The world’s most dangerous countries for women 2018

[Boris Farage 353]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

Morning! I guess (I have been told) that I fall into the category of "attractive woman" so I have some opinions.  

 

Yes, when I get up I do make myself "pretty." I wear makeup (not too much, just a little blush/lipstick/mascara, enough to look not deathly) and I think I dress nicely, though not very provocatively. I work in retail, so I don't dress up too much, but I wear good quality classics that are well-fitted. And I will take a compliment from men who are being sincere, but trust me, most women knows the difference between a "you look lovely today!" that is meant as a general appreciation, and one that has... subtext. 

Fantastic. That makes you probably one of the thousands who understand a sincere compliment when she receives it. But there is that one in a hundred thousand that ruins it for the rest of us.

 

Some years ago, a female analyst who works in my organisation would on occasion become very stressed. Looming deadlines, changing requirements, a competent analyst but not good at handling the unexpected. I would give her a quick shoulder/neck massage. Nothing sexual, and she never complained. It helped her, which helped the company. Unfortunately somebody did complain. To this day I don't know who. (it wasn't her, I asked.) But that one person who wasn't even involved chose to be offended and ruined the working environment for everyone. After that it was all business, and she eventually left the company.

So if you find yourself going the entire day without a compliment on your efforts, you have someone like my mystery complainer to thank. It's a shame.

[yuna628 9,530]

3 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

I'll be the first to unequivocally state that touching someone sexually without their consent or whatever is right out. Having said that, it used to be you could put your hand on a co-worker's shoulder, compliment their appearance, touch their arm or even give a celebratory high five. No longer; those days of collegial comradery are gone. Women didn't used to have an issue with any of that, but I suppose they do now? Or more likely, women didn't change, most of them would still be ok with it, but we all must be politically correct, mustn't we.

But honestly why shouldn't an attractive woman get used to being treated like an attractive woman? They're obviously waking up in the morning, making themselves up, buying and wearing flattering clothing. Why can't I or anyone else show appreciation? Again, I'm not speaking of assault. Just a simple, "you look nice" or "that's a very nice scent you're wearing today." It's madness.

At what point does a coworker feel it is appropriate to touch or even rub their other coworker's shoulder? I mean sure, such things might have been done in days old, but it's not necessarily that the woman (or man for that matter) enjoyed such ''comradery" as in they merely tolerated it. I'm a person that's big on personal space. People don't touch me unless they are allowed. And the further out of the circle of friendship, family, or husband you are, the less contact you'd have. I see coworkers as a place of business and professional behavior. In my sister's office for instance, there is one male coworker that will attempt to flirt with anything or anyone female he sees. He will routinely caress female coworker's shoulders, and that is wayyyyy inappropriate. If a coworker is stressed, they can go seek out a massage from a spa. They don't belong putting hands on anyone.

 

In still older days she would tell me tales of boys in school that would put their hands up the back of the girl's shirts in class and attempt to snap or unhook their bras. If the girls lashed out, they'd be the ones in trouble. They just had to sit there and tolerate the behavior. The boys must have thought it okay, to do such without consequences?

 

Likewise my husband tells me tales of being sexually harassed in school back in the UK. A group of 'mean girls' that would routinely grope the boys in hallways.

 

What and who dictates how an attractive woman, or any woman be treated but the woman herself? It's her body and she has ownership over that body. There is a difference in being complimentary and being churlish. In my experience, many men out there these days are in it to be churlish. If I see a man that is handsome, I do not tell him such. I do not place my hand on him, or state he smells nice. I do not whistle or cat-call, nor stare longingly. Or feel some crazy urge to inform them about their attractiveness on a particular day. What exactly is the point of such exercises? He has ownership over his body, and it is disrespectful to think I have a right to claim some part of it to admire. It is fair enough if you are dating, engaged or married - and your focus of such attention like that is upon your partner.

 

There are some women that enjoy attention but we are all not cookie cutters and many do not enjoy it.

 

 

2 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Well, it seems "flick" is a term y'all are more in tune with with than I am.  Probably means something other than "I flicked the bug off the table".  A touch/flick/brush is the same to me.  As you said, a tap, particularly combined with the right words, no big deal.  But a light touch, say a caress, totally wrong.

