Either looking up to someone or holding them in contempt are very binary positions. People are complex. One can admire a person for the good they do and criticise and oppose them for the deliberate bad things they indulge in. I mean... none of us are purely black or white...
If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I'm reminded of this quote every time another one of these scandals breaks.
Come on. Even finding a definition of sexual harassment which people can agree on is notoriously difficult. Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.)
That said, even if it's not clear exactly where the line is—it's pretty easy to see that certain actions would be far across it, and that's largely what's come up in recent allegations. Though I don't think all of them have been super clear cut. 'Simple' is too strong here.
> Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations
This is a big part of the problem. These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table. Society’s expectations of aggressive male behavior are entirely irrelevant.
>These sexual harassment allegations are almost entirely arising in contexts where sex should be off the table.
Humans are not Vulcan-style compartmentalizing creatures, and no rule can stop love (and lust, contrary to puritanical religious-derived beliefs, lust is also ok), etc 100% from emerging. Tons of very happy marriages and relationships started in professional settings.
The charge of puritanism is off-base. Just because I hate people soliciting me to buy things doesn't mean I hate shopping. I love shopping! But Amazon exists and I'll buy what I want when I want!
You can ban sexual advances in professional contexts, and achieve substantial compliance, and we should, just like we've done for racist statements. (There are things that Nixon or LBJ said that even Trump won't say!) The opposite viewpoint serves men to the detriment of women. I've never met a woman who said to me "you know, I just wish I could date more guys from work." The truth is (especially in the age of Tinder), most women don't really have to try very hard to get a date. So there is little benefit to them from social rules that make it okay to solicit sexual relationships in professional settings.
In exchange for those sparse benefits, there's real burdens. You're right about the puritanism in one sense: in America, work isn't just something women do to keep themselves busy. Today, work is their livelihood. It determines whether they have healthcare, where they can live, what schools they can send their kids to. Men get to go through their professional lives focused on work. They make work friends and establish mentoring relationships, and they can simply assume that those relationships are about work. Women don't get to do that. That coworker you're friendly with because you share similar ideas about TDD? Oh, he's actually just being friendly because he wants to have sex with you. That meeting with an investor that might be able to introduce you to people you want to know to launch your startup? Oh, he thinks it's a date.
Parent wrote sex, not love. You can't stop love (or lust), but you can choose how you act on them. For example, by removing yourself from the context where that is inappropriate.
One of the parent posts mentioned that it is difficult to even agree what constitutes sexual harassment, so difficult to know what to act on or how to act in all circumstances.
Some consider a hug sexual harassment, some consider touching a knee. What about putting your hand on a person's back? Does it make a difference what part of their back, if so exactly how and where?
Sexual harassment should be far more about intention rather than the specific part of the body touched (excluding the obvious no-go areas of genitals and breasts). Generally you should be allowed 1 strike, for mis-reading signals.
In a society where men are expected to initiate contact, this is a fraught situation.
No, sorry, I don't get it at all. Stop trying to read "signals" and get people's actual consent before touching them. It's not difficult or complicated.
Not sure what you mean - I have been touched by male and female colleagues numerous times. Not once was it sexual, it was just people being people. Are you suggesting that they ask my permission every time before touching my arm or shoulder or slapping me on the back?
Can you imagine the following scene:
"Gee John, you did a great job there, I would like to shake your hand, or even pat your back (only near the shoulder mind you and no lower than a line formed by the bottom of your shoulder blades). Do you think that would be permissible? I want to reassure you that this touch will not be sexual in any way."
A handshake is a good example: when you go give one to someone, you don't actually touch them, you extend your hand and wait for their explicit (if non-verbal) consent.
As for patting backs, do avoid doing so. Many of us don't like it even if it's totally non-sexual.
> "As for patting backs, do avoid doing so. Many of us don't like it even if it's totally non-sexual."
...and many of us do like being patted on the back (non-condescending of course).
