3 ms·
Reading through the article and the comments here it seems to me that there is a tremendous unresolved tension. There seems to be an idea that we just 'fix the
by einhverfr 15y ago
Reading through the article and the comments here it seems to me that there is a tremendous unresolved tension. There seems to be an idea that we just 'fix the sexism' and that's that. However, stepping back and asking harder questions makes me think the problems are fundamental to highly developed capitalist economies. Before you mod me down, at least read the rest of what I have to say.
Everything we do-- what we wear, how we walk, the way we talk, sends subtle social signals, and these impact all areas of life. Two fundamental (and increasingly entwined) areas of life are sexuality (without which our race dies out) and economic (without which, each of us dies individually). These are tremendously entertwined, with over half of Americans having dated co-workers (see: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/02/10/the-state-of-the-office-romance-2012/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/02/10/the-state-...).
So it seems to me that, particularly single, women navigating the modern workplace are trying to navigate two fundamentally conflicting desires. The first is to be professional and not be open to the problem of being offered promotions for sexual favors, or retaliation for declining such offers, and the second is to find romance, companionship, love, etc. The fact that workplace romances are so common cannot be discounted in this area.
And so you have two key questions:
1) How do you define appropriate boundaries? This is a hellishly difficult problem in the context of the workplace.
2) If boundaries aren't bright but involve a lot of give and take, then doesn't that fundamentally mean that there will be a lot of behavior that will fall outside of that which is desirable?
I honestly don't see how you solve that problem.
On the gender role issue, I am a firm believer that one is generally better off making such tasks as taking notes or arranging potlucks things which are volunteer, and then if that fails, rotated, eliminating those who can't do it reasonably well.
But beyond that........ As long as so much of our social spheres surround work, and that's where a lot of opportunity for dating (both for men and women) lies, I just don't buy that you can wish away unwanted attention.
- natep 15y agoI think another commenter in this thread had a good answer (it was his understanding of California law). You can politely ask a coworker on a date, but if that person declines, then you drop it.
- einhverfr 15y agoAnd if that co-worker says, "I can't. I am busy tonight" Does that mean you can't ever ask again? Or if you ask five times and are politely but not definitively turned down can you ask five more times? 25 more times? Is there no limit? Now we might say there is an obligation to say something definitive. But then you get into a problem. What if there is a power difference? What if you are a general manager of one business unit asking a floor worker in a different business unit out on a date? Maybe the floor worker is afraid if she hurts your feelings, there will be career consequences? So does that change things? I don't think sexuality (and that includes romance if we are honest) admits of really simple rules except maybe magic safe words. These things also thrive on mixed messages. Magic safe words ("no" and "stop") protect against the worst problems (sexual assault) but not unwanted attention (how am I supposed to definitively know whether the attention is wanted or not? I can't read minds....), and they don't address the areas where people may want to try to get out of something letting the other person down gently.