 

As to your bolded question, you absolutely should have interpreted it the way you did.  You probably should have introduced his nose to your elbow, and quickly.  Might just be the places we have lived, but I don't know of anyone in my close circle who have ever experienced this, nor what @laylalex did.  I was asking just for clarification, not doubting how it felt to her.  More that I find it hard to believe that some stranger would actually do that to another person.  If someone did that to my wife, and I was in the area, I would likely risk some time in court and help them understand just how inappropriate they were acting, since their parents obviously failed in that aspect.

 

I have seen some strange behavior in my time, from men taking a leak on the stairs going into a NYC subway, to the guy trying to hawk money from strangers in a nice, polite voice, then suddenly looking into the corner ceiling, as if someone up there were watching him, and unload a vile string of cursing.  Then turn around and go right back to begging for money in a nice voice.  Some people are truly crazy.

 

I'm not much of a huggy/touchy person myself, but have learned to accept such behavior as normal from family and friends.  But when I first meet a lady, I tend to prefer not to be hugged, or to have them touching my shoulder while talking to me.  It's just... weird to me, to touch someone you don't know well.  That being said, I've never had it be so blatant that I had to ask them to stop doing it.  Sorry it has happened to y'all. 

I'm not a huggy/touchy person either. Being raised conservative/religious, girls learn about body-ownership and have modesty always hammered into them. By the time we reach womanhood and are out into the world, things get pretty uncomfortable quickly. Yes indeed, it is very weird to touch someone you don't know that well.. and I'd say pretty much that not many people know me well enough to warrant that close of a contact. It causes one to be suspicious and very closely examine any potential 'compliments' from strangers. Woman have to always evaluate the intent behind the words the man is saying. It may not always be their fault of course, and they could have genuine intentions - but our reactions at times are often knee-jerk, because of past experiences. We get used to bad interactions so much, we become suspicious of good ones. And to some degree it may cause some of us to even have problems forging relationships - because afterall, a relationship is built on a great deal of trust, intimacy, and transference of body-ownership.

 

These days... we are seeing more and more the result of parenting failures, growing up to be.. ''men''. I think perhaps it's an overall culture thing, that isn't getting better, that's for sure. I now go with pepper spray. I haven't yet used it, but there's been a few times, I've second-guessed myself and thought perhaps I should...

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

2 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

maven in the house -- good morning! It's a very good question.

 

So we start with a really simple premise: why do we even have courts? Well, there's not just that they make decisions on issues or cases, but that they can provide remedies to aggrieved parties. That's the same whether it's a criminal matter (the remedy is freedom or punishment by a fine/incarceration, etc.) or a civil matter. When the court is dealing with a civil matter,  there are pretty much dealing with matters of law and matters of equity. I will spare you a history lesson, but essentially the civil courts used to be divided into courts of law and courts of equity, but now they are merged in almost every state in America. The difference was that a court sitting in law can provide a "legal" remedy, i.e., monetary damages are the appropriate remedy. Think personal injury or breach of contract as examples. Courts sitting in equity provide equitable remedies, and equitable remedies are available when monetary damages will not suffice. An example would be when you have a purchase and sale agreement for the transfer of real property. Real property is considered "unique" because no two plots of land are the same, even ones of identical size with identical houses on them. So the remedy would be to compel the transfer of the property through an order of specific performance. Or an action for nuisance -- you want someone to stop doing something, and for whatever reason, damages won't be enough. So you get a mandatory injunction to get the other party to stop.

 

When it comes to something like injunctive relief -- like a prohibitory injunction or specific performance -- the court is wearing its equity hat. (A very fancy hat!) And when you have an action at equity, a court is required to "balance the equities" in coming up with a remedy. This means that there are certain factors it needs to take into account when issuing a preliminary injunction, which is what was sought here in both courts. There are different formulations, but this is pretty much it -- copied from my law school notes: “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Here, we're really thinking about 2-4 -- the first one seems more important than it really is, for any number of boring reasons that I can talk about if you like, but put it to one side.

