601–610 of 622 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment. Asking someone on a date when it is apparent that they aren't interested is harassment.
"Asking someone on a date when it is apparent that they aren't interested is harassment." > Having autism is harassment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not make up the phrase, just read the comments and the memes and the rhetoric by the OP. They are exactly what you disagree with. OP didn't just say "listen to his side" which is reasonable (albeit dangerous and should be handled by legal rather than personal means)
Actually the only point I've really made is you shouldn't automatically assume the woman is being resonable whilst also assuming the man is unresonable. I'll happily admit that the converse is also true, but since 90% of the thread has jumped to the conclusion the guy should be fired, it hardly needs to be said. Where you're going wrong, is that you're attributing more to whats actually been said, which is sadly the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh. You seem to be missing the point which is that a not insignificant percentage of relationships spawn from the work place. You may want no part in that, and that's fine, but the idea that we should never act human to each other because professionalism is something that a significant percentage of people dont appear to agree with. So whilst I'm not suggesting you go in tomorrow and tell your nearest female collea…
Look, I know all about workplace romances - I am married to a woman I met at work. I think YOU are missing the point. There is no word (MILF included) that I will categorically say should NEVER be uttered at work. I will say, however, that you better be VERY close with your coworkers before you start saying it. The kind of close that is IMPOSSIBLE to get to in the first few weeks of employment at a place. The fact th…
I disagree. I'm a "contractor" which means I've had a lot of short engagements. Part of what makes me good at being a contractor is I usually get on with people pretty well and being a working class Scottish lad, I do have a rough sense of humour. I joke around with both men and woman, and that's okay because people like that part of me.
> The fact that this guy just started working at the company and already called someone a MILF (and who clearly didn't like it, since she complained to the CEO) means he is being horribly inappropriate, and has no excuse.
Well yeah, but that's still the no smoke without fire argument. She clearly doesn't like it, it shouldn't be said again, but do we extend that you immedaitly firing the guy if he simply misread the situation and dropped it from there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is her side of the story, which does not have be necessarily true.
milfseriously stated that he saw the conversation/evidence
If there was a seriously inappropriate conduct then that should be certainly dealt with (harassing colleagues is not acceptable - whether they are male or female), but so far only the "MILF" statement leaves a bad taste.
Also, all digital evidence can be more or less easily faked. I am not saying that this DID happen in this case, I am saying it could have.
The downvoting and lynch mob attitude people exhibit here in this thread is rather worrying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder if we should have men/women segregation in the workplace. That assumes all of your employees are heterosexual. Once you assume some employees may be homosexual, bisexual, non-binary, asexual, etc. you quickly get a graph where employees are nodes are edges are "could possibly have unwanted attraction towards" that is not bipartite.
You are right. I also forgot those identifying as unicornkin. Remote work for everyone is the only solution. :-p
Is threatening to beat him up for off hand comments (which have not been fully presented) acceptable behaviour from an employer?
Is threatening to beat him up for off hand comments (which have not been fully presented) acceptable behaviour from an employer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and you know why that is? nothing on the OPs post reveals a clear infringement or harassment IMO. MILF is borderline a bad way to talk to someone, yet, everyone here is saying: FIRE HIM or FIRE THEM. It would be harassment if he continued after she said stop, it would be harassment if he groped her, it would be harassment if he talked clearly obscenely about her, MILF is borderline, and yet, everyone is saying, FIRE…
Asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is harassment. Calling someone a MILF is definitely harassment. Do you seriously think telling someone in a professional setting that they're a mother you'd like to f--- is not harassment? When asking someone on a date that isn't interested in you is? Read your HR policies - if you don't, I suspect you'll be in trouble like this someday, based on your attitude tow…
Wow. No, it's not. Not for normal people, anyway.
Normal person A: "Hey, what do you say you and I have dinner one of these nights."
Normal person B: "Thanks, but no." [TOTALLY OPTIONAL: "I don't think my girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/... would like that."/"I have a strict no-relationships-with-coworkers/vendors/customers/people-I-meet-in-the-gym/... policy."/"That's very kind of you but I'm afraid I'm not interested."/"Please don't ask again and we shall never speak of this."]
Normal person A: "No problem! So, about that [situation-appropriate topic of discussion..]"
A asked B on a date. B was not interested. No harassment was involved.
To be very clear, the above dialogue could have gone (and unfortunately all too often does go) differently. Had A persisted after a clear refusal, that could very easily veer into the territory of harassment. Furthermore (and I know this will be more controversial), B could have messed the above dialogue up too, for example by failing to give a clear and unambiguous "no." Does this place a certain burden on B merely as a consequence of A's unrequited interest? Yes, but part of being an adult is being able to say "no" to reasonable requests from other adults.
Strive be a normal person like A and B and it should be possible to ask someone on a date, or be asked on a date, regardless of context without fear or discomfiture. (Note: situations of extreme power imbalance, e.g. professor/student, boss/subordinate, need to be navigated with extreme care. Normal people refrain entirely, in such situations, from romantic overtures unless and until the mutual interest (it does happen sometimes) is blindingly obvious, and they then scrupulously avoid even the appearance of impropriety, e.g. by waiting until the end of the term, or transferring to a different department, or something.)
>Calling someone a MILF is definitely harassment.
I'm not going to argue there. It's extremely offensive, at the very least. Normal people don't address other normal people, with whom they don't have an intimate relationship, using sexual terms.
For what it's worth, it sounds to me like the female employee in this case was a model Normal Person ("sure as friends in work context" is about as unambiguous as you can get!). If the sum total of the communication had been
A: Could we hang out? B: Sure, as friends in a work context A: May I tell you a secret? B: No, sorry.
I would regard A as a Normal Person as well, and the dialogue as innocuous. But I'm assuming A was inappropriately persistent/insistent (not to mention the MILF part, which is inappropriate in itself) and the dialogue, no doubt, goes on from there. So, yes, fire his ass.