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

Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

askamanager.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#61

Post by akoboldfrying »

randomdata wrote: post #59
akoboldfrying wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? If so, this is a really interesting argument that I've never come across before. I do agree that it wastes company time, but I would think in such small quantities that it had very little impact -- on par with having a 5 minute chat with your office mate about their weekend. I still have the impression that for…

> If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense. The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emil…

>Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly.

So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right?

If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along?

If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#62

Post by yowzadave »

financltravsty wrote: post #38
kylebenzle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.

I'll +1 this, in spite of the overwhelming negative reception. Sometimes the vibe is right. Usually, people just want to get on with their lives and not be propositioned; but sometimes the chemistry is there -- and what is a person to do?

Does the tone of GP suggest that they have the social intuition to know when the vibe is right?

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#63

Post by yowzadave »

huytersd wrote: post #48
ghusto wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s inappropriate if it’s inappropriate. Not that hitting on a woman is inappropriate in itself. Think of it the other way around: You send an email trying to quickly schedule an appointment with someone, and they reply with a time, and flirt with you. It’s weird because there’s no context for that.

It seems arbitrary. Plenty of people hit on each other in professional settings or the workplace all the time.

There's a TV show starring Stephen Merchant from a few years ago called "Hello Ladies", in which he plays a character who is constantly hitting on (and being rejected by) models and actresses. He has a frequent complaint when he gets shut down for behaving inappropriately: "What are the rules?!?"

It's frustrating for people who are less socially adept to learn that, in some cases, there are no hard and fast rules.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#64

Post by sundaeofshock »

financltravsty wrote: post #38
kylebenzle wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.

I'll +1 this, in spite of the overwhelming negative reception. Sometimes the vibe is right. Usually, people just want to get on with their lives and not be propositioned; but sometimes the chemistry is there -- and what is a person to do?

Act like a mature adult and move on.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#65

Post by huytersd »

yowzadave wrote: post #63
huytersd wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems arbitrary. Plenty of people hit on each other in professional settings or the workplace all the time.

There's a TV show starring Stephen Merchant from a few years ago called "Hello Ladies", in which he plays a character who is constantly hitting on (and being rejected by) models and actresses. He has a frequent complaint when he gets shut down for behaving inappropriately: "What are the rules?!?" It's frustrating for people who are less socially adept to learn that, in some cases, there are no hard and fast rules.

I think it’s less about “not getting the rules” and more of who made those rules because society doesn’t agree on them in a unified way by any means.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#66

Post by randomdata »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #61
randomdata wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time? No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense. The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emil…

>Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right? If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along? If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#67

Post by shepherdjerred »

kstenerud wrote: post #41
shepherdjerred wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all women have to do is ignore or deny the advance, how is that "dealing with bullshit"? Most men are decent, but plenty of men are aggressive, scary, or make women very uncomfortable. If you ask someone out respectfully, of course that's fine. If you're not taking no for an answer, being hostile, or making someone feel very uncomfortable/unsafe, then you're not doing the right thing.

Actually, even the polite men are being creepy. Hitting on someone you barely know, in a business environment, is just creepy cringe. Yeah, sure, you're being a "gentleman" by backing down when she inevitably rejects such an inappropriate advance, but after the hundredth insta-suitor, it gets old and even stressful and anxiety inducing.

I totally understand, but I don't really know the answer. Men who are more aggressive (in an appropriate or inappropriate manner) tend to be more successful.

So, as a man, your options are to:

1. Ask fewer women out so that you are more respectful. This likely means you'll have less success dating.

2. Ask more women out, even in environments that might be uncomfortable, e.g. a server, co-worker, etc. They're going to have more success dating.

Again, I totally understand this sucks for women, but men don't have great options here either.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#68

Post by akoboldfrying »

randomdata wrote: post #66
akoboldfrying wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly. So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right? If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along? If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?

I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?"

AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#69

Post by randomdata »

akoboldfrying wrote: post #68
randomdata wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?

I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?" AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.

That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?

Re: Men are hitting on my scheduling bot because it has a woman's name

#70

Post by tourmalinetaco »

randomdata wrote: post #69
akoboldfrying wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?" AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.

That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?

Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.”

That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.

Post reply on HN