7 ms·

I'm I the only one who finds it appalling that the NY Times mentions #metoo and Harvey Weinstein as if to insinuate his consenting relationship was anything lik

I'm I the only one who finds it appalling that the NY Times mentions #metoo and Harvey Weinstein as if to insinuate his consenting relationship was anything like what Weinstein did. Honestly, I get why these policies exist, but sometimes it feels heavy handed to fire somebody for having a consenting relationship at work. After all, when you work long and hard hours often times coworkers are the people you get to know best and your inner circle.

typon 8y ago
There is a reason why even consensual relationships aren't allowed between workers in the same management chain at Intel. If you are in a relationship where you have power over the other person's livelihood, it can create a dynamic that can be coercive and predatory. I think it makes sense for them to mention the #MeToo movement in regards to this situation. Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.
godzillabrennus 8y ago
The linkage between a rapist and consensual sex in the article kind of undermines the movement IMHO. The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
The problem is that if you are the CEO, you don't have any "coworkers." You are in charge of everyone. No one else there is your peer. The military has a policy that treats an affair between an officer and the spouse of someone in their unit as non-consensual. It is treated basically like statutory rape. What the spouse says is irrelevant because you can't eliminate the possibility they are basically being blackmailed into claiming it was consenting. If you have enough direct power over someone, you can't really determine if it was mutually consenting. I think this is a root cause of a lot of the he said/she said stuff where men are all astonished that they are being accused of anything when they felt it was consenting. In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.
- mmt 8y ago
  > In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims. How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)? To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention. I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I'm not pretending to be judge and jury, just a human being who has opinions when I read or hear about things. Not all situations are as cut and dried as "He was the CEO, she was an underling and there was some rule against it." Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer. I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that. And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.
    - mmt 8y ago
      > And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark. I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading of what I said. I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.
rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
One could make a case that an employee in a relationship with a senior manager puts them in a position where they could receive preferential treatment, while the employee’s peers may not, even if they are more skilled/experienced/credentialed/etc. Given that the other employees did not seek out or allow relationships with managers, their relative disadvantage can be seen as a sort of inverse sexual harassment, as they may see themselves having to put themselves in a sexual situation for the sake of career advancement, even if it’s not explicitly stated by anyone in higher management. I think that in this case #metoo applies, since the subject is a matter of sexuality and power imbalances, although the content is far, far removed from the Weinstein scandal.

typon 8y ago

There is a reason why even consensual relationships aren't allowed between workers in the same management chain at Intel. If you are in a relationship where you have power over the other person's livelihood, it can create a dynamic that can be coercive and predatory. I think it makes sense for them to mention the #MeToo movement in regards to this situation. Secondly, BK is married and presumably this was a hidden affair, which adds another layer of complexity to this situation.

godzillabrennus 8y ago

The linkage between a rapist and consensual sex in the article kind of undermines the movement IMHO. The unfortunate fact about a consensual workplace romance is that if they go sour it can destroy company culture and moral.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

The problem is that if you are the CEO, you don't have any "coworkers." You are in charge of everyone. No one else there is your peer. The military has a policy that treats an affair between an officer and the spouse of someone in their unit as non-consensual. It is treated basically like statutory rape. What the spouse says is irrelevant because you can't eliminate the possibility they are basically being blackmailed into claiming it was consenting. If you have enough direct power over someone, you can't really determine if it was mutually consenting. I think this is a root cause of a lot of the he said/she said stuff where men are all astonished that they are being accused of anything when they felt it was consenting. In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims.

mmt 8y ago
> In some cases, I have some sympathy for the guy who may well have not really fully understood the intimidation factor in the situation. In other cases, they clearly are happy to use their power to bully others into getting their way and, no, I'm not sympathetic to their bullshit claims. How would a neutral third-party observer legitimately be able to tell the difference (assuming the latter is a sociopath or just a really good actor pretending to be the former)? To me, that seems to be the real benefit to the strictness of some of these rules. It removes an avenue of the unintended intimidation that you mention. I do think it helps to discuss it and call out these issues so that people understand that they're not just arbitrary or some kind of over-reaction or extreme bureacracy.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I'm not pretending to be judge and jury, just a human being who has opinions when I read or hear about things. Not all situations are as cut and dried as "He was the CEO, she was an underling and there was some rule against it." Also, I wasn't solely thinking of cases where I am a third party observer. I'm a woman. I've found myself at times the subject of male interest where there was a power imbalance. Some men are assholes and I have no sympathy for their shit. In other cases, it's more complicated than that. And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark.
  - mmt 8y ago
    > And I was defending the existence of such rules, so I have no idea why you are criticizing my remark. I wish you had followed the guidelines and taken the most charitable reading of what I said. I, too, defended the existence of the rules. Not only was I not criticizing your remark, but I was supporting the existence of the remark, as it's a form of discussion that helps raise awareness of the necessity of the rules.

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago

One could make a case that an employee in a relationship with a senior manager puts them in a position where they could receive preferential treatment, while the employee’s peers may not, even if they are more skilled/experienced/credentialed/etc. Given that the other employees did not seek out or allow relationships with managers, their relative disadvantage can be seen as a sort of inverse sexual harassment, as they may see themselves having to put themselves in a sexual situation for the sake of career advancement, even if it’s not explicitly stated by anyone in higher management. I think that in this case #metoo applies, since the subject is a matter of sexuality and power imbalances, although the content is far, far removed from the Weinstein scandal.