> In the span of a week, I went from feeling excited and motivated about my job to feeling lethargic, anxious, and unenthused. (...) I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility (...)
There exists a breed of narcissists who are so incapable of tolerating rejection that they will consistently ignore every sign of it. In fact, the less you are satisfied with their actions, the more they will repeat them, desperately needing to see that your displeasure was just a temporary fluke and in the end they really are those cool dudes who are never wrong and everybody just admires them.
As a man I've never been asked to sit on one's lap (knock on wood), but some did give me a fair amount of trouble.
It doesn't help that their delusional serf-confidence can be confused with competence by some less experienced folks and get them promoted to management roles. In fact, I'd expect their density to increase as you go up the corporate food chain.
I am member of a minority, and have had more than one chance to go to the HR to report "being racially abused" and present the narrative in such a way that anyone would be convinced it was horrible.
Firstly, what happened to her is definitely misconduct, but not sexual harassment. I get the impression that the "victim" here is trying to take advantage of the situation. She never asks the inappropriate person to stop here, instead goes to HR. I mean just in plain words "Please don't, this is inappropriate." would stop most such behavior from happening again in huge majority of cases.
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
"Being shamed"? What if that female colleague honestly thought that she was blowing the situation out of proportion? A mere disagreement is shaming? Just because someone thinks they are 'sexually harassed' doesn't make them right automatically. I mean is there any scenario where someone claiming they are harassed could be on the wrong side of the things (or blowing things out of proportion)? It seems the SF/valley area atleast is too politically correct to even entertain the possibility that the female could possibly be wrong or making a mistake. Anyone that doesn't agree with a narrow notion of SJW equality is literally the devil. And this sort of trend has made 'being victim' a somewhat coveted status that can be used for gaining publicity/career advances.
> Firstly, what happened to her is definitely misconduct, but not sexual harassment. I get the impression that the "victim" here is trying to take advantage of the situation. She never asks the inappropriate person to stop here, instead goes to HR. I mean just in plain words "Please don't, this is inappropriate." would stop most such behavior from happening again in huge majority of cases.
1. Your implicit dismissal of her as a victim by using quotes is, frankly, a pretty large part of the reason why women feel so frustrated in tech. Here you are, a third party to this situation, automatically assuming that she's somehow someone who is purposely trying to take advantage of a situation.
2. Why is it the woman's responsibility to tell her male manager that it's inappropriate to ask her to sit on his lap? I mean, c'mon. I'll ask a coworker to stop if he's playing his music too loudly, but this is hardly in the same league. Plus, he's in a position of power over her, as her manager.
3. This situation is _precisely_ why there's an HR department.
1. Parent comment's dismissal is based upon details revealed in the article, or rather details that weren't revealed. He suspects that, since the victim escalated immediately, the victim may not have wanted a peaceful resolution. We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it.
2. Yes, I expect you to say that you're upset by the situation. I cannot read your mind; most people can't read your mind either, and many of them don't know the line between a 'joke' and harassment. Telling someone you don't like what they're doing is a crucial step, because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong. We want the boss to learn that his joke is not funny, and to do that sometimes you have to say it to his face.
3. Neither side is communicating well, which is indeed why HR exists. It's also possible that the boss would've continued after being told explicitly to stop. This does not mean you reach for HR's hotline the moment something goes wrong. You don't respond to a slap by pulling a knife, and you don't respond to a knife with a nuke--at least, not without examining other options.
> We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it.
So it's safest to assume that the victim of sexual harassment is at fault, of course.
> because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong.
So in this scenario, you're taking the stance that the Manager at Google has no concept that asking an inferior employee to sit on his lap could be unacceptable workplace behavior?
That doesn't seem like a generous read to you? You honestly think that this man, who has been working in a professional environment for at least a decade, was completely unaware that asking an employee to sit on his lap could possibly be construed as sexual misconduct?
So to review:
victim of sexual misconduct: obvious potential liar
perpetrator of sexual misconduct: blameless victim of ignorance
I am taking this stance because you, in your infinite wisdom, have assumed there are no possibilities other than the manager being the literal Devil. To compensate, I am taking the opposing position, so at least both ends of the spectrum of possible arguments are heard.
That having been said, talking about your problems is a basic communication skill that everyone who's graduated high school really should have, since it helps ensure that everyone learns from their mistakes and nobody has to be fired. Something I've noticed often in thses sorts of conversations is that people assume their point got across even if the other person acts like they aren't reading the subtle social cues.
TL;DR: I'm arguing with you because you're not thinking about both ends, and someone's gotta think of the other possibilities if we're to be sure that we're right; further, you shouldn't rely on subtlety to work with someone who can't handle subtlety. That's like expecting Java to be weakly typed. You gotta rule out the possibility that they're just stupid before you assume they're a dick.
Trying to get a coworker to sit on your lap and telling her about your sexual prowess is 100%, no room for uncertaintainty, sexual harassment. I'm not sure what minority you hail from, but if the environment you were raised in considers that "not sexual harassment" then you need to learn from this story and adjust your behavior appropriately to make sure you aren't sexually harassing in your workplace.
To be fair, in the write-up, she says she laughed at the sexual comments made by her manager.
>I remember thinking to myself, “Did I do something to encourage this kind of behaviour?” I had uncomfortably laughed at some of the sexual comments my manager had made because I didn’t know how else to react as a junior member of the team. Should I not have done that?
And the facts about her 'harassment' are covered in one sentence in the whole article.
> In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,”
She doesn't provide any context and keeps it as vague as possible. If you think about it, all/most of those things could have been light jokes that weren't specifically targeted to her. And I am certainly not defending her manager, but I still maintain that she did use this situation to her advantage. Getting a promotion, writing about it several years later in an attempt to promote her current startup.
> To be fair, in the write-up, she says she laughed at the sexual comments made by her manager.
No. That is neither a fair nor accurate paraphrasing of what the author said. That you would say this and then quote her is rather astounding.
She says quite clearly that she laughed uncomfortably because she didn't know how else to react.
> And the facts about her 'harassment' are covered in one sentence in the whole article.
She doesn't owe you or any other reader on the internet any fucking details whatsoever about her experience being harassed. You are nobody. She is not obligated to relive in excruciating details, the experiences she is referencing. She references the HR investigation. She explains how, in the context of the HR investigation--about which she rightly owes you no further details--she had to be:
> ...as specific as possible about all the infractions, the details, and the timelines. [She] had to recount any potential witnesses, for corroboration purposes. [She] felt humiliated. [She] cried.
There was disciplinary action with which she felt satisfied. HR departments don't typically take disciplinary action if they cannot find enough evidence to warrant such action.
Do you know what sexual harassment is?[1] A victim is not required to, and often is not comfortable, asking the person who is making their workplace uncomfortable to stop. HR exists precisely for these kinds of situations. The unwanted sexual harassment should not happen in the first place. It's not a victim's fault for deciding to go directly to HR.
Let's go ahead and review what occurred in one single week, as a new hire:
- kissed on the cheek
- asked to sit on her manager's lap
- offered unwanted details about her manager's sex life
- made the object of an apologist-style "Asian fetish"
So, out of curiosity, if you were a manager with a new female hire, who is an attractive Asian woman, help me understand ...
1. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to kiss the new hire on the cheek uninvited? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was kissed on the cheek?
2. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to ask a new female employee to sit on your lap? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was asked to sit on her manager's lap?
3. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to divulge details about your sex life to your new female hire? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was told details of her manager's sex life?
4. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to tell an Asian female employee that "all men go through an Asian fetish at some time"? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she, an Asian woman, was told that all men have an Asian fetish? That is fucking textbook example of identifying a subject as the object of desire, then telling them they are the object of your desire, with disgusting apologist bullshit to try and make it not seem like you have any control over it.
All of this--and who knows, maybe more that wasn't divulged in the article--is sexual harassment. Even in cultures that kiss on the cheek, it's a token of familiarity not employed by strangers. SV does not have this culture. I've worked with a lot of different women over the years, in a number of professions. I've never kissed any of them on the cheek, uninvited or otherwise. I've dated a few women I've worked with, too--still never kissed any of them on the cheek in the workplace. Or asked them to sit on my lap. Or offered up details of my sex life. Or told them I had an X fetish, where they were clearly easily identified as X.
The really creepy part is not any particular of his unfortunate "advances", but the fact that he stubbornly continued them for few days despite the girl being completely turned off and freaked out by him.
> "Please don't, this is inappropriate." would stop most such behavior from happening again in huge majority of cases.
It depends. If there are witnesses, sure. But in private, the guy has a choice - treat this seriously and feel bad about what he'd just done or try to downplay it as a tease and continue hitting on her expecting that "things will work out". Some choose the former, some choose the latter. Some really go to great lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong.
Then there is also the question, whether somebody who behaves as if he couldn't even tell if a girl is into him or not should actually be managing a team of people.
> but the fact that he stubbornly continued them for few days without noticing that the girl is completely turned off and freaked out by him.
She says she laughed at the sexual comments made by her manager.
> I remember thinking to myself, “Did I do something to encourage this kind of behaviour?” I had uncomfortably laughed at some of the sexual comments my manager had made because I didn’t know how else to react as a junior member of the team. Should I not have done that?
She laughed uncomfortably because she didn't know how else to react.
Have you never uncomfortably laughed before? It's a pretty typical, and often automatic, reaction to situations for humans. It is also pretty easy to spot. It never ever means I'm totally cool with this; carry on.
Are you really unable to tell when someone is uncomfortably laughing (her words) at some silly remark because everybody around is laughing too versus actually enjoying the joke? Are you really unable to tell when someone doesn't like your company?
