BLM and feminism - 2017-04-10

« first day (2 days earlier) next day → last day (36 days later) »

11:13 AM

@BradC Earlier, I said I could make a feminist argument. Here goes: Your posts are heavily laden with misogyny. First off, you call yourself a male feminist. That is impossible because men cannot be feminists, at best you can be a woke misogynist ally. Calling yourself a feminist demonstrates your misogyny, as you made several comments dismissing the opinions of women such as Christina Hoffs-Sommers.

According to feminist thought, you are not even a good ally, as you are not checking your privilege and quick to dismiss the opinions of the oppressed, A good ally is one who listens, and believes, yes you have repeatedly refused to listen to my opinions, thus demonstrating your abliist bigotry.

2 hours later…

12:56 PM

"According to feminist thought" is a mistake, as there are many different variants of feminism, some of which are radically different.

Unfortunately only the nutjobs seem to make the headlines these day; especially in certain publications which seems hell-bent on making a case against feminism (which is easy if you focus on just the craziest).

1:23 PM

@Carpetsmoker These are coming from universities. I'm getting tired of the "No True Scottsman" defense.

Also, when prominent Feminist authors such as Camile Paglia and Christina Hoffs-Sommers are being no-platformed, it's clear who is in charge, and it's not the more sensible ones. Hell, even Julie Bindel was no-platformed recently for not being radical enough.

@RichardU I don't know those people, but that sort of underlines my point: it's a mistake to view feminism as a monolithic entity.

But I don't disagree that some of the more extreme voices are far too loud

For my liking

And that's because I care about feminism

2:09 PM

@Carpetsmoker When Christina Hoffs-Sommers, a prolific feminist author from all the way back in the 1970s is being no-platformed as a rape-apologist (which she is not) then feminism has definitely gone off the rails. I say this because the power is held by those no-platforming her and others. It was a feminist diversity officer at a major university who was pushing the "killallwhitemen" and "maletears" hashtags.

The quotes and positions I've been throwing out are not coming from the most radical elements. Those are so insane as to be indistinguishable from trolling.

2:45 PM

@RichardU I think there are many more "moderates" than you give credit for

@Carpetsmoker but the moderates are not driving the movement right now.

3rd wave, intersectional feminism is the dominant ideology now.

Well

"No platforming" someone is easy, and takes just a few people.

If you do it right

That doesn't mean everyone supports it

Which is the ideology that Brad is backing, so I used an argument from that phil9osophy to counter his.

@Carpetsmoker So, an ideology doesn't exist unless everyone supports it?

Of course it exists

Just saying you should chuck all of feminism in the rubbish bin because you don't agree with certain aspects

Only about 1/3 of Americans supported the revolution.... That didn't make things easier for the British

@Carpetsmoker I'm throwing it in the bin because of dominant aspects.

Such as shutting down a seminar on male suicide

or shutting down the only "Men's shelter" for domestic abuse as being "misogynistic"

2:49 PM

Most people I know reject those sort of extreme actions while supporting feminism (equal rights) in principle... That's all I know :-)

Other than that, we agree on the ridiculousness of the examples you mentioned.

@Carpetsmoker if feminism were about equality, it would be called egalitarianism

Yeah, I've actually argued for a "new feminism" which takes in to account aspects from both males and females

Actually, some feminists argue in favour of that as well

@Carpetsmoker The issue I have is not even against the radicals, but the so-called moderates who, when these issues are brought up, respond with #maletears

One of the problems now is that there has developed a culture of polarisation, rather than constructive debate. Some of these "Men's rights" advocates are just as silly as some of these extreme feminists...

Which is not helping matters

I don't quite follow what you mean with that?

@Carpetsmoker The problem is, when discourse does happen, the radicals shut it down. The movie "The Red Pill" was done by a feminist investigating the men's movement. She actually sat down with some of the more hard-line members of the men's movement, but instead of doing a hit-piece, she actually listened.

She's lost all of her feminist cred now, and is getting death-threats.

2:55 PM

Yeah, I fully agree that there's a culture of repression

*Sometimes

I think your discussion would be helped along by just talking about specific positions and tactics, not overall generalizations of entire movements or even factions of movements.

As to my previous comment. When the so-called "moderate" feminist reaction to men's problems is "#maletears" or "patriarchy hurts everybody". It's dismissing the very real problems men face, such as 92% of all workplace fatalities, 75% of all suicides, 80% of homelessness, a shorter lifespan, almost never getting child custody, longer prison sentences, et cetera.

I've actually had similar experiences a few years ago, when I was prepared to listen to some of these GamerGate people directly. I found their positions to be utter bullcrap, but was considered a "emotionless monster" (literally what I was called) just for engaging in debate (even though I firmly rejected and refuted most points in the discussions themselves)

@K-C "No true scottsman, eh?"

