
Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too - sillypuddy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/business/men-at-work-wonder-sexual-harassment.html
======
adriand
I've been an owner of a company for years now and I've always followed a few
simple rules with the women who work for our company:

\- I never, ever comment on their appearance, including new hairstyles,
clothing, etc.

\- I refer to them as "women", never as "ladies" or "girls" or other nonsense.

\- No touching (hugs, etc.) with the exception of handshakes and high fives.

\- I don't engage in, or tolerate, any sexist, sexual or otherwise
inappropriate conversations.

I will, however, happily go for lunch, have a drink, etc., as I would any
other colleague.

Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such
as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. (I
maintain the rule about sexist/sexual conversations across the board - talking
about women with male colleagues isn't cool either.)

I could probably break some of these rules with some of the women in my office
without causing offence too, especially the people I'm closer with - e.g. by
remarking on a new outfit or something - but I don't want to be a creep so I
just play it super safe with everybody.

It's really not all that difficult: be a professional, don't be a creep, and
err on the side of caution. If you have to overcompensate like Pence, it's
still a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

~~~
xupybd
>If you have to overcompensate like Pence, it's still a hell of a lot better
than the alternative.

I kind of think Pence is being smart. Conservative politicians can't survive
that sort of scandal so being really careful can't hurt.

Also I think there is some wisdom in not always trusting yourself not to cross
the line, why not just keep your self as far away from the line as you can
reasonably maintain. Kinda like ulysses tied to the mast, it's just safer that
way.

~~~
RhodesianHunter
"Conservative politicians can't survive that sort of scandal"

Alabama is about to elect a senator in the middle of 5 under-aged sexual
assault allegations. Times have changed!

~~~
xupybd
I'll reword that "Conservative politicians shouldn't survive that sort of
scandal". Representing the conservative voters should mean that you uphold a
more conservative personal life, but hypocrites are all too common. I think
that adds to the point that I think Pence is being smart, draw the line as far
away as you can.

------
jenga22
I am not sure why men go to happy hours with alcohol or go to social events
where the chances of stepping over the line explode exponentially. Going out
and hanging with your co-workers over a beer might have been a good idea six
months ago but is no longer a good idea.

Why?

Any of those things you said or did, could be construed a million different
ways. Was that one thing you said flirting? Did you say that one thing that
offended someone who went thru this particular experience as a child you were
unaware of? Did you talk about that actor you really liked that turned out to
be a child molester today and now makes you look less than acceptable?

Your past behavior carries weight today. What was once acceptable might not be
today and there are consequences today. You will lose your career and job over
even the faintest claim. Here is the money paragraph:

> Still, some workers said they were starting to follow “the Pence rule,”
> which was formerly known as the Billy Graham rule, after the evangelical
> preacher, but is now named for Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Pence has said
> he does not eat alone with women who are not his wife or attend an event
> without her if alcohol will be served.

I would even arguing going to those "game zones" is all potentially risky
behavior. I know I am not being politically correct, however just doing your
job and leaving is a better solution. It is better than losing everything over
it.

~~~
Balgair
> You will lose your career and job over even the faintest claim.

We'll see.

Unfortunately, the 'track record' is not promising to those people that have
accused their abusers. What has actually happened? Yes, Harv is in some deep
stuff, but Kevin may slip out just fine. Donny pretty much got away scot-free.
Give it time to mature, we may be disappointed to find that effectively
nothing will occur.

Also, going out drinking with co-workers/bosses has always been an 'eyebrow
raising' idea, right? Even a beer or two has always been a point of caution.
Was anyone (not in a SV-frat-house-turned-startup) under any other impression?

~~~
jenga22
Almost everyone in NYC goes out at 5 for drinks and they get shit faced. While
this is great for team building, it is now not a great idea for reasons that
are obvious. It is not a SV thing by any measure.

