101–110 of 135 posts
He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never work again or have to come crawling back. Would view this as a standard firing for him breaking the rules not really a #MeToo where he’s supposed to go into exile on MeToo island
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.
What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).
I'm going to have to disagree on your last statement too. "it's not appropriate in the workplace". People do meet at work. Bluntly hitting on someone is not socially acceptable and could even get you fired but minor flirtation happens all the time. I think that's a gray area and not likely to go away.
I don't know that "women are renegotiating" anything so much as twitter people and bots are taking extreme positions (on both sides and not just on this issue). I think this is just one case where more nuanced, moderate discussion gets turfed in favor of extreme, us-against-them position taking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monica describes it as "consensual" and a "consequence of my own poor choices." http://time.com/5130921/monica-lewinsky-now/ Monica's story doesn't "corroborate" anybody else's story about affairs with Clinton. She's not a witness to any of those others.
I'm quoting her directly, and you're using a poor definition of "corroborate."
> poor definition
What's your definition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.
Beating someone you don’t like to death with a jawbone is normal human behavior, but fortunately we’ve gotten better at deterring and controlling it with laws. If your standard for the value of a law is total 100% then yes, they fail. Rape, murder, and arson haven’t gone away, but I somehow doubt you’re arguing for laws against them to be repealed. I hope. Laws aren’t perfect, but they do tend to improve matters when…
I don't believe this is a difficult concept to distinguish these behaviors.
He wasn’t sexually assaulting people he just dated someone at work. The article acts like if you break the workplace dating policy you should never work again or have to come crawling back. Would view this as a standard firing for him breaking the rules not really a #MeToo where he’s supposed to go into exile on MeToo island
Incorrect. He (1) had more than one extramarital relationships at work with people under him in the power structure, (2) repeatedly lied about it, and (3) was given a second chance by his board after he was caught the first time but did it again anyway. Why is the most upvoted comment on this article a false characterization of this executive's conduct that downplays its severity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen many coworkers have passionate love affairs and marriages. Are they monsters? Would you deny them?
No, but I would discipline a subordinate who was the subject of complaints about hitting on coworkers, and fire a subordinate who hit on one of their own subordinates.
I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work.
Interested in your opinion.
BTW, if someone continues to ask for dates after being told "no", then I'd agree that is harassment and must stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beating someone you don’t like to death with a jawbone is normal human behavior, but fortunately we’ve gotten better at deterring and controlling it with laws. If your standard for the value of a law is total 100% then yes, they fail. Rape, murder, and arson haven’t gone away, but I somehow doubt you’re arguing for laws against them to be repealed. I hope. Laws aren’t perfect, but they do tend to improve matters when…
I'm talking about laws proscribing "immoral" behavior between consenting adults. Murder is certainly not between consenting adults. Neither is rape. I don't believe this is a difficult concept to distinguish these behaviors.
That’s what you actually said, and what I responded to. The normalcy of a behavior isn’t an argument in its favor, goalpost movement aside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but I would discipline a subordinate who was the subject of complaints about hitting on coworkers, and fire a subordinate who hit on one of their own subordinates.
Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm talking about laws proscribing "immoral" behavior between consenting adults. Murder is certainly not between consenting adults. Neither is rape. I don't believe this is a difficult concept to distinguish these behaviors.
Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. That’s what you actually said, and what I responded to. The normalcy of a behavior isn’t an argument in its favor, goalpost movement aside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion…
Maybe we should consider it's no longer 1988. All manner of bad practices resulted in at least some good outcomes, but we nevertheless stopped.
Most of my socializing and friends come from work. What a sad world it would be if work was strictly for work.