Perhaps in the future, we will all have to work in an environment where no touching of any sort is allowed, ever, but I can't help thinking that would be a step backwards.
The whole point is that it's not inappropriate in absolute terms.
The couples who found sex and/or love (and even marriage) in the workplace, would argue that it's appropriate.
It's only when it happens against the other's will that's inappropriate.
Merely some office decree saying it's not appropriate doesn't make it so (and if two people click, it won't fight human nature to connect, including in this way, anyway, people will do what they do).
Sure, that makes the formal legal aspect of it simpler (though still not simple—which is my only point here), but consider this: do you think these people in positions of power have ever run into situations where their inferiors desire the same thing? Obviously that's not the case for those making allegations—but don't you suppose there were also situations where these folks were involved in fully consensual situations which crossed the power line? The rules are there to protect the inferiors, but what if in some situations they do not want that protection at all? To say otherwise is to say that no one ever desires their boss, which is obviously wrong. 'Simple' is just not the right word for it.
Think about it logically rather than emotionally. It’s pretty safe to say that #(women who just want to work and build professional relationships without being propositioned for sex) >> #(women who want to have sex with their boss). Drawing bright-line rules that take sex categorically out of the professional context makes life vastly easier for the former group of women.[1] At slight inconvenience to the latter group. It optimized for the common case.
[1] People hate being solicited so much that we created a nationwide donotcall registry for it! And that’s with no power dynamics in play!
I'm not sure that you did optimize, actually. Part of the problem is that professional and social lines are regularly blurred, and indeed most workplaces encourage it. I have never worked at a workplace where at least some people did not socialize outside of that workplace and at least a few times, romantic relationships emerged from that. And these situations will have misunderstandings and hurt feelings, but to simply tell a bunch of adults that they cannot pursue social or romantic relationships is impossible. This isn't just true for workplaces, but for clubs, industry groups, etc. etc.
Therein lies the problem with these situations and why it's so important to have these discussions and for people to be honest. It's entirely possible I have sexually harassed someone and didn't realize it (though I doubt it, since I've never romantically pursued someone I worked with), simply by expressing interest in them. To not have the discussion is to remove agency from some parties and freedom from others.
You can socialize without bringing sex into the equation (which is how guys interact with each other). Talking about “removing agency” is disingenuous. It’s like saying that banning telemarketing calls is “removing agency” from people who really do want to be solicited. Women aren’t sitting around wishing their boss (or guys from work generally) would hit on them. We don’t need to construct the rules with an eye toward maximizing the contexts in which men can pursue sexual relationships.
> You can socialize without bringing sex into the equation
Of course. This is the safest policy for men in the workplace, for sure.
> (which is how guys interact with each other).
Well, not really? Even assuming no attraction, some guys in all-male social settings bring sex into things fairly frequently, both in general conversation, and in teasing each other. The latter of these is even intended to cause discomfort, and that often happens among friends.
I think it's a really bad idea to say to men: just act the way you would if there was no sexual attraction. That's a good way to guarantee a relatively high perception of sexual harassment, even where none was consciously intended. It's not enough to avoid intentional sexual harassment. Men must not even come close to anything we see as a line not to be crossed. If there is a power imbalance, the line seems to blur for a lot of people, meaning that men must then restrict their behavior near it to continue to be clearly on the non-harassing side.
Good news, though: the vast majority of the behavior that is being called out in the last few months seems so clearly on the harassing side of the line that a bit of caution would seem to go far in keeping clearly on the non-harassing side. For the most part, I assume these men were not surprised that they were seen as harassing. I don't think we're at the point where men have to go full Pence to avoid perceptions or accusations of sexual harassment.
> We don’t need to construct the rules with an eye toward maximizing the contexts in which men can pursue sexual relationships.
