I really doubt you truly mean "whatever gets the person away is rational". Is it okay for me to call anyone who asks me out harassers in order to discourage subsequent approaches? There's a vast difference between a firm rejection and accusing a co-worker of a fire-able offense - potentially even a crime. If somebody is insulted by the former then the have their only their own insecurity to blame. On the other hand, even if no complaint to HR is made the latter statement is going to make people stress over the possibility of losing their job, potentially even facing legal repercussions.
> I think that the expectation that women should be the nice one is what creates a lot of problems. It is teaching girls ineffective communication (which leaves them thinking only two options are HR or leave). People on the spectrum honestly don't get nice, people who test boundaries don't see nice as boundary and jerks find nice funny.
This is essentially what I'm trying to say. The hesitation to unambiguously accept or reject advances and instead expect people to communicate indirectly by "reading the signs" is an inherently broken situation because it's inevitable that those ambiguous signs will be misinterpreted at some point.
> Is it okay for me to call anyone who asks me out harassers in order to discourage subsequent approaches?
The word harassment does not even appear in parent comment. Neither is HR. You added it to shift the topic which is an open and easy to see lie. "You are making me uncomfortable" and "fire him hr please" are not nearly the same.
For that matter, rational is different category then "fair". Unfair or even unethical dudes don't get to be called "irrational" (unless someone defend their harassment by calling them dumbass).
> This is essentially what I'm trying to say.
In this story she unambiguously informed him that he is making her uncomfortable. That is not even as open rejection as can be, but also feedback on what the reason for not continuing conversation is. You are extrapolating her rejection to entirely different things as words says. That is expecting her to walk the fine line, guess in advance how you re-interpret words and come up with answer perfectly tailored to your personality.
She tried nice as overwhelming majority of dudes would understand correctly, did not worked, she started to be direct. But she apparently should not be too direct.
> The word harassment does not even appear in parent comment. Neither is HR. You added it to shift the topic which is an open and easy to see lie. "You are making me uncomfortable" and "fire him hr please" are not nearly the same.
Please re-read my original comment in this chain, I'm dealing with two hypotheticals depending on what exactly is said.
> In this story she unambiguously informed him that he is making her uncomfortable. That is not even as open rejection as can be
If that's what occurred then this is the situation I describe in the 2nd paragraph, which I explicitly write is a reasonable thing to do.
> but also feedback on what the reason for not continuing conversation is.
Depending on what exactly is phrased it may also be feedback conveying "there is a good chance I am telling HR you're harassing me." Again, as per my original comment I'm describing my opinion of the situation depending on what exactly is said.
> You are extrapolating her rejection to entirely different things as words says. That is expecting her to walk the fine line, guess in advance how you re-interpret words and come up with answer perfectly tailored to your personality. She tried nice as overwhelming majority of dudes would understand correctly, did not worked, she started to be direct. But she apparently should not be too direct.
I am not expecting any line to be walked. She should not avoid trying to be too direct, but just the opposite. This whole problem likely arose because the first response was interpreted overly optimistically (thinking she wanted to see the movie on a different day, when she just wanted to say "no") and interpreted the second response overly pessimistically (thinking there's a good chance she was going to report him or her to HR, when she just wanted to say "no"). Again, indirect speaking is exactly what I'm attempting to dissuade because it creates situations such as these.
> Depending on what exactly is phrased it may also be feedback conveying "there is a good chance I am telling HR you're harassing me." Again, as per my original comment I'm describing my opinion of the situation depending on what exactly is said.
Well then, leave her alone.
However, she literally said "you are making me uncomfortable". That is neither threat nor rude. It is literally direct and honest communication.
You are not trying to dissuade indirect speaking, you are complaining that she started to talk directly when indirect failed.
And it invites him to try to make her feel comfortable until she freaks out and goes to HR or NYT. Sometimes it's better to just say no. You don't owe explanation to anyone.
> I think that the expectation that women should be the nice one is what creates a lot of problems. It is teaching girls ineffective communication (which leaves them thinking only two options are HR or leave). People on the spectrum honestly don't get nice, people who test boundaries don't see nice as boundary and jerks find nice funny.
This is essentially what I'm trying to say. The hesitation to unambiguously accept or reject advances and instead expect people to communicate indirectly by "reading the signs" is an inherently broken situation because it's inevitable that those ambiguous signs will be misinterpreted at some point.