
Not Just Mike Pence. Americans Are Wary of Being Alone with the Opposite Sex - TuringNYC
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members-of-the-opposite-sex-at-work-gender-study.html
======
learc83
When I was in college I was a team lead at Best Buy for a while. I was in
charge of a mostly female team of cashiers, and I was alone with them in the
cash office frequently while they counted their tills.

I made one of the cashiers mad by reprimanding her, and she decided to get
back at me by claiming that I grabbed her and shook her while we were in the
cash office.

I never touched her, and luckily we still had video from the day she claimed
it happened. After my manager reviewed the tape with her, it was clear she was
lying, so she dropped her claim.

Despite what we might wish, society treats men and women differently, and
women are viewed as being particularly vulnerable. If a man had accused me of
something similar, no one would have cared. When a woman accused me, without
that video, I would have been fired.

It's a complex situation. In many cases, people don't believe women when they
really are assaulted, or they're force to share the blame when they're
blameless. But in other cases the pendulum swings too far in the opposite
direction. Like many things it's primarily a function of the relative power of
the victim and the accuser.

A powerful man can get away with harassing much less powerful women. But a
relatively powerless man will quickly find himself in a world of hurt with
just the hint of an allegation. A company doesn't want to fire their CEO
without hard proof (or at least a lot of bad press), but they'll drop a low
level employee quick just to avoid the slight possibility of looking like they
aren't taking sexual harassment seriously.

I'm not going to let that experience keep me from being alone with a women at
work--I don't think I'm very likely to run into another women like that again
and avoiding being alone with a women in a modern workplace is just too
difficult. But I do understand the rationale driving people to be cautious.

I do want to make it clear that I think that the vast majority of times when a
women reports assault or harassment, they're telling the truth. But I do think
that in some situations where we've started to completely shift the burden of
proof to the accused (some employers, certain colleges etc..), we run the risk
of creating perverse incentives and punishing an awful lot of innocent people.

~~~
Inconel
Your point about having video evidence brings up an interesting question for
me, how does the HN community generally feel about pervasive workplace
surveillance? It seems based on some of the articles I've read about
harassment, that many times people will only feel comfortable coming forward
when they have hard evidence such as texts, emails, video, etc against the
perpetrators.

Seeing as we, in the US at least, seem to be fairly comfortable with having a
pervasive surveillance state(lets ignore for a second whether this is
rational, I personally believe the pendulum has swung way too far to the side
of surveillance) due to the threat of terrorism, maybe we should also embrace
this in our professional lives.

I personally think harassment in the workplace probably affects the day to day
lives of more Americans than terrorism does. Is it time to institute these
kinds of surveillance practices in the workplace? Maybe have 24 hour
video/audio surveillance at work, disallow off work socializing between
employees holding differing levels of seniority, only allow approved, and
recorded, methods of communication?

For the record, I'm not sure how I would feel about such things, I'm leaning
towards it being fraught with all sorts of negative unintended consequences,
so if its a stupid idea please let me know, I'm simply curious to hear some
opinions.

Edited for clarity.

~~~
harrisi
I think having constant surveillance can have a negative impact on work life.
I know that when discussions moved to Slack at my work place there was a very
different way to communicate due to us knowing our conversations may be read.
Not that there were any instances of harassment, but sometimes it can be
relieving to tell a coworker that your boss is a dick. It can help get
feelings out before they build up.

I do see some value in surveillance, such as the GP's instance (whether or not
it's true -- it's a reasonably plausible story). I, however, don't think that
constant surveillance that upper management has free reign over is good. I did
have an idea about this. Is there a way to have a file (such as video/audio)
encrypted in such a way that it can only be decrypted with multiple keys? In
GP's case, GP and the employee that made the accusation? That way you can
still feel safe(-ish) that your small slacking off won't risk your job, while
allowing for evidence in serious situations such as GP's.

~~~
seanp2k2
There's also a difference between saving different levels of stuff within
Slack. It can go all the way to saving everything including private channels
and direct messages: [https://get.slack.help/hc/en-
us/articles/220548947-Apply-for...](https://get.slack.help/hc/en-
us/articles/220548947-Apply-for-Compliance-Exports) or just for channels:
[https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/203457187-Custom-
me...](https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/203457187-Custom-message-and-
file-retention)

Make sure you know who's reading your DMs if you use Slack to e.g. complain
about your manager. As someone able to make these decisions, make sure you
know who has access and audit that. The story of the manager firing someone
for performance reasons when the real reason is that they overheard something
they didn't like is as old as the hills.

------
cbanek
I'm really amazed that the data is that close for "having a work meeting."
(25% of women say inappropriate vs 22% of men)

That's a lot higher than I was expecting. It makes me wonder why as well. Is
it just "inappropriate" (what I imagine Mike Pence thinks)? Does one side
think the other side is trying to do something inappropriate or is trying to
lead into something?

At least in many jobs I've had, 1:1's were basically required time (though,
not usually productive time). It's crazy thinking so many working
relationships people might be on edge or think of as inappropriate.

Of course, the source of the data is "registered voters", not people who have
jobs.