~~~
Balgair
Seems like you can easily correlate the 'drinking culture' of a work
place/field with these accusations then, yeah?

~~~
jenga22
Re-read my initial post. It is just one such example. Even the game zones I
feel are areas where you increase your risk surface area.

------
sp527
This has become almost cartoonish. The people being accused of sexual
harassment did overtly and obviously abusive things. That doesn’t call for a
referendum on the entire scope of male-female interactions. If you have to
wonder whether you’re a sexual harasser and aren’t stupid or deliberately
oblivious, then the answer is you are not one.

You may still be somewhere on the misogyny spectrum. You may even make women
feel uncomfortable with some of the things you say and do. But the term sexual
harassment should be reserved for obviously inappropriate conduct, and not be
cheapened into some thin-gray-line class of transgression.

Also if our society starts treating flirting with or attempting to date
coworkers as problematic behavior, people will lose the opportunity to
potentially find mates in an environment to which they’re devoting
increasingly larger shares of their lives. The only people who will win in
that scenario are the therapists.

~~~
flukus
> The people being accused of sexual harassment did overtly and obviously
> abusive things.

They were accused of doing those things, the accusations alone were enough to
be career ending, that's the problem. As long as society is fine with
vilifying people on accusations alone then the only defense is to not put
yourself into a situation where such an accusation can be made.

~~~
telesilla
Please read the Scalzi blog post linked above:

"Aside from the actual fact that a woman accusing a man of harassment has her
life turned into such a shitshow that the bar for her choosing to tell her
story is almost unspeakably high (and therefore not fertile ground for lying),
I want you to consider a singular and depressing fact, which is that nearly
every woman you know has actual dudes who’ve harassed them. They will go after
them, rather than outright lying about you."

------
telesilla
20 years ago I walked into a server room where the walls sported naked/semi-
naked women and the inhabiting men looked at me like I was there to take away
their wall candy. I chose to leave and made another career for myself, because
I was too young and afraid to stand my ground. I don't regret this, because I
went on to have an amazing life, but I never again stepped foot in a room like
that and I do regret never working with a massive Oracle installation or
learning how to get the most out of a PERL app running on metal. I lost out,
and I hate that I never had the opportunity to experience working at corporate
scale.

I am willing to bet those rooms still exist, but almost all of the rest of my
career I've found men welcoming and courteous, the same as the women I now
work with. Things have changed and they are changing for the better - this is
all just part of the discussion we gotta have.

It's getting better folks - the fact that women can now speak out in public
means we are less scared, and we'll be able to interact more and you'll have a
lot more women as company down the road.

Here's an exacting analysis by the ever-helpful Dan Savage on the Louis CK
incident which covers similar ground (work-related harassment and power
relations):

[http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557816/savage-l...](http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/10/25557816/savage-
love-letter-of-the-day)

~~~
fencepost
20 years ago walking out was the right choice - not necessarily because of the
blatant sexism but because of the massive glaringly obvious and uncorrected
mismanagement in that particular environment. The problem was not just that
there were a bunch of jerks with pinups on the walls, it's that any competent
management in the late 90s should have eliminated that within the first 5
minutes of walking into that room.

~~~
ThomPete
so now you are a jerk if you have pinups on the wall?

~~~
fencepost
Would you feel comfortable if you walked into an office and the walls were
covered with semi-tumescent centerfolds from Playgirl (is that still a thing?)
or the like?

Heck, maybe the women in the office have a gay erotica reading group that gets
together at lunchtime. How would you feel if it was pictures of gay male
couples "in flagrante" and more than semi-tumescent?

Might that make you uncomfortable?

~~~
true_religion
What is with women in your example constantly reading about gay men? I've
never seen heterosexual women so fascinated with gay men.

------
tabeth
I honestly don't know what all the fuss is about? Is it that difficult to just
treat women -- not nicely -- but equally? This is kindergarten level stuff,
people. Keep your hands to yourself, be nice, don't ask overly personal
questions about people unless they share first, etc.

I guarantee anyone reading this that if they just reflect behavior they'll be
fine. This means if someone shares something moderately personal, do the same.
If someone laughs, laugh back. To mimic behavior is to be human.

Be human.

~~~
sliverstorm
The point is it _can_ be difficult to treat women exactly the same as men, and
that's in itself not fair really to anybody.

