Men now avoid women at work – another sign we're being punished for #MeToo

[Boiler 43,397]

2 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Basically this. I've been around long enough (smack dab in the middle of Gen X, so I've seen enough but am not yet completely ancient and decrepit) to have seen and been in some odd situations. Hell, I fell into one the other week at work, discussing my work-husband's recent ex-girlfriend. We sublet an office and another desk from the attorney next door because we have outgrown our own space. The next door attorney has a law clerk, a guy who just sat for the bar last month and is awaiting results. He's significantly younger than me, maybe 26 at the most. Anyway, work-husband and I were talking about his recent ex, who is undeniably a very hot, scorchio young woman. But he's looking to settle down, and she's... not. But that doesn't stop her from still FaceTiming with him when she is vacuuming the living room in her lingerie. (Seriously children, do not do this. Your partner/recent ex-partner may pick up the phone while he's sitting next to a colleague and whaddya know, now the colleague knows what you look like in a lace teddy, pushing a hoover around.) 

 

So, after he finished speaking with her, work-husband came back into my office and we had a brief conversation about the approximately 12,783 reasons why he should not go back for a second helping. Not least of which was that he wants to get married in the next couple of years so he can start a family, and Lingerie Lady doesn't tick any of the requisite boxes for that except (a) female (b) into him (amongst others) and (c ) hot. Against her is the fact that while he's an attorney and makes decent cash, he's simply not rich enough for her -- she wants to be a housewife and maybe a mother (maybe), live in a big house in Beverly Hills and drive an expensive car. Trust me, this is EXACTLY the type of woman who could make that a reality -- I've met her and she's smokin' hot, very young, smart and ambitious. So I told him that straight up Lingerie Lady is a bit of a lady of easy virtue to begin with, and you've said don't want a woman who sleeps around and leeches off you -- you want a "nice" girl with a career. Fair enough. 

 

Well, the law clerk was listening in and called ME misogynist!  I just about died laughing, said "bless your heart" to him, and told him it's lovely to have an ally out there. He told me that it was misogynistic to sl-t-shame a woman for being a player. I explained I wasn't shaming her, I was just stating that work-husband doesn't want a lady who has a bit of a past, and though I don't take such a line on how many people a person has slept with, I respect his preference. (I mean, someone's got to love us sl-ts, really, we can't help our pasts.) But it got me to thinking, maybe I should be more careful about assuming the younger generation has the same attitude towards talking about this kind of stuff at work.

 

There is, I think, a distinction to be drawn between the clearly offensive stuff that people of all generations can recognize as unacceptable, and the more subtle slights, ones that may have been inoffensive in the past which are now verging on toxic, can be harder to detect for those of older generations. But I am willing to listen. I work on the assumption that if someone is offended by what I say before them, I will alter my language before them going forward. It's not a big deal, and I'm curious about the evolution of language and respectability. If someone asks me not to spell "women" as "womyn," I will balk. But if someone asks me not to talk about relationships in front of them at work, I'm cool. It's work, and we should behave professionally. Also, I have a door to my office to speak of such things, and unlike some people, I am very happy to close it even when the only other occupant is a man.  

That story is as old as the hills, in fact there was a film on TCM from 1954? with a similar plot.

 

Not sure how it advances the Equality discussion.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

That story is as old as the hills, in fact there was a film on TCM from 1954? with a similar plot.

 

Not sure how it advances the Equality discussion.

Um, okay then. Please to link to the IMDb page if poss. 

 

All it's meant to say is that women can get called out for being sexist too (which I thought might be a popular opinion round these parts, considering that is a story that is as old as the hills around here), and that for me, if someone calls me out for perceived sexism or insensitive comments at work, I am willing to consider why I am being called out and modify my behavior accordingly. I don't assume the other person's reason for being sensitive about a particular line of discussion or comment is necessarily taking on the mantle of victimhood.

[Boiler 43,397]

5 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Um, okay then. Please to link to the IMDb page if poss. 

 

All it's meant to say is that women can get called out for being sexist too (which I thought might be a popular opinion round these parts, considering that is a story that is as old as the hills around here), and that for me, if someone calls me out for perceived sexism or insensitive comments at work, I am willing to consider why I am being called out and modify my behavior accordingly. I don't assume the other person's reason for being sensitive about a particular line of discussion or comment is necessarily taking on the mantle of victimhood.

I was more referring to hot chic going after money and leaving the impoverished boyfriend behind, in that one it blew up in her face and her ex BF became famous.

 

Much better to go on the attack if someone does that to you. Yet to come across a situation where somebody is so virtuous that they can stand up to inspection, especially as much of this stuff can be argued both ways.

 

Not sure now I think of it why he should not go for a second helping, not as if he wants to marry her of her to marry him? He can always keep his eye out for something more suitable, does not sound like he is in a rush and his prospect are likely to get better as time passes, hers not so..