~~~
meric
For the situations where the manager and the managed are of the opposite sex
and one or both are aware of their own ethical and spiritual vulnerabilities
maybe it'd be a good idea to have a 2:1 or 1:2 instead of a 1:1.

~~~
cbanek
I hope you're joking, but if you're not, that sounds like a horrible idea to
me.

Being a woman, and having had 1:1's with male managers for pretty much my
entire tech career, I've never heard of this happening. I don't know what
spiritual vulnerabilities you are talking about, but in terms of ethics if you
can't work with a female employee, you shouldn't be a manager.

You're basically telling the person that you can't trust them enough to be
alone with and honestly communicate with them when times are good. What
happens when things get difficult?

~~~
sillysaurus3
It's not really about trust. It's just business and mutual protection.

I'm not sure which way to feel on the issue, but it's hard to deny that the
recently reported harassment happened while both the victim and the abuser
were alone together, or shared a private channel of communication. If you
eliminate this aspect, you might eliminate the harassment along with it. That
seems like a positive outcome.

In practice, that may not be achievable, or it might be a bad idea for other
reasons. But anything that results in a positive impact seems worth
considering.

~~~
cbanek
If you're worried about mutual protection, it would seem that you don't trust
the person.

You also seem to imply that harassment is more about having opportunities to
harass, rather than a person wanting to commit harassment and waiting for the
right opportunity. If someone wants to do something, I figure they could be
very patient in waiting for their time.

Also, how would you know until everyone is already uncomfortable? The only way
it sounds like to fix that is to trust no one, ever, and have everyone travel
in groups of at least 3?

~~~
throwaway688
Your conclusion sounds completely absurd, but I agree with you. In fact, even
walking around in groups of 3 is dangerous if you keep talking because what
you said might be interpreted as offensive and all 3 people would hear it.

I guess I don't understand what you would propose as a solution...

Current situation is obviously not working.

Right now the following is happening:

1) Ladies get harassed by those with more power because it's a way to get
dates. They could potentially lose their job/opportunity if they disagree to
go on a date. This leads to 2.

2) Men get false accusations because women do not currently have to provide
proof for low rank employee harassment cases.

3) Culture is changing in such a way that more and more things are considered
offensive to say.

4) People are choosing to have fewer 1-on-1 (or at all) interactions with
coworkers because of these issues. It's unfair to discriminate against just
some coworkers because you might suspect they will be trouble. As a result,
you might be forced to not have 1-on-1s. Might be forced to give up all non-
strictly-work-related conversations with everyone at work.

At my current work, all of us are now walking as a group to lunch in silence.
It is extremely awkward but it seems like this is the only possible outcome of
such a system.

I guess my own current solution is to leave US/Bay Area for basically any
other country. I rather not deal with these dangers since I want to have
friends at work and any non-work related conversation might be considered
offensive by someone in a group of 20 or so people.

~~~
seanp2k2
Legitimately curious: if you walk to lunch in silence, why even go to lunch
together? What would you talk about? Purely work? I'm sorry for you, that
sounds like a really unfun workplace with bad culture if it's as bad as you
say. Why stay there if it's that bad?

~~~
throwaway688
It takes a few months to find another gig. Also the main person complaining is
about to leave.

Hoping things will go back to normal after that.

------
kwellington
Here in Japan I regularly hear about women or families saying Japan isn't as
safe as it appears. I never understood it, because the data doesn't back it
up, and I've never experienced any trouble in nearly 5 years here.