I'm a hetrosexual male who's done everything from construction to coding. At every job I've had--workers, mainly guys, but so, so many women too, discuss their sexual life. (In all honestly, women have told me too more personal things (sexual in nature) at work, over men. The big difference is these women had no power over my career.
And the difference is they weren't "hitting" on me. When I was a younger man--yes some where, but I handled the situation. (I guarantee now they are just yacking about sex, and their personal stuff.)The last thing I wanted to hear on a Monday was a story about Shirly's elder son walking in on her and her new boy friend "rattling the bed". I still can't get that image out of my head, and it's been 20 years.
Actually, I have found both sexes guilty of talking about their sex life at work. It could be intimate details of the date you had on Friday night, or how your mate isn't attentive to your needs any more. I've never liked hearing personal stuff about my coworkers. Of course, I never said anything, because it was innocent conversation at the time, but if I was an attractive female, or a young attractive male, I might have thought differently.
Maybe we shouldn't talk about this stuff at work. Personally, I just don't like hearing anything that personal
ever. That's what therapists get paid to suffer through?
I not conflating my experiences with her's; just stating we shouldn't talk about anything remotely sexual--hell--shut up about baby on the way. We see the cute baby bump, or suffer through how hard it was to fertilize the egg. (Guys like me look at it as a tragedy, not something great.) People talk way too much at work. In my experience, most are lonely and don't have close friends, and use workers as free friends, and free therapy. We don't want to hear it. The jokes are worn out. It's just done. Find friends outside of work to dazzle with your stories. I know finding friends is very hard. It's even harder, if all you have concentrated on is work since that first job out of college.
And yes, some are sexual predators. I've seen them in most work places. Ive seen gay managers give special jobs to their boy Friday. I've seen pretty girls promoted--just becase they are pretty. I used to see blatatent sexual harassment, but not in the last fifteen years, but it looks like it hasn't gone away, at least at Google.
Again there's a specific issue about power imbalances. A colleague says some things you don't like it is quite easy to ask them to refrain. With a manager that may not be the case, especially if you're new to the world of work.
Managing people is a responsibility and you can't act like people you have power over are just your colleagues. Perhaps in time if you build up a close working relationship with people you can be friends who do or say things that are more risky - because you've established boundaries.
It's also worth saying that if a colleague is being inappropriate the first stop doesn't have to be HR, it can be a manager - they are there to ensure teams work well. A good manager should even pre-empt the complaint if they observe the inappropriate behaviour. That's what makes it so bad when the manager is the one at fault.
I think your comment is thoughtful and relates to your experience. Once again, I can't understand why it is downvoted... HN quirks, that's what I call it.
I didn't vote it up or down because it's an opinion, but I found the "I wish nobody talked about personal things at work" part to be outlandish to the extent that it made me wonder momentarily if it was a troll.
Personally, I like hearing and sharing with my coworkers about our lives outside of work... to a point. If my partner on-site is having a hard time at home due to issue X, that directly impacts my interpersonal relationship with him/her: were they to blow up at me in a moment of tension, I'd be more comfortable giving them a pass knowing where it might be coming from.
That said, I think it's the "to a point" that's the difficulty here. Because that point is a socially-negotiated line and may be different between different coworkers, in different work contexts or surroundings, or just on different days. And... pardon to say... but "we" (as computer science professionals) aren't renowned for our attention to social cues and ability to navigate and be informed by same.
In short, I feel like sexual harassment training might better be spent training on soft skills / communicating and reading ones coworkers better.
PS: This absolutely applies equally to both parties in the original blog post. With the additional responsibility that the manager, as an individual in a position of authority, has a higher standard to uphold than the employee. Either they misread or ignored signals that these topics made the employee in question uncomfortable, or such signals weren't clearly given. In either case, communication breakdown.
PPS: Simultaneously, I know I produce my best work when I feel like my team (including management above me) knows and communicates with me as more than a cog -- and yes, sometimes this includes crass language / semi-appropriate jokes or stories. In a lot of ways, it's a verbal trust-fall exercise. If I'm uncomfortable with anything, I try to clearly communicate that back to whoever is sharing.
I think sexual harassment and direct flirtation can become confused depending on the perspective of the recipient.
Men have been making advances toward women throughout history and, perhaps to a lesser extent, women do the same toward men.
Far more workplace flings happen than any company (and even many employees) will admit and it often starts with one party or the other making their desires known to the other party. I've also been part of and present for many very graphic conversations in the workplace involving both sexes and none of these, to my knowledge, were never seen as harassment or reported as such.
In reading the linked article the one thing I don't see is where she told the manager "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." Perhaps if she had simply been as direct with him as he was being with her, the entire HR fiasco could have been avoided.
It's telling that the female colleague felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances.
This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR.
I'm sure this won't be a popular view here but I think it's valid.
Edit: Replaced "HR Worker" with "Colleague". As some responders pointed out it was not the HR person who told her she was overreacting (thanks for the corrections).
> It's telling that the female HR person felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances.
It was a female colleague, not HR. According to the article, HR was fully behind her, as they should be.
> This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR.
Not just a colleague, a report. This is what's important. HR would have frowned on a manager making advances on his reports, if nothing else. Especially advances on a new report during her first week.
My friend was in the same position about a year ago, and she told her boss (directly, and in private conversation) that she's not interested, after he didn't interpret a few other subtle hints. She still works there.
Furthermore, she the boss and some other colleagues were cracking jokes about it during a team building event that I was invited to.
Edit: I realise this is anecdotal, but it feels to me like the author of the blog post immediately assumed she's a victim and panicked. Maybe the manager should've been more observant, but pointing fingers is useless without knowing what really happened. We only have her account of the story, which is probably distorted by the discomfort she experienced. This is not to say her discomfort shouldn't be taken into account, and yes I agree that HR should've sided with her, but I don't believe he should've been seriously sanctioned either.
No, your view is not valid. Assuming you actually read the article, you probably didn't read this part:
"In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,” among other wildly discomfiting, work-inappropriate things. Then I was asked to dinner alone."
That racist comment alone is reason enough to get the manager fired right away, let alone the rest of that list.
And no, she doesn't need to say "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." She doesn't even have to say that.
Don't even start using "throughout history" as a justification for anything. A lot of bad things happened throughout history.
Help me understand how it's not appropriate to directly tell someone who is making it obvious that they are attracted to you that you aren't interested. If you make it known that you aren't interested and the person continues. Then it becomes harassment.
So I refute your position. We all have to set boundaries in our relationships and the author of the article is no exception.
There are many cases where your "explicit opt-out" scenario doesn't work:
1- It's not ok for a colleague to assume they can enter your office naked unless you tell them not to. They cannot assume they have your permission to publicly expose their dangly bits near you simply because you didn't tell them they shouldn't.
2- It's not ok for colleagues to take money out of your wallet and use it unless you tell them not to. The default is "no", your wallet is off-limits, and such an action can and will be considered theft.
3- People who are uncomfortable with sexual intimacy (either because that's their personality, or because they are prior abuse victims, or for whatever reason -- they really shouldn't explain themselves to you) should not have to be exposed to unwanted sexual attention at the office, especially in an asymmetrical situation where the other person holds power over them. The reasonable expectation is that the office is not a place for sexual intimacy by default. Note that the boss here has no way of knowing how the victim will feel about sexual intimacy, which explains why the boss should not attempt it at all in the first place.
That's sort of missing the point. Replace "public nudity" with "licking your ears". So your boss likes licking the ears of subordinates. You're trying to have some meeting with him, behind closed doors, and he walks right next to you and suddenly his tongue is in your ear.
"Wait, what's the big deal? Geez! Just tell me if you don't like having your ears licked, there's no need to make a fuss about it. I thought you were a cool guy, but now I see you aren't."
As I understand you, she would have to "opt out" of his advances or otherwise she is implicitly saying "yes", is that how you think?
As I see it, she should not have to "set boundaries" nor should she even have to deal with such advances in any way. It's a working environment and not a dating club! What he did (ask her to sit on his lap) has no place in a professional setting.
Because the default state isn't "everyone is attracted to me unless they say otherwise." It's a workplace environment, and a manager <-> direct report relation. Not flirting or making inappropriate advances should be a given.
You really need to re-read the article. The female HR person did not feel she was "overreacting":
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
While there is no explicit mention by the author of her saying, "I told him to back off", there's also nothing to imply that she accepted her manager's advances: i.e. that she went to dinner with him alone, or actually sat on his lap.
Reporting to HR is not a "fiasco". It is always difficult -- for the reasons the author states -- to deal with advances by a superior. Not just because of fears of losing her job, but also of self-doubt about hurting the company. Pushing back against him beyond not sitting on his lap leads to fear of retribution. HR is as close to a third-party as she can get for this, and the main question is how it could have been headed off earlier.
Your view is not entirely unreasonable in my mind, insofar that we don't know the actual details of what happened. For all we know the guy thought she was flirting back at him and feels terribly guilty about misreading the situation (although I personally doubt it). I've seen (and experienced, but thankfully not like this) countless men and women make these types of mistakes. Communication is difficult, and flirting all the more.
However, and in my opinion it's a very important however, I see two reasons why despite our distance to the situation, we can solidly agree that the manager was out of line:
1. He's a manager. Power is a tricky thing. If you're in a position of power, you need to wield it with responsibility. If it means never having romantic/sexual/flirty interactions with a subordinate, so be it. It's just too risky. My father is a church leader and he never meets women one-on-one, both for his and her 'protection', so to speak.