Well

2:56 PM

That, and nuance

@Carpetsmoker I have a simple philosophy. "If it's bad, it doesn't matter who is doing it"

nuance is a nonsense term that means nothing.

Okay

"nuance" is a fancy way of saying "You're too stupid to understand the issue, and I'm not going to explain it".

When it comes to MRA, here's my favourite quote about that, by feminist Jaclyn Friedman:

> The list of grievances for MRAs is long. It includes the elevated rate of suicide for men, educational discrimination against boys, economic and workplace conditions for men, violence against men, false rape reporting, fathers’ rights in custody battles, rates of male imprisonment and prison conditions, and the horrors of war. Many of these issues deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement for address them. It’s too bad that’s not what men’s rights activists are offering.

@RichardU k that isn't what I meant. I didn't know it meant that.

2:58 PM

@RichardU I don't agree with that at all. "Nuance" is accepting that the world is complex, and that often there aren't clear-cut answers.

Sorry

It's also accepting that, perhaps, you could be wrong. And being prepared to listen to people who have different world-views than you

I'll leave

@Carpetsmoker, no it's just being dismissive of an argument.

@K-C don't leave

You can use it to be dismissive, I suppose. But then again, you can use many adjectives that way :-)

2:59 PM

@K-C If you didn't mean it that way, I apologize.

That doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed.

@Carpetsmoker it doesn't mean it's valid either.

There is no such color as gray, BTW, it's just an interspersing of black and white at which you are not looking closely enough

So it's impossible that in any discussion with two viewpoints the truth is somewhere in the middle of that?

@Carpetsmoker It's possible that both sides could be wrong, both sides can have valid points, or one side can be entirely right.

Aristotle neatly averts the golden mean fallacy in "ethics".

The exact middle is very rarely the truth of the matter.

Feminism, IMO, has never accepted it's own victories.

Women are tough enough to serve in the military in combat roles, but wither if you make an off color joke? How are these two thoughts compatible? Forget guns and artillery, if the enemy just arms themselves with megaphones and throws out misogynistic comments, they'll all surrender?

Again, we don't really disagree on that. I just think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And yeah, I agree that many people fail to realize how far we've come in such a short time

(Even though there is still more work to be done)

3:13 PM

@Carpetsmoker not at all. I'm FIRMLY throwing in with Camile Paglia, Karen Straughen, Christina Hoffs-Sommers, and even think that far-left radicals like Julie Bindel and Jenny McDermott should be allowed to speak, I just think that those currently in power need to go.

@Carpetsmoker right now, I think that the men's issues are far more serious these days. There is literally no infrastructure in place to help a man who is in a bad situation, NONE.

Like what sort of bad situation do you mean?

@Carpetsmoker well, from personal experience, I ended up homeless for a while. While you can get FAMILY MEDICAID, and various women's shelters, et cetera. If you are a man, you don't get Medicaid, there are no men's shelters, no WIC which stands for Women, Infants and Children (notice who's left out). I was medically incapable of working at the time, BTW.

and my situation wasn't NEARLY as severe as others I know of.

Well, I'm not from the states, but that seems like an unfair situation :-( I especially find the lack of medicaid disturbing

(... health care in the states is of course a whole other can of worms)

3:42 PM

@RichardU You do know that #killallwhitemen and #maletears are jokes, right? In-group jokes that are humorous because they an ironic exaggeration of the worst that their opponents accuse them of?

Not sure if you're aware, but lots of atheists joke about eating babies. Not because atheists actually eat babies, but because its an ironic exaggeration of the worst accusations that have been thrown at them, from Christians

@BradC cop out

@BradC Some Wiccans I know say that babies are too high in cholesterol, but oddly there's not a hashtag for that.

@BradC I wonder if you would see the humor in a #killall (anyone else)

You keep bringing them up, though, as if they are not jokes, as if they are sincere indications of their beliefs.

@BradC I have this funny habit of taking people at their word. Must be due to my ethnicity and a little madman with an odd mustache calling for the deaths of certain ethnic minorities

@BradC How about a hashtag like #DeafTears for when the deaf raise issues?

Or maybe #AutisticTears for whenever autismspeaks tries to raise awareness?

I bet you'll be laughing your kiester off at both of those jokes, eh?

Nope, doesn't work that direction, it only makes sense from the perspective of the marginalized group. If the deaf community were to use #hearingTears when hearing people complain about being annoyed by ClosedCaptioning that they don't need, that's absolutely their prerogative.

@BradC Sorry, you're being ablest again.

You need to be a good ally and listen

listen and believe

3:52 PM

Listen and believe WHO about WHAT?

So, as I understand it, it's funny to laugh at a male who's suicidal, right?