I don't have a TV. When I catch TV though, the news programs can harp on a
minor crime here in Tokyo like a convenience store robbery for a good thiry
minutes. These friends watch a lot of TV. I think media narratives drive these
paranoias.

~~~
3131s
I live in Phnom Penh and I'd say the crime here is about as bad as an average
larger American city, but in a different way. There is more petty crime,
especially theft. I've lived here 4 years and never had any problem really,
but I see visitors and expats alike getting robbed frequently. I've avoided it
because I don't carry anything worth stealing and I am not the type of person
that thieves target.

~~~
manmal
How do you avoid being the type of person a thief targets? Is it a
brawny/threatening look, or just not using an iPhone in public?

~~~
3131s
Both if possible. Don't look wealthy, do look like you can defend yourself,
being male helps, being young helps. It's unfortunate, but there are reasons
that I don't get messed with ever and yet other people set foot off the plane
and are robbed mere hours later (my uncle for example, who visited me in Phnom
Penh).

I don't mean to blame anyone for being robbed, but being a little clueless and
careless is definitely one of the main causes too. People forget that the cost
of a new iPhone is almost the same as the average yearly wage in Cambodia.
It's like seeing someone walking in a big US city with 20,000$ in hand, from
the thief's perspective.

Cambodia is a very nice place in general though.

~~~
joyofdata
> People forget that the cost of a new iPhone is almost the same as the
> average yearly wage in Cambodia.

Good point!

From a thieves perspective it is probably not just the value of the visible
goods - it's also about the arrogance such behavior exhibits - people who show
off kind of deserve to get a reality check.

------
rufford
It's a cultural issue with Americans. There seems to be a belief there that
equality is not really equality but a battle of the genders imo. Women and men
alike obsess over the differences and have very traditional dating
structures/marriages. Gender equality in Europe makes the states look like a
joke

~~~
axaxs
Hit the nail on the head. Americans are in constant battle, whether sex,
sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. It's not as 'equal' as it seems, and
if it is, it's because persons go out of their way to cater to those groups.
It would be nicer just to see them no differently at all, but I digress.

~~~
throwaway688
> just to see them no differently at all

I agree but you can't say this sentiment out loud in some US big tech
companies. In fact, saying it out loud may lead to social outrage + job loss +
career suicide.

A closely related issue to the main one being discussed here.

------
mc32
What are people so uptight about?

Not that I understand why, but it makes some sense if religious people are
somehow shy to that, but atheists?

Are people afraid of perception or afraid of misinterpretation or afraid
physically, are there that many unhinged people out there?

You can totally make friends with people of the same sex you are generally
sexually attracted to and it does not mean or have to end up in a weird
uncomfortable moment. Just be people. Think how you made friends pre-puberty.
You just went and talked.

~~~
Spivak
I'll speak up with an example from a man's perspective; it has nothing to do
with attraction or religion, it's just not worth the risk.

If I'm one-on-one with a woman and a misunderstanding makes her feel
uncomfortable or threatened and she accuses me of misconduct or sexual
harassment I'm at an enormous disadvantage without any witnesses. When even
being accused could be career ending it's best to bring someone else along.

I have absolutely no problem going one-on-one with my friends who are women
but I can't say the same for strictly co-workers.

~~~
mc32
I understand your PoV. I would say it would be extremely rare for a woman (or
man) to make baseless accusations from uncertain interpretations. People who
bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the same untoward
thing done to them repeatedly.

That said, one has to acknowledge there are genuinely malicious people --but
they typically have a pattern and it will not be their first time making false
accusations.

~~~
Realist1337
>> People who bring forward accusations are typically people who've had the
same untoward thing done to them repeatedly.

Sounds like you've already pre-inclined towards a guilty party then, before
you even heard evidence from both sides. And if there is no evidence, the man
is in a world of trouble.

I have personally witnessed a man in the office be fired for "sexual
harassment" shortly after escalating an accounting audit issue. Convenient
timing and very effective way of dealing with an accounting issue.

~~~
mc32
I don't doubt that can happen --there are vindictive, retributive people out
there. That kind of person would not need a 1:1 or drive home, etc., to bring
forward an accusation.

~~~
throwawayable
This is true, but it would be more difficult for the mud to stick if it hard
for that person to prove you spent large amounts of time alone with them.

note: I don't believe that many people would be vindictive like that, but the
impact of such an accusation is so large means that even a very small chance
of it happening is something worth protecting oneself against.

~~~
Realist1337
You are right, most people are not like that. How many people are? 1%? 2%?
0.5%? I work with hundreds of people, we have dozens of meetings a month, we
might meet with over a thousand people a year in a large company.