2. It's a man's world. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where the power dynamics favor men. That also requires some responsibility, as even just superior physical strength unbalances things by default. When I'm walking down a street, I often try to be aware of not 'following' a women if we happen to be going in the same direction (especially if it's a darker or less safe area of town). I do this not because I have to do so, but because I know how unsettling (or scary and threatening) it can to feel like someone is following you, both from stories of my female friends, and from my own (undoubtedly less-scary) experience as a, uh, 'small, skinny boy'.
Now there are not always rules or laws that demand all this of a person, but it strikes me as basic decency to regularly reflect on what 'power' you might have, overt or otherwise, and how this might affect others.
And if someone who is clearly a subordinate feels threatened, then that makes perfect sense. Part of your job as the one in power is to wield it responsibly. That includes the responsibility to make sure there are no 'misunderstandings'.
I'm not going to speak directly regarding the way this individual handled this situation, but in general, if you experience any form of sexual harassment I highly recommend you speak with HR immediately following the incident. Don't allow it to escalate, things can only get worse. Even if it's your first day on the job, you should never feel speaking to HR regarding an incident is a bad idea.
The problem is that often you might not be entirely sure about what's going on. In her case, the kiss in the cheek might just be cultural confusion (in Spanish-speaking countries we do that even with strangers).
Of course, after the lap thing... I don't even have words... How can you treat other people like that.. you are put in a position of power/responsibility and they use it to degrade others..
Well this was in the US, where people do not kiss colleagues on the cheek. I know your intentions are fair in mentioning this cultural practice but that sort of justification also presents a fair amount of minimization of obvious harassment. I mean, do you kiss everyone on the cheek in Spanish-speaking countries or just very close friends?
I live in France, and it is natural to kiss on the cheek.
Recently I was in UK and without even thinking about it I kissed a girl on the cheek to welcome her. After it happened I just realized what was going on. The thing is that it takes some time to reframe your behavior. But I have also been away several months and then it was feeling weird for me to kiss a girl on the cheek.
Also in Italy, everyone. It is just the standard way to present yourself and/or say goodbye. I would also say I am more prone to do it with those people I don't know at all or very well than with my close friends.
In civil society, the expected standard is not that everyone is socially and martially capable and with a razor sharp wit. Unexpected things like these generally make people flustered and confused. If a person has not faced a situation like this before, it can be very hard to come by with a proper response.
The situation is similar to being mugged, or tricked out of money. In general, the common fraud techniques work because people are not overly concerned becoming conned, and the approaches are such they work the first time because they play on the automatic responses peoples have to a situation.
Only after the fact becoming mugged people generally go through a behavioural analysis of how to recognize bad situations and how to get away from them.
In a sexual harassment situation, the initial slow response may be interpreted as a positive sign (and may erode the confidence of the assaulted party).
Yes, she may have not been confronted to such situation. She was new to grown up world. But such things happen generally during your education. And he may have misinterpreted her behavior.
Not an expert on the issue but I imagine if the approached party feels sullied it's a strong case of sexual harassment.
I'm not familiar with sexual predators but I presume the day-day activities are the same as any bullies that succeed in long careers - the offending behavior is subtle and low key, but continuous.
What!? First, it is highly inappropriate for anyone in any leadership or management position to ask anyone to sit on there lap, no matter what their relationship status.
Secondly, making any kind of sexual proposition or advance in the office on someone you are not in a relationship with is sexual harassment.
If you are in a relationship, it's inappropriate and a conflict of interest.
You feel like she is lacking self confidence??? That is just about the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Her manager (aka 'someone with a disproportionate amount of control over her career') asked her to sit on his lap, talked about how 'everyone' has an Asian fetish at some point, and asked her out for dinner alone. She tolerated it up to a point and then went to HR. How in any possible sense of the term can that indicate a lack of self confidence?? And why the hell are you blaming her and not the asshole who put her in that situation???
I'm trying to understand the behavior of the manager, there must be a rational explanation. He knew what it can lead him to. So for me, it may be that he was sexually attracted to her and she may not have shown enough rejection signs (cultural bias between the 2?).
Also I may point that for me the only person in charge for my carrer is me, whatever is my position.
There is no rational explanation for the manager's behaviour. No manager should ever flirt with any direct reports. Ever. There is no way to rationalize the manager's actions. He acted terribly, but was given the opportunity to apologize and took it.
Again I don't want put any judgement, but maybe the lap thing was only a bad joke, it all depends on how it is asked. And maybe there was a misunderstanding between the 2, she could have taking thing too seriously while the manager was trying to lighten the mood.
The only misunderstanding was that one person thought it was ok to harass/make unwanted sexual jokes to a subordinate.
In case of abuse, it's never the victim's fault for having "misunderstood" the situation. The person in a position of power bears all of the responsibility and is the person who should have known better.
No, I think she is a victim, but we are looking to the wrong culprit. She is a victim of her bad education that makes her feel like a victime more that someone with charisma and personality that could have easily respond. That is a big problem with women education.
Just for anyone who reads the comments before TFA, the author does escalate this into reporting it to HR:
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
Maybe you think she should have gone to HR earlier? Hard to say, but there is no hard and fast rule on this... I mean not just that people disagree on what sexual harassment entails, but it's also not easy to see the signs of sexual harassment. For example, let's say on my first day of work, a co-worker asks if I know of any good pho joints. Am I being asked that because I'm Vietnamese? Or is it because this new co-worker has seen me tweet about how much I like pho (and it's just a coincidence that I'm vietnamese)? Or is it because we're in Northern California where there is known to be a decent quantity of pho joints (for America), and asking about pho is not much different than asking about BBQ if you were in the South?
It's possible that such a question is a symptom of deep-seated racism/stereotypes, and that in a hindsight report, I'd be sure to include it as an anecdote to illustrate what was going on even from the first day. But I'd have to admit that I'd be very reluctant to turn this kind of incident into an HR thing -- at that very moment.
In the OP's case...yeah, if she were getting kissed/propositioned on the first day, that would be an HR thing. But if someone were to note how young she was, or what a cute dress she had on...comments that often but not always signify non-professional behavior...I can see why she wouldn't go to HR on the very first day.
HR exists to protect the company. Imagine if you were about to sign a contract and asked to have your lawyer review it; it's obvious that if the company were to say "don't worry, we had our lawyers review it," you would still want your own lawyer.
However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.
You'll quickly run out of jobs that way. HR can almost never be trusted to do "the right thing". Or rather, the right thing for them is to protect their employer.
You should go to HR anyway as a way to strengthen your case and have a documented precedent, but it should never be your plan A. They cannot be counted on to help you directly, because that's not their actual job.
If you've privileged to have adequate savings and good prospects, sure. For a lower-middle-class graduate on their first job it isn't always that simple.
It's a good point. From a purely procedural standpoint, "Discuss with colleague, contact HR immediately if it persists (or immediately if serious enough), then hire lawyer" is impeccable advice.
On the other hand, from an outcomes standpoint, this gets a lot more murky. "I see you recently graduated and worked for Google for a month?" "Yes, I had to leave under difficult circumstances" isn't a great conversation to be having career-wise, right out of college, interviewing for a replacement job. So I empathize with the blogger's confusion as to the right course.
You document that you went to HR concerning the situation wait a week and then contact a lawyer. Or contact a lawyer and then documents it.
This is what I told a family friend who also got the sit on my lap request. Well lets say her husband got laid off for a few years and they weren't in any trouble.
Indeed; never trust HR to do the right thing. HR will choose the approach they believe minimizes risk to the company.
If they believe kicking you out instead of your harasser is less risky they won't hesitate twice to do so. I can confirm that from personal experience.
If you can afford it get legal advice first ... and then go to HR.
I would disagree with this advice. Unless you have a good reason not to trust your particular hr department for this situation, you should put in a good faith effort. Perhaps you could argue that most hr departments are incompetent, but I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.
Also I believe most employment discrimination employees will work on a contingency basis, so you should consider reaching out to them regardless of your financial situation.
I understand the constant refrain from HN of never trust hr, but I think reporting to hr could form a better foundation for a lawsuit. Feel free to contact an attorney first. That is what I would do.
> I cannot imagine a scenario where retaliating against an employee for reporting sexual harassment would minimize a company's risk.
As the initial point of contact for a sexual harassment complaint, beginning to construct a paper trail that explains the superior's behavior and puts blame for the incident on the employee?
I'm not saying this as pro- or anti-HR, just that as the document-keeper of record they have a lot of latitude to influence the narrative if they choose to. Remember: performance reviews tend to go through them at some point as well.
Good point. My point is that if HR were to retaliate against the employee, HR would open the company to a far greater amount of risk.
I think the point should be not to trust HR with the only copies of any documents or evidence. Again, I would argue that if HR does the steps you suggest, they are exposing themselves to much more risk than if they did pretty much anything else. Not to say they wouldn't do it, but that it would be a foolish thing to do.
As a note: the above comments advice is probably specific to the US.
In the UK, for instance, terminating someone for reporting sexual harassment is a very good way of losing a lot of money at a subsequent Employee Tribunal and getting your company fined. There's a lot of great precedent for siding with the reporter, even if other flimsy reasons are given for their termination.
However, the point made is a correct one. An HR person has a duty not to you but to the company, so never assume they have your best interests at heart.
The comment was actually based on experience in the Netherlands; which has similar if not stronger employee protection than the UK.
If your case is as clear-cut as the one in this article you might indeed not need a lawyer but if there's any wiggle room; if it's discrimination and not harassment and the accused is sufficiently important to the company and HR judges that you might not have the energy to file a lawsuit etc. etc. etc. then it's still very easy to end up getting kicked out of the company.