One "solution" is to keep the workplace as sterile as possible. Get close to
no-one, keep to yourself, all relationships remain starched & supremely
professional. But ultimately that's not really a win either. Who wants to work
with robots?

~~~
tabeth
why is it difficult to treat women the same as men?

~~~
sliverstorm
as has been said many times by now in this thread-

there are many things a man can say to another man that he can't say to a
woman, and things he can't do.

or even if there is something he can say, he might not be totally confident he
can say it. who among us has never said something that came out wrong?

"so just never say or do any of those things ever" is a poor solution.

~~~
neom
That's not entirely true, and a bit of a fallacy of masculinity. I assure you,
there are many men who don't care for much of the things other men say, and
just because I'm a man doesn't give you permission to talk to me particularly
differently.

~~~
sliverstorm
i'm not really talking about "locker room talk". read my other comment for
some basic examples.

------
jacalata
The amount of hysteria on display by men in this article and elsewhere is
ridiculous. What happened to the skeptical "treat each person as an
individual" attitude that created "Not All Men"?

~~~
mirimir
Are you saying "hysteria" ironically?

But seriously, things are getting hugely chaotic. The only safe bet is keeping
sexuality totally out of the workplace. But that doesn't mean isolation. As
you say, you treat everyone the same. Because you really have no clue about
their sexual orientation or status, issues, vulnerability, and so on.

~~~
tabeth
Why _wouldn 't_ you treat everyone the same?

~~~
flukus
Because half the population (or at least a considerable portion of that half)
get's offended if I treat them the same as I would men.

~~~
jacalata
I am skeptical that there is anything you could do that would never offend any
men but would offend a significant percentage of women. Even more skeptical if
we're restricting the scene to professional interactions.

~~~
flukus
I didn't say it would never offend men, but take a dirty joke as an example,
it might offend men, but I'm drastically less likely to be written up by HR if
a man is offended. Another one is the level of profanity that the different
sexes are comfortable with. Another one would be making fun of someone's
clothing, perfectly acceptable amongst friends.

> Even more skeptical if we're restricting the scene to professional
> interactions.

Not everything in the workplace is a professional interaction, or at least it
never used to be. I don't know what it's supposed to be now, you have
corporate wanting to do team building exercises and everyone to be one big
family, we're still supposed to sign birthday cards and that sort of rubbish,
yet you can't talk to people as you would friends and family.

------
erikbye
A woman at work constantly speaks in tones of sexual innuendo, when she comes
over to someone asking for help or whatever, she leans over you and places her
hand on your shoulder or thigh. As a man in today’s climate the double
standard is painfully obvious. Follow her example and you’d be on your ass
fast.

~~~
colanderman
What double standard? If a female co-worker did that to me I'd bring it up
with HR.

And – I'm making the assumption that you are probably in tech and therefore
probably in a male-dominated workplace – unlike a woman in your situation, you
can almost certainly call out the individual in question with zero fear of
consequences to your career. Without knowing specifics, my prejudice is that
you are in no position to complain. (My assumptions could be wrong.)

~~~
erikbye
The double standard is that she still has her job but a man wouldn’t.

~~~
colanderman
Bullshit. Tens of thousands of men who sexually harass women get away scot-
free day in day out.

The men you mention lost their jobs because the women they harassed _spoke
out_ (and almost always, they did so under fear of reprisal). It didn't just
"happen". Have you spoken to HR or your boss?

------
mindvirus
My partner is a software engineer, and she has experienced an enormous amount
of inappropriate behavior - everything from "was that inappropriate, am I
being too sensitive?" to a person getting fired and walked out by security for
their behavior toward her (extremely justifiably). None of this has ever
happened to me, though.

Even in the more innocuous cases, it leads to a ton of self-doubt. Part of the
problem is the volume of it - these aren't one-off instances, but repeated
questioning of one's worth as a human being and member of the team.

I like unconscious bias as a model for addressing this because it lets you
flip the equation around on these cases. Imagine someone who tells women at
work to smile. By accusing them of being sexist, the argument becomes about
whether they're being sexist - and they'll inevitably argue that they're not,
they're just being nice, people are being too sensitive/PC and in the end
nothing happens. And it's really not the individual instance of it that's the
problem, but the volume of it - and not just from that person, but from
everyone. And this really serves to diffuse responsibility.