Nor do we need to minimize them. You're talking as if men are the only people who might want to pursue romantic relationships. You are also proposing a world in which we limit the pursuit of romantic relationships to select places. You can't do it in a professional environment, nor any clubs where there is a strata of levels (say sports clubs or martial arts, for example), nor trade or professional organizations. You can do it at the bar, using online dating or in designated areas. Even if people thought that would be a good idea, there's no way it could ever work. It's entirely natural for people in the same profession to pursue romantic relationships and they are adults who have a right to do so.
Furthermore, sexual harassment doesn't just exist in the workplace. Women are harassed everywhere: walking down the street, in bars, online, everywhere. Saying "no harassment in the workplace" doesn't even come close to addressing the issue. An open discussion does far more than that.
This isn't to say I don't believe there isn't inappropriate behaviors for the workplace; taking your pants down or kissing someone unsolicited is never appropriate. Nor would it be appropriate outside of work. But sexual harassment can be far more subtle and the line can only be drawn with communication.
What a weird example. Steve Jobs wasn't a coworker or had any position of power over her, he just gave a lecture she attended. Sounds perfectly compatible with rayiner's position.
I disagree. I think guest lecturer still are a position of authority, but there are degrees. HP CEO was fired for dating a contractor or something like that. Where is the line?
Also Bill Gates.
Anyway, my personal wish is coworkers should never, ever date. There are so many options, why take one that has the potential to blow up? Yet, it's one of the common ways people meet. I even knew one who married a woman he interviewed and hired. If only we could all be more logical about relationships. :/
> It’s like saying that banning telemarketing calls is “removing agency” from people who really do want to be solicited.
This is pretty disingenuous. You are assuming famous people with lots of money and power don't have anyone they work with who want, like, pretty badly, to be 'solicited'. In other words, those who desire solicitation aren't going to be just indifferent about it, as one would be if they for some reason opted out of a do-not-call list. Or were you imagining those folks lusting over the prospect of telemarketing calls? ;)
>You can socialize without bringing sex into the equation
Why though?
Do you also think that all romances/marriages that started in office/professional settings are bad, and should be stopped?
Else, why would socializing (in other aspects, like being friends, drinking, talking etc) is OK, but "bringing sex into the equation" is not? How is sex different?
Is it just because a puritanical society considers it different than being social in other ways, a leftover from when it was considered dirty/sin?
Or because of the potential to mess it up? Well, socializing otherwise can mess up too (can turn into extreme hate, bloody office politics, etc). Nothing is perfect.
Though, "don't grope people who don't want it" and "don't masturbate in front of others that didn't ask you for it" sounds pretty easy to attain without banning all romantic/sexual relationships from a professional environment.
After all, we don't want those things happening in singles bars either -- it's not like work is something different in that regard.
The good stuff though, e.g. too people falling in a romantic relationship (or fucking like rabbits in an office closet) why not?
>Women aren’t sitting around wishing their boss (or guys from work generally) would hit on them.
Women in general not, but SOME women do. And that's for boss. If you take it to "guys from work" that's an ever bigger percentage.
Is it just because a puritanical society considers it different than being social in other ways, a leftover from when it was considered dirty/sin?
So what if it is? It's completely unacceptable to cause harm to others just because in a better society that harm wouldn't happen. We're responsible for the consequences of our actions in the real world, not in what we wished the world was.
>It's completely unacceptable to cause harm to others just because in a better society that harm wouldn't happen.
The above doesn't parse. What's the "harm to others" you imply?
What I'm saying is sex itself is not harmful/sinful (assuming both parties are consenting), so having sex with a coworker is not much different (or "bad") than having beers with them.
>We're responsible for the consequences of our actions in the real world, not in what we wished the world was.
You got it backwards: mere thinking/religious belief/whatever that something is bad/sinful/whatever doesn't make it bad in the real world.
> Think about it logically rather than emotionally.
If there was part of my above comment which seemed to you emotionally rather than logically motivated, I'd be happy to clarify it.
