That's what I thought initially as well. But the proper way to frame this is to ask: out of the population of men who would join a group of 3 men, how many would also join a group of 3 women? You and I aren't even part of the first group.
> This ultimately causes fewer interactions between men and women in the workplace
That's a real problem. The #metoo movement is great in getting the word out, but the backlash suppresses any men of trying to get it right. You can't expect people to make progress if they don't try, and if they try, they will make mistakes. It should be ok to make them and not get demonized in the process.
Tbf, because of stories like this, I feel almost uncomfortable talking to my female coworkers - I immediately tense up and I have no idea what I can or cannot say, I carefully weigh up my every word to make sure it doesn't, even accidentally, have a double meaning or something that could be seen as patronizing, offensive, or flirty. As a consequence, I would genuinely rather not talk with women in the workplace and just avoid the risk altogether, which I am sure is just making the problem worse.
She says team members would openly express that they wouldn't hire women because they would just get married. I don't know about you, but that seems like something obviously dated and wrong. Growing up, both my parents worked, and that was the norm. It's been the norm for a long time. Women aren't new to the work force. So why do people think this? In any case, it should be obvious not to say things like this.
Then she says a professor followed her beck to her room and tried to forcibly kiss her. That's something obviously wrong, right? It should be easy to say "I won't follow and forcibly kiss anyone." That's like good manners 101. Basic stuff we learn in 1st grade.
The sexism described here isn't the sort of thing you'd let slip by accident. There's no double meanings here. It's just bare faced disrespect for women. So please, relax. You don't need to walk on eggshells to avoid being a complete jerk.
And if you still aren't sure how to talk to women, I would take the articles own advice: Try talking to them like a person.
It's of course rude to insert yourself into many conversations. That's just a social convention.
> Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.
So you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Given how easy it is for public opinion to shift, I certainly wouldn't want to take that chance. Who would want to interact with people like that in a professional setting? I wouldn't, and I try not to.
Lets look at some notable #MeToo cases in the last year
1. Harvey Weinstein - Dozens of women accused Weinstein of assaulting, harassing, or raping them.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-ove...
2. Matt Lauer - Fired for inappropriate sexual relationship with a coworker. Not an isolated incedent, as many women came forward through his career with reports of sexual assault and unwanted sexual advances.
http://people.com/tv/matt-lauer-sexual-harassment-assault-al...
3. Mario Batali - Accused of sexual misconduct by multiple female employees. Repeated reports of Batali groping the breasts of women who worked for him.
https://ny.eater.com/2017/12/11/16759540/mario-batali-sexual...
So where is this "innocent conversation" you mention?
I was present, as were a handful of other women. None of us were ever followed up with to ask if this was a legitimate accusation. The accuser was given a red carpet to a choice team. The accusee was given additional workload to carry and taken out of a position of authority and placed in a punitive program.
I have seen this happen twice in the last 3 years.
Do not take this as defense of the examples you mention, but as a warning against unintended consequences that simply don't ever show up in the press because they aren't highly visible and won't draw clicks, especially if they go against the status quo. If you need further evidence, look at the speed to which a concrete, evidence backed accusation with respect to google's hiring practices got flagged off the front page, whereas this thread is still much higher ranked after much longer time and fewer votes.
Not those cherry-picked examples obviously? Do you have access to every single report in the world? Is it impossible that some might not be completely legitimate and can act as a way to retaliate?
I’m reading this on the phone, so it’s likely I might have missed it, but does the article mention #MeToo in the context of the men vs. women groups complaint you mention? If not, it’s uncharitable to imply that the complainer here is trying to equate sexual assault with discrimination.
IMO the main problem with contemporary gender conflicts isn’t going to be “incidents that everyone can agree is atrocious and actionable behavior”. Because it’s not hard for society (usually) to act on such egregious incidents. It’s I guess a good thing that professional women don’t have to constantly worry about violent sexual assault, but the author is raising the issue that seemingly innocuous behavior can still be substantially harmful.