 

So here the party petitioning the court (the ACLU, I think?) needed to show that if the asylum policy were put into effect, there would be irreparable harm right away (presumably to legitimate asylum seekers), that it is more just to put a hold on the implementation of the policy before its constitutionality/legality can be decided, and that halting the implementation is in the interest of the public. Now your questions are really about why this judge "wins" over the other one. Well, it comes back to pesky old equity. Equity is actually really super cool, I am absolutely fascinated by it and have been since I went to law school back in England. (It was my second best class after property law!) Equity is a quirk of our Anglo-American common law system, and it is not black letter law. It is at its heart based on the question: what is more fair? Generally, a party that has or will suffer a wrong has a stronger position in seeking equity from the court than the party who has inflicted or will inflict the harm. So, it follows it is more fair to press pause when someone's civil rights and civil liberties could be affected by a policy before the merits of the policy can be heard.

 

Applying this to our situation, the first judge said okay, the policy can be implemented before we decide on whether it's actually legally correct, and then the second said, hold on a sec, sparky -- legitimate asylum seekers could suffer irreparable harm if we say nope, we're full up, before we actually figure out if the change is legal. And because the balance of equities tips in favor of a person who has suffered a wrong (i.e., being denied even attempting to seek asylum, when that is legal), we have to go with the court that permits the status quo to continue. When it comes to preliminary injunctive relief, the courts tend to favor the status quo -- should have mentioned that earlier. Of course, the underlying issue of whether the asylum ban still needs to be decided, and when that happens, the preliminary injunction will either be made permanent, or it will end.

 

This has been Part XXIV in a continuing series of maven's VJ Law School, peace out. ❤️💋💘

 

thank you 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

Just now, yuna628 said:

At what point does a coworker feel it is appropriate to touch or even rub their other coworker's shoulder? I mean sure, such things might have been done in days old, but it's not necessarily that the woman (or man for that matter) enjoyed such ''comradery" as in they merely tolerated it. I'm a person that's big on personal space. People don't touch me unless they are allowed. And the further out of the circle of friendship, family, or husband you are, the less contact you'd have. I see coworkers as a place of business and professional behavior. In my sister's office for instance, there is one male coworker that will attempt to flirt with anything or anyone female he sees. He will routinely caress female coworker's shoulders, and that is wayyyyy inappropriate. If a coworker is stressed, they can go seek out a massage from a spa. They don't belong putting hands on anyone.

 

In still older days she would tell me tales of boys in school that would put their hands up the back of the girl's shirts in class and attempt to snap or unhook their bras. If the girls lashed out, they'd be the ones in trouble. They just had to sit there and tolerate the behavior. The boys must have thought it okay, to do such without consequences?

 

Likewise my husband tells me tales of being sexually harassed in school back in the UK. A group of 'mean girls' that would routinely grope the boys in hallways.

 

What and who dictates how an attractive woman, or any woman be treated but the woman herself? It's her body and she has ownership over that body. There is a difference in being complimentary and being churlish. In my experience, many men out there these days are in it to be churlish. If I see a man that is handsome, I do not tell him such. I do not place my hand on him, or state he smells nice. I do not whistle or cat-call, nor stare longingly. Or feel some crazy urge to inform them about their attractiveness on a particular day. What exactly is the point of such exercises? He has ownership over his body, and it is disrespectful to think I have a right to claim some part of it to admire. It is fair enough if you are dating, engaged or married - and your focus of such attention like that is upon your partner.

 

There are some women that enjoy attention but we are all not cookie cutters and many do not enjoy it.

 

 

I'm not a huggy/touchy person either. Being raised conservative/religious, girls learn about body-ownership and have modesty always hammered into them. By the time we reach womanhood and are out into the world, things get pretty uncomfortable quickly. Yes indeed, it is very weird to touch someone you don't know that well.. and I'd say pretty much that not many people know me well enough to warrant that close of a contact. It causes one to be suspicious and very closely examine any potential 'compliments' from strangers. Woman have to always evaluate the intent behind the words the man is saying. It may not always be their fault of course, and they could have genuine intentions - but our reactions at times are often knee-jerk, because of past experiences. We get used to bad interactions so much, we become suspicious of good ones. And to some degree it may cause some of us to even have problems forging relationships - because afterall, a relationship is built on a great deal of trust, intimacy, and transference of body-ownership.

