Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 178 posts

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#161

Post by hasenj »

gizmo686 wrote: post #158
hasenj wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please explain how it's sexist?

Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male emp…

> attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender

That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different.

There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender.

For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye.

> I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism.

Because you are implying it's a bad thing. You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#162

Post by comstock »

hasenj wrote: post #161
gizmo686 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male emp…

> attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman i…

Many things are true on the level of groups, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to apply them as general rules on an individual level.

Women maybe weaker than men in general. There are however many women stronger than many men.

Where possible it is therefore better to evaluate individuals based on their individual merits. This is not only more efficient, but creates a fairer and hopefully happier society.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#163

Post by gizmo686 »

hasenj wrote: post #161
gizmo686 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male emp…

> attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman i…

>Because you are implying it's a bad thing.

Where did I imply that? If you go back one clause, I explicitly said that there can be disagreement on if it is a bad thing or not. [0]

I do not know how my opinion came across, but I believe this should make it clear that I am at least open to the possibility that the behavior under discussion is good behavior. [0]

>You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.

What context? I was replying to a post describing his approach to avoid "overstepping with women" [2] and how "it's really not all that difficult". In doing so, I was pointing out how non obvious the solution was.

If a central tenet of your approach is "don't be sexist", and you proceed to make recommendations that are, on their face, sexist, it is not just a matter of semantics to point this out. It means that the standard of "don't be sexist" is seemingly useless because I cannot determine what types of technically sexist behavior don't count as actually sexist unless I have some independent test of what is acceptable. If I do have an independent test, then why bother saying don't be sexist, when you can just say to use my independent test of acceptability.

>For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye.

At this point, I hope I have made it clear that there exists (in my opinion) good sexism and bad sexism. I feel confident is saying that this is, unambiguously, bad sexism. [1] Women are not so week that they are incapable of committing assault; or that there is no damage done to the victim when they do so.

[0] To clarify my position somewhat, I have no idea if it is good behavior or not. In an ideal world, it would be bad behavior, and it has easy to articulate downsides. However, it has potential upsides of reducing bad sexism. I do not have the tools necessary to make a confident decision on the net effect.

[1] Or rather, the double standard you describe. Your observation itself, while potentially overstated, is simply a non sexist observation of sexist behavior. Or maybe the observation itself is biased by the sexism of the observer; again I do not have the tools to determine that.

[2] Pulled directly from from the submission title to avoid editorializing.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#164

Post by majewsky »

BEEdwards wrote: post #20
xupybd wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you have to overcompensate like Pence, it's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative. I kind of think Pence is being smart. Conservative politicians can't survive that sort of scandal so being really careful can't hurt. Also I think there is some wisdom in not always trusting yourself not to cross the line, why not just keep your self as far away from the line as you can reasonably maintain. Kinda like u…

>Conservative politicians can't survive that sort of scandal so being really careful can't hurt. Roy Moore would love to talk to you. Or more specifically your daughter if she's around... *Moore is know for dating underage girls and has been for a long time, yet it didn't hurt his political career. You can downvote, but the fact is conservatives only pay lip service to caring about morality. http://www.businessinside…

> You can downvote

"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good" https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(By the way, I agree with your point, but the guidelines are more important than a single argument.)

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#165

Post by majewsky »

ThomPete wrote: post #82
adriand wrote: post #10

I've been an owner of a company for years now and I've always followed a few simple rules with the women who work for our company: - I never, ever comment on their appearance, including new hairstyles, clothing, etc. - I refer to them as "women", never as "ladies" or "girls" or other nonsense. - No touching (hugs, etc.) with the exception of handshakes and high fives. - I don't engage in, or tolerate, any sexist, sex…

I've been a company owner of a company with 80 people both for 7 years men and women. I dated my secretary for a while (she came on to me). I never had any problems working with men or women. I don't subscribe to this androgynous approach to company culture and I don't see why anyone would willingly want to work in such an environment. You can both be professional and have a fun environment to work in. A place where…

I don't see how your position contradicts the one held by the grandparent.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#166

Post by ThomPete »

colanderman wrote: post #159
ThomPete wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

were do you work? i have gone on ski trips, summer trips, saunas and strip clubs with my male and female colleagues. nothing weird about the examples mentioned

Inviting co-workers with whom you are not already on very good terms to a sauna or strip club is very weird and anti-social. (Why? Because you force those who would be uncomfortable attending to either self-exclude from the work social group, or give in to peer pressure. Or you don't invite them in the first place, which ensures they feel excluded.) And if you are on very good terms with them, well, they're not going…

Why wouldnt i be on good terms with my co-workers?