It seems from your response that you think I'm arguing against having that line drawn (the one which takes sex categorically out of the professional context). So to clarify: that is very very far both from what I have said and how I feel about things. I think that line is very important and absolutely should be in place.
But that question is unrelated to the matter of complexity and simplicity which I intended to discuss (though my interlocutors so far have insisted on skirting the subject). For instance—as I already covered in my first comment—is it 'simple' how to define that line?
People might disagree on the line itself, but many of these cases that are publicized are... if you read the details of the interactions they are clearly way over many reasonable people's lines.
We might not need a hard line. An acknowledgement of those that went way over the line is proving to be a huge step forward for society. Hopefully we can be left _only_ with ambiguous cases when they occur.
It's not normal for someone known by everyone around them to be a harasser to be able to continue their acts.
This case describes a boss trying to kiss his female coworkers and touch their legs. It's not difficult. It's not the appropriate environment to do that and the power dynamic is wrong, too. People know better.
You're commenting on a discussion of general principles related to the article's content, and not a sanctioning of nor condemnation of Lasseter's specific behavior. The question is whether the general issue is 'simple' or 'complex'.
I was stating that not doing what is claimed in this case (kissing, touching - sexual harassment) is simple, and it is. That's obviously not appropriate behavior. Most of these recent scandals include behavior that either isn't appropriate in a work environment or isn't appropriate ever. There's no discussion to be had, not being Harvey Weinstein is easy.
Add to that the fact our society continues to push the idea that the men which women 'really want' are aggressive in initiating sexual situations. A man who does something as timid as asking whether he may kiss a girl can assure himself of inadequacy. (Not that there aren't plenty of exceptions to our media supporting this idea—but it's still implied pervasively. And some of it probably is just human nature.)
You got into "general principles", which as someone pointed out isn't relevant to a work environment. Superiors don't need to be worried about sexual inadequacy in relation to coworkers. We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
Oops, didn't realize you were the same person, and I would've phrased it differently in that case.
That said, your statement, "With these scandals, it really is simple: don't sexually harass or assault others." was about the general issue, not the particular one. Additionally, both the parent and grandparent comments are general.
> We can say that sexual harassment is is complicated issue, and it is, but there's also behavior that shouldn't be happening by any standard and isn't difficult to avoid.
Here's the deal; if you're (a) at work and (b) dealing with subordinates, the correct amount of sex to bring to the relationship is zero. Figuring out "where to draw the line" is no more complicated than deciding how much flirting with your own daughter is appropriate. Seriously, when you're in a position like Lasseter's, the math is SUPER simple.
And when you are rich and famous, do you suppose the initiation doesn't occasionally start on the side of the subordinate? In that case, they may have some complex thoughts like, "what is the morality behind this rule if we both clearly desire one another, and they've already told me so first?" So now the complexity is at least similar to: do you still follow rules whose spirit seems not to apply to some present case?
If the situation actually matched the father/daughter analogy you gave, it would be super simple. Unfortunately it doesn't look like that analogy works.
If one person can promote, demote and fire the other, that's a potentially huge can of worms even when the manager isn't starting the relationship off with casual abuse of power. Maybe some of the other complex thoughts should be like, "Can the manager be trusted not to play favorites with their lover?" and "How will the rest of the team react?" and "If this relationship goes south, can they avoid the appearance--and actuality--of retaliation?" There's a reason a sizable minority of companies have HR policies prohibiting office romances between two people in the same reporting chain, and it's not (solely) because HR professionals are big jerky jerk stick-in-the-muds.
Why does it matter who initiated it? The correct answer either way is To not get sexually involved with subordinates. There is no moral ambiguity here. It is wrong to abuse a position of power.
If you reason for not getting sexually involved with a subordinate is that it is wrong to abuse a position of power, how is there not an ambiguity there - or the rule goes out the window - if the subordinate is initiating?
To pretend that the "correct answer" is always so straightforward is to assume that people never make it messy by addressing your assumptions and actively trying to change your mind about it.