The above advice (grandparent post) is also accurate for countries in Latin America. I vouch for that. HR doesn't have the employee's best interests at heart. It's not that they will actively seek to harm you, of course; it's just that they strive to protect the company at all costs, even if that means undermining you. All other things being equal they will help you, but things are seldom "equal", especially in cases of unjust treatment by a manager, abuse, etc.
In this case, yes. It's in their best interest to protect the company and not the manager; a scandal like this would probably be much more damaging to the company than firing any single executive.
The sad part is that at a lot of companies doing this will mean your time at the company is coming to a close. I've seen co-workers who complain to HR go from being an important team member to being managed out of the organization. It seems that a lot of the time a corporation will remove the culprit along with the victim to keep themselves safe.
Why does nobody seem to be bothered with the apologize and continue as usual outcome? Shouldn't there have been serious implications for the sexual offender?
I have to write this comment pretty carefully to avoid vindicating the offender or blaming the victim. It seems to me like the victim wasn't making it clear that she was uncomfortable (this is not her fault), and perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there. The situation needed to be fixed, but the behaviour mentioned in the article could have been more flirtatious than forced. A zero tolerance policy is just a way of removing the humanity from the situation. Maybe the events weren't so severe to demand that he lose his job, has charges pressed, etc. I don't think we should be calling for his head. I am surprised that she continued to work under his management, though.
It doesn't matter if it was "more flirtatious than forced". A manager should not flirt with their reports. Managers are supposed to be responsible for the growth of their employees; making an employee so uncomfortable with you that they run away from you on sight is a spectacular failure to do your job.
It's harder to enforce judgements on this kind of thing though, because ambiguity exists about the intention. It's much easier to punish clear "do me a favor for the promotion/bonus" situations.
I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best.
I'm just astonished she didn't get an immediate transfer to another group. I would be livid if this was happening and HR didn't remove the power dynamic immediately.
> I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best.
So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love (mutually)? Fire the manager? If not, then your "rule" can't be applied indiscriminately.
Under absolutely no circumstances is it even remotely appropriate for a manager to flirt with any direct reports. It is always 100% wrong and there is never any room for this type of bullshit.
Decisions like that cannot happen in a vacuum so I would have to collect more information. For example, did the manager disclose the relationship to his/her direct manager before the wedding? If so, were there any controls put in place to make sure that the report was treated fairly?
And then, what about the rest of the team? How do they feel about the relationship? Does it hurt their ability to do their jobs? Do they feel they are treated fairly?
The way that you have worded that scenario makes me think that nobody in the organization knew about the relationship before the wedding. In that case, I would likely want to fire the manager, though I can see how that could open up a metric shit ton of litigation, so I may not get my wish.
If I couldn't outright terminate the manager, at minimum, I would make sure that he/she was no longer his/her spouse's direct manager. That might mean a transfer to another department, or it might even mean a demotion.
Perhaps most damaging, I would never particularly trust the manager or his/her judgment again. Continuing to supervise someone who you are in love with is just an incredible conflict of interest. Keeping it a secret and not giving me the chance to make sure that there are controls in place just makes it all the worse.
Just a few notes to my answer:
1.) I am Canadian and Canadian courts have ruled that managers have an implied duty to make sure that the workplace is not poisoned by sexual harassment. Further, they have ruled that managers also have an implied duty to protect the company itself from any sort of harassment claim.
2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
Hm... you wrote your whole post assuming that the manager did something wrong after initiating the relationship (e.g. didn't report the relationship, didn't make sure the team was OK with it, didn't take care of any potential conflicts of interest, ...). My point in mentioning marriage was just that clearly, the subordinate was OK with the whole relationship thing. So, after the fact, the flirting was clearly not wrong/immoral/inappropriate.
So, assuming everything was done correctly ("by the book") after the relationship had begun, would you still consider flirting inappropriate in all circumstances?
> 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
In an ideal world, this would be awesome. In the real world, people fall in love unexpectedly (even if they don't want to). What do you want them to do in that case? Repress their feelings, hide and lie about their relationship, quit their jobs hoping that it was worth it? I firmly believe that reasonable, emotionally mature people are able to handle relationships (and breakups) in a normal, not psychopathic or disturbing way.
> perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there.
Who would ask his love interest to sit on his lap at work?
Do you really think that this is appropriate for even lovers in the workplace?
Even if there was something going there between them, it's unprofessional to flirt and fool around while working. Call me old school or what but we have weekends and off-work hours for these types of activities and everyone should make use of them accordingly.
The aftermath of the events left her pretty shaken, I don't think any of it was mild (sit on my lap, WTF!!). I have seen people allowed to change teams/managers for much much lesser degrees of uncomfortable. At least in the companies I have worked in, it would pretty much guarantee that the manager was made to leave.
This fails for the same reason "stranger danger" fails; in order to get anything done, you must connect on a certain level.
To use your analgoy, you could run a server entirely via port 22. But it can't host a webpage, run game servers, or do much of anything else if it only accepts SSH via 22.
The process of socializing is kind of like vetting another server to see if you can trust them enough to use FTP or whatever. Sometimes, yeah, they screw with you; but not always. And the benefits once you do find someone trustworthy are greater than the chance of a bad actor.
Now, whether or not one should trust coworkers, and how much, is a personal question. You gotta decide that on your own.
If I assumed everyone at work was uncomfortable with everything I might say, then I would be the most boring coworker ever.
This isn't an absolute kind of issue.
If instead you meant "assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything [approaching any kind of sexual tone]", then that's more realistic but simultaneously introduces a lot more gray area.
That's a good way to wind up unhappy and alone at work. Chances are that anyone using that strategy and isn't miserable has a fair number of unspoken assumptions about acceptable behavior, and don't actually use that strategy but are slightly more guarded that normal so they think they do.
"Not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace" was not the assertion. The assertion was "going to such extremes as to guarantee that no claims of sexual harassment could at any time be made against you would make you unhappy and miserable in a workplace".
>It's like a good firewall policy - default block all and then explicitly allow.
It reminded me of the veil (no offence to any culture). And I am sure you don't imply that. But if you advocate the other extreme, then there is always the risk of it going extreme in other direction.
It was super fucking gross. That said, I get the impression that she didn't immediately think to record evidence of his transgressions. In that case, HR usually will have to split the baby because they are ultimately there to protect the company.
If it was the first time this guy has done something wrong, which is kind of unbelievable, then it's not a horrible result. Maybe he really is just that socially backwards that he needed an HR intervention to learn what everyone fucking should know. But the cynic in most of us is saying that this is a pattern of behavior that was probably repeated in a more covert manner.
Absolutely, though I don't think the term 'sexual offender' is appropriate, that is iirc reserved for people that have been convicted of a sexual offense.
My mother worked in an all-male field starting in the 1970s; they didn't even have a women's bathroom at the plant when she started. When something like this happened to her, she was perfectly capable of opening her mouth and telling the person that their behavior was unappreciated.
I don't see where she says she ever even hinted to the manager that his actions were inappropriate. I suspect a single "cut that shit out, stop acting like a damn teenager" might well have stopped this problem in its tracks. But we'll never know.
I read these tales of woe and wonder why people today lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves, rather than resigning themselves to the status of "victim".
See - this is interesting. There is definitely a sense that in "ye olden days" people were stauncher. There's a bit of application of so called common sense where a lot of behaviours can be shut down by addressing them.
Yet you instantly have to recognise that you just blamed the victim for not being more assertive, and not being able to protect themself from something that they should never have to deal with - it's not even close to acceptable behaviour.
I am not unsympathetic to your point, I just kinda wish some consequences would start arising for the seemingly endless tide of entitled pricks who either don't care or don't know any better.
That phrase has lost meaning. Listing things the victim could have done differently or better is nothing but exploration of the causal chain. Blame in any logical or legal sense accrues only to a proximate-cause rule-violator kind of party.
It's because people give the benefit of the doubt and don't want to think you're the kind of guy who blames the weak and powerless when bullies abuse them.
My mother was anything but "weak and powerless". Sure, standing up for yourself isn't "ladylike", and not everyone is willing or able to do it, but the current assumptions are "she is weak and powerless" and "he is a big strong bully". That dynamic is easily changed, but you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
This isn't about your mother. Your mother managed to push the problem onto someone else, which is nice for her. There will always be people who, for whatever reason, don't.
Is your attitude that it's acceptable for these people, who do not push the problem onto someone else, to be sexually assaulted? If it's not acceptable, why is it incorrect for the victim to seek help? If I were burgled, I would seek help. If I were mugged, I would seek help. Why is it incorrect for me to seek help if I am sexually assaulted by a manager?
Furthermore, given that my employer has a duty to ensure a safe workplace, why should I not upbraid my employer for failing in that duty, or advise them of the problem so that they can correct it? If I saw a dangerously loose carpet, I would tell them. If I noticed some buzzing wiring, I would tell them. Why should I not tell them that one of their employees is sexually harassing people?
> Is your attitude that it's acceptable for these people, who do not push the problem onto someone else, to be sexually assaulted?
In a normally common-sense forum here, I'm kind of amazed by the number of comments here that go straight to the nuclear extension of the other's point. Can we assume that we're all against sexual assault here and have a bit more charitable discourse?
> Yet you instantly have to recognise that you just blamed the victim for not being more assertive
Seriously? There's a difference between assigning blame and saying what could be done better. If I tell you that you should maybe next time lock your car after it was stolen, I still believe that the actual thieves are to blame.
