject comes up a load of people start the 'you can't even talk to women any more' nonsense. > dehumanize themselves It is not dehumanizing to not fuck your colleagues. I see it as extremely unprofessional to get too close to them. I see my self as an extremely kind, thoughtful and empathetic manager. My female staff have brought me issues from menopause, menstruation, man trouble to money problems and I try to give them all a sympathetic ear. When I have dealt with something in a way that has upset them it pains me. I care very strongly for a number of my team, indeed I have one away on secondment and I miss them. I ask them about their weekends, and their families. We even throw the odd innuendo around. One is very flirtatious, and I laugh it away. However at 5.30 they went their way and I went mine. We are colleagues not Fuck Buddies.
xg15 9y ago
"Keep social distance around people you have power over" seems extreme (especially if you interpret it like many in this sub-thread do) and almost strawmannish: You could ask, if you're a person of some standing and seek a relationship who are you allowed to ask? I propose an alternative theory: "Socializing", "getting to know each other outside of work" and even "flirting" are sets of activities strictly disjunct to "discussing your sexual fantasies", "acting out your sexual fantasies" and "showing around pictures of your dick". Maybe there is mutual interest between colleagues to do more outside of work. That's fine. Go with it, but make sure it's actually mutual. Maybe you get new buddies or friends, maybe (very unlikely) more - but look for clues how the other are feeling and - unless you're already far, far beyond a work relationship, don't ever assume they want sex.
- arkades 9y ago
  > "Keep social distance around people you have power over" seems extreme (especially if you interpret it like many in this sub-thread do) and almost strawmannish: You could ask, if you're a person of some standing and seek a relationship who are you allowed to ask? Anyone outside your field and/or occupation. It's that simple. I actually don't understand this line of reasoning at all. You propose it as a bit of a strawman, but there's always at least one earnest comment in such threads to the effect of "well, now you can't flirt with ANYONE at work!" That's correct. You can't flirt with anyone at work. The problem isn't the set of social guidelines that say you don't try to fuck your colleagues. The problem is the people who seem to think that because their personal inclinations make it unpalatable to seek romantic encounters outside of work, that they're entitled to seek romantic encounters at work. They/ you are not. Find hobbies; ask friends for friends-of-friends that are looking; hit up OKCupid or Tinder or what-have-you. There are any number of ways to seek romantic entanglements that completely divorce you from the issues of power dynamics that occur when courting professional colleagues. Just stop.
  - angry_octet 9y ago
    While I appreciate the clarity of this approach ("Don't screw the crew"), when people spend lots of time in the company of someone, and their is mutual attraction, relationships will become romantic. Work celibacy is not the answer, and it often leads to keeping sexual relationships clandestine, which enables further bad power dynamics. Discouraging a rapey dickhead enabling culture is a far more successful investment of effort. Policies against inappropriate supervisor relationships are a good idea though.
coldtea 9y ago
Because someone who is "in a position of power over the other party" never falls in love (or plainly lusts -- which, unless we're in Victorian times somehow, should still be considered OK) with the other party, or vice versa. If only life could be so nicely compartmentalised as anglosaxon cultures dream... The whole distinction should be in the abuse of such relationship for coercion (e.g. Weinstein style) -- as opposed to the mere presence of such relationships...
sdli9230eholly 9y ago
The problem is you go home, but then you come back to work the next day. I am a professor of statistics, and have encountered lots of issues surrounding relationships and harassment involving colleagues as well as once myself. Based on these experiences, I agree with you for the most part, but am not sure even that is workable advice, unless you want to create an cold, inhuman environment. And even then it raises lots of thorny issues that you might not anticipate. I can say from one, personally impactful experience, for example, that "talking for hours if you need to" at work, with someone you work with one-on-one for hours daily, can lead to, say, a mentee declaring feelings for you. Maybe this talking started under pressure from other colleagues and students to help the mentee feel more comfortable because of concerns about how they're feeling in general. And because that individual might be a brilliant, amazing individual you've found you share a lot with, after enough time, you might develop feelings for that mentee too, even if you never started out with an inkling of that when you started reaching out to them. The immediate response, you think, is "well, tell them these kinds of things are inappropriate and leave it at that." Ok, but then, without any further context, does that shame the mentee and lead them to believe that their feelings are abnormal? Do you tell them that it's normal, you have feelings too, but nothing can happen as a result, it's inappropriate to pursue a relationship? In that case, even if nothing physical happens, it might lead to severe complications later, purely emotionally, as both of you deal with the consequences of knowing you have strong feelings for each other but nothing can happen as a result. Do you say nothing at all? After all, the mentee confessed feelings for you without you saying anything to them of that sort, and that didn't stop them from telling you that they have feelings that way. Will they try to escalate things if you don't say anything? Do you reach out to colleagues? Will that shame the student or damage their reputation? Take this a step further. Let's say you do somehow prohibit males and females from becoming close. Do you prohibit purely platonic same-sex relationships from being close? Is it say, sexual discrimination when a female faculty member has her (non-romantically involved) female, but not male, students over for dinners regularly, to chill and watch movies or have small gatherings, shares hotel rooms to save on costs (for cash-strapped students at expensive conferences)? That is, after all, discriminating against male students on the basis of gender. Or are they just being caring and friendly with their students, and careful in avoiding complications with members of the opposite sex? What if a female faculty member never takes male mentees? What if it were a male faculty and male students? Isn't that the "old boys" network? Where do you draw the line? When does differences in closeness of relationships become gender discrimination? Unlike you, I do think there's lots of gray areas, and I see it as an unavoidable consequence of humanity. I kind of agree with you that ideally, you should just keep work relationships impersonal, but I think that's really unrealistic in practice. What worries me is this kind of blanket idea that any feelings or sexual behavior or relationships between coworkers or supervisors and supervisees is always the result of some maliciousness or failing or something on someone's part. It seems there needs to be a more nuanced approach to these things, or some more realistic discussion that recognizes people do have feelings for one another, especially those they are in regular contact with, platonic or otherwise. I've heard of all sorts of stories in this area involving other students and faculty, from advisors basically sexually assaulting students, to advisors who end up marrying their students and ending up in very happy, healthy marriages. There's also things like students and advisors who are close and end up having sex at a conference when they are both completely intoxicated and both regret it later. I guess what I have difficulty relating to in the published story is making physical sexual advances on people who you aren't close to, out of the blue. I have difficulty relating to that, but then again, the workplace context doesn't matter. I wouldn't do those things at a bar or someplace else either.

