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.
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.