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#167

Post by ThomPete »

majewsky wrote: post #165
ThomPete wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a company owner of a company with 80 people both for 7 years men and women. I dated my secretary for a while (she came on to me). I never had any problems working with men or women. I don't subscribe to this androgynous approach to company culture and I don't see why anyone would willingly want to work in such an environment. You can both be professional and have a fun environment to work in. A place where…

I don't see how your position contradicts the one held by the grandparent.

It wasnt meant to, just illustrating that there are other ways to run a company that doesent require you to be that much on guard.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#168

Post by true_religion »

fencepost wrote: post #149
ThomPete wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so now you are a jerk if you have pinups on the wall?

Would you feel comfortable if you walked into an office and the walls were covered with semi-tumescent centerfolds from Playgirl (is that still a thing?) or the like? Heck, maybe the women in the office have a gay erotica reading group that gets together at lunchtime. How would you feel if it was pictures of gay male couples "in flagrante" and more than semi-tumescent? Might that make you uncomfortable?

What is with women in your example constantly reading about gay men? I've never seen heterosexual women so fascinated with gay men.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#169

Post by adriand »

colanderman wrote: post #89
debacle wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just treat people nice. There's a way to compliment a woman's dress or hair without sounding like a creep. In fact, women who are friends do it all the time. It's part of how women form platonic relationships. One of the nicest compliments you can pay someone is noticing a conscious change that they've made in themselves!

Right? I'm one of the most socially awkward people I know but even I can pull off a "hey, nice new frames!", "cool T-shirt!", or "nice new haircut!" to a female co-worker without sounding like a creep. Claiming that's impossible to do "safely" – especially from someone in a managerial role, who should know how to talk to people – is just lazy CYA behavior. EDIT: Side note – one of the clearest (subconscious) dividing…

Here's a set of way better alternatives:

"You did an awesome job today!"

"Thank you for helping out today - it means a lot that I can always rely on you."

"I really appreciate the energy and positivity you bring to the office - you make this a way better place to work."

You get the idea.

Last comment: it's easy to assess your own comments as non-creepy, either out of bias or because you're genuinely non-creepy. Unfortunately, that assessment is worthless, because it's how others assess your comments that matters. Nor would I ever, as the "boss", want to have try and explain to anyone working for me, especially male employees, the elaborate and highly subjective set of "rules" you've laid out here. Far easier to just not go there.

Re: Men at Work Wonder If They Overstepped with Women, Too

#170

Post by astura »

orblivion wrote: post #108
astura wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad? No! It's always been impolite to comment on people's appearance unless you are close with them. When you make comments about the appearance of your coworker there's so much that has the potential to be misunderstood and it's just so totally unnecessary. This isn't new either, Miss Manners has been advocating it since the 70s.

I can't say "hey nice haircut"? Just because there may be an ounce of sexual undertone? There's a line not to be crossed, but Jesus you're talking about neutering our humanity here.

You can say whatever you want. It's just, as a general rule, impolite to make comments on people's physical appearance even if you mean well and it always has been. Doubly so in the workplace. People are impolite all the time, when you are a married women like I am, intimate details of your uterus suddenly becomes something strangers talk about. Extremely rude, but unfortunately common. Behaving politely in the office is in your best interest.

It's not about "neutering our humanity," it's about etiquette. Defecation is an essential part of humanity and life, yet there's something preventing you from just dropping your pants and taking a shit wherever you happen to be when the urge hits you.

https://hbr.org/2003/12/in-praise-of-boundaries-a-conversati...

>Martin makes a compelling case that business needs more etiquette, not less. Without some formality in social intercourse, she argues, human interactions end up being governed by laws, which are too blunt to guide people through the nuances of personal—or professional—behavior.

"Nice haircut" is pretty benign but best avoided. Many times people feel the need to make rude comments about others but try to disguise it into a backhanded complement. You don't want to be misunderstood.

Post reply on HN