Not throw in tough situations. People trying to cut legal/ethical/accounting
corners to make their numbers. People hoping not to get caught. People doing
whatever they need to to prevent getting fired. People trying not to be in the
bottom 10% (and thus let go.) In the context of all this -- yes, people start
using every tactic and social weapon in their toolkit. It takes 1 accusation
and you are done.

------
jlebar
I wrote this when the Pence story broke in March.

>>>>>>>>>

I wanted to write this yesterday, but thankfully I didn't, because Jia
Tolentino did a much better job than I would have in the New Yorker.

[http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-
pences-m...](http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-
marriage-and-the-beliefs-that-keep-women-from-power)

What bothers me about Pence's "no meals alone with women who aren't my wife"
and "no working late with female aides" rules isn't that he's trying to
protect women from himself. He rightly understands that he's a powerful man,
and many women have been harmed, sexually or otherwise, by people remarkably
like him. Kudos to Mike Pence for getting that, even if he also doesn't get
that many men have been harmed in just the same way.

What bothers me is that he (apparently) pays no heed to the question of how to
protect women from himself while still ensuring they can have equitable
careers. "You go home, honey; Jack will stay and help me" is saying that women
and men have different roles to play in Pence's staff, and that's
quintessential sexism (and may be illegal). And as the article points out, "no
successful woman could ever abide by [Pence's no-meals-alone rule]."

Anyway this article frames the issue really well.

~~~
speedplane
If it's done properly, there are alternatives. Instead of having drinks one-
on-one, you invite a mutual friend, or you go for lunch, coffee, or a jog. I
don't think these alternatives are natural to most people, but I do think they
can be taught. In good organizations, they are.

------
TuringNYC
There are two factors at play here:

1\. General religiously-driven norms, which are shifting in the US (e.g., VP
Pence)

2\. Concern, or overly-cautious / over-concern over what happened last week
with Binary Capital. Clearly there is a middle ground between the frat-house
that Binary Capital was and the monastery environment VP Pence might suggest.

------
mercer
I think people might underestimate the religious side to this. I'm Dutch, and
the vast majority of Dutch Evangelical pastors, elders, or youth leaders
avoided meeting church members in a 1-on-1 situation across gender.

There are some obvious reasons for this, like false accusations by the many
less-than-stable members, as well as the therapeutic nature of many meetings
(rife with possible line-crossing from both sides, psychologically).

Less obvious reasons would include a more fundamental belief in the 'sinful'
nature of the flesh. Again, the vast majority of Evangelical leaders I know
strongly believe that even the best of people can be tempted into sinful acts,
and a pragmatic solution is to avoid the temptation in the first place.

I might be wrong, but I get the impression that society in the USA, on the
whole, and even now, leans a bit more toward puritanical and/or Evangeical
beliefs, or at the very least they're part of mainstream thought. If true, it
could explain how so many Americans are wary of being alone with the opposite
sex.

For example, I find that in my Western European surroundings casual hookups
seem much more part of the day to day fabric than they seem to be to my
American friends. It strikes me as not unreasonable to conclude that if casual
sex is more acceptable here than in the USA (publicly, anyways), what
constitutes crossing the boundaries of propriety in the USA might not be
considered in the same way over here.

Specifically, I've worked in more than one relatively boring, conservative
corporations where at the bigger parties various people 'hooked up' with
various other people, some of them involving clear power-discrepancies. Nobody
batted an eye and the whole thing seemed to be a 'what happens in vegas' type
of thing, warranting some juicy gossip at most.

I'm not saying that this is how things should be, to be clear, just that
generally my impression is that the USA is generally more uptight (best word I
can think of, but I don't mean it disparagingly) about these things.

------
homero
I've never had that thought or known anyone else. What states are those?
There's gotta be a major difference between areas. In my area, if anything,
meeting with the opposite sex can insinuate something.

------
bambax
> _When he needs to meet with women at work or his church, he makes sure doors
> are left open and another person is present._

Saint-Simon, the memorialist descibing life at the court of Louis XIV of
France in the late 17th century, tells how, when the King had a meeting with
his current mistress, he would leave all doors open so that no one would
wonder about what was going on.

The problem was, when the King met with other women (or men) he would have the
doors closed, so the fact that the doors were open was a tell! ;-)

------
speedplane
Two surprises about this article: 1 - 25% of women think it's inappropriate to
have a work meeting with a man. 2 - 41% of men think it's appropriate to have
a drink one-on-one with a women.