My mother also worked in a mostly-male field (programming) from the '60s on forward. She rebuffed people too in the same way that you are talking about -- it was the only way to survive as a female programmer at her company (she worked at the same company for her entire career). She was strong and didn't take bullshit from guys.
But over time she told me that it really wore her down and made her feel negatively about work. Even if people were stronger historically, it didn't mean that the environment was ok, or that it didn't really bother them.
> I read these tales of woe and wonder why people today lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves, rather than resigning themselves to the status of "victim".
Interestingly enough, the author of the article never calls herself a victim or uses the word at all. Sure she was scared, and yeah we don't know what she said to her manager. But she's talking about her feelings about being sexually harassed in a very public forum, subject to all that comes with presenting your viewpoint on the internet. She's encouraging others to speak out about it, presumably to find the "intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves" that you find so lacking in people today.
She's also gone on to co-found a company. That doesn't sound like a victim to me, or a tale of woe.
I don't think sharing your feelings about being sexually harassed means you're acting like a victim. Quite the opposite. You're pointing out that this happens, and that if it happened to you then you're not alone, and it's not ok. There's strength in empathy.
Your mom sounded pretty tough and she undoubtedly dealt with a lot of BS, but I'm certain she would have appreciated someone telling her that that BS was not ok. That's not being a victim or being weak, that's just being human.
A friend of my mother's also worked in a similar all-male environment, and had the same response to advances. It went well - until it didn't, and then it went terribly.
And of course, she didn't publicly tell her "tale of woe" because at the time she wouldn't have just one guy telling her she shared the blame for it, but the whole society. So she suffered in silence. Which is great, because it allowed everyone else - even years later - to pretend it didn't exist, and that people were just braver and stronger, unlike the kids these days.
My mother worked in the oil industry in the 70s and 80s, and these are the exact things she would say. (talk about male-dominated industry!)
Heading off to HR only sweeps the conflict under a bureaucratic rug and never really deals with the problem effectively.
Todays office culture is so toxic, and I fear it will get worse as "trigger warning" and "safe places" graduate from college campuses to the workplace.
Rather, just be a stronger person and call out the bastard to is acting the fool.
Yep. My mom was the first woman in her industry to be certified as a plant operator; the first woman to be on the board that certifies operators, and the first woman to chair the board of certification. When asked if she'd like to be called "chairwoman", her response was "hell, no, I worked too hard to be the damn chairman!"
You should spend less time condemning other people and more time reading what they wrote.
It's great that your mother felt confident standing up to abuse. Not everyone does — and someone early in their career, knowing that their entire life trajectory can be affected by their boss's reviews and networking, is going to feel different than, say, an established figure in the field or a worker at a union shop who can expect their support. The author of this article appears to have gone to Google directly from college and it's only reasonable to worry about jeopardizing your first big job by leaving quickly.
The other thing to pay attention to is the nature of the abuse. It's easy to reject some guy who makes a crude leer in front of witnesses. Her former boss was apparently more subtle than that since he managed to get at least one female coworker to take his side excusing his behavior.
That's not an accident - the men who do this kind of thing usually aren't the crude street-harassers of stereotype and are smart enough to pick women who are more likely to be vulnerable while leaving as little clear evidence as possible.
> You should spend less time condemning other people and more time reading what they wrote.
You could spend less time assuming I didn't read everything. The attitude of "saying she should stand up for herself, at least once, before going to HR" is hardly "condemning".
Your comments have been consistently dismissive and peppered with the vocabulary to match: referring to whingers, scare quoting “victims” or using phrases like "culture of victimhood”, tossing in snide references to Tumblr, etc.
Again, it's great that your mother was able to successfully break a barrier. That doesn't mean everyone will also have success as easily using the same approach or that it's ever reasonable to dismiss someone else's life experience because you think they should have been more confrontational despite knowing so little about her situation and the power dynamics involved.
When something like this happened to her, she was perfectly capable of opening her mouth and telling the person that their behavior was unappreciated.
Good for her. What happened next was that the offender moved on to someone else, and when they found someone who wasn't so confident as your mother, sexually assaulted her.
It's nice that you wonder why people don't stand up for themselves, but you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim. It is interesting that you imply that in previous generations, there were no victims. This does not tally with the evidence I have that indicates that sexual assault and other such crimes have been with us for a long time.
> What happened next was that the offender moved on to someone else, and when they found someone who wasn't so confident as your mother, sexually assaulted her.
Uh, no, but I can see how your expectations have been molded to believe this is the only possible "thing that happened next".
> but you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim.
No accident. The "victim" shares the responsibility of standing up for themselves. This culture of victimhood has helped no one but Tumblr.
"No accident. The "victim" shares the responsibility of standing up for themselves. This culture of victimhood has helped no one but Tumblr."
A sexual harassment is analogous to a situation where a person hits another person, the other person fails to duck/block and gets hit in the face. I really can't see how the victim could be responsible for getting hurt.
The fact that some people have practiced the art of boxing and could have avoided it easily does not change this situation.
Person-to-person interaction is quite different from feeling victimized due to a general phenomena.
I was 'merely asked for a beer' once by a big hairy guy who had stalked me in a public swimming area. And I'm a straight male. I can tell you, sexual harassment is kinda like porn - you know what it is when you feel it.
Uh, no, but I can see how your expectations have been molded to believe this is the only possible "thing that happened next".
Do you think your mother was so special that a man who attempted to sexually assault her tried it that one time only, on her only? While it's not impossible, the balance of probability very much suggests that a man willing to try this on your mother is willing to try this on other women as well.
As an aside, this is a text interface. There is no need to represent in text exactly what comes out of your mouth. You need not begin your sentences with "Uh".
Why do you place the word "victim" in quotes? Do you suggest that they are not victims?
> It's nice that you wonder why people don't stand up for themselves
It also may be that people today don't want to stand up for themselves because they risk that the other party will play victim. There is this other comment which says that if she punched him, she would risk an assault accusation.
Maybe it's the whole "somebody has to be a victim" mentality? Maybe it's lot less clear cut in most cases.
I have to say, I would much prefer women to simply slap the men who do these uncomfortable things. I don't see anything wrong with it. Now if this would escalate afterwards, perhaps then should courts (or other institutions) be involved.
> you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim
I don't agree, the people who think that are the ones making an error, and we shouldn't accommodate them.
How can we have an honest discussion about what is moral and what not, if we have the need to blame somebody? The blame can only come after it is decided what action is immoral, and understanding circumstances. Assigning who is a victim in advance prevents this understanding.
> It is interesting that you imply that in previous generations, there were no victims
I don't think he does, it's the faulty reasoning of yours (as you say in the previous sentence) that leads to conclusion that there is always 100% victim and 100% perpetrator.
> the evidence I have that indicates that sexual assault and other such crimes have been with us for a long time
I agree, that is very much true. But there is also other side of the coin, people (of both sexes!) are taking risks to get good sexual partners, it's just human nature. Ignoring the fact that people sometimes risk (and it fails!) in the interest of declaring somebody a victim does no good either.
I mean, even if you move the boundary of what is acceptable in society (in either direction), there will always be people who will risk to cross the boundary, because that risk pays off. So I am not sure what is bigger involvement of institutions in these matters going to resolve.
It's one of the blind spots of left and feminism (I am leftist), we don't want to hear about people who do take risks (because it's slightly irrational, after all), because our ideology cannot deal with them in any meaningful way.
And personally, I see the mere existence of bosses (and human social hierarchies in general) as a bigger problem, of which sexual harassment is only a symptom.
The universal rate of sexual harassment of females is 31%[1]
in Silicon Valley it is 60%[2]. The restaurant industry is notorious for sexual harassment and their rate of harassment from superiors is 66%[3] - about par with Silicon Valley.
So, yes, it is a problem in Silicon Valley - and ignorance of the severity of the problem is a large part of the problem (you'll find a lot of research on sexual harassment in other industries but very little on tech and SV in particular).
The 60% number refers to "unwanted sexual advances", not sexual harassment. Only 30% received unwanted sexual advances more than once, so that seems like a solid upper bound on actual sexual harassment.
If you consider even a single unwanted sexual advance to be harassment then you get silly conclusions which I expect you don't endorse. For example, I've been "harassed" repeatedly by fatties and gay guys in the past few weeks - they approach me and go away when I display disinterest. Pune and Bombay are so unsafe for men!
> The 60% number refers to "unwanted sexual advances", not sexual harassment.
Right, this is why I stopped reading the article after the first sentence and flagged it. One-off unwanted sexual advances are not only not sexual harassment, they're specifically exempted by law from being so.
> The EEOC has defined sexual harassment in its guidelines as:
> Unwelcome sexual advances ..
> Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment
It's right in the first two lines - what am I missing?
Which is why I quoted the third point, as it covers both the OP and the Women In Tech survey
It would be an extremely narrow definition to attempt to carve out unwanted sexual advances, especially from a superior, in a workplace not being sexual harassment.
I definitely agree that unwanted sexual advances sometimes constitute sexual harassment. I don't think it's at all clear that all the incidences talked about in the survey constitute sexual harassment. I don't mind if you disagree on this point, which is a less weird position than the one you stated earlier.
The second statistic says it's about "unwanted sexual advances", not "sexual harassment". Not being interested isn't the same as being sexually harassed.
Edit: The way the page is written makes it hard to understand what most of it actually means, but if I interpret it correctly 50% of 65% of 60% received sexual advances from a superior more than once. So about 20% had experience of a boss failing to take a hint.