ealexhudson 9y ago

It's not really even about power: if they're a colleague or your boss, it's inappropriate too. I've never heard of a man being ignorant enough to hit on a female boss, but it wouldn't surprise me. Even if people don't follow the platinum rule, they should surely recognise that there are interactions they would have a problem with. The people happy handing out "hugs" to people they are attracted to are surprisingly unwilling to receive them from people they find unattractive. Everyone should be given social space until a mutual agreement that something else happens. This is especially important if there are significant cultural differences between people.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>I've never heard of a man being ignorant enough to hit on a female boss, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's far less common, but it certainly does. You just won't hear about it if they find each other attractive.

NotOscarWilde 9y ago

Disclaimer: I am an academic, not in this field. I have never approached any colleague with any intimate or other inappropriate topics. Here are two points I consider interesting: * In academia, the only time when you have no power over anyone else is when you are an undergraduate student. After that, almost everyone can be thought to wield some power over anyone, either directly (professor -> student, full professor -> junior professor, senior/accomplished PhD student -> new PhD student) or indirectly (almost everyone you meet is a potential reviewer of your papers, many professors sit on boards which decide postdoc/faculty positions). I would say that the power is more perceived than real -- having a bad name with one professor outside your university likely does not kill your career -- but I would consider it natural to feel uneasy if such a professor expressed intimate interest in you and you had to turn them down. * I have a feeling that for many people, already a single bit of information -- namely knowledge that an person with some amount of power considers you attractive -- is something that would cause them uneasiness (in academia or otherwise). And this uneasiness would be permanent and is not dependent on how this bit propagates to you; from the most innocent (an invitation for coffee that is turned down, a smile in a professional discussion that never veers off-topic) to the most inappropriate (as described in the original post). If that is true, the only solution I can think of is to make sure no such information is shared among any people in your organization -- I abide by that rule personally, but I can understand people opposing such a dehumanization of the work environment.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

thomasahle 9y ago

> I hereby advance my theory that it is rather simpler than that. 'If you are in a position of power over the other party, then you should keep some social distance'. > If you find there is only two of you left, then go home. This seems dangerously close to the Pence view of not socializing alone with women. Is your view actually stronger? That a person should not socialize alone with anyone they have power over, rather than just women?

