At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints

But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.

HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.

- Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?

- Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?

- Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?

- Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.

- A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?

systematic

Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic

If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?

> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier

Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.

Also, what about women telling women the same thing?

> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.

Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.

> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further

So these were your best arguments?

> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.

I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.

You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.

If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.

I would find the princess salad comment hostile, unless there is context to mitigate that (we are good friends and in mutually teasing relationship).

Meaning, I would see that as one of those situations when I need to respond more aggressively next time otherwise I risk to be picked on regularly. Not sure if "humiliating" is the right word, but princess is not the image I want to maintain in front of colleges or anyone. Someone not to be picked on is much more practical image.

"I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated".

I am less likely to come with the answer right away, but I would attempt to figure out answer ready for next time you pick on me. Most likely, I would just tell "go fuck off" or something else rude with the tone of voice that is as deep and unfriendly as can be. Other then that, I am not sure, I don't know you nor the whole situation, so it is hard to come up with something.

Not a path for someone who considers it important to look like polite person all the time, but you gotta give up something. I think that this is where many women make mistake - they see aggressive response as something wrong and end up being constantly picked on.

"Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?"

That is part of the thing, right? You don't stick up with anything like that, you are mainstream and know that you are accepted by colleges. That gives you advantage in this bullshit.

But mostly, I prefer more formal workplaces that are above this elementary school stuff.

They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.

> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?

Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.

> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?

Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.

> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.

"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.

> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?

yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.