Unwanted sexual advances "from a superior" is the bit that makes it harassment. You can ask out a co-worker but you don't ask out people where there is a power imbalance in the relationship, it's not rocket science.
"The owner of the company I work for approached me in the car park and asked me to dinner, it made me feel incredibly uncomfortable and I felt my career depending upon saying yes"
"The owner of the company I work for approached me in the car park and asked me to dinner, I said to ask again nearer the time"
Fortunately for Bill Melinda went with option 2. Had she gone with option 1...
Unfortunately the problem is that it relies on the other person, which is why many places have policies about this sort of thing.
I'm starting to think that I am (or we, men, are) blind to this. If it happens as much as is reported (I don not work in SV, but I'd guess Eastern-ish Europe would be worse), then it must happen before out eyes, or even worse, we are the ones doing it. I honestly can't think of such incident, but this suggest that there were many that I simply ignored, didn't see them as such.
edit: To make it clear, I definitely didn't witness incidents like kissing and lap sitting.. but more subtle ones might come under my radar.
The main thing to remember is that much of it is done by men who are smart enough not to be easily caught. The rest of us don't see things happening because they're careful not to have witnesses, or try to have some plausible excuse.
That leads to the other side of how toxic this is: if you're harassed, how do you know who's safe to tell? It's probably safer not to tell other men if you don't want to risk finding out that they're part of the problem or just unsympathetic without unrealistic levels of proof.
> I'm starting to think that I am (or we, men, are) blind to this.
Nobody's blind to that. Most of the time it's just that nobody wants to get involved in cases like that. For all one knows ones could be accused of doing nothing about it. So people prefer "not to see" and "not to know", just like in blatant cases of racism at work. So it's not blindness , it's just individualism.
> but I'd guess Eastern-ish Europe would be worse
Why just Eastern Europe ? I'm French and sexual harassment is an endemic issue. Same in Italy. We might have stronger laws against it but good luck when it comes to proving it happened in a court of law.
It's not really useful to single out Eastern Europe. The problem is everywhere; its manifestations are just different.
Eastern Europe for example has much less of a glass ceiling problem but gender roles are stricter and but racism and homophobia are orders of magnitude worse.
In the Dutch workplace (where I'm from) homophobia is for example much less of an issue; but racism is still pretty ingrained and while there are less strict divisions in gender roles but the glass ceiling for women is much stronger.
You don't have to go to Eastern-ish Europe for that. I've spent some time in offices around London over the last couple of years and I've found that it's much more likely to witness sexually-charged conversation in the IT workplace than here in the US.
It does happen and I've seen it, I had to take my own manager to one side when I was team leader and explain to him his behaviour was unacceptable and he'd likely end up with an HR complaint.
In that case it was jokes that I don't think had any malice but would definitely look bad in front of HR.
He was a good manager, he also had a really twisted and dark sense of humour which was fine with me since I did as well but you have to remember that what's funny to you might not be to someone else sometimes.
I suspect that while Silicon Valley has slightly more instances of this behavior than other industries (due to lots of startups running without adult supervision), the perception is amplified by the victims being more likely to have blogs or other ways to speak up about it.
I'm intrigued by the downvote. I've seen lots of misogynism in less technical industries and much less in some large mature technology organizations. Does the downvoter disagree that the behavior in Silicon Valley gets more attention? I haven't been in Silicon Valley myself in over ten years, so I don't know what it's like there. I just see lots of bad behavior in other regions and industries that's not blogged about.
That's a pretty terrible data point because of how biased it is.
It's like saying that everyone who abandoned a certain film halfway says the film is bad and concluding that most people in general hate the film: your data points are coming from a group who almost exclusively hated the film in the first place: they're not representative of the entire population.
Having read the article, nothing there explains why you feel that using a sub-group that self-selected for a particular characteristic we're examining is a better sample of a population than a randomly selected one.
As I re-read the paragraph I just wrote above, I can't feel but be amused by your suggestion that I should examine my own sample bias despite your blind defense of your own; in other words: your presumption that somehow yours is "better" or "truer".
You've already got the randomly selected sample, it's linked to in the original article. The figure was 60%. You've got the article explaining why there's a discrepancy between the number of public leavers and the numbers in the study. This isn't some matter of moral equivalence or even intellectual debate, no matter how much you would like it to be.
But I can see we're unlikely to make much progress on this front.
> It's probably worse in all sectors where women are a small minority.
It would be interesting to see if the data supports that statement. Is there less sexual harassment in education or medical professions where women are the majority ? According to my experience, I don't think so.
What kind of comparison do "they" have, though? And is it more than a couple of anecdotes amplified by the popularity of the medium they were posted on? Also consider we are on a tech site, so we are more likely to consume tech media which is more likely to report harassment of women in tech.
In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time”
holy frack - that's insane - and no way the first time they've said these things in front of other people before with no-one challenging the behavior as unacceptable
easy guide for men: if you wouldn't say it to a friend's daughter, or someone saying it to your daughter, don't say it to any woman you aren't in a personal relationship
I'd like to preface this comment by saying I'm not confident in my opinion, and I'm very open to discussion and to changing my stance.
My understanding is that the manager's actions would likely be considered low level harassment, tipping towards misconduct considering the short duration (1 week) and minimal resolution attempts outside of HR. Definitions are hard for this subject, but my understanding is the phrase escalates with severity from misconduct->harassment->assault.
I agree that the manager was in the wrong, but I worry about a culture that cannot readily distinguish the severity of conduct, and in-turn come up with an appropriate response.
In this scenario, I feel going to HR was appropriate, but I also feel this writing takes an overly hostile tone, instead of one focused on improvement. I'd find this tone appropriate if there were more pushback from HR, or if harassment continued and HR wouldn't help resolve. But as far as I can tell, OP is happy with HRs response.
Perhaps instead we can explore what HR can and should do to prevent self-confidence issues at the conclusion of these investigations? To me, that would be more beneficial than asking others to pursue a path which - all things being similar - results in self-doubt.
I understand your point of view, but I feel like we often underestimate the level of harm that some types of misconduct can cause. A workplace should never tolerate any type of harassment (and few workplaces do).
It's not just the act itself, it's also the act in the current historical context (institutional inequality) and work context (workplace power inequality).
Unfortunately the effects on OP are probably much bigger than we expect because of the way we are socialized, our culture, etc. Some might say that it's not the guy's fault that our society is so imbalanced, but I think we should be more conscious about this in general. To prevent the self-confidence issue, we could probably fix our education and general culture, but in the short term we could just not harass women at work. That's a pretty easy short term solution :)
What happened to the woman in the article was unacceptable _if_ she clearly signaled she wasn't interested. On the other hand some women now think "Why won't that cute guy come hit on me?, is he shy or gay?" No he is worried you will report him for harassment. Forget ever trying to date someone from work it's a minefield (as is dating in general!).
It's unacceptable because of the manager-subordinate relation.
And you can't put the burden on women to actively signal that they are not sexually interested in a professional setting. That's at best a large distraction for them, and at worst very draining and emotionally damaging.
Is the term "sexual harassement" appropriate here?
It'd be interesting to hear the manager point of view on this issue. We have only one side of the story here. Maybe the manager genuinely thought this was a case of mutual flirting there.
"A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful."
"The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. "
General rule of thumb is that a manager should never flirt or make advances to his direct reports, because the power imbalance and potential for confusion there is just too great.
Even if it was mutual, HR would probably have moved either her or him to a different team if their relationship had progressed.
As somebody that has endured the same the other way round - being hit on by many (even married) female colleagues, HR girls, having a female manager attempting to invite me to her room in the hotel, girls repeatedly stalking me at my apartment, e.g. after I performed on a piano at a party, even just meeting random girls that would dump their boyfriends on the spot, completely shaking with excitement (me and her BF just look at each other with disbelief: "Is this really happening?"), dozens of girls telling me I am their "Mr.Perfect" etc. I can relate to her plight. However, she at least has some recourse; if I wrote a blog about my experiences I'd become a laughing stock of the Internet. Sometimes I think redpillers/AFBB got something right, which is shaking me to the core... There are some very dark areas of both male and female sexuality...
Win everything you can as a kid whether it is sports or scientific competitions, then decide it's not worth it (winner is the lonely one), grow in an environment where girls are looking like supermodels so you aren't intimidated by their looks and can talk to them normally and just don't care that much about them, learn as many arts as you can, like playing an instrument, how to use chiaroscuro, how to make pro photography, direct movies, make computer games and cool graphics, run your own businesses, be amongst top students of your universities, be very tall, have a nice personality with very firm boundaries, go deep into conversations with girls then eject to avoid boredom on both sides, be surprising, don't be needy, nerdy, geeky, abrasive or inept, have a sister that tries to break your frame since you were child but was never successful, have a vision you follow and push for a better world, learn at least 6 foreign languages, travel around the world, be fit, be able to tell off declining people with perceived power over you when they behave like retards in front of everyone etc. Have fun! :-P
> if I wrote a blog about my experiences I'd become a laughing stock of the Internet
So write a blog post on what lead you to such abundance :)
OK, so I officially admit to being a naive fool, as apparently somebody downvoted even that.
> go deep into conversations with girls then eject to avoid boredom on both sides
That's a big mindfuck for attractive girls used to needy guys like this Google manager desperately hitting on them whether it's fun or not. You may want to cut them some slack if they go crazy after that :) Generally, I think I found Strauss' The Game quite enlightening in this regard. It shows kinds of bullshit and drama I'd never realized that women are going through.
Stand too close in an elevator or inline at the canteen? Thats harassment.
Getting caught looking looking at a female coworkers boobs? Thats harassment.
