11 ms·

> I think it is reasonably easy to prevent people from dating subordinates in the workplace. Up front, you explain that the policy is one word: don't. If it eve

• mikestew 8y ago
  In such a world, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would likely not exist: We can cure malaria without having millions of women sexually harassed at work.
  • sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Your statement implies Melinda Gates as sexually assaulted at work by Bill, which is wrong. Or more directly, your response does not speak to the argument.
    • mikestew 8y ago
      Your statement implies Melinda Gates as sexually assaulted at work by Bill, which is wrong. sigh It implies no such thing except under the most uncharitable of interpretations. Here, I'll spell it out: one exception with a positive outcome does not offset the millions of women who have been harassed by their boss. IOW, "hey, baby, we could be the next Billinda!", just no.
      • sonnyblarney 8y ago
        You're digging yourself a hole by once again presuming that people who are involved in office romances are mostly likely to be in situations of sexual coercion. This is not remotely the case. Most office romances are just two people dating - and that's it. It's the possibility that something might go awry that's problematic, not the situation itself. Gates is not 'one example' - it's the norm. Wherever you work, there are surely people dating/married to one another, it's almost normative.
        • mikestew 8y ago
          You're digging yourself a hole by once again presuming that people who are involved in office romances are mostly likely to be in situations of sexual coercion. I believe you've lost the thread of the conversation if you feel it involves just "office romances". We can part ways here.
          • sonnyblarney 8y ago
            The same applies to situations wherein one person might have rank over the other. It's common, and it does not imply some kind of harassment or coercion. That Andy Rubin may apparently be bad guy does not invalidate people's right to have such relationships, nor does it make them inherently immoral.
• tptacek 8y ago
  This is pretty silly. We're not talking about Bill and Melinda Gates. We're talking about the David Drummond and Jennifer Blakely Foundation, which lasted a couple years, and resulted in Jennifer Blakely --- Drummond's subordinate --- losing her job along with the relationship.
  • SilasX 8y ago
    "We're not talking about <implication of my position that makes it look bad>, so it doesn't matter. We're talking about <implication of my position that makes it look good>." Edit: Seriously? Does that count as a valid response now on HN? A: X is bad. We should prohibit all X. Look at Y, which was a case of X. B: But Z was a case of X too -- is that an acceptable cost? A: Irrelevant; we're talking about Y. There's even a famous joke about this fallacy! ctrl-f "changing the subject": https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/12/26/15545311.php?show_comments=1 https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/12/26/15545311.php?sh...
    • tptacek 8y ago
      We are literally commenting on a story about David Drummond, so no, that's not a real rebuttal.
      • SilasX 8y ago
        And "we're not talking about that" is literally an invalid response to pointing out a negative implication of a proposed policy. Do you disagree?
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
    • Brockenstein 8y ago
      No, we're talking about how dredging up an exception to the rule where things worked out for two people is not a a very good argument that it's actually fine most of the time and bosses won't victimize subordinates under the right circumstances. Bill and Melinda Gates's relationship isn't so important to the world that we must allow bosses to date, pressure into a relationship or manipulate subordinates just in case.
• DoreenMichele 8y ago
  She didn't turn him down. She told him "You aren't spontaneous enough for me." An hour later, he upped his game to meet her standard. As It Should Be. ;)
• geofft 8y ago
  It was founded as just the William H. Gates foundation, so I don't think that this is true.
• deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
• pnw_hazor 8y ago
  The world when Bill and Melinda met doesn't exist anymore.
• thereare5lights 8y ago
  That's a reasonable price to pay. If it means having to tolerate sleezeballs rather than preventing more Bill and Melindas, then so be it.
  • lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    Looks like fascism is on the rise.
• mikeash 8y ago
  The Foundation probably also wouldn’t exist in a world where Hitler got into art school. The fact that dating subordinates sometimes works out doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to allow it.
• wpietri 8y ago
  Off the top of my head, there are a few things wrong with this. One, the fact that a rule might have downsides is not proof that it's a bad rule. Two, if the rule had existed, it's hardly impossible that they would have gotten together later, or found some accommodation. Three, if they hadn't gotten together, there's no reason to think they both wouldn't have gone on to find happiness with other people. Four, your suggestion that them not dating means a Bill Gates foundation wouldn't exist is without evidence. At best you could say it might has another name on it. Five, even if this rule would somehow have caused Gates to just burn his billions instead of doing some good, you haven't grappled at all with the harm that the lack of that rule does to many people who aren't as famous.
  • noobermin 8y ago
    I think the point is that your rule implies that dating anyone in a consensual, non-coercive way implies that relationship is wrong[0] given certain contextual circumstances. That people, when they break up go on to do toxic and terrible things isn't and shouldn't be an indictment of the original relationship or sexual interaction if it was consensual and non-coerced rather of instead of critiquing the toxic behavior after the relationship. Therefore, if we must not consider the resultant behavior separate from the relationship before it, then you are making a moral[0] judgement on the validity of relationships. Consider the following: being coerced into a relationship and consenting because you fear being fired. That is clearly coercive and wrong because the consent isn't genuine, and I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing is worth being protected. A second situation: two people with mutual attraction who end up dating (like Melinda and Bill Gates) but have a power differential. It sounds like you are saying this is a priori wrong, even if the two consent and neither party feels coerced, or that one is coerced even if they believe sincerely that they are not being coerced. Even if you don't say it is morally wrong, you still will forbid and prohibit such relationships, adults whom aren't you and who might not have the same value judgements you have. That's why it isn't so clear cut to me and others in this thread. [0] I say wrong and moral, because this is an argument about morality, fundamentally.
    • reissbaker 8y ago
• GVIrish 8y ago
  Just because Bill Gates did it, doesn't make it right. The problem is the power imbalance. Yeah sometimes that situation turns into a long-lasting relationship, but sometimes it doesn't and sometimes the subordinate feels coerced into it in the first place. Maybe Bill wouldn't be charitable at all if he hadn't met Melinda but I'd like to think he would've been into philanthropy either way.
• LoSboccacc 8y ago
  it's not like pairing happens in a random chance chaotic void, people like what they like and are what they are, it's quite as likely that a Bill & Mrs Gates foundation would have happened anyway.