Did I miss something here? My understanding from what McClure wrote is that he was interacting with someone who wasn't a co-worker.
In any event, I'm not sure that "a job you control" was the case here: It sounds like he (quite rightly) handed that off to someone else and had nothing to do with the hiring decision. It does seem like he should have been clearer to the applicant about not being part of that decision, though.
I'm very confused by this question. My view of whether someone is a person is not mitigated by them acting profession.
Some work environments are genuinely conducive to forming friendships and others are not. I haven't befriended coworkers at every job, but my closest friendships have all been from the workplace since leaving school.
People, colleagues and equals at work should be able to interact socially, over drinks and even hook up. People are human and sexual attraction is natural. I don't think we should try to pretend it does not exist and that we should remove it from the workplace.
What should not happen is people not knowing boundaries or social convention. People should know how to act and should know how not to act -even when drunk.
I don't think workplaces should be sterile, asocial places which ignore human predisposition to social interaction.
The real issue is a power imbalance, but this issue also exists in other settings as well.
Alcohol inhibits your judgement, but many people can successfully consume alcohol without adverse social consequences.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...
You know it used to be that men and women didn't work together, right? Like, this idea of being able to date at work has only been around for about 50 years or so, while the human race has been around for thousands. Somehow we figured out how to reproduce in the West without a "closed caste system" just fine. You can too, without dating anyone at your job.
This same plausible deniability also can enable people to be creeps.
Yes but you have to understand that we humans have a incredible high drive to reproduce, and many successful couples forms in the work environment. I have a child with a coworker.
Sexual approaches do happen in those kinds of environments but there are a big difference between approaching someone and sexually harassment. Modern women specially millennials tend to see any kind of approach (specially from unattractive males) as harassment and this is not the case, not even legally.
The power imbalance and lack of non-work relationship are key.
McClure had no personal relationship with this woman. They weren't friends, and they hadn't met in a non-professional setting.
Furthermore, he's in a position to make decisions about her future. In that situation, it's inappropriate to make the first move, because the other person will feel pressured to reciprocate, even if she doesn't want to.
This is very similar to the way professors aren't allowed to have sexual relationships with students in their classes, but students can have sexual relationships with each other.
100% this.
I absolutely believe people can form legitimate and wonderful relationships with coworkers -- even subordinates. Having a kid is awesome and it's great that you found the right person.
But.
There's a clear and obvious difference between building a relationship with someone (even a purely sexual one!) and trying to exploit a power imbalance for free sex. The clearest part of that difference is that building a relationship involves respecting that other person, not just viewing them as an object to be consumed. I suspect you have a tremendous amount of respect for your partner -- and that respect was probably part of the reason you hit it off in the first place.
People who have power need to be especially alert to this. With great power comes great responsibility -- and all that jazz.
I came to the conclusion that the topic has become too toxic to be discussed seriously. Especially based on a actual case. I just hope this electrified field will return to a base where everybody can talk seriously about it. With the aim being a solution that is appropriate to what we are as humans not as man or woman (or all those other genders...).
I can think of several women I would have zero problem discussing this stuff with, just because they know I'm not out to stir shit up or play devil's advocate. There's trust there to begin with, so there's openness, etc.
However, reading that you had no problem discussing this stuff because you would not "stir shit up or play devils advocate", I'd say you had no discussion at all in the first place.
You can't just say something like this without backing it up. Anecdotes don't count.
I'm not looking to be intentionally obtuse here, i'm more trying to make sense of the legal nature of it.
- Boorish behavior crosses the line the first time. Assume this follows the "would you want it published in the New York Times?" rule of thumb.
- For more ambiguous cases (like asking someone on a date,) it's only OK if you don't actually know if the advance is welcome. Once you get an answer, and it's "no," then anything else is an unwelcome advance. I actually saw someone fired because of this, so don't take it lightly.
- Sexual harassment laws exist to protect people against those with positions of power. One training instructor said, "the reason the laws are designed protect your reports against you, and not the other way around, is because you can fire them."
Maybe my basic advice is: Don't "proposition" people. Forget the phrase "hit on." Don't lead with your dick.
Meet people. Learn about them. Establish rapport. Maybe something happens, maybe not. When people are legitimately excited by one another, romance can follow. But be respectful enough to not cause harm. Don't interfere with their work life. Don't accidentally or purposefully threaten their careers or companies. Do no harm. Maybe you miss out on a romantic encounter or two, but you'll be a better person. You might actually get some really cool friendships out of it! And when actual sparks fly, you'll know it and it'll be great.
It's fairly obvious and self-evident. I consider myself to be on the autism spectrum, and even I know when a female friend is not interested in a romantic or sexual relationship.
Like the legal test for obscenity: I know it when I see it.
So I guess, if you're good looking, it's legal, and maybe you end up marrying and having children (as people often do in these situations). If you're not good looking, it's a violation and you should be fired/prosecuted.
This definitely isn't a clean or fair way to write or enforce laws or standards for conduct and punishment in the workplace. It might still be necessary and it might be the best we can do, but it's definitely all a big gray area, not just in its interpretation, but in its literal definition ("unwanted").
> I wasn't asked a question...
Anyway:
You didn't offend me at all.
I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this.
And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed. Law isn't software. To a certain degree, it's gray by its very nature.
Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the criminality of a lot of this behavior, but a lot of it definitely feels destructive and immoral.
Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting.
It's not.
Actually, I take that back:
It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life.
That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.