Unconscious bias would say to recognize your own biases, and rather than have
the argument about whether or not you're sexist/racist/whatever, to think
about how you can treat people equally, and correct for your biases. And then,
rather than trying to apply labels to people, we can have a real conversation
about behavior - and correct ones behavior and build systems to accommodate
for these biases.

For example, if someone repeatedly interrupts someone in a meeting, they might
not even know it (hence, _unconscious_ bias). If you accuse that person of
being sexist, the conversation stops there. But if people subscribe to
unconscious bias, it can be a learning experience "hey, I noticed you
interrupted X a few times in that meeting" it can be a chance to understand
ones biases - "oh, I didn't mean to. I'll be mindful of that in the future."
And you can even go a step further, and create systems to compensate - have a
rule that one person can talk at a time (say by holding a ball), or a culture
where you explicitly acknowledge any ideas you're building on before you
suggest something.

Obviously there's no silver bullet to solving this, and there are bigger
issues than people being interrupted in meetings, but I've found when people
subscribe to this philosophy of self-reflection and mindfulness, it goes a
long way in creating a positive environment where people are treated like
people.

------
debacle
I've overstepped with women. Women have overstepped with me. There is
definitely a graciously wide gray area of "That came out differently than I
meant it."

The key is to:

1\. Understand your own intent when saying/doing something.

2\. Consider the potential negative ways something you may say could be
perceived.

3\. Understand the additional social responsibility that comes with being
someone's superior, explicit or implicit.

~~~
T2_t2
4\. Hope no one takes further something that is a misunderstanding?

I dunno where we are going here, and I'm not sure all this stuff isn't
confirming the exact opposite of everything people are hoping for.

I'm not sure why the next Harvey Weinstein won't act the exact same way ("You
mean, I get to sleep with beautiful women for 30 years and then get outed
worth 100s of millions? That's seems like a great deal")

I don't think anyone has any idea how this will shake out, but I won't be
shocked if it is a bad outcome all around - from reduced funding for female
startups to less mentoring to more gender apartheid in workplaces, to China's
inevitable rise to world's largest economy and most influential country.

~~~
debacle
I had an edit where I added:

4\. Treat people like individuals.

But I didn't want to needlessly extend the list, even though that's the most
important advice you could give anyone about interacting with anyone else.

Most people who commit sexual harassment aren't Harvey Weinstein. Most
flirting is innocent, and in my experience either slightly awkward, ignored,
or well received, but rarely uncomfortable. Most male/female relationships (or
any relationships for that matter) in the workplace are healthy, friendly, and
beneficial.

There is a vast difference between inappropriate social interaction due to
ignorance, and predatory social interaction due to malice.

------
Mz
I don't think it is helpful to pretend there is no gray area. Talking about
how to avoid grey areas is good. Pretending they don't exist is potentially
dangerous and strikes me as toxic and blamey.

~~~
noobermin
I think there might be a gray area, but it's probably less broad than people
make it out to be.

~~~
Mz
I have found that it is possible to entirely avoid gray areas by abiding by
very strict standards that avoid any possible misinterpretation.

I have also found this makes me seem cold, rejecting and unapproachable.

Establishing trust is a kind of bonding process. It involves taking risks. If
you put nothing on the line, you don't bond. If you are never warm, trust is
unlikely. If you are ever warm, confusion about intent remains possible.