 

If he does decide he wants that type then sound like it will be a number of years before he can afford it, then would be the time to look around for a current model.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

why he should not go for a second helping, not as if he wants to marry her of her to marry him? He can always keep his eye out for something more suitable

This strikes on a fundamental difference between (most, if not all) men and women.

For women, typically a man is either "right" or "wrong," with no in-between.

Men have an intermediate category:  "You're probably not the right one, but you're good enough for now."

Sounds as though work-husband's chica fits this last one.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

Fun and imaginably never negative for a guy to say "Nice dress" or "That dress looks great on you" with a nod or quick smile as he passes by someone (whom he knows) in the office, with unbroken step.

 

Even funner to encounter a distaff staffer who's making xerox copies and say, with exaggerated mock severity, "Caught you reproducing in public!" and then break into a goofy grin.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

You're not being punished for Me Too unless you behave badly, it's really not that hard

 

 

Far from true.  I behave very well, but am forced to undergo hours of training on how to not offend anyone.  It is ridiculous.  And now, if I happen to witness something that someone does which is offensive to another, and I fail to report it (say I wasn't really paying attention, I just happened to be there), I am guilty for not reporting it.  

[Boiler 43,397]

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

This strikes on a fundamental difference between (most, if not all) men and women.

For women, typically a man is either "right" or "wrong," with no in-between.

Men have an intermediate category:  "You're probably not the right one, but you're good enough for now."

Sounds as though work-husband's chica fits this last one.

I am not sure that is the case but maybe should leave that to others, I can think of quite a few people I know who have been destroyed by the Justice system and have personally witnessed occasions where woman seem happy to support others in saying you can do better, but I just have not come across men doing the same thing.

[TBoneTX 43,020]

True; I was referring chiefly (or purely) to the idea of continuing or discontinuing a relationship.

Chicas who stick with a "wrong" guy either think he's right or they've vowed to change him so that he is right.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Far from true.  I behave very well, but am forced to undergo hours of training on how to not offend anyone.  It is ridiculous.  And now, if I happen to witness something that someone does which is offensive to another, and I fail to report it (say I wasn't really paying attention, I just happened to be there), I am guilty for not reporting it.  

 

   The corporate environment is not what it once was. It seems to be more difficult for people who have been in the workplace longer to realize that the behavior they used to get away with is no longer acceptable.

 

  Someone I know got terminated for harassment recently. Basically he grabbed a female employee's butt and made a lewd comment. Just hearing that part, I would probably be saying see you around to the guy, but the weird part to me on hearing the story, was that he did it in front of several other people and then went about the rest of the day as if nothing happened. As if it was all just part of a normal day. People just don't get it sometimes.

 

  Firing people is not an easy process and not something an HR department really wants to go through. That's why all the training and education. So maybe you actually "get it" without needing all the training. I know I certainly do. Sometimes we all laugh at the absurdity of the videos and material that comes up, and the amount of time wasted going through the process. In the end though, there are actually people out there who act like that and this "training" is part of what it takes to let them know they can't act like that in the work place. Unfortunately even after all that, like I said, there are still a few who don't get it. 

[Boiler 43,397]

I think you misunderstand the point of the training, it is a Risk Management technique to risk Corporate exposure, numerous studies on this. Think what Starbucks did in an analogous situation.

 

I would anticipate the 'training' is at least in part responsible for this reaction, perhaps also explains the female element assuming they also go through it. After all the mind think would be that you would not be put through all this training if it was not considered to be a serious risk, so then the question becomes what can you as an individual do to protect yourself. You know the Company is most likely to just throw you under the bus.

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

26 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I think you misunderstand the point of the training, it is a Risk Management technique to risk Corporate exposure, numerous studies on this. Think what Starbucks did in an analogous situation.

 

I would anticipate the 'training' is at least in part responsible for this reaction, perhaps also explains the female element assuming they also go through it. After all the mind think would be that you would not be put through all this training if it was not considered to be a serious risk, so then the question becomes what can you as an individual do to protect yourself. You know the Company is most likely to just throw you under the bus.

 

 

 

   Part of it is risk management. Changes in the law means the employer can face legal repercussions for allowing a hostile or threatening environment to exist. Ultimately it does work better to be proactive about it rather than reactive. You don't have to find everything out the hard way. 

 

   Part of it is also cost. We spend ~$15000 to train a new person before they are able to work by themselves. This cost doesn't just apply to replacing the person who gets fired for misconduct. It's also replacing all the people who quit because they don't want to work in an environment with such a jackass in the first place. It can very quickly become a perpetual hire/train/quit cycle where you are always replacing people. It's a hard lesson when you start losing good people because of someone who shouldn't really be there in the first place. If you have a good HR department, you don't get to that point. 