~~~
swiley
Yeah the drink thing is definitely inappropriate.

~~~
SCdF
This article and thread have been fascinating to me. I am from NZ, so maybe
this is a US-cultural thing?

The idea that getting a drink with a women-not-your-spouse being inappropriate
is so crazy and weird to me! Do you not have female friends? How do you spend
time with them?

~~~
learc83
If you're married or in a relationship in NZ, your spouse is fine with you
getting drunk alone with someone of the opposite sex?

~~~
SCdF
You can't drink without getting drunk?

(To answer your main question though: I'm OK with it, maybe that's just me
though. I know we are a small nation but I don't know _everyone_.)

Edit: Since we're on the subject, I just spent a week living in an AirBNB
apartment with a female work colleague (work meetup in a different city). Just
us two. Before this thread I didn't even think that was weird. Americans: is
that weird?

~~~
learc83
Bad phrasing. Do you think the average New Zealander is ok with their spouse
going out for drinks alone with someone of the opposite sex?

I'm pretty sure that most Americans wouldn't like that, and I think jealousy
and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all countries.

About the AirBNB thing--it's pretty context dependant. If you are both single
and working for a small startup and you did it voluntarily, I think most Most
Americans under 40 wouldn't find it too weird.

If you're working for a large company, or your startup made you share, I think
most of us would think it's strange.

If you're in relationships, I don't know very many people who would be fine
with their spouse/SO doing it.

~~~
SCdF
So I _think_ they would be, but yeah, I can only really speak for myself. I
have rolled back through my memory, and I have had drinks with women alone
before, though not much, but probably as many times as I've had drinks with
guys alone before.

I just asked my SO and she is OK with it, and thinks people here (we live in
London now) would think similarly.

> I think jealousy and insecurity are pretty common among humans of all
> countries.

So right, this is interesting! To be clear: if my SO went out for drinks with
a guy from work I probably _would_ be jealous and insecure about it, at least
a little bit. But that's _my_ failing, not hers, and is for me to get over.
It's not fair for me to stop her from chilling out with a friend just because
said friend is a dude.

So maybe that's the main difference?

~~~
learc83
The thing is most people realize that their SO would be bothered by it, and
won't do it.

He/or she doesn't have to freak out and demand you stop to be "not OK with
it". You clearly wouldn't be OK with your SO doing this despite saying you
are, and she'd likely pick up on your feelings.

------
cup
Mike Pence, Americans and pretty much all of humanity up until the last two
generations or so (in most cultures).

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Sex is one of the greatest things both now and in the past of bringing out
stupid behavior in people. The number of people who have destroyed their
wealth, jobs, and/or reputations is staggering. It is not just of matter of
more training or consequences. Even with such punishment as being impaled
alive [http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/03/15/1718-stepan-
glebov-l...](http://www.executedtoday.com/2017/03/15/1718-stepan-glebov-lover-
of-the-tsarina/)

or with the threat of eternal damnation, people still had sexual relationships
that were deemed illicit.

I doubt our worst punishments will come anywhere close to that which was
inflicted in the past, and if punishments and stigma in the past could not
control sex, I doubt they will now. The underlying issue is that sex is driven
by the limbic brain and is not entirely susceptible to reason. This is a hard
problem and one that society will struggle with for a long time.

~~~
lqdc13
As dumb as it is, it's also the only reason you are alive. Some people see
their main goal in life as to find the best partner they can.

Sex is closely related IMO.

~~~
visarga
> it's also the only reason you are alive

Yep, sex is the recursive part of a function that is life.

~~~
ionised
Seems like a function without a purpose.

~~~
visarga
That's not true. It has a recursive purpose. Life has to exist in order to
bring more life into existence. It's the struggle of order vs. entropy.

~~~
ionised
> It has a recursive purpose. Life has to exist in order to bring more life
> into existence.

Can't say I'm a fan of this.

------
sheepmullet
As a man in a position of power women will sexually harass you in a "good
way".

To a religious conservative, i.e. Pence, these women are just like drug
pushers.

------
vacri
Wasn't the problem less about his personal dining habits, and more about
cutting off female lobbyists, given his role in politics? No-one cares if Bob
down the road is uncomfortable eating 1:1 with a woman not his wife, because
he's not a political powerbroker.

