3 ms·

Brinn was well known for having sex with female employees, seems like a thin line when there's such a power disparity. Based on insiders it seems like having se

Brinn was well known for having sex with female employees, seems like a thin line when there's such a power disparity. Based on insiders it seems like having sex with Sergey was a pretty sure way to get a promotion https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-some-strange-ideas-about-his-female-employees-according-to-a-new-book/ https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...

jhall1468 8y ago
Wow what a smoking gun. A chef and HR head from circa 2000 claim the dude screwed a bunch of employees so why not just make the enormous leap that it IS true, so you can start attacking the power disparity straw man. And that doesn't change the fact that obvious nonconsensual sexual advances are not the same thing as dating at work in a relationship with a superior. Inappropriate as it may be, it certainly isn't illegal, now is it?
randyrand 8y ago
This line of reasoning is pretty poor. You don't need to be someone's boss in order to have a huge ability to harm someone's life. All of us are capable of doing great harm to others - we just choose not to. Saying "she can't consent because he could harm her" is like saying I can't deny giving my neighbor some milk because if I upset him he has the power to break all of the windows on my house. Since when do we focus on these hypotheticals? Since when do we always assume malice? We trust that people are good, prosecute the bad ones (both breaking windows and firing over sexual denial are illegal), and allow neighbors to ask for milk because 99% of the time no windows get broken in the event we say no. Sure, the analogy might be a bit contrived. But I think it still does a good job of demonstrating how ridiculous this line of reasoning when applied outside of the sexual harassment thought bubble.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  What about people who the boss isn't sexually interested in? What sort of work environment and career can they look forward to, potentially? There is a reason many societies and companies discourage or prohibit relations between employees and tortured allegories about neighbors borrowing milk won't change that.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    Its the first analogy I came up with. There are undoubtedly better ones. I imagine they will all seem a bit crazy - the reasoning behind it is as well. Your next question is a separate issue and one that does not deal with harassment. It deals with favoritism in general. Whether it's favoritism for sexual reasons or because you and your boss both play on the same proam bowling league doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Sure it's relevant. You can always join your boss's bowling league. You can't hop into bed with him. It's about making a social determination about what kinds of incentive structures we want to permit.
      - randyrand 8y ago
        Not if you're not skilled at bowling, or are physically disabled.
    - skedaddle 8y ago
      The obligations and interdependence of pair bonding partners, and the complications that result, are usually more consequential than those of bowling mates (or any other relationship short of parenthood).
- rayiner 8y ago
  The harm doesn't have to amount to firing; showing disfavor (even unconsciously so) is a harm. We routinely bind peoples' hands in situations like this that involve conflicts of interest and power dynamics. We don't "trust" lawyers and doctors to appropriately handle sexual relationships with clients and patients, for example.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    that wouldn’t fall under sexual harassment law. I’m glad my point is convincing enough to move on to the next points.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      You didn't limit your point to what is and is not illegal under sexual harassment law. You said the whole "line of reasoning is pretty poor." A lawyer dating a client or a doctor dating a patient is not illegal either. But we apply that "line of reasoning" to make it a violation of professional ethics rules. Likewise, it doesn't matter if dating a subordinate is illegal. It's wrong and should be against corporate policy. Corporate policies allow us to address lots of antisocial behavior that doesn't rise to the level of illegality.
matt4077 8y ago
Sexual assault ("Grabbing by the pussy") and attempted rape (the other guy) are crimes. Inappropriate relationships with subordinates are, well, "inappropriate", and can be sexual harassment when they are persistent and unwanted, or involve any sort of quid-pro-quo. That, however is not a crime, but only a violation of (civil) employment law.

jhall1468 8y ago

Wow what a smoking gun. A chef and HR head from circa 2000 claim the dude screwed a bunch of employees so why not just make the enormous leap that it IS true, so you can start attacking the power disparity straw man. And that doesn't change the fact that obvious nonconsensual sexual advances are not the same thing as dating at work in a relationship with a superior. Inappropriate as it may be, it certainly isn't illegal, now is it?

randyrand 8y ago

This line of reasoning is pretty poor. You don't need to be someone's boss in order to have a huge ability to harm someone's life. All of us are capable of doing great harm to others - we just choose not to. Saying "she can't consent because he could harm her" is like saying I can't deny giving my neighbor some milk because if I upset him he has the power to break all of the windows on my house. Since when do we focus on these hypotheticals? Since when do we always assume malice? We trust that people are good, prosecute the bad ones (both breaking windows and firing over sexual denial are illegal), and allow neighbors to ask for milk because 99% of the time no windows get broken in the event we say no. Sure, the analogy might be a bit contrived. But I think it still does a good job of demonstrating how ridiculous this line of reasoning when applied outside of the sexual harassment thought bubble.

wavefunction 8y ago
What about people who the boss isn't sexually interested in? What sort of work environment and career can they look forward to, potentially? There is a reason many societies and companies discourage or prohibit relations between employees and tortured allegories about neighbors borrowing milk won't change that.
- randyrand 8y ago
  Its the first analogy I came up with. There are undoubtedly better ones. I imagine they will all seem a bit crazy - the reasoning behind it is as well. Your next question is a separate issue and one that does not deal with harassment. It deals with favoritism in general. Whether it's favoritism for sexual reasons or because you and your boss both play on the same proam bowling league doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Sure it's relevant. You can always join your boss's bowling league. You can't hop into bed with him. It's about making a social determination about what kinds of incentive structures we want to permit.
    - randyrand 8y ago
      Not if you're not skilled at bowling, or are physically disabled.
  - skedaddle 8y ago
    The obligations and interdependence of pair bonding partners, and the complications that result, are usually more consequential than those of bowling mates (or any other relationship short of parenthood).
rayiner 8y ago
The harm doesn't have to amount to firing; showing disfavor (even unconsciously so) is a harm. We routinely bind peoples' hands in situations like this that involve conflicts of interest and power dynamics. We don't "trust" lawyers and doctors to appropriately handle sexual relationships with clients and patients, for example.
- randyrand 8y ago
  that wouldn’t fall under sexual harassment law. I’m glad my point is convincing enough to move on to the next points.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    You didn't limit your point to what is and is not illegal under sexual harassment law. You said the whole "line of reasoning is pretty poor." A lawyer dating a client or a doctor dating a patient is not illegal either. But we apply that "line of reasoning" to make it a violation of professional ethics rules. Likewise, it doesn't matter if dating a subordinate is illegal. It's wrong and should be against corporate policy. Corporate policies allow us to address lots of antisocial behavior that doesn't rise to the level of illegality.

matt4077 8y ago

Sexual assault ("Grabbing by the pussy") and attempted rape (the other guy) are crimes. Inappropriate relationships with subordinates are, well, "inappropriate", and can be sexual harassment when they are persistent and unwanted, or involve any sort of quid-pro-quo. That, however is not a crime, but only a violation of (civil) employment law.