[Boiler 43,397]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Part of it is risk management. Changes in the law means the employer can face legal repercussions for allowing a hostile or threatening environment to exist. Ultimately it does work better to be proactive about it rather than reactive. You don't have to find everything out the hard way. 

 

   Part of it is also cost. We spend ~$15000 to train a new person before they are able to work by themselves. This cost doesn't just apply to replacing the person who gets fired for misconduct. It's also replacing all the people who quit because they don't want to work in an environment with such a jackass in the first place. It can very quickly become a perpetual hire/train/quit cycle where you are always replacing people. It's a hard lesson when you start losing good people because of someone who shouldn't really be there in the first place. If you have a good HR department, you don't get to that point. 

This is on the premise that it has some sort of positive effect on lets call them the Jackass. The articles I have read and I do not remember when or where said they did not. Similar with the Starbucks thing. Did find a Starbucks comment.

 

That doesn’t surprise Dobbin, who has studied diversity trainings at more than 800 companies over 30 years. The majority of companies institute diversity trainings from the perspective of trying to protect themselves in a lawsuit, he told me. They want to be able to demonstrate to a jury that it was mandatory for all managers to know the law on discrimination — but that kind of training can actually backfire and produce more resentment than it alleviates, he said.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-half-day-of-diversity-training-wont-change-much-for-starbucks/

[Bettie Page 118]

13 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Far from true.  I behave very well, but am forced to undergo hours of training on how to not offend anyone.  It is ridiculous.  And now, if I happen to witness something that someone does which is offensive to another, and I fail to report it (say I wasn't really paying attention, I just happened to be there), I am guilty for not reporting it.  

This is nonsense - what, pray tell, would be the punishment? You get asked a few questions in an HR investigation? And if it gets as far as a lawsuit you get deposed? (and if it gets that far, you were probably asleep at the wheel.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

This is on the premise that it has some sort of positive effect on lets call them the Jackass. The articles I have read and I do not remember when or where said they did not. Similar with the Starbucks thing. Did find a Starbucks comment.

 

That doesn’t surprise Dobbin, who has studied diversity trainings at more than 800 companies over 30 years. The majority of companies institute diversity trainings from the perspective of trying to protect themselves in a lawsuit, he told me. They want to be able to demonstrate to a jury that it was mandatory for all managers to know the law on discrimination — but that kind of training can actually backfire and produce more resentment than it alleviates, he said.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-half-day-of-diversity-training-wont-change-much-for-starbucks/

 

    I’m sure every large company has some kind of diversity training. It’s hard to make an argument where the central point revolves around every one doing it wrong, because the real world is more responsive than that. If the concept didn’t work, employers would have moved on to something else. I’m sure there are better ways of doing things, but the goal is the same. At it’s root is a cost benefit analysis. Like everything else in life. It’s not just about lawsuits. The cost of employee turnover is also involved. 

 

   Someone gave an example in another thread of not being able to give a consensual massage. There are probably 3 points I would bring up from a HR point of view.

 

   -there’s no real way to know it’s consensual. You are not in a social environment where people always feel free to object or leave.

 

  -other people may not feel comfortable with the activity, even if you do. It’s not just about the 2 people involved in the activity. Other people may not want to work in such an environment. 

 

  -you are being paid to work. If you want to give massages while getting paid, go to school and get training in that field.

 

   No matter which point you emphasize, it comes down to the same thing. If you like, then yes it is all driven by cost in one way or another. Employers want to minimize cost by providing a productive environment where people generally feel comfortable and happy. Does it always work for everyone. Probably not. Thats why we find another job sometimes. However That is what drives policy. 

[Boiler 43,397]

11 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I’m sure every large company has some kind of diversity training. It’s hard to make an argument where the central point revolves around every one doing it wrong, because the real world is more responsive than that. If the concept didn’t work, employers would have moved on to something else. I’m sure there are better ways of doing things, but the goal is the same. At it’s root is a cost benefit analysis. Like everything else in life. It’s not just about lawsuits. The cost of employee turnover is also involved. 

 

   Someone gave an example in another thread of not being able to give a consensual massage. There are probably 3 points I would bring up from a HR point of view.

 

   -there’s no real way to know it’s consensual. You are not in a social environment where people always feel free to object or leave.

 

  -other people may not feel comfortable with the activity, even if you do. It’s not just about the 2 people involved in the activity. Other people may not want to work in such an environment. 

 

  -you are being paid to work. If you want to give massages while getting paid, go to school and get training in that field.

 

   No matter which point you emphasize, it comes down to the same thing. If you like, then yes it is all driven by cost in one way or another. Employers want to minimize cost by providing a productive environment where people generally feel comfortable and happy. Does it always work for everyone. Probably not. Thats why we find another job sometimes. However That is what drives policy. 

The two point highlighted are good examples of why you see the behaviour that this thread is about.

 

Actually from a cost benefit analysis I could see such preventative behaviour being supported.