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
I'm not sure what Pence's view is. But as a married man, I absolutely believe the best policy for myself, and probably most married men, is to avoid situations that increase the odds of my infidelity. And yes, the includes not developing close friendships with anyone I find attractive.
- benrbray 9y ago
  Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Do you really not trust yourself?
  - backpropaganda 9y ago
    I think for some definition of "not in control", I would agree that men are not in control of their sexual urges. More specifically, while I think in most situations I'd be fine, but if I've had one too many drinks, and the social situation "feels" appropriate to me, it might be possible that I do something which I'd later regret.
  - DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
    Short answer: would you say the same thing to a recovering alcoholic regarding hanging out with his old drinking buddies at a bar? tl;dr For me, it's a matter of risk tolerance. I have a very low tolerance for the risk of cheating on my wife. So based on my best understanding of the circumstances that tend to increase the likelihood of infidelity, I try hard to avoid those circumstances. > Doesn't this attitude perpetuate the harmful stereotype that men are not in control of their own sexual urges? First, "stereotype perpetuation" isn't something that just happens to people. A person has some ability to accept or reject adopting belief in a stereotype. So I'll let other people take responsibility for what they believe regarding this topic. Secondly, what you're seeing is a male being in control of his sexual urges. My post was simply giving insight into one of the mechanisms by which I do it. > Shouldn't someone in a committed relationship be able to control themselves better? Well ideally, yeah. But I didn't design the human condition. > Do you really not trust yourself? I try to have an accurate understanding of my strengths and weaknesses, and to plan accordingly.

noobermin 9y ago

I might lose karma over this, but there must be something here that must be said. What the medium post reports is not just a gray area, it is clear sexual assault and unwanted creepiness. I'm starting to wonder if the people upvoting these posts that suggest people dehumanize themselves in order to keep from being accused (!) of sexual assault are doing as some sort of reverse psychology in order to push back against the #metoo movement. That's because such an attitude is exactly the wrong take away from this. If you cannot find the line between assaulting someone and being their friend, I think the problem might lie with your interpretation of people and their feelings, and not with "being too friendly" whatever that means.

tgb 9y ago
I strongly agree with you, but I suspect this is a confusion due to the changing of the URL (see dang's post). The idea that my fellow men might be barely controlling their urge to sexual assault any woman they have power over is - I hope! - absurdly wrong. The actions accused are not at all a matter of "oops, I shouldn't have done that with someone I have a position of power over," they're things that should just never be done in any situation. And it's easy enough to separate these actions from benignly asking someone on a date.
jimnotgym 9y ago
>What the medium post reports is not just a gray area No it is completely obscene. I hope it is severely dealt with, and all of the people who were around and didn't criticize, and promoted even tough they knew are dealt with too. What I was commenting on is that every time the subject comes up a load of people start the 'you can't even talk to women any more' nonsense. > dehumanize themselves It is not dehumanizing to not fuck your colleagues. I see it as extremely unprofessional to get too close to them. I see my self as an extremely kind, thoughtful and empathetic manager. My female staff have brought me issues from menopause, menstruation, man trouble to money problems and I try to give them all a sympathetic ear. When I have dealt with something in a way that has upset them it pains me. I care very strongly for a number of my team, indeed I have one away on secondment and I miss them. I ask them about their weekends, and their families. We even throw the odd innuendo around. One is very flirtatious, and I laugh it away. However at 5.30 they went their way and I went mine. We are colleagues not Fuck Buddies.

xg15 9y ago

"Keep social distance around people you have power over" seems extreme (especially if you interpret it like many in this sub-thread do) and almost strawmannish: You could ask, if you're a person of some standing and seek a relationship who are you allowed to ask? I propose an alternative theory: "Socializing", "getting to know each other outside of work" and even "flirting" are sets of activities strictly disjunct to "discussing your sexual fantasies", "acting out your sexual fantasies" and "showing around pictures of your dick". Maybe there is mutual interest between colleagues to do more outside of work. That's fine. Go with it, but make sure it's actually mutual. Maybe you get new buddies or friends, maybe (very unlikely) more - but look for clues how the other are feeling and - unless you're already far, far beyond a work relationship, don't ever assume they want sex.