Like all moral questions, at its base it's really aesthetics or even "taste". Some managers are not attracted to those who are willing to exchange romance for career advancement. (...they got a name for that.) Other managers are attracted to that sort of person. The former group of managers has less difficulty with this situation than the latter group has, so one might say they have better taste; YMMV.
Like I said, YMMV. This is not an assumption so much as an observation of dozens of couples in various industries, with both men and women in the superior position. This isn't necessarily a conscious motivation on the part of the subordinate, but it exists. Like other temporary motivations (e.g. beauty, wealth, vigor, etc.) this one sets up the relationship for a transition when the motivator no longer exists. Many relationships survive such transitions; many do not.
It's a simple rule. Judging from the number of relationships I see spring up in my workplace, I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
> I wouldn't say that it's an easy rule to follow (for some people, anyhow).
I stick by the same rule, but other people have not been so smart. Most famous case is Bill Gates, who's now not-happily married to Melinda Gates. Or not. Case in point, it is all debatable and depending on context, like all human interactions, but with witch-hunts like these the context gets totally lost.
Which witch-hunt? The only people being accused seem to have been obviously over all reasonable limits. A side discussion about workplace relationships, without mentioning any names, is not a witch-hunt.
Ha, should've known this would devolve into ad hominem. The discussion is about simplicity vs. complexity, not 'difficulty'. Address any of the points I've made and I'd be happy to discuss.
I'm sorry, but their post is still bullshit. It is incredibly easy to not harass and to not assault people. Claiming that things are "tricky" or "unclear" when they're not doesn't help anyone.
You'd be amazed how many of the accused said things very similar to what you're saying, right up until the point when they themselves were accused. It's not simple at all, people who claim it is are missing a great deal of nuance and, oftentimes, merely projecting this attitude in the hopes of masking their own transgressions.
Can you point to any of the recent high profile allegations where the accusations are of behavior that was ambiguous? They almost all seem to be totally clear cut cases of inappropriate actions or worse. These aren't mild flirting with a colleague.
No, it’s not simple. It is incredibly complicated, and moreso than I can address in thiscomment. But, for one, these are not court trials. These are public relations events.
You have assumed that the parents' motivation is to 'make it more right'—there's nothing they've written which expresses that. The comment seems to me to be a much more interesting statement on how we understand the notions of right and wrong in general.
People need to be able to discuss this on a philosophical level without automatically being accused of taking one side or the other.
Remembering that people are complex and nuanced is a thought terminating truism; this is built into the definition of people. The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant.
What the quote was eliciting is the idea that we are, "all flawed" and you should look at yourself before you judge, which is utter bullshit. I am flawed (a person), but I can still judge the others and what is acceptable socially to a higher standard than my own (assumed) actions. To not do so is to enter in a pact where we race to the bottom lest be judged to a higher standard.
We each embody multiple simultaneous facets that don't always agree, but they all need to hold society accountable while being individually flawed. And we cannot turn an eye against the flaws for the protection of our selves.
You are adding too much of your own uses and interpretations to the quote. The compartmentalization of an individual's moral actions is an interesting thing to just know about human nature, and it's not as well known as you might think (your simplification to "people are complex and nuanced" is another matter, and I'd agree wouldn't need to be said). I'd wager the typical opinion on the whole lot of recently accused is that we found some 'evil people'—which presents serious difficulties to those who've found their heroes accused, as has probably come up a number of times in connection with Lasseter, for example.
> The _italics_ doesn't make your comment more poignant.
Not sure why you thought I was shooting for poignance. I was drawing attention to the fact that your statement was based on an assumption, since that was the most important thing and people like to skim.
It's only binary because the actions they've done are so egregious that we have no other choice but to condemn them. Most people are able to stop themselves at the mere thought of committing actions such as these. And yes, while everyone makes mistakes there is a huge difference between mistakes that might hurt someone a bit and mistakes that make people feel violated. I've never made anyone feel violated and I'm sure most other people can say the same. Here's a 3 step process for anyone who finds it difficult and if at any point you answer no, stop what you are doing:
1. Do you know this person well and do they respond enthusiastically positive toward you?
2. Have you discussed your feelings towards them and have they responded enthusiastically positive towards them?
3. Have you discussed the things you want to do and have they responded enthusiastically positive towards them?
As an average looking guy who has had no trouble finding many romantic partners, let me say this, if your success hinges upon overwhelming surprise then you are doing something VERY wrong. If you are worried about it no longer feeling in the moment after asking for consent, let me assure you that if they want you as bad as they should, it won't be given a second thought.
> If you are worried about it no longer feeling in the moment after asking for consent, let me assure you that if they want you as bad as they should, it won't be given a second thought.
This is a phenomenal point. If the "moment" is so fragile, that it can be totally destroy by asking for consent, then it's also very likely too fragile to take any action.
If you think "if I ask, then it might ruin the moment", then you also have a huge chance of making someone very uncomfortable.
Aren't the actions egregious on a case by case basis? Do we actually know what he's been accused of? It sounds like he's a little bit overly friendly...and that does not push somebody into a binary 0 for me. Dude makes good movies.
Based on what I read about the details, if the boss of your company was making unwanted sexual advances to the people that worked for him/her, most people to whom this happened would think "Eww".
From the news -
A former Pixar employee requesting anonymity says Lasseter's leave of absence statement is "ridiculous" and "trivializing this behavior." The employee adds, "To sum this up as unwanted hugs is belittling and demeaning. If it was just unwanted hugs, he wouldn't be stepping down."
Yes, we do, in the linked articles. The Polanski Standard is a bad one. Someone can make great movies but if they are a creep, they're a creep. If he made bad movies would it be okay to judge him?
I've gotta believe you can be a decent person and still do great things. Otherwise, what's the point? No need to excuse bad behavior, maybe by excusing it, we make it possible.
If predators got run out of industries instead of being allowed to stick around for decades (Hastert, Weinstein, Paterno, Spacey, Trump, the media is even starting to turn on Bill Clinton), then we wouldn't have to be so disappointed. It's not acceptable.
Paterno isn't accused of being a predator. You're probably thinking of Jerry Sandusky.
But ironically, you might accidentally have come across the reason this doesn't happen. Things that "everyone knows" aren't actionable until there's hard evidence and accusers on the record, and then afterwards, we all pretend like "everyone knew" and chose to do nothing.
“Grabbing” and “kissing” coworkers is more than “a little overly friendly.” Legally, it’s battery. (Fun fact: it was defined that way at common law, long before feminism.)
Wiki page on battery? [1] Or any legal text on it...
Battery in common law is basically any unlawful offensive/unwanted physical contact, though various jurisdictions limit or define this very differently.
So it's not that kissing or grabbing is specifically called out, but that any physical contact to the extent that it is unwanted (battery and assault both depend on the recipients subjective views in common law; in codified versions this may be different) and/or seen as insulting or offensive in the relevant jurisdiction is likely to be battery unless specific other criteria comes into play.
A challenge is that in some instances you may be thought to "silently consent". E.g. in the UK this very explicitly comes into play with ordinary contact in a crowd, and presumably all jurisdictions will recognize this in some form or other. But absent codified rules, precisely what/how/when you may be considered to "silently consent" to may vary wildly in different common law jurisdiction depending on details of precedent setting case law up through the ages and changing social expectations.
E.g. a lot of people would likely have expectations of a higher level of "silent consent" on a night club dance floor, for example - but conversely because battery is largely down to the subjective judgement of the victim, my ex is due in court tomorrow because some guy grabbed her ass in a night club and refusing to apologize (admittedly "helped" massively by the guy lying to the police about it once things escalated)