I dont think its funny to laugh at anyone who's suicidal

But #maletears is a joke, right?

So you're laughing at mentally ill men who are suicidal

Since we see #maletears any time male suicide is discussed

Then again, suicidal men are helping the #Killallmen, so I guess you see it as productive, eh?

#maletears is not a joke about sincerely depressed men. #maletears is a joke about men who cry fake tears when women request equal treatment.

IMHO discussions about what is or isn't a joke on stupid platforms like Twitter is a rather silly discussion...

Which only distract from the real points

3:55 PM

I think they illustrate the depth of Richard's misunderanding of the movement

@BradC no, it's being dismissive of real problems.

It focuses on form, rather than substance

@BradC Oh, I understand it far more than you. I've met women like Margot Adler personally.

@BradC however, you need to check your privilege again.

I'm disabled, so according to the laws of intersectionality, you need to be a good ally and listen and believe

@RichardU stop using phrases you don't fully understand

Yes, I should be a good ally and listen and believe the stories of members of marginalized groups to which I don't belong

@BradC Now you're mocking my mental faculties, how ablest of you.

You're oppressing me because I've had a stroke and am autistic

Listen and believe, @BradC

As an ethnic Kekistani, I'm very offended

@Carpetsmoker I agree. I'm very egalitarian myself.

One thing people with disabilities face that is far worse than any oppression is the well-intentioned, omnipotent busybodies attempting to help us against our will

@Carpetsmoker valid points are valid points, regardless of who makes them. If I see someone who is in need of help, I don't first bring out my sorting-algorithm of oppression before I decide just how much help they deserve based on their oppression points, I help them.

4:01 PM

That is, by the way, a line of reasoning that I never understood. Sure, there are plenty of groups that need support in some form or another in some way or another. But ... dismissing concerns because "some other group has it worse" seems counter-productive. We should pay attention to both concerns. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive!

2

@Carpetsmoker agree 100%.

My first rule on helping is "make sure your help is needed, wanted, and actually helpful"

In that sense, "feminism" vs. "men's rights" is not a problem at all. Femists should have their (valid) grievances addressed, and men should have their (valid) ones addressed. I don't see how it has to be either one or the other

Yet often, it's phrased like that. Sometimes subtly. Sometimes not-so-subtly.

@Carpetsmoker yes, and the more moderate sides are getting together and talking. Christina Hoffs-Sommers has two boys and she is well aware of the issues men face and is actively working to help BOTH

I mean, otherwise we might as well all give up and talk only about children dying in Africa or something... that's far worse than what we have to deal with

yep

@Carpetsmoker I am annoyed at this new hashtag activism. It does nothing but virtue signal. If you're not out doing good works, you can hashtag all day. Me, now that I'm healthy again, I'm busy trying to do charity work again.

4:06 PM

@Carpetsmoker Right, but critics of feminism (like good old @RichardU here) insist that feminism cannot coexist, because it shouldn't be feminism, it should be egalitarianism. And that's bullshit

I am annoyed by most things on Twitter. My solution is simple: ignore it.

@Carpetsmoker I dropped it years ago.

The problem with Twitter is that it's just "screaming in a crowd"

Rather than "have a conversation"

Other platforms at least somewhat offer the possibility of discussions or conversations. But not so on Twitter

@Carpetsmoker it tempts my inner troll far too much

This is why you see so much ranting/trollish/bullshit comments on Twitter – more than other platforms

As that's what gets attention

4:08 PM

If you want to spend your time and energy building and supporting men's shelters, godspeed to you. But don't tell feminist activists they can't do the same. And yes, if feminists oppose your aims to support men in need, then I would disagree with them.

@BradC funny, I can't seem to find a single time I said that women's shelters shouldn't be built. could you point out to me where I said that.

@Carpetsmoker It's very easy to snark on platforms where characters are limited.

putting together a cogent argument takes time, a snarky response next to none.

@RichardU Yeah, exactly... This is why making snarky comments even on SE sites in the comments can sometimes be tempting (if you have a snarky streak like me :-) )

That's the baby you're throwing out with the bathwater.

@Carpetsmoker yeah, I cut my teeth back in the days of the Usenet. By the time the WWW came along, I could (and did) shut down entire online groups. But... I was young. No interest in that any longer.

@BradC If you'd comment on the points I've made rather than strawmen, that would be great

@RichardU Which points, you mean your misunderstanding of the origin, meaning and use of #maletears, even after my explanation? Your constant misuse of "check your privilege", when you're also a white man? Your ongoing insistence that Christian Hoff-Summers is a feminist icon despite the fact that her writings nowadays put her solidly into anti-feminist territory? Your continuing insistence that even the term "feminist" is, in and of itself, discriminatory? Those points?