 

These days... we are seeing more and more the result of parenting failures, growing up to be.. ''men''. I think perhaps it's an overall culture thing, that isn't getting better, that's for sure. I now go with pepper spray. I haven't yet used it, but there's been a few times, I've second-guessed myself and thought perhaps I should...

I use to work at a place that thought harass was two words 

[yuna628 9,530]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I use to work at a place that thought harass was two words 

 

One gif for you!

[Dashinka 23,252]

38 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

At what point does a coworker feel it is appropriate to touch or even rub their other coworker's shoulder? I mean sure, such things might have been done in days old, but it's not necessarily that the woman (or man for that matter) enjoyed such ''comradery" as in they merely tolerated it. I'm a person that's big on personal space. People don't touch me unless they are allowed. And the further out of the circle of friendship, family, or husband you are, the less contact you'd have. I see coworkers as a place of business and professional behavior. In my sister's office for instance, there is one male coworker that will attempt to flirt with anything or anyone female he sees. He will routinely caress female coworker's shoulders, and that is wayyyyy inappropriate. If a coworker is stressed, they can go seek out a massage from a spa. They don't belong putting hands on anyone.

 

In still older days she would tell me tales of boys in school that would put their hands up the back of the girl's shirts in class and attempt to snap or unhook their bras. If the girls lashed out, they'd be the ones in trouble. They just had to sit there and tolerate the behavior. The boys must have thought it okay, to do such without consequences?

 

Likewise my husband tells me tales of being sexually harassed in school back in the UK. A group of 'mean girls' that would routinely grope the boys in hallways.

 

What and who dictates how an attractive woman, or any woman be treated but the woman herself? It's her body and she has ownership over that body. There is a difference in being complimentary and being churlish. In my experience, many men out there these days are in it to be churlish. If I see a man that is handsome, I do not tell him such. I do not place my hand on him, or state he smells nice. I do not whistle or cat-call, nor stare longingly. Or feel some crazy urge to inform them about their attractiveness on a particular day. What exactly is the point of such exercises? He has ownership over his body, and it is disrespectful to think I have a right to claim some part of it to admire. It is fair enough if you are dating, engaged or married - and your focus of such attention like that is upon your partner.

 

There are some women that enjoy attention but we are all not cookie cutters and many do not enjoy it.

 

 

I'm not a huggy/touchy person either. Being raised conservative/religious, girls learn about body-ownership and have modesty always hammered into them. By the time we reach womanhood and are out into the world, things get pretty uncomfortable quickly. Yes indeed, it is very weird to touch someone you don't know that well.. and I'd say pretty much that not many people know me well enough to warrant that close of a contact. It causes one to be suspicious and very closely examine any potential 'compliments' from strangers. Woman have to always evaluate the intent behind the words the man is saying. It may not always be their fault of course, and they could have genuine intentions - but our reactions at times are often knee-jerk, because of past experiences. We get used to bad interactions so much, we become suspicious of good ones. And to some degree it may cause some of us to even have problems forging relationships - because afterall, a relationship is built on a great deal of trust, intimacy, and transference of body-ownership.

 

These days... we are seeing more and more the result of parenting failures, growing up to be.. ''men''. I think perhaps it's an overall culture thing, that isn't getting better, that's for sure. I now go with pepper spray. I haven't yet used it, but there's been a few times, I've second-guessed myself and thought perhaps I should...

Then why do the Democrats treat everyone like they are cut from the same cookie cutters, fit into a specific identity category, and all think alike within those identity categories?

[yuna628 9,530]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Then why do the Democrats treat everyone like they are cut from the same cookie cutters, fit into a specific identity category, and all think alike within those identity categories?

I imagine for the same reason all political parties do this.

[Boris Farage 353]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

At what point does a coworker feel it is appropriate to touch or even rub their other coworker's shoulder? I mean sure, such things might have been done in days old, but it's not necessarily that the woman (or man for that matter) enjoyed such ''comradery" as in they merely tolerated it. I'm a person that's big on personal space. People don't touch me unless they are allowed. And the further out of the circle of friendship, family, or husband you are, the less contact you'd have. I see coworkers as a place of business and professional behavior. In my sister's office for instance, there is one male coworker that will attempt to flirt with anything or anyone female he sees. He will routinely caress female coworker's shoulders, and that is wayyyyy inappropriate. If a coworker is stressed, they can go seek out a massage from a spa. They don't belong putting hands on anyone.