The problem is that at the end of the day it is all up to how that female employee "feels." If she is especially sensitive, then everyone around her has to walk on eggshells.
Why can't anyone have a sense of humor about any of this?
I think I'm going to watch 9 to 5 with Dolly Parton tonight, just to remember a time when people had a sense of humor about dealing with toxic office culture.
I don't think holding a door has ever been seriously considered harassment. Yes, some people do get upset by it.
> Wink ;-) in an email or IM?
If you need emoticons in professional correspondence you should probably rethink what you're trying to say. I also don't think an emoticon has ever been considered harassment.
> Tell an off-color joke?
A. What's your definition of off-color?
B. Unless you're a comedian, you probably shouldn't be telling racist/sexist/offensive jokes at work anyway.
> Complement female coworkers outfit?
Unless you're working in fashion I don't think you have any reason to do this, especially if it's not someone you wouldn't consider a friend. Here's a good rule: If you don't have a "chat on the weekends" type of relationship with someone, you probably shouldn't be commenting on their personal appearance at work.
> Stand too close in an elevator or inline at the canteen?
I think everyone can imagine that this has been done intentionally to make someone uncomfortable, especially in an elevator or in line.
> Getting caught looking at a female coworkers boobs?
Of course it's harassment, Jesus.
> Why can't anyone have a sense of humor about any of this?
I know, right?! I mean, I was just standing half an inch away from you in an empty elevator, commenting on how you were dressed and staring at your chest. Have a sense of humor about it!
...I think we have butted heads in other threads... ;-)
I get emojis from our legal and marketing teams all the time. It is a part of office culture in many / most places I would imagine.
Here is my off-color joke:
Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. One. AND THATS NOT FUNNY!
Yes, I can complement anyone I like. I don't need to have a pre-existing relationship to do so.
Here is the problem -- there are so many unintentional actions that occur. I might be in a hurry and reach across someone in the canteen. Rude? Perhaps. Harassment, nope.
> Yes, I can complement anyone I like. I don't need to have a pre-existing relationship to do so.
What if the other person doesn't want to hear your opinion or complements regarding a personal quality of his/her, would you stop and keep it to yourself or just keep embarrassing yourself till someone puts you in your right place?
Come on, that is bullshit. Simply, don't go out of your way to be an asshole. Genuine compliments are fine. Leering is wrong. Sexually suggestive comments or winks in emails are wrong. Don't treat anyone as a lesser form of life. This is so fucking simple and it makes for a better work environment for all.
You are wrong. Sexual harassment laws are somewhat tipped in the victim's favour, but only because law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour. This is not about laws favouring women, it is just about how the law works.
Simply, the victim's feelings matter.
There is a difference between a wink and a wink after something sexually suggestive. If you can't understand that difference then yeah, there's nothing else I can say.
And there in lies the problem -- we are legislating about "feelings."
We have delegated to the state what our personal responsibility should have been all along.
"Hey, asshole -- keep it in your pants or I will tell the whole office that you went through an Asian-fetish. Now can we discuss this TPS report or not?"
Secondly, a wink after something sexually suggestive is a little redundant, wouldn't you say?
You have stopped trying to be productive and are just being argumentative now. Your third and fourth paragraphs are in particularly poor taste.
I don't understand what is so difficult here. Her manager harassed her and the fear and embarrassment that she felt were real. If the genders were reversed, the result would have been the same. That is because in a civilized society, if you act in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, there needs to be accountability.
> Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).
That is only in the criminal system. And, that truism has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even in the criminal system, if you yell, "I'm going to kill you" and run at me with a knife, you may feel that you are joking. But, if I feel fear for my physical safety, my feeling of fear overwhelms your feeling that it was a joke.
You're also not thinking through the entire system. You seem to be under the belief that criminal/tort law requires an actual physical injury. That is simply not the case.
> So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed?
> Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.
And, that is why we have lawyers and judges.
Consider laws about assault. Assault does not require actual physical harm in order to be a criminal or tortious act. It only requires two elements:
- the assaulter needs to demonstrate intent. This requires more than words.
- the victim needs to feel fear for his/her safety.
Or, let's consider laws about sexual harassment. In the United States, simple teasing is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it creates an offensive or hostile work environment. The feeling has to be justified (hence the role of judges and lawyers), but it is still all about feelings and reactions.
You should read the US civil rights act. It's well written and quite interesting.
I think it's obvious but I'm neither American not a lawyer.
So what are you supposed to do if you are attracted to someone at work, never make a move? Women need to be more forgiving and take it as a compliment, unless someone continues after a clear rejection (which is the definition of harassment).
First, I have been in work relationships and they aren't all they are cracked up to be. They make coworkers uncomfortable and create all sorts of weird situations that my little monkey brain can't process. Unless you are very very strict about boundaries (ie - from 8-5 we are at work, we only work, and outside of those hours we are only in a relationship and we don't talk about work), these relationships are a minefield.
Seriously, if they go bad, they go very bad. If they work, they can be great. But please be careful!
That aside, it depends on your relative levels and how closely you work together.
1. If you are a manager who is attracted to one of your reports, it is never acceptable to flirt. If you can't resist, quit your job first.
2. If you are attracted to your manager, be very very careful. He or she may worry that they have harassed you and that kind of worry makes any sort of positive resolution very difficult. There's a good chance that one of you will end up transferred to a totally unrelated team. If you like your job, it isn't worth taking this kind of a crapshoot.
3. If you are at the same level, ask yourself if you are mature enough to maintain a good working relationship if he or she rejects you. Then, take some time to think over the worst case scenarios. How will you react if you two date for a year, you are madly in love and he or she breaks up with you?? Will you let that boil over into your work world?? What if there is infidelity? What will you talk about outside of work?? If you only have work in common, tread lightly - one of you will move up or out. Then what?? What happens if he or she gets promoted? Will you feel jealous or proud?? Once you have thought carefully about those things, tell him or her how you feel (preferably outside of work hours) and ask him or her out. If the date goes well and you want to go on another date, tell your manager quickly. If the date goes horribly, be cool and don't let it change the working relationship.
Also, for the love of whatever you consider holy. If all goes well, don't do any of that cute dating bullshit at work!! Don't hold hands. Don't call each other pet names. Don't get caught making out in the supply closet!!! :)
You do not need a "clear rejection" to make something harassment. If I've never spoken to someone but I spend ten minutes a day staring at her chest, that's harassment.
If I ask someone out, they say yes, and keep rescheduling 100 times, me continuing to ask them out and not take the (subtle, non-obvious) hint is still harassment.
If you are leering at someone day in and day out that is harassment. Is that really a difficult point to understand?
I'm not talking about a glance because a woman is wearing a new shirt. That's not harassment, nobody ever said it was, and asserting otherwise is a straw man. But ogling the hot girl every day is.
Well I'm a married heterosexual man, so the universe of "hot guys I like" is pretty small.
And I don't know why you insist on continuing to argue against points I'm not making. I'm saying continued unwanted advances = harassment, regardless of the existence or lack of "clear rejection." If you flirt with someone at work (what exactly are you being paid to do?) and they reciprocate, it's not unwanted. If you do it once and they don't reciprocate, and you stop, it's not continued.
Reciprocation will be more likely if the person making the advance is more attractive relative to target of the advance. I'm sure there is a mathematical formula for this.
1. There's a lot of typical victim blaming, downplaying, and "why didn't she just ask him to stop" comments on this submission, and it saddens me. Many of the reactions here are a large part why so many women feel uncomfortable and unwelcome in tech.
2. This is partially why HR exists. HR isn't just there to handle payroll. More people should do this, rather than let things fester or ignore things that should be reported.
HR ONLY EXISTS TO PROTECT THE COMPANY. They are not there for you or to support you or to even support the truth. They will almost always without fail support the manager over the IC. I feel like we shouldn't let people graduate college until they know this. It sucks, but it's the truth.
She admits in that piece that she shouldn't have laughed at jokes that made her uncomfortable. So I suggest people/women keep themselves out of situations like this by being honest and upfront with their colleagues in the first place. If that doesn't work, go to HR. Simple as that.
> In hindsight and with more experience, I now can say, “Yes, I shouldn’t have tolerated even a little bit of misogyny or mistreatment. I should’ve immediately given him feedback that it made me feel extremely uncomfortable.” But regardless of my own reactions, the fact remains that sexual harassment should never have happened in the first place.
Women don't(in some cases: don't want) to realise that they can send out misleading signals, which itself would not be an issue if they would clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate.
Men might do something physical without any bad intentions and women might interpret them otherwise.
Here is how I see it:
If someone violates your intimate space, send a subtle signal that it's not okay: move away, turn away or do a grumpy cat impression.
If the person does not understand the subtle signal, use words.
If words fail, contact the authorities.
I'd wish we could move away from the one dimensional "males in tech are sexist" angle onto something more scientific. However, judging by the tile of the post, we are galaxies away from that.
> Women don't(in some cases: don't want) to realise that they can send out misleading signals, which itself would not be an issue if they would clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate.
Sigh. This is nonsense.
Men don't, or don't want to, realize they frequently misinterpret so-called "signals", or don't pay attention to them at all. There's a sad truth that women actually send signals men completely miss, while men actually pick up signals that were never sent.
A woman should never have to expend extra effort to clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate. An easy way to guarantee this is to constantly be mindful of your actions and never do anything inappropriate.
General rule of thumb as a man: treat physical interactions with women in the workplace the same way you do other men in the workplace--inherently non-sexual. Second rule of thumb: all that sexual conversation you might be used to having with other men--don't do it with women.