4:20 PM

@BradC You are rather ablest, aren't you? I'm an ethnic Kekistani, Autistic, hearing impaired, stroke survivor, poor and formerly homeless member of the LGBTQA+ community.

You need to check your privilege when talking to the oppressed

And if any of those were subjects of our discussion, and if some of those specific issues were at question, then that might be appropriate. But you keep using it as a generic "shut up" in ways that don't make sense

Those aspects don't give you blanket "I win" on every issue

@BradC Obviously you know nothing about the rigid thinking of Autism. You are being extremely ablest in assuming that I should think the way that I do. Plus, my stroke has affected my thinking as well, though I note that you commented on that earlier. As one of the oppressor class, you need to be more conscientious.

I understand the terminology and it's use quite well, as you can see.

You need to frame your debate in such a way as to not trigger people with autism, and allow for the rigid, black and white thinking that we are prone to.

@RichardU Ok, explain it to me, then. Does that mean that I should not necessarily expect you to be able to understand subtly and nuance? Or sarcasm and irony?

And if so, is that something that you can begin to understand, when explained in a certain way?

@BradC the inability to process those are endemic of autism. In the world of intersectionality, being able to understand those are not my responsibility to even begin to try to understand.

Because your entire paragraph really, truly, sounds like your trolling me.

And if you're not, then, ... that makes our conversation much more difficult

4:27 PM

@BradC Oh, I have very limited understanding of subtlety, sarcasm and irony.

and THIS is where I can comment on intersectionality

@BradC in your view, do I have ANY responsibility in learning how to understand sarcasm, subtlety or irony? If I don't have that ability, is it incumbent on me to even ATTEMPT to develop it?

Well, it sounds like it would be very difficult. Seems to me that even if you couldn't identify it on your own, it would be pretty useful to at least be able to contextualize sarcasm, subtlety and irony.

In that respect, if someone else explains how something (atheists eating babies, for example) is an example of that, does that help? Or does it still not make sense?

And if you can't, that would make it difficult to have a meaningful exchange about a subject containing those ideas

Because if you just keep coming back with "but you should never eat babies" (which is true, of course), then we're not really even having the same conversation.

@BradC it actually is very difficult. What I do is memorize sarcastic expressions. I have an eidetic memory as a side effect of not being able to write. I've done so much to overcome the problems that most don't know I'm autistic unless they know other autistics.

I am an advocate for a lot of issues and am very much for equality. I just don't think that treating people like children helps anyone.

Well, then we probably have a different view of what it means to "treat people like children"

Ha, just looked up "Kekistani". You sure you're not just trolling me??

You should probably add #maletears to your "this is sarcastic" list, then.

And #killallwhitemen

@BradC the Kekistan bit was a bit of silliness.

The Whole Kekistan bit was started by left-of-center people like me who stole alt-right meme's to annoy the far left, and as a bonus, annoyed the alt-right who didn't like their memes stolen. So we did it more.

4:44 PM

ok. The 4chan origin just makes it harder for me to distinguish between "Richard has sincere disagreements" vs "Richard is an expert-level troll"

@BradC here is where I have the problem with feminism. You have at the same time, all these arguments at how women are so powerful that they should be in combat with men, yet at the same time, so frail that a rude comment can trigger them. It can be one or the other, but not both. Otherwise, an opposing military could send entire battalions into a panic by projecting explicit pictures onto the battlefield.

Oh, and I am BOTH an expert level troll AND have sincere disagreements. I just have too much respect for SE to engage in heavy trolling.

@RichardU I think the arguments can co-exist without being contradictory. In fact, in some ways they are two different sides of the same coin: respect. Let's take, for example, fire fighters.

It hasn't been that long since fire houses were all men (firemen), with zero opportunity for even able-bodied women.

@BradC if you're tough enough to carry a gun, you're tough enough to take a joke.

@BradC re:Firefighters Yes, but the physical standers were LOWERED for women, same for women in the military.

(still typing out my example, give me a second to finish) Then, even after they weren't explicitly excluded, they were defacto excluded because of some of the specific requirements: do we want our firefighters to be strong enough to do their job? Of course we do. Is it really necessary that they (insert specific physical requirement)? I don't know. In some cases yes, in other cases, no.

@BradC I want a firefighter to be able to haul my fat backside (well, gut, actually) out of a building. If a firefighter can't lift 200lbs of dead weight, find another position.

ditto that for military.

4:54 PM

Should we (to make up an example) require that all firefighters be over 6 feet tall? Well, that might be helpful in some situations, but no, that seems overly strict and unnecessary. And very clearly excludes more women than it excludes men

My nephew is a firefighter. Size and strength matters.

Of course it does. (I don't know enough about the job to advocate for or against specific tests further here)

But once they are in the firehouse, then what?