It wasn't that long ago actually, maybe ten or so years? In any case, as I mentioned, she never complained and there was absolutely nothing sexual about it. Co-workers helping each other out, nothing more.

 

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

What and who dictates how an attractive woman, or any woman be treated but the woman herself? It's her body and she has ownership over that body. There is a difference in being complimentary and being churlish. In my experience, many men out there these days are in it to be churlish. If I see a man that is handsome, I do not tell him such. I do not place my hand on him, or state he smells nice. I do not whistle or cat-call, nor stare longingly. Or feel some crazy urge to inform them about their attractiveness on a particular day. What exactly is the point of such exercises? He has ownership over his body, and it is disrespectful to think I have a right to claim some part of it to admire. It is fair enough if you are dating, engaged or married - and your focus of such attention like that is upon your partner.

Perhaps we as a society should at first assume the best, rather than the worst. When I am at work, the last thing on my mind is sex. And even if I were so inclined, the workplace is the absolute worst place to rut. Creating a "hostile" work environment would only work at cross purposes to a healthy and profitable business. If people would look at intentions in this manner first, and only the worst if the evidence were obvious, we would all be much happier.

[Boris Farage 353]

52 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Then why do the Democrats treat everyone like they are cut from the same cookie cutters, fit into a specific identity category, and all think alike within those identity categories?

Because that's the only way Communism works.

[laylalex 7,247]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

At what point does a coworker feel it is appropriate to touch or even rub their other coworker's shoulder?

 

*snip* (of your fantastic post)

 

It also amazes me that anyone thinks that they have ownership over anyone's body but their own. I am a "touchy-feely" person, but only with people who have given me permission, or if I've given them permission to touch me in that way. I don't know how much of my being touched has to do with being conventionally attractive, and how much is because I have some sort of "please harass me" virtual sign hanging on my back. I'm a natural people-pleaser, and I try --- and usually do -- assume the best of people, even strangers. Some of my friends and my sister have called me naive at times, but having a positive attitude and being open to the world has kept me sane. I have worked hard to try to draw boundaries with others, not only with strangers, but also with loved ones. But if you are wired and taught from a young age, like many women are, at least of my generation (Millennial) and older, to be nice and helpful and not offend others, it can be hard to say no or tell people to leave you alone in a firm and commanding way. 

 

I used to work in an office, before I was a housewife, and I really didn't have any problems that I can recall there in terms of being harassed. I had a supervisor that some of my co-workers thought had a "thing" for me, but if he did, I never picked up on it. He was just... friendlier to me? Don't know. But now that I have been working in retail for the past six months, it's a very common occurrence. Not every day, but at least once a week I have an interaction that makes me feel a little icky. Sometimes the conversation starts out fine, talking about what's on the shelves, or the weather, or whatever. We are a specialist shop (I don't want to say what, because there aren't that many in Berkeley that sell what we do, and I had a problem in the past online with someone trying to find me IRL when I dropped too many details about who I am/what I do) so the conversations can be really interesting with people who are enthusiasts. And as I said, I'm pretty friendly -- and since I work in the store, it feels like a second home. I feel... comfortable. So I let my guard down, maybe too much at times, and casual conversation can become something more like flirtation. When I'm aware it's happening, even if it's good-natured, I shut it down if I can, maneuver the conversation back to something less dangerous. It becomes harder when it's a good customer who buys frequently -- you don't want to alienate them, especially if the flirtiness is murky, and could be just a matter of interpretation. It has happened though that there have been customers that go too far, and they get banned. My manager is a 6'1" 250-lb gay man from the South and he can look VERY scary when he wants to.  

 

But it goes back to this: it is not frequent that I have seen this kind of bad behavior happen when other men are around. It's like the bad ones police themselves around other guys, for fear they might get a whupping or something.

[Dashinka 23,252]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

I imagine for the same reason all political parties do this.

I am not sure I see the same sort of identity politics from the GOP, but of course they are not pushing a socialist/communist agenda.