I don't think I can agree with you.

~~~
noobermin
I mean, a lot of it can just be people are different and will find they need
to do different things in order to interact with others successfully without
problems, so if you need rules, I suppose that's just you.

An aside, but regarding your "coldness." I don't think that's a problem. Most
people I think even when they are "warm" aren't necessarily naive and too
willing to trust although society stereotypes them that way.

------
simonsarris
I think the second order effects here are under appreciated. Ponder, which of
these is overstepping?

* Telling someone they look good today

* Telling someone a very funny, yet lewd joke that you just thought up

* Inviting someone for a drink after work

* Telling someone they should dress better

* Telling someone they are too uptight

* Telling someone that, if they were nicer, they might get ahead more

* Inviting a co-worker to a party with lots of alcohol (example given in article)

You might think, "This is easy, clearly XYZ above are fine whereas ABC are not
or could be questionable." But here's the problem: For a man talking to a man,
_all of the above are just plain fine._

Some may think that even in very low risk interactions, "why take the risk, if
it could be misconstrued?" In a very tiny way even asking these questions
opens me up to the risk of someone suggesting I'm some kind of
sexist/bigot/etc, even though I'm only trying to be descriptive and not
normative here, because someone may misinterpret a position here. In fact I'm
sure there are plenty of people who would never comment on an article like
this. But I bet they'll talk to their male co-workers about it, in private.

Which is kind of the rub. The net result of this round of men-wondering-of-
they-are-overstepping may be even more boys club behavior than before.

How is it possible for men to treat women equally with other men, if it
introduces such risk? I've seen all sorts of people advocating positions that
boil down to "Don't make any friends at work, work is a place for work and
nothing else." This seems like a losing strategy.

Not all difficult problems have broad solutions. Sometimes, spraying a
pesticide increases the level of pests.

> Still, some workers said they were starting to follow “the Pence rule,”
> which was formerly known as the Billy Graham rule, after the evangelical
> preacher, but is now named for Vice President Mike Pence. Mr. Pence has said
> he does not eat alone with women who are not his wife or attend an event
> without her if alcohol will be served.

Maybe it is worth noting that Women are more likely than men to endorse Mike-
Pence-style inter-gender workplace norms. From the NYT:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-
opp...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-
at-work-gender-study.html)

~~~
tabeth
> For a man talking to a man, all of the above are just plain fine.

Really? I wouldn't do most of your examples, personally. I'm curious if I'm
the weird one here.

~~~
T2_t2
I'de have no problem saying any of those things to another man.

~~~
tabeth
You have no problem telling another man you don't know that they should dress
better?

------
throwawayn0w4y
This situation is completely blown out of proportion and ridiculous.

When you have members of the opposite sex sharing space every day, sex is a
factor, and there really needs to be some amount of reality brought back into
this discussion.

The prevailing attitude reminds me of religious parents acting as if their
teenage children are not going to have sexual relations, and refusing to
educate them on sex as a result.

The majority of jobs I've had exposed me to sexual harassment and assault in
various forms.

I've had female office managers hanging their arm around me and petting my
hand while I try to eat lunch after weeks of my ignoring their verbal
advances.

I've had female sales women grinding their breasts against me while rinding to
a company offsite team-builder in a shuttle bus.

As far as I'm concerned this is par for the course when you stick women and
men in the same space. I don't feel like these women crossed a line worth
making a big deal about, it's not as if I was raped. They were mildly
annoying, but we're adults, and I'm not deluding myself into believing we're
going to be robots in a coed office without ever letting our sex enter the
picture.

In all my experiences, the women gave up pretty quickly. It's as if they were
just going out of their way to make it blatantly obvious they were interested,
because my acting aloof and ignoring their more subtle advances weren't
convincing enough. They probably assumed I was being shy (quiet, introverted,
software engineer).

I personally feel people need to calm down a bit on this topic, and yes I'd
like to see the double standard go away. Attraction happens, if people are
civil about it and not too persistent, I'd rather there be a reasonable
threshold of tolerance on both sides of this.

~~~
comstock
Those sound like somewhat mild examples of the sort of sexual harassment many
women suffer.

But the behavior you describe, I would not consider acceptable. I personally
would not want to work somewhere that was considered “ok” and would probably
at this point mention it to the person involved, HR or their manager.

------
hamandcheese
> After-work events are “the front line” when it comes to harassment, and
> companies want “more safety precautions” now, she said.

This makes me sad. I feel like letting your guard down and getting a little
wild can lead to some pretty good camaraderie and friendship.

------
rhelmer
I'm not sure why this is hard... why is any amount of flirting, or innuendo
etc. at work OK?

I do realize that people spend much of their time at work, and it's a place
people meet.

Personally, now that we have dating sites and such I would not risk my career
by trying to initiate a relationship with someone I am working with...

I'd rather avoid even just the mild awkwardness of someone being uncomfortable
at me asking them for coffee or dinner, and having to then work with them
after that.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not that simple. This isn't just some trend which can be fixed with a
little logic. This is something that is changing the discussion fundamentally
turning men guilty by default.

The metoo campaign IM basically allowed anything from actual abuse to
catcalling be called sexual abuse. It expanded the definition of sexual abuse
to basically align with only the most extreme feminists.

Men are now by definition guilty and any attempt at bringing nuance to the
discussion will mark you as a possible perpetrator yourself.