Should they be able to take an occasional crude joke? Sure. But should they have to put up with constant physical and sexual harassment? Absolutely not

Now where exactly is the line? That's not an easy question, but surely you see why its important to ask

It's a rough job, and a mentally exhausting one. If you can't take some nonsense in the FH, how are you going to deal with a screaming child burned over half her body, dying in your arms.

So yes, we give women the chance to demonstrate their ability to perform any job they like, given realistic standards. And once they are in, everyone, regardless of gender, should be respected. And yes, if that means that nude calendars have to come down off the firehouse wall, then I'm ok with that

If we disagree about what defines "some nonsense" vs "active harassment", then maybe that's a worthwhile discussion (not that I'm proposing having it here), but if you're actually arguing "they should put up with any shit thrown at them, no matter how vile", then no, I'm not going to agree with you.

@BradC I've worked all kinds of jobs. It's been my experience that the women in many blue collar jobs have worse potty-mouths than the men.

5:00 PM

:shrug: Sure, that' doesn't contradict my point.

And let's not forget that the kind of thing we are sometimes talking about in the military, are things like getting raped by your superior officer and having the chain of command cover it up.

@BradC Yes, I am making that point, to a degree. Should they put up with MORE than the men have to? NO. But again, think about the job. What could happen back in the firehouse that would be worse than what they see on the job? Hell, the smell alone would stop me.

Not just jokes.

@BradC I worked with a guy who would like to grab other guys on the backside.

You ask "Should they put up with MORE than the men have to? NO." Well then, maybe we agree more than you think.

Because currently women DO put up with more than men, and they shouldn't have to.

@BradC but I've also worked in environments where people are, IMO, TRYING to be offended.

5:08 PM

@RichardU I'm sure that's probably the case sometimes. I'm sure we could come up with examples of both, but frankly most claims of "PC is getting out of control" is people sad that they can't throw around offensive terms and jokes anymore like they used to, and I just can't work up much sympathy

@BradC there was an event titled "The triggering" where you had A Democrat, A Republican and a Libertarian meeting to discuss it.

Of course, the FAR left went nuts

and it's not about being able to say nasty things, it's about getting a thicker skin. The world is a big nasty place.

(This is a perfect situation when someone might sarcastically refer to "male tears": yes, a mechanic might complain that he has to take down his nude calendar, but that's not a real cause for actual tears, it's just complaining that he has to actually start thinking about how what he does effects other people)

Instead of saying that, what's wrong with saying "RESPECT" or "DECENCY"

(for which feminists don't have a lot of sympathy)

@BradC but that calendar soon becomes a picture of the wife on the desk (actual case)

5:18 PM

Those terms are used at lot as well

@BradC but those terms are not divisive

and if you heard some of the things said about me over the years, you'd be shocked.

A portrait? Or a bikini pic? :shrug: As I said, I'm sure there are cases that go too far, but I don't believe those are representative

@BradC common enough to move policy, and that's what really matters

Again, if the rule is that you can't have a bikini pic on your desk (even if it is of a wife), then that rule doesn't bother me, sorry.

I had someone at work harassing me, and I gave it right back to him. He wrote a very nasty note on the whiteboard for all to see. My supervisor wanted to write him up, but I said "no" and took out a red marker and corrected his spelling and grammar.

5:22 PM

sounds like an effective response.

@BradC If you can't handle seeing someone's wife in a bikini, how are you going to handle seeing a body with the clothes burned off and the face in a twisted grin?

@BradC again, thicker skin

Because those are (unfortunately) necessary aspects of the job, the other is not.

@BradC if you can't handle seeing a woman in a bikini, how are you going to be able to visit a beach, much less a horrific scene of a fire?

again, I know all the gore involved. forget the sight, the smell of it is horrific. When you smell a burned body, you know it. I've had the misfortune to have had experience with that.

Again, I can say from experience that if you have to deal with horrors, nothing less than horror bothers you.

What about in an office? Why should a dude in a cubicle need a thong bikini pic of his wife on his desk, were everyone else can see it?

@BradC then why not ban bikinis on the beach, where you'll see more than just one of them.

and why are you looking at someone's desk photo anyway?

Or, more to the point, why is a picture of someone's photo of their wife in a bikini on his desk offensive, while it is not offensive on a TV program or commercial?

How many weight loss commercials for women feature before and after photos of those women, with the "after" photos being in bikinis or other skimpy clothing?

Should we ban Gilligan's Island reruns because of how Dawn Wells was dressed?

5:45 PM

Context.

They belong at the beach, not in the office

If someone goes to the beach, they know they're going to see people in bikinis. When they go into the office, they want to work, not see scantily-clad pics on peoples' desks

And I'm not even sure you're asking the right question - you keep asking "shouldn't she be tough enough to take it?" And in many cases yes, she already does put up with a lot of shit. But what if the question instead was: "how can I make all my employees feel respected?"