[laylalex 7,247]

50 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

It wasn't that long ago actually, maybe ten or so years? In any case, as I mentioned, she never complained and there was absolutely nothing sexual about it. Co-workers helping each other out, nothing more.

 

Perhaps we as a society should at first assume the best, rather than the worst. When I am at work, the last thing on my mind is sex. And even if I were so inclined, the workplace is the absolute worst place to rut. Creating a "hostile" work environment would only work at cross purposes to a healthy and profitable business. If people would look at intentions in this manner first, and only the worst if the evidence were obvious, we would all be much happier.

Please don't assume that just because she never complained, and that you saw "absolutely nothing sexual about it" that she did not. You were her superior, right? You had a position of power over her and she may have thought she could not say no to you. Even if you had no sexual motive to give her a massage, and she never told you to stop and let you do it again and again, maybe she felt that saying no could cost her her job. Just food for thought.

 

I agree that "rutting" (lol) is a big no-no at work!!!  

[Boris Farage 353]

58 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Please don't assume that just because she never complained, and that you saw "absolutely nothing sexual about it" that she did not. You were her superior, right? You had a position of power over her and she may have thought she could not say no to you. Even if you had no sexual motive to give her a massage, and she never told you to stop and let you do it again and again, maybe she felt that saying no could cost her her job. Just food for thought.

I was her superior yes, but not a direct report, major difference. If she ever felt it was inappropriate,  she was well within her rights to go either to her supervisor, to me directly (preferable, we're all adults here), or to HR. But she didn't. Honestly this story was just a throw-away story to make a larger point. (I can't be arsed to go back and look at what that point was, it's been a long day) My current point is simply that why don't we all just assume the best first, rather than assuming the worst. A "hey Chloe (made up name), that massage looks relaxing, was it?" rather than "Oh, he's sexually harassing Chloe, I'd better save her by reporting Boris anonymously." As a famous LA resident once said, can't we all just get along?

 

59 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I agree that "rutting" (lol) is a big no-no at work!!!  

I made the mistake as a very young man, just out of university. Learned a very valuable, very ugly lesson. But came out of it wise beyond my years.

[laylalex 7,247]

4 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

I was her superior yes, but not a direct report, major difference. If she ever felt it was inappropriate,  she was well within her rights to go either to her supervisor, to me directly (preferable, we're all adults here), or to HR. But she didn't. Honestly this story was just a throw-away story to make a larger point. (I can't be arsed to go back and look at what that point was, it's been a long day) My current point is simply that why don't we all just assume the best first, rather than assuming the worst. A "hey Chloe (made up name), that massage looks relaxing, was it?" rather than "Oh, he's sexually harassing Chloe, I'd better save her by reporting Boris anonymously." As a famous LA resident once said, can't we all just get along?

 

I made the mistake as a very young man, just out of university. Learned a very valuable, very ugly lesson. But came out of it wise beyond my years.

Really -- just because she wasn't a direct report, you think it didn't cross her mind that you could make things tough for her? I mean, I've never been in the EXACT situation you speak of, but when I was in my senior year of college, I had a professor that I was friendly with who wasn't my instructor, but was in the same department I was in (Art History). He wasn't tenured yet, but he was on his way. He was an unofficial mentor of sorts. Anyway, he engaged in what I would call inappropriate conduct towards me one afternoon when I had come by during his office hours just to blow off some steam about my relationship problems; we had that kind of friendship. He told me that what I needed to do was some meditation and deep breathing exercises with him, and I was open to it, because I trusted him. So while I had my eyes closed and he was leading me, he started stroking my arms up and down to improve my "flow" (whatever that is). It was... not cool. But at the same time (and I was very young, only 21) I knew he could make things difficult for me in the department, so I went along with it.  It was something that could have gotten a LOT worse but then someone knocked on the door and it ended. Our friendship also ended that day, at least in my eyes, but I kept being friendly to him because I figured that is what I needed to do to not get my reputation in the department destroyed.

[Boiler 43,462]

I remember when I worked in an Office  environment the biggest issues seemed to be around women reporting to other women, they did not seem to like that.

 

OK a generalisation but seemed quite normal, they seemed to prefer working for a male.