What is innocuous and what is not can still be a matter of healthy debate. But it’s worth noting how difficult it can be for even egregious behavior to get called out.
I think many people can agree that Susan Fowler’s blog post about her time at Uber constituted outright horrible behavior. HN commenters seemed very united in this sentiment [0] and I think many tech observers would agree that it wasn’t one very huge chip that set off the clusterfuck that was 2017 for Uber.
It may seem looking back that Fowler’s whistleblowing would inevitably cause such massive outrage. But re-read her post, which is almost as nostalgic as it is outraged. It’s not just about the harassment she faced, but the institutional resistance and denial that she, and more than a few other women faced — clearly, their complaints back then were not the level of clear cut incidents that you think should be focused on. And Fowler’s whistleblowing was just a personal blog post — not a big NYTimes expose —- written months after her departure, and likely only possible because she had the time and means to think about things and not worry about career implications. It’s very easy to imagine an alternate timeline in which she just didn’t get around to writing about Uber because even she, as she says herself in that post, was incredibly thankful and fulfilled from her work at Uber, sexual harassment aside.
I disagree with you that there is no reason to do so for “non-sexists”. Because no one knows how a given person may interpret a given conversation or activity, combined with the severe consequences from the social media mob that even something as simple as an unsubstantiated tweet can inflict on one’s career or an entire company these days, the only way to avoid liability is to minimize interaction between opposite sexes in the workplace. In this environment, it’s the only rational thing to do.
We have unleashed a virtual lynch mob, ready to instantly torch the life of anyone that stands accused of even moderately inappropriate or questionable behavior. Worse, there is no statute of limitations or standard of proof required to activate the mob - a tweet is enough. That is wrong and creates a toxic environment for everyone.
In other words, people who "battle sexism and discrimination" can very well tip over and become sexist and discriminatory in the attempt to fix those exact issues.
They can become Monsters too.
The second part of this quote applies to. "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you".
If you fight sexism and discrimination long enough, you yourself will go under the spotlight and you'll eventually be judged for what you did. Whether good or evil.
"Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be 'blamed' for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external 'evil'...Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction. According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect." [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment#Kierkegaard_and_N...
History is filled with people who fought for a just cause, only to then turn around and become unjust themselves (IIRC from history, the french were really good at it).
It doesn't matter how much of the way you got and how much of it has yet to be walked, it's completely irrelevant to "becoming the monster".
If a man accuses me of sexual harassment, that would be pretty easy to disprove (I’m straight) and most people would believe me. If a woman accuses me of that, in a MeToo world, my career is over, even if there is no evidence and I didn’t do it (being that we are living in the MeToo world, I guess I should say that for the record I have not ever knowingly sexually harassed anyone, and have never been accused of it).
What downandout meant was that it is dangerously easy for a woman, if she were so inclined, to destroy a man's career with unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment. It is much harder for a man to do that to another man, if both are straight.
I'm really not sure where the sexism comes in. Perhaps you could enlighten everyone.
Your knee-jerk reactions, calling people names ("sexist", "disgusting", "wrong and harmful" etc.) are the problem, not downandout's measured observation, and in fact it is exactly what he is talking about. When there's so many people like you, where is the debate? It's just pitchforks and lynching.
Do you have any verified example of this happening?
Further, in the era of #MeToo, the chasm between men and women in the workplace will grow wider simply because of liability issues. One man's innocent, casual conversation with a female coworker can these days become that woman's #MeToo moment, aired publicly, both in the court of public opinion and in courts of law. This ultimately causes fewer interactions between men and women in the workplace - especially between direct reports and their managers - which can easily lead to fewer advancement opportunities. This is borne out in data. According to a recent study, almost 30% of male managers say they are not comfortable working alone with a woman — more than twice as many as before, according to the same study [1].
I would suggest that articles like this focus on incidents that everyone can agree is atrocious and actionable behavior. If failure to interrupt a group of women talking amongst themselves at a conference is now a #MeToo moment, it's just going to cause deeper concerns about liability, which will in turn cause even more backlash.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2018/02/06/amid...