And yes, sometimes making all your employees feed respected in the office means asking Joe from accounting to find a more appropriate pic of his wife to display on his desk.

(or maybe "how can I make all my employees feel comfortable?")

Of course, reality is a bit messier than any one hypothetical, so sometimes two employees have different (or even opposite) ideas about what would make them feel respected (or comfortable). So we'll have to figure out if one or the other is being unreasonable, or if there is some reasonable compromise, or what.

6:08 PM

You can't make everyone comfortable. That's my point. The compromise, is buck up and don't be hypersensitive. That's what I was taught. MYOB was the order of the day. Also, I was taught that if you're different, as I am, YOU need to fit in, you can't expect the world to accommodate you.

In meetings, I sit on the left so I can hear everyone.

Those are reasonable broad guidelines generally speaking, but I disagree that they should be strictly interpreted rules. "Find a more appropriate pic of your wife to put on your desk" is not a unreasonable request in an office.

Accommodating actual disabilities is a bit more complicated, legally speaking. If your managers refuse to allow you to sit on the left, for example, or don't allow you the use of required assistance devices, then you'd have some legal avenues available to you

6:55 PM

Another example: should we have to put up with Joe cracking racial jokes in the office? Should everyone have to "buck up and don't be hypersensitive" to that? What if it means that Alicia in accounting and Jose in shipping quit, is that worth it, rather than telling Joe to knock it off?

7:30 PM

@BradC Here's what I don't like: If someone wants to crack on my hearing all day, and I don't have a problem with it, and a coworker reports the guy doing it and the guy gets in trouble. I'd be FAR more insulted by the one who reported him even if his jokes bothered me.

Because, frankly, the one cracking jokes at my expense is treating me like an adult who can take care of himself, whereas the office rat is treating me as a child who needs to be protected.

that's what I mean by treating us like children.

I can take care of myself, thank you, and quite well.

That's cool. But sometimes its pretty hard (from the outside) to tell the difference between Jose truly enjoying those taco and sombrero jokes, vs him playing along because he really needs the job and doesn't want to give management an excuse to get rid of him. Because no matter which it is, he's very likely to say "naw, it's ok" when asked directly, unless he really has a ton of confidence in management's ability to do the right thing.

And yeah, sometimes you can tell the difference, especially if Jose is the one telling the taco jokes.

But with few exceptions like that, "let's cut down on the racial jokes" isn't a particularly onerous rule. Its pretty much common sense

7:47 PM

@BradC and you know what happens? Then you're seen as someone to be avoided by coworkers and life REALLY sucks for you. Been there, done that, have the battle scars. God save us from the omnipotent busybodies who torment us with the approval of their own consciences.

So I'm an "omnipotent busybody" if I tell my coworkers to cut down on the sexual or racial jokes? eh, I'm perfectly ok with being thought of as a stick in the mud if that's the case.

But the situation I was thinking of was someone in authority (a manager) laying down the rule.

@BradC here's another thing. Policies like that don't change people's feelings. If anything, it makes the workplace WORSE for anyone "saved" by these omnipotent busybodies. Once those policies are passed, people walk on eggshells around you, afraid if they say the wrong thing to you, they're out of a job. Makes for fun office <s>Christmas</s> holiday parties

@BradC as I have in my profile, you have no right to be offended on my behalf

What if I don't like racial jokes, even though I'm white? Am I not allowed to be offended on my behalf? Or on behalf of my adopted non-white brother and sisters?

@BradC what if you don't like two black folks calling each other N***A?

You talk to the people, not managment

One time, Someone being an s-hole decided to shout "May your hearing aid batteries DIE" as an insult. I yelled back "May you follow them".

It felt good telling him off.

It would not have felt as good, nor I as strong if someone else had to ride to my rescue

do you get the concept?

If you're peeved over someone, take it up with them. That's one thing.

"I'm not bothered by X" is a horrible argument for "nobody should be bothered by X"

7:56 PM

@BradC true, but that's not the argument I'm making

I'm saying that if A does something to B it is not C's responsibility, or business to get offended on BEHALF of B

If C is A and B's manager, it absolutely might be

And if A & B have no problem?

Why cause trouble where there is none?

then :shrug:

THAT is my point.

then nobody reports it and nobody cares

so what the hell are we arguing about? that is not at all the argument you were making above

7:59 PM

If I got in an argument with a coworker and in a heated moment he called me "rainman" or something like that, and another coworker ratted him out I'd be pissed.

@BradC that's the argument I've been making all along.

Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

But the bikini pic and the pinup calendar are NOT just between two people who have articulated in advance that they're ok with it.

other people have to walk by every day and see it

Also, you said you worked with a guy who used to grab the butt of other guys

I assume he didn't clear his sexual assault in advance with everyone he touched

And even if he did have signed, notarized approval from the other guys that didn't mind a friendly grab every now and again, is it really oppressive to have a corporate rule that says "uhhh, don't grab asses, idiots"

@BradC the problem with the calendar and/or bikini pick is that it never stops. It escalates into a war of who can be most offended, because while you can't fire someone who got offended at your calendar, but you can find something of hers offensive. Maybe I'll interpret something she says as offensive to autistics, for example. just dealing with me here you know how easily I could make that fly

as for the butt grabber, nobody ever said anything, we all thought it was funny, and we behaved when women were around.

Oh, another story from Real Life. A past employer started sending women home because they were dressed too provocatively. They didn't want to get into trouble for men staring at them.

We are visual creatures.

8:16 PM

@RichardU "the problem with the calendar and/or bikini pick is that it never stops." Sure it does, if the employees are sincere, and not just digging at each other to make trouble.

Take down the calendar, problem solved

@BradC Sorry, It doesn't stop there, because policies erupt from that nonsense to where you cannot have ANY photos on your desk, no personalization whatsoever...

@RichardU If they were in violation of corporate dress code, this seems appropriate. If they weren't, then they should have told the men to keep their eyes on their work and get their jobs done

@BradC yeah, all they have to do is change biology

@RichardU "We can't make any rules, because someone might take it too far" is not a good reason to discard all rules

@BradC actually, what happened was the MEN complained. They were so scared of being hit with a sexual harassment complaint, they pushed hard to enforce the dress code

8:18 PM

It's a reason for thoughtful and common-sense interpretatino of rules

@BradC "We can't make any rules, because someone might take it too far" is not a good reason to discard all rules. No but it's a damn good reason to think twice

@BradC but you can't have that. It simply doesn't work that way.

So we agree! Reasonable rules, enforced reasonably!!

@BradC who defines what "reasonable" is.

For me, florescent lights are torture (Sensitivity to stimuli), it would be very reasonable for me to work by candlelight.

Others wouldn't be able to see.

It is never reasonable. Google "Air conditioning is sexist" and see what you come up with.

I still don't understand what you're trying to argue. Butt slapping is totes ok? Fully nude calendars should be permitted in the reception area where clients are coming in? Get rid of women firefighters, that should go back to an old boys club? You're mentioning some examples that are more subtle and nuanced, but that is not a reason to not have rules.

Nobody should ever complain, they should just suck it up like Richard does?

Richard won't complain, so totally ok to go start calling everyone the N word?

@BradC nope, none of the above.

8:32 PM

Even clear rules sometimes do need some interpretation in specific contexts. Sometimes managers (or HR personnel) get it right, sometimes they don't. Sometimes things work out for the best, sometimes one person gets screwed. None of that is any reason to not have rules.

@BradC I never said not to have rules, only to be aware of the consequences.

and that the prize shouldn't go to the one with the greatest butthurt.

speaking of which....

@RichardU Fully agree. Not all complaints are legitimate

But some are

Agreed

With the butt-grabber, we dealt with him in our own way.

I'm just saying that going to management or HR should be a LAST resort, not a first one.

Someone recently dropped the F bomb to a coworker. She came to me, I talked to her, but the two of them settled things between themselves.

I'm not her manager, BTW

Life is tough enough. I know I'm tougher than most, hell I wouldn't wish my life on my worst enemy, LOL.

But look back at where we started this whole discussion back on workplace.SE: a female developer, in a largely male company, was propositioned by a newer employee. She turned him down, he didn't lay off. He escalated his approach, finding ways to get her alone, trapping her in the corner, not taking no for an answer. She tried to handle it with him first.

Clearly wrong, clearly upsetting. I characterized this as sexual harassment, bordering on sexual assault

She mentioned it to the hiring manager/CEO. He brushed it off, and she was seriously considering quitting the company. She posted on workplace.SE, and was told to carefully document, and present a more full picture to her boss, which she did.

He was concerned, but it came out later that the CEO knew full well that he was known for this type of behavior.

So he was ultimately fired, but far, far later than it should have been handled.

Ultimately causing further damage to the OP and to the (internal) reputation of the company

So yes, she did try to handle it directly first, but when that didn't work, she discovered that: 1) Management didn't take reports of sexual harassment seriously, at least the first time around and 2) Management didn't have a problem hiring a known sexual harasser

(These kinds of problems aren't unique to OP's startup, which is why I described them as part of a larger issue in the corporate world, using a term that you and some others didn't appear to agree with. Don't want to rehash that now.)

