I am typically not feminist enough to comment on gender issues, but here goes. Oh, and for some context, I am a man. Isn't that fear of life-changing consequences coming from the opposite sex kind...
I am typically not feminist enough to comment on gender issues, but here goes. Oh, and for some context, I am a man.
Isn't that fear of life-changing consequences coming from the opposite sex kind of a constant for women? Do most women not feel a little bit of anxiety when they have to be alone with one or several powerful men?
I don't say it's good. Fear is never good, and if I could, I would prefer to live in a society where people don't have to be afraid of other people. What I am saying is that this fear is probably nothing new, and that this is a change in power dynamics. I don't know where it will lead, but I hope it's balance.
This is the natural outcome when there is no consistent legal means by which to prosecute workplace sexual assault. Since our system for preventing and prosecuting sexual assault is so bad, these...
This is the natural outcome when there is no consistent legal means by which to prosecute workplace sexual assault. Since our system for preventing and prosecuting sexual assault is so bad, these absurdly imprecise measures of men ensuring they cannot be accused are the only response. It's obviously a messed up decision, but I see the logic.
I think that "important difference" you mentioned makes this a poor comparison since the whole issue is the effect that "protecting" oneself has on other people. A risk-reduction strategy hammered...
But dismissing the men as sexist ignores the circumstances that led to them adopting that personal rule. Just as a woman mitigates her personal risk by detouring around me on the streets or on a hike despite the fact that most sexual assaults will be from men they personally know, these men too are mitigating their personal risk (the important difference of course being that a woman's career development is negatively impacted here as many legacy institutions still have a male dominated leadership).
I think that "important difference" you mentioned makes this a poor comparison since the whole issue is the effect that "protecting" oneself has on other people. A risk-reduction strategy hammered into women from an early age that has no systemic effects and a risk-reduction strategy that harms other people's livelihood and compounds already-existing discrimination are not really similar.
I believe that the large majority of women don't have any interest in accusing (falsely) someone of sexual misconduct, they just want to go to work and get their job done. But there always is a...
I believe that the large majority of women don't have any interest in accusing (falsely) someone of sexual misconduct, they just want to go to work and get their job done.
But there always is a minority who might want to take advantage of the current climate. And I understand why some men are taking this risk into account.
But would one refuse meetings with Muslims because a small percentage of them are terrorists? Or white men, because they keep committing mass-shootings? Or would those be racist and horrible and...
Exemplary
But would one refuse meetings with Muslims because a small percentage of them are terrorists? Or white men, because they keep committing mass-shootings?
Or would those be racist and horrible and make you a horrible person? We are so deeply entrenched in misogyny that we are discussing this like it is a fair choice.
It is not a fair choice to make. Be a normal, professional human. Treat others like humans. (In case anyone was wondering: Don't tell women "God, it's so good to hear your voice" when she calls you. Don't say "you look good down there" when she's on her knees doing inventory counts on a shelf. Because those things are casual sexism and don't count as you treating women as professional humans.)
I think your analogies to Muslims and such are a little overblown; these managers aren't completely eschewing meetings with women, just meetings behind closed doors, or without a witness. In this...
I think your analogies to Muslims and such are a little overblown; these managers aren't completely eschewing meetings with women, just meetings behind closed doors, or without a witness.
In this light, I don't think their choice is as bad as you're making it out to be -- would you call a woman similarly "sexist and a horrible person" if she refuses to meet with a man alone, just because the other party is male?
I actually think the comparisons are more accurate than people give them credit for. Personal experience, which I know is no proper study, but I've definitely heard orange flags used during hiring...
I actually think the comparisons are more accurate than people give them credit for. Personal experience, which I know is no proper study, but I've definitely heard orange flags used during hiring to mark "active Muslims/lgbt/whatever minority..." These are candidates that give the impression that they "may not be able to take a joke in a casual work setting". And these issues will continue even if they are hired.
Do guys actually say that to women they have a business relationship with? Holy crap.
Don't tell women "God, it's so good to hear your voice" when she calls you. Don't say "you look good down there" when she's on her knees doing inventory counts on a shelf.
Do guys actually say that to women they have a business relationship with? Holy crap.
This article doesn't mention one of the other major concerns, which is the treatment of women in front-office roles (generally the most lucrative ones) by the clients. This is certainly part of...
This article doesn't mention one of the other major concerns, which is the treatment of women in front-office roles (generally the most lucrative ones) by the clients. This is certainly part of the decision-making process around putting women in those roles.
I am typically not feminist enough to comment on gender issues, but here goes. Oh, and for some context, I am a man.
Isn't that fear of life-changing consequences coming from the opposite sex kind of a constant for women? Do most women not feel a little bit of anxiety when they have to be alone with one or several powerful men?
I don't say it's good. Fear is never good, and if I could, I would prefer to live in a society where people don't have to be afraid of other people. What I am saying is that this fear is probably nothing new, and that this is a change in power dynamics. I don't know where it will lead, but I hope it's balance.
This is the natural outcome when there is no consistent legal means by which to prosecute workplace sexual assault. Since our system for preventing and prosecuting sexual assault is so bad, these absurdly imprecise measures of men ensuring they cannot be accused are the only response. It's obviously a messed up decision, but I see the logic.
I think that "important difference" you mentioned makes this a poor comparison since the whole issue is the effect that "protecting" oneself has on other people. A risk-reduction strategy hammered into women from an early age that has no systemic effects and a risk-reduction strategy that harms other people's livelihood and compounds already-existing discrimination are not really similar.
I believe that the large majority of women don't have any interest in accusing (falsely) someone of sexual misconduct, they just want to go to work and get their job done.
But there always is a minority who might want to take advantage of the current climate. And I understand why some men are taking this risk into account.
But would one refuse meetings with Muslims because a small percentage of them are terrorists? Or white men, because they keep committing mass-shootings?
Or would those be racist and horrible and make you a horrible person? We are so deeply entrenched in misogyny that we are discussing this like it is a fair choice.
It is not a fair choice to make. Be a normal, professional human. Treat others like humans. (In case anyone was wondering: Don't tell women "God, it's so good to hear your voice" when she calls you. Don't say "you look good down there" when she's on her knees doing inventory counts on a shelf. Because those things are casual sexism and don't count as you treating women as professional humans.)
I think your analogies to Muslims and such are a little overblown; these managers aren't completely eschewing meetings with women, just meetings behind closed doors, or without a witness.
In this light, I don't think their choice is as bad as you're making it out to be -- would you call a woman similarly "sexist and a horrible person" if she refuses to meet with a man alone, just because the other party is male?
I actually think the comparisons are more accurate than people give them credit for. Personal experience, which I know is no proper study, but I've definitely heard orange flags used during hiring to mark "active Muslims/lgbt/whatever minority..." These are candidates that give the impression that they "may not be able to take a joke in a casual work setting". And these issues will continue even if they are hired.
Do guys actually say that to women they have a business relationship with? Holy crap.
Those are things specially said to me. Within the last year. Haha
Some small percentage apparently. My perception is it tends to be the same sort who are braggadocios about sex.
This article doesn't mention one of the other major concerns, which is the treatment of women in front-office roles (generally the most lucrative ones) by the clients. This is certainly part of the decision-making process around putting women in those roles.