~~~
xionon
> The metoo campaign IM basically allowed anything from actual abuse to
> catcalling be called sexual abuse. It expanded the definition of sexual
> abuse to basically align with only the most extreme feminists.

Are you implying that catcalling someone, in or out of the workplace, should
not be considered sexual abuse?

~~~
ThomPete
I am saying that there is a context to these kind of social dynamics which
can't just be considered binary. It depends on the situation.

All that get's lost in the panic.

~~~
rhelmer
Catcalling just seems like a bad example... I can't think of a situation where
that seems appropriate?

I'm really not seeing why any of this belongs in the workplace. Why not bars,
or if you're not the nightlife type, dating sites?

~~~
ThomPete
I can think of plenty where it's appropriate. Again it's about context.

~~~
rhelmer
Well the context in this case (per the article) is the workplace, and the
article appears to focus on the US, to disambiguate the laws and norms
expected.

~~~
ThomPete
no the context is the specific workplace and the specific people involved from
what i am discussing.

------
porfirium
All these incidents will end up causing segregation and unwillingness to
hire/work with women.

~~~
allhailkatt
I'm guessing it's going to create power differences, where those willing to
deal with social complexity will end up on top. The more people you can talk
to, the better your career will do.

Much like any game of Settlers of Catan.

These incidents have been pushed against for a while, and while the same
rhetoric was used in the 70's, nonetheless here we are without gendered want
ads.

~~~
wahern

      > where those willing to deal with social complexity will
      > end up on top
    

You could also draw the opposite conclusion: bullies and predators like Harvey
Weinstein are more successful on average preciously because they're less risk
averse and less inhibited when leveraging their power. The #MeToo campaign
doesn't change that dynamic much, especially at the extreme where you find
abusers. The consequences come, if at all, long after the reward.

This doesn't just apply to sexual harassment. Sexual harassers are adept at
wielding their power, which is an incredibly useful skill in any field. Very
often that translates into socially aggressive behavior, even if it doesn't
escalate to anything technically improper.[1] If the consequences aren't swift
and transparent, _theoretically_ we just end up evolving more skillful
harassers and/or culling the aggressive non-harassers.

Just another way of looking at things. I wouldn't premise any real decisions
on such a theory, but it's something I wonder about, at least in the business
context. I mean, there's a reason success in business and politics correlates
so strongly with so-called psychopathic character traits.

[1] What immediately comes to mind is that hilarious scene in Along Came Polly
where Alec Baldwin violates almost every imaginable aspect of bathroom
etiquette as part of a not-so-subtle dominance display:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHApjKcZAgI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHApjKcZAgI)

Because powerful people cross these boundaries so much, you can literally
signify power by exaggerating this sort of behavior. See, e.g., the above
hilarious clip (because comedy is funnier when it's rooted in shared
experience) and Donald Trump (from the truth is stranger than fiction
department). In fact, I suspect that it's precisely because we (both men and
women) are so used to powerful people crossing these boundaries that women
find themselves in difficult situations where the nominal boundary had long
been crossed yet they were nonetheless dazed by the turn to more sexually
aggressive behavior.

------
xor1
I treat all interactions with coworkers (male or female or otherwise) as if I
were under surveillance by the KGB or Stasi, and any sort of misstep would
mean imprisonment or death. I also refuse to ever drink with coworkers. It's
worked out so far.

------
aerovistae
I thought this was talking about the band, singers of the timeless "Land Down
Under."

