4 ms·

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When fa

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them. I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (Here is where you tell us all how you would choose to risk your career to advance your female employee "because it's the right thing to do.") It's exactly this sort of rhetoric that makes it difficult to have any rational discussion about how best to develop talent (whether men or women) in the current climate. The thesis that MeToo is more harmful than helpful is unpopular, I know, but thankfully no one has to defend its helpfulness because discussion of the realities involved is forbidden.

tptacek 8y ago
You were right the first time. You discriminated your behavior based on the gender of your reports, knowing that doing so harmed the careers of the women who reported to you. It's a little weird that you think you can somehow rationalize your way out of that. It's even weirder that you think that your own perceived self-interest somehow immunizes you. You said it yourself! Own it! And then stop doing it!
- sverige 8y ago
  I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally. It's a little weird that you think you have all the information you need to pass judgment on my career from a few short comments on an internet forum. It's even weirder that you haven't made any substantive comment or query on how that policy played out in real life, but rather resorted instantly to shrill pronouncements on my character. If you can't look back over your career and see where some things you did might have been harmful to some of your employees, you either lack self-awareness or you never had any employees. I'm guessing it's the latter. You have way too many internet points for someone with real responsibility for other people's well-being at work. Finally, I no longer manage people, so I have stopped doing it. I hope you can sleep now.
  - tedunangst 8y ago
    > I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally. Did you also refuse to meet with men privately?
    - sverige 8y ago
      Yes I did. Everyone got the same treatment. Anything "private," such as disciplinary action that needed to be delivered, was always done with a witness, whether the employee was a man or a woman. Everything else was done in groups or in the open. It's not that hard, but suddenly I'm Mike Pence for suggesting it's a sound strategy to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Edit: No, I don't socialize with the people at work. I have friends for that.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - naasking 8y ago
        It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same. I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more risk averse. Sad that such measures are necessary, but we all decide our acceptable level of risk.
        tptacek 8y ago
        Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do. (Advising people not to meet with anyone without a witness is not good management advice, for obvious reasons, but at least it's not unlawful).
alexforster 8y ago
> the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment Right there - that's the sexist part. Do you believe there's an epidemic of vengeful women running around falsely accusing men of sexual harassment? Because there isn't - but I'd love to hear your stories.
- sverige 8y ago
  Accusations of sexual harassment are commonplace at many work places. False accusations are disturbingly common. Don't ask me if you don't believe me -- it's obvious already that you don't anyway. Rather, go make friends with someone who works in HR at a large company that employs lots of men and women. For this experiment, best not to try to befriend someone at your workplace. They may be hesitant to speak freely, since it could come back on them. HR people are nothing if not close-mouthed. At least the ones who last long enough to have good stories. But lest you accuse me of dodging the question, I'll say that my personal favorite story is the woman who accused me of sexual harassment because I refused to remove a bad quality score from her record. (This was a call center, quality scores were only removed in very narrow circumstances.) She was three levels below me on the org chart. I spoke to her exactly twice, in public, with several witnesses. She asked me to remove the score. I went back to my office, reviewed the call, and went back to let her know the score would not be removed. I was the final authority in any appeal of quality scores. A week later I was informed by HR that she had accused me of sexual harassment. It turns out that she also contacted the FBI about me. Not even kidding. But you might think that was a good idea. Hell, I might be a Russian bot sowing discord to affect the midterm elections and hasten the decline of America. I mean, I don't meet alone with women! Clearly that's un-American!
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 8y ago
    If you are intentionally treating men and women differently in a way that "probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports" then it's not only un-American but it's also illegal discrimination. You should be ashamed of yourself.

tptacek 8y ago

You were right the first time. You discriminated your behavior based on the gender of your reports, knowing that doing so harmed the careers of the women who reported to you. It's a little weird that you think you can somehow rationalize your way out of that. It's even weirder that you think that your own perceived self-interest somehow immunizes you. You said it yourself! Own it! And then stop doing it!

sverige 8y ago
I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally. It's a little weird that you think you have all the information you need to pass judgment on my career from a few short comments on an internet forum. It's even weirder that you haven't made any substantive comment or query on how that policy played out in real life, but rather resorted instantly to shrill pronouncements on my character. If you can't look back over your career and see where some things you did might have been harmful to some of your employees, you either lack self-awareness or you never had any employees. I'm guessing it's the latter. You have way too many internet points for someone with real responsibility for other people's well-being at work. Finally, I no longer manage people, so I have stopped doing it. I hope you can sleep now.
- tedunangst 8y ago
  > I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally. Did you also refuse to meet with men privately?
  - sverige 8y ago
    Yes I did. Everyone got the same treatment. Anything "private," such as disciplinary action that needed to be delivered, was always done with a witness, whether the employee was a man or a woman. Everything else was done in groups or in the open. It's not that hard, but suddenly I'm Mike Pence for suggesting it's a sound strategy to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Edit: No, I don't socialize with the people at work. I have friends for that.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - naasking 8y ago
      It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same. I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more risk averse. Sad that such measures are necessary, but we all decide our acceptable level of risk.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do. (Advising people not to meet with anyone without a witness is not good management advice, for obvious reasons, but at least it's not unlawful).

alexforster 8y ago

> the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment Right there - that's the sexist part. Do you believe there's an epidemic of vengeful women running around falsely accusing men of sexual harassment? Because there isn't - but I'd love to hear your stories.

sverige 8y ago
Accusations of sexual harassment are commonplace at many work places. False accusations are disturbingly common. Don't ask me if you don't believe me -- it's obvious already that you don't anyway. Rather, go make friends with someone who works in HR at a large company that employs lots of men and women. For this experiment, best not to try to befriend someone at your workplace. They may be hesitant to speak freely, since it could come back on them. HR people are nothing if not close-mouthed. At least the ones who last long enough to have good stories. But lest you accuse me of dodging the question, I'll say that my personal favorite story is the woman who accused me of sexual harassment because I refused to remove a bad quality score from her record. (This was a call center, quality scores were only removed in very narrow circumstances.) She was three levels below me on the org chart. I spoke to her exactly twice, in public, with several witnesses. She asked me to remove the score. I went back to my office, reviewed the call, and went back to let her know the score would not be removed. I was the final authority in any appeal of quality scores. A week later I was informed by HR that she had accused me of sexual harassment. It turns out that she also contacted the FBI about me. Not even kidding. But you might think that was a good idea. Hell, I might be a Russian bot sowing discord to affect the midterm elections and hasten the decline of America. I mean, I don't meet alone with women! Clearly that's un-American!
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 8y ago
  If you are intentionally treating men and women differently in a way that "probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports" then it's not only un-American but it's also illegal discrimination. You should be ashamed of yourself.