It's for this reason that expecting the victim of unwanted behaviors to send subtle signals first is pretty silly. If we're going to suggest anything, let's not go with something subtle and ambiguous that is likely to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by the person who is already behaving inappropriately. Instead, let's opt for expecting something like this:
That's fucking offensive. Don't ever fucking do that again. This is your only warning.
Pretty clear. Straight to the point. Pony up an apology, or admit that you're being a lecherous fuck.
Don't feel comfortable being direct? Go directly to HR.
Don't have HR? Give that "fuck off" directive a go. Worst case outcome? You realize this isn't the place for you and move on.
---
> Men might do something physical without any bad intentions and women might interpret them otherwise.
Bullshit. Here are examples of "something physical without any bad intentions" that are pretty impossible for women to misinterpret:
- high fives
- fist bumps
- shaking hands
- a pat/slap on the upper back or shoulders to say good job
- a light punch/slap to the arm in an obviously playful way (probably only best with well-known company that already trusts you)
Oh, and if you actually are paying attention and notice a woman recoil in any way from these types of interactions: make a mental note to not do that again. There's probably something in her past experiences that makes her uncomfortable with this, and it really doesn't put you out at all to remain mindful of that as you interact with her in the workplace.
Here are examples of "something physical" that cannot hide behind "no bad intentions":
- touching a woman anywhere, in any way, not covered above
- kissing a woman anywhere, in any way
- asking a woman to sit on your lap
- positioning yourself in such a way next to a woman that you intentionally make physical contact of an intimate sort
Why? Because women can fucking tell when you're making an advance. And men cannot hide behind a silly schoolboy's defense of "mixed signals".
After almost 35 years of life as a heterosexual man who doesn't have much trouble with women, here are a few general rules and suggestions on how to handle interactions with women to ensure you don't ever "misread" signals. I'll give them in a half-assed order of importance.
General rules:
1. Treat every woman with absolute respect as a person, not as a sex object, every time.
2. Don't interpret or estimate your probability-of-fucking.
3. Trust that women don't really ever play "hard to get". Ever.
4. Trust that women will make it very clear when they're inviting you to increase physical intimacy.
5. Understand that just because a woman smiles or is nice/polite/kind/open, doesn't mean she is saying, "I want to fuck you."
6. If in doubt, ask don't act.
General suggestions:
1. Allow a woman to set the tone of physical intimacy. Reply in like kind.
It's really, really, really easy to tell if a woman is physically/sexually/romantically interested in you as an adult. She will typically do more than simply "send signals". If a woman trusts you enough to touch you on the arm, it's probably okay to touch her arm. That doesn't mean it's okay to rub her arm. If she touches you on the leg, it's probably okay to touch her on the leg. But feel free to ask, cos there's no harm in that. She might be doing it subconsciously, and you'll be able to alert her to this without groping her leg and making her feel assaulted. If she's rubbing your arms and legs, that's a pretty unmistakable indication that she's feeling safe, trusting, and probably okay with you returning the same level of physical touch. But that doesn't mean you should grab her breasts and jam your tongue into her mouth.
At the club on the dance floor? Don't walk up and start grinding some woman with your junk. If the lady wants to grind, she'll make the move. And then she might want to go do the same on some other guy. C'est la vie. Why? Because she's often just out to have a good time, not find someone to go home with. If she is looking for someone to go home with, follow the directives above and you'll be certain to never find yourself the perpetrator of a sexual assault or harassing behavior.
2. Just because you like feeling like a piece of meat, doesn't mean she does.
I have experienced, on more than a few occasions, a relatively unknown female coworker telling me I have a nice ass, or some other such physical attribute. Cool. Flattering. My response: laugh it off. I don't turn around and say, "Well, your ass is damn fine, too." Accept the compliment. For whatever reason, some women think it's okay to do that. And they can be the same women who would be offended if you did it to them. Big deal. That's how it is. They know when they're attractive, because every fucking dude in the world tells them so. Don't ever be that guy--unless you're actually in a relationship with her; then, by all means, tell her all the time. Just steer clear of making comments to a woman in the workplace about her appearance. 100% guaranteed success rate there.
3. Physical intimacy doesn't belong in the workplace.
This one's pretty damn easy. Even when I've been in a serious relationship with a coworker, we never brought that into the workplace. There's no need to kiss in the office. Or have my girlfriend sit on my lap. Or touch her in an intimate spot. It's the fucking workplace. Treat it as such. All the more fun when you get home later. It can wait.
---
I seriously cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 2016.
> Men don't, or don't want to, realize they frequently misinterpret so-called "signals", or don't pay attention to them at all. There's a sad truth that women actually send signals men completely miss,
The sad truth, is that (some) men are bad at receiving signals and (some) women are bad at sending them.
> while men actually pick up signals that were never sent.
Some women(and men) subconsciously send out signals that can be interpreted as an invitation, especially if we are talking about people from different cultures.
> After almost 35 years of life as a heterosexual man who doesn't have much trouble with women, here are a few general rules and suggestions on how to handle interactions with women to ensure you don't ever "misread" signals. I'll give them in a half-assed order of importance.
Some people actually do have a problem with reading other people. There are a lot of them in tech.
> I seriously cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 2016.
Society is moving constantly and there are problems that will just never go away, because it's just hardwired to our monkey brain.
I am in no way excusing sexism and harassment, however I see that reality is more complicated than "men evil, women good".
If we go down the path of stigmatizing men and come up with more severe laws to punish them, the divide that caused this mess will only get bigger.
A lot of time sexual harassment == someone i'm not attracted to flirting with me. If it was a 6 foot handsome guy then it would be highlight of the week.
This problem happens in every industry, tourism and hospitality is full of these cases as far as I heard even by people I personally know.
The Silicon Valley situation is more visible for the simple reason that diversity is still a problem, so having so few girls makes this a huge problem and a barrier hard to overcome for women. I feel truly sorry for all the female colleagues having troubles with bosses and colleagues harassing or also bullying them (have you ever heard somebody saying: "she's a girl, let's give her this task b/c is very trivial").
If you think that women are somehow immune to this behaviour you are very naive. Stereotype of older women superior hitting on young men has not appeared from thin air.
From my wife's experience, older women superiors are way too busy making the professional life of younger women a living hell and they don't have much time and energy left to harass young men.
I assume you're kidding but if you're not: you run the risk of being fired for physical assault, whether or not you're in the right.
In any case, as reported in the article, people in that situation are more likely to be paralysed by shock and doubt. A blunt, self-assured response in the moment is unlikely.
I don't agree, but upvoting because I think it is worth discussing the idea that women get attacked like this (and that's what sexual harassment is) because the men think they can bully the women. Perhaps not a punch in the face, but a clear shove away may go a long way towards making the point.
I am also suspicious of approaching HR first. Perhaps a lawyer has written about how to handle this online, especially what and how to document, how to handle any witnesses, etc., but if not I would hope my wife would talk to a lawyer first. I guarantee that HR knows how to handle the incident, but they are working on behalf of the company. That doesn't mean they are working on behalf of the manager, though, so they can be at least half-trusted (IMHO). But I would still prefer that my wife have her own source of knowledge on this situation.
Agree. There's a clear escalation path for this kind of thing. First time something weird happens, ignore it as a possible misunderstanding / off day. Second time, make a clear verbal rejection. Third time forward, you're dealing with a pattern of clearly unwanted behavior so everything gets documented in writing and reported to HR. If HR doesn't address the situation in a week or so, bring in the lawyers.
I don't think the idea that corporations aren't going to exist by the end of the century has any basis in reality. What evidence do you have to suggest that?
And if you could explain it without needlessly hostile phrases like "fuckers in HR" or "sissy ass," that's probably for the best.
You've taken this thread in a personally (and increasingly) rude direction. Please don't do that in HN comments. Comments should be civil and substantive or not posted in the first place.
Perhaps. She did not live long enough to experience the "culture of victimhood" herself, so I can't say what she would have done. I do know she wasn't fond of the idea in the 70s and 80s, and regularly eschewed the notion that she was any different from any of the men with whom she worked. But the fact that she was a "quiet" feminist, that did things, rather than talking about doing things, leads me to believe you may be correct. She was not a whinger.
I read an interesting article on a woman who had been raped (intercourse while sleeping, waking up in the middle) and for her (emphasis on that being the case for her) the worst thing was that everyone was telling her "You must be destroyed by this, right?".
Basically, what she thought was the worst thing about the whole thing was that everyone accentuated that she was now a worse version of herself since she had been raped.
This is sort of what you were doing when you said "She must've". It's probably not in anyone's interest to actually decide what another person can or should feel, so maybe that's a lesson that needs to be learned as well. Let someone express themselves and refrain from saying "He/she/you must...".
To add for clarification:
I'm not saying this is an argument against or for anything other than placing feelings on someone that they "must/should" have.
Yes, because google as a entity would've been able to kiss her on the cheek. a company isn't capable of executing the type of harassment that she is complaining about. But whatever, down-voted to hell by a community as a toxic as reddit simply because of a difference in opinion.
oh please, she's fine. she used it as an excuse to shamelessly plug her company, if anything it served as jet-fuel for her. I stand by my point - the company did not directly harass her but a member of the company did. If she was as hurt as she claimed to be she wouldn't ever reference google as a place where she used to work. And none of you have offered any replies of any substance, merely snide, malicious comments in an attempt to lower me to your level.
> a company well-known for its “Do no evil” culture
This was their motto a decade back and what they are doing does not reflect it even remotely. I'm pretty sure they are not known for "do no evil" culture, just that the slogan is tied to them somehow.
