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

Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#11

Post by falcolas »

As callous as it sounds, be friendly and "open" with co-workers, enough so they will are more likely to let you know that you make a mistake rather than going than directly to HR.

Everyone makes mistakes, but so many HR departments have zero tolerance policies towards perceived sexual harassment, and if it goes public you're doubly screwed... if you can get someone to talk to you first, you have a chance to identify and learn from the mistake, without being hung out to dry.

After having my own extremely negative run-in with HR about this kind of issue, I am very gun shy about expressing anything even remotely resembling a personal opinion around women.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#12

Post by thomasahle »

minopret wrote: post #5

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office? Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fai…

I think got most of it, but I missed the connection between "people who are sexually attractive to you" and "people who are uncomfortable with glamour photos of models".

Or is "people who are sexually attractive to you" just a lawyer term for "people of a sex you might want to have sex with"?

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#13

Post by trhway »

mvarner wrote: post #7
trhway wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't tell you how many meetings I've been in where the person on the other side of the table is regularly looking at my boobs. in a 3D Euclidean space where do the person is supposed to be looking at? Staring all the time down into the table? Up into the ceiling? Close the eyes every time while moving eyes from ceiling to the table? I'm asking just out of curiousity as personally i just stare either into ceiling…

I mean, there's a difference between looking at someone because they're talking or you're engaging in the meeting with them and staring directly at their boobs. I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored.

> I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored.

it is your internal interpretation. It may be true or may be not. The point here is that actions - specifically eyes movements - of one persons are supposed to be judged based on interpretation by another person. Thus the same actions with different person doing interpretation may result in different judgement.

To "Frondo" below: "incredibly uncomfortable" - is an internal interpretation as well as "gawping". Objectively there is only one physical fact - physical configuration of the eyes of the person resulting at some points in time in the girl's image on the retina with that image being transferred/processed through visual cortex. Everything else is interpretation. It is just common knowledge, which we use to generate the interpretation, that a heterosexual male would supposedly "gawp" - well, for such an interpretation to have minimally valid basis one would, for example, have to establish that the male is heterosexual to start with. Without asking directly the sexual orientation is again best guess and interpretation of clues. So one interpretation is based on another...

To "zem" : exactly my point. We can only believe in what she says about her feeling. "Believe" in "feeling" - the basis of judgement in these cases. To me such basis seems to be too weak vs. actual practical consequences to the people the judgement is passed upon.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#14

Post by pauleastlund »

minopret wrote: post #5

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office? Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fai…

> Second, no "hostile environment." That is, you should steer clear of even the appearance that you are making the workplace uncomfortable for people who are sexually attractive to you. Decorating your desk with a calendar featuring glamour photos of models, unless that is your duty in your occupation, is not a very good idea.

+1. I've personally never really gotten the whole "bonding over women we mutually find attractive" aspect of hetero male culture (and I guess there are parallels for other genders/orientations) but those who are into it really need to understand how off-putting it can be to other people. I'm a straight guy and I often find it a little off-putting, but I can clearly tell from facial expressions how much more uncomfortable the women in the room become, and I am not particularly socially perceptive. This stuff really has no place in any setting connected to the office.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#15

Post by randallsquared »

cjbprime wrote: post #3

My two cents: As you point out in the question, you're never going to receive a set of rules that you just have to follow like a checklist, because the same behaviors can be consensual and encouraged between one pair of people, and non-consensual and creepy between another pair of people. That's normal. The only definitive rule is: don't hurt people. If you hurt someone, even in a small way -- and you will -- apologi…

> you're never going to receive a set of rules that you just have to follow like a checklist, because the same behaviors can be consensual and encouraged between one pair of people, and non-consensual and creepy between another pair of people. That's normal.

And awful. That's one reason that this problem looms larger in technical circles: we're already far more likely than the average to be socially awkward or otherwise ill-equipped to navigate these waters. I can be a fun and flirty person in the right group, but at work I do my best to act as though I am completely without sex/gender and as though everyone else is, too. If sexual, gendered, or racial topics come up, I say nothing on those topics and try to extricate myself from the situation. If the situation is around my desk, I quietly dive back into work. This is the only way to have an acceptably low risk of late night realization that I said something that someone could have taken as harassment.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#16

Post by scott_s »

trhway wrote: post #13
mvarner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there's a difference between looking at someone because they're talking or you're engaging in the meeting with them and staring directly at their boobs. I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored.

> I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored. it is your internal interpretation. It may be true or may be not. The point here is that actions - specifically eyes movements - of one persons are supposed to be judged based on interpretation by…

It's true that it is mvarner's interpretation, but once you have something to stare at, it is obvious when people are looking in your direction, and staring at that.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#17

Post by loumf »

thomasahle wrote: post #12
minopret wrote: post #5

> has anybody with legal and/or HR credentials and some ethical sense written any definitive guide what is OK and what is not specifically in the context of the modern office? Yes, they have. I am NOT one of them. I don't have one of those guides. But I've received enough mandatory training to have a layperson's understanding of the baseline in my national jurisdiction which is USA. The baseline is twofold, it is fai…

I think got most of it, but I missed the connection between "people who are sexually attractive to you" and "people who are uncomfortable with glamour photos of models". Or is "people who are sexually attractive to you" just a lawyer term for "people of a sex you might want to have sex with"?

It doesn't matter if you are attracted to them or their gender and it doesn't matter if they are offended. Having a calendar of models in swimsuits is not going to fly. The rule must be something else.

But, honestly, if you think you might not understand where the line is, get a cat poster and be done with it.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#18

Post by tbrownaw »

The office I work at has several married couples. Some of who have been working there together since before they became couples. Some are at significantly different levels in the corporate hierarchy. Supposedly there is or was one person who "reports" to someone that has nothing to do with their day-to-day work or the rest of their team, because otherwise they'd be (indirectly, a couple levels apart) reporting to their spouse.

I think -- but don't have the employee handbook in front of me -- that corporate policy is limited to requiring that reports-to relationships be disjoint from screwing-eachother relationships.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#19

Post by Swizec »

mvarner wrote: post #7
trhway wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't tell you how many meetings I've been in where the person on the other side of the table is regularly looking at my boobs. in a 3D Euclidean space where do the person is supposed to be looking at? Staring all the time down into the table? Up into the ceiling? Close the eyes every time while moving eyes from ceiling to the table? I'm asking just out of curiousity as personally i just stare either into ceiling…

I mean, there's a difference between looking at someone because they're talking or you're engaging in the meeting with them and staring directly at their boobs. I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored.

I have a tendency to focus on people who are talking to me to the point that the eye contact makes them uncomfortable. It's a really strange feeling having to remind myself to look away in appropriate intervals.

And boobs ... yes I am a human male in his sexual prime and not glancing at boobs is literally impossible. It's like asking me not to breathe.

I have recently been informed that human females have a similar problem with bulges. Not glancing is impossible.

Re: Ask HN: Non-Sexist Behaviour Guidelines?

#20

Post by Frondo »

trhway wrote: post #13
mvarner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there's a difference between looking at someone because they're talking or you're engaging in the meeting with them and staring directly at their boobs. I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored.

> I've been in situations where people are obviously gawping at me and it's incredibly uncomfortable and it's a much, much different experience than when they're idly looking around a conference room because they're bored. it is your internal interpretation. It may be true or may be not. The point here is that actions - specifically eyes movements - of one persons are supposed to be judged based on interpretation by…

If the lady says people are staring at her boobs, why are you dismissing it with a wave of "internal interpretation"? Why wouldn't you take her at her word?
Post reply on HN