arkades 9y ago
> "Keep social distance around people you have power over" seems extreme (especially if you interpret it like many in this sub-thread do) and almost strawmannish: You could ask, if you're a person of some standing and seek a relationship who are you allowed to ask? Anyone outside your field and/or occupation. It's that simple. I actually don't understand this line of reasoning at all. You propose it as a bit of a strawman, but there's always at least one earnest comment in such threads to the effect of "well, now you can't flirt with ANYONE at work!" That's correct. You can't flirt with anyone at work. The problem isn't the set of social guidelines that say you don't try to fuck your colleagues. The problem is the people who seem to think that because their personal inclinations make it unpalatable to seek romantic encounters outside of work, that they're entitled to seek romantic encounters at work. They/ you are not. Find hobbies; ask friends for friends-of-friends that are looking; hit up OKCupid or Tinder or what-have-you. There are any number of ways to seek romantic entanglements that completely divorce you from the issues of power dynamics that occur when courting professional colleagues. Just stop.
- angry_octet 9y ago
  While I appreciate the clarity of this approach ("Don't screw the crew"), when people spend lots of time in the company of someone, and their is mutual attraction, relationships will become romantic. Work celibacy is not the answer, and it often leads to keeping sexual relationships clandestine, which enables further bad power dynamics. Discouraging a rapey dickhead enabling culture is a far more successful investment of effort. Policies against inappropriate supervisor relationships are a good idea though.

coldtea 9y ago

Because someone who is "in a position of power over the other party" never falls in love (or plainly lusts -- which, unless we're in Victorian times somehow, should still be considered OK) with the other party, or vice versa. If only life could be so nicely compartmentalised as anglosaxon cultures dream... The whole distinction should be in the abuse of such relationship for coercion (e.g. Weinstein style) -- as opposed to the mere presence of such relationships...

sdli9230eholly 9y ago

The problem is you go home, but then you come back to work the next day. I am a professor of statistics, and have encountered lots of issues surrounding relationships and harassment involving colleagues as well as once myself. Based on these experiences, I agree with you for the most part, but am not sure even that is workable advice, unless you want to create an cold, inhuman environment. And even then it raises lots of thorny issues that you might not anticipate. I can say from one, personally impactful experience, for example, that "talking for hours if you need to" at work, with someone you work with one-on-one for hours daily, can lead to, say, a mentee declaring feelings for you. Maybe this talking started under pressure from other colleagues and students to help the mentee feel more comfortable because of concerns about how they're feeling in general. And because that individual might be a brilliant, amazing individual you've found you share a lot with, after enough time, you might develop feelings for that mentee too, even if you never started out with an inkling of that when you started reaching out to them. The immediate response, you think, is "well, tell them these kinds of things are inappropriate and leave it at that." Ok, but then, without any further context, does that shame the mentee and lead them to believe that their feelings are abnormal? Do you tell them that it's normal, you have feelings too, but nothing can happen as a result, it's inappropriate to pursue a relationship? In that case, even if nothing physical happens, it might lead to severe complications later, purely emotionally, as both of you deal with the consequences of knowing you have strong feelings for each other but nothing can happen as a result. Do you say nothing at all? After all, the mentee confessed feelings for you without you saying anything to them of that sort, and that didn't stop them from telling you that they have feelings that way. Will they try to escalate things if you don't say anything? Do you reach out to colleagues? Will that shame the student or damage their reputation? Take this a step further. Let's say you do somehow prohibit males and females from becoming close. Do you prohibit purely platonic same-sex relationships from being close? Is it say, sexual discrimination when a female faculty member has her (non-romantically involved) female, but not male, students over for dinners regularly, to chill and watch movies or have small gatherings, shares hotel rooms to save on costs (for cash-strapped students at expensive conferences)? That is, after all, discriminating against male students on the basis of gender. Or are they just being caring and friendly with their students, and careful in avoiding complications with members of the opposite sex? What if a female faculty member never takes male mentees? What if it were a male faculty and male students? Isn't that the "old boys" network? Where do you draw the line? When does differences in closeness of relationships become gender discrimination? Unlike you, I do think there's lots of gray areas, and I see it as an unavoidable consequence of humanity. I kind of agree with you that ideally, you should just keep work relationships impersonal, but I think that's really unrealistic in practice. What worries me is this kind of blanket idea that any feelings or sexual behavior or relationships between coworkers or supervisors and supervisees is always the result of some maliciousness or failing or something on someone's part. It seems there needs to be a more nuanced approach to these things, or some more realistic discussion that recognizes people do have feelings for one another, especially those they are in regular contact with, platonic or otherwise. I've heard of all sorts of stories in this area involving other students and faculty, from advisors basically sexually assaulting students, to advisors who end up marrying their students and ending up in very happy, healthy marriages. There's also things like students and advisors who are close and end up having sex at a conference when they are both completely intoxicated and both regret it later. I guess what I have difficulty relating to in the published story is making physical sexual advances on people who you aren't close to, out of the blue. I have difficulty relating to that, but then again, the workplace context doesn't matter. I wouldn't do those things at a bar or someplace else either.