So... is this just a single bad apple? Should she just have bucked up and taken it? Or quit?

If one were to ultimately conclude that the company was more concerned about hiring and protecting a sexual harasser than they were about protecting her, then I don't see much that would refute that conclusion.

9:03 PM

So when I hear you saying "people shouldn't get offended so easily", this is what I think about. (Obviously that's not the context in which you said it, but that's why I keep pushing to figure out how you'd apply that principle in other situations.)

And maybe when I talk about how important it is to take these things seriously, you're not thinking about that poor girl trapped in the file room, you're thinking about the busybody in the office offended by your cross necklace or something.

So yeah, maybe I'm not quite so bothered by the busybody in the next cube, because I hope that management/HR will respond reasonably and appropriately, or at least not completely absurdly

Well, I think we can agree on the extremes.

It is VERY important to take situations like that seriously. Honestly, if I had been working at that company, the guy might have had an "accident" falling down the stairs.

regardless of whether there were any stairs.

@BradC I've just run across the busybody making a tempest out of a teapot one time too many.

I worked at a place where someone actually filed an Americans With Disabilities act complaint because of the colors used on a spreadsheet.

I'm not making this up.

She didn't go to the IT group, she didn't ask if the colors could be changed, she didn't go to management, NOPE, right to the Union to file a grievance.

So, I think you're right, we didn't have a meeting of the minds earlier.

I've also had the "poor little cripple" bit pulled on me one time too many that at times I can come off as a caricature of the disabled person who refuses ALL help.

Glad you would take it seriously. Worth thinking about, though, how many of us would have taken her initial report seriously, the one that wasn't as detailed and logged as the second. Or, how many of us, in the position of that hiring manager, might have said, "oh, he's a good guy, I'll bet these prior incidents were nothing really serious". Or, how many of her coworkers in the office saw her discomfort, but didn't ask if there was anything they could do.

Or how many coworkers didn't see it (because it wasn't directed at them), but might have picked it up if they had known what to look for

I suspect we might also disagree on how common each of those extremes actually are. Read that Uber article from a couple weeks ago, and in that company the sexual harassment is absolutely pervasive inside the company, all the way up to the top of management.

Lots of support from other people in the industry, too (from other companies) saying they've had similar experiences, and also not been taken seriously

That's why its not just a "lone bad guy" problem. It's part of the culture, its a systemic issue. And maybe that's the part that you'd disagree with.

(or maybe its just the term "institutional sexism", I don't know)

9:31 PM

@BradC Some industries are better/worse than others. But PART of my irritation is that the more the trivial cases are given weight, the less the serious ones are believed. Honestly, if I heard "Sexual harassment", my mind would go straight to the case of someone complaining about something like colors on a monitor. That's bad because the OP's post in that case wouldn't even come to mind.

My problem with the term "institutional sexism" is that it is a broad brush. Show me the cases, or companies, or industries that are guilty, and I'll be right there with you. Vague terms just get me to thinking of the case of the air conditioning.

Like I said, if I saw something like that in RL, a lawsuit would be very low on the list of things he'd have to worry about

@RichardU Vigilante Richard, eh? Sorry, an "accidental" trip down the stairs is now how we're going to improve sexual harassment in the corporate world.

@RichardU Well, I'd encourage you to think of the (very real) more serious examples when you hear "sexual harassment". Because, in my experience, that's what people mean when they talk about it

not the "tiny petty annoyances that don't bother anyone else"

@BradC but that's just it, it's not. There was a whole segment on the news about air conditioning being a form of sexism and sexual harassment

But I'll tell you what, I'll think of the more severe if you think of the more petty

@RichardU Look, there are a set of people who like to point out the petty examples, in an attempt to minimize real (serious) reports of sexual harassment.

@BradC and there are people who give them ammunition

But those are notable because they're not actually sexual harasment

9:40 PM

@BradC but they are treated as such

treated as such by whom?

@BradC the companies that fire a guy for an offhand comment, for one.

Or, in the case of the ADA, a whole legal mess costing thousands of dollars over the color settings of an excel spreadsheet

The petty stuff does happen. I've seen it.

Never said it didn't. But the serious stuff happens too. And we should take it seriously.

Because its serious :)

seriously serious

sorry, I'm done saying serious now

And yes, sometimes the process by which someone decides if a complaint is serious or petty is annoying. Or bureaucratic. Or unfair. Or takes too long. Or is too strict. All those are arguments for improving that process, not arguments for eliminating the rules or allowing harassment.

I suspect that you've personally seen more of the petty cases, because they are more likely to be public. Those involving more serious accusations are more likely to be kept confidential.

« first day (2 days earlier) next day → last day (36 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '1710

BLM and feminism

Discussion of BLM and feminism, overflow from workplace.SE chat

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile