None of Vic's compliments, which by the way happened outside the office, constitute sexual harassment. By vilifying innocent remarks, you're only further making men not want to work with women, while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness. Who wants to work in an environment where they can't make a simple compliment without being publicly ousted as a mysogynist offender? I sure as hell don't.

> None of Vic's compliments, which by the way happened outside the office, constitute sexual harassment.

In or out of the office doesn't matter if it's a work event – and off-site retreats, conferences, etc. certainly qualify. Even if it's not, a manager still has to be responsible for what they say to a subordinate and make it clear that this is unofficial and not connected to their job.

> By vilifying innocent remarks, you're only further making men not want to work with women, while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness. Who wants to work in an environment where they can't make a simple compliment without being publicly ousted as a mysogynist offender? I sure as hell don't.

I'm a man and I don't have a problem working with women. The difference is that I know my job isn't a singles bar and in no case would I want someone to think that there would be professional consequences for not reacting favorably to something they didn't like. That doesn't mean that you can't be friendly with people you work with, only that you have to pay more attention to what you say than you might with a group of close friends, because your friends have already given you more of an idea for what's okay or not and, critically, if it ceases to be fun they can leave with no professional or financial consequences.

Finally, you're very quick to use loaded language which implies knowledge that Vic's actual intention was completely innocent. Using terms like “simple compliment”, “innocent remarks” says that you know more about what he meant than someone who was actually there or the coworkers who've voiced support for her interpretation. Given that the most common reaction seems to be “That sounds bad – Google better do something” and not “Off with his head”, I'm not sure you should be criticizing anyone for oversensitivity.

I think that's mainly a consequence of the work climate in the US. Unfortunately people have to act as if they were asexual. Or, at least pretend they completely uninterested in sex. It's a shame to think that one of the greatest preoccupations in people's minds has to be subjugated and buried. I think that's a bit unhealthy for society.

Don't read that as saying harassment is okay. Harassment is not okay. However, talking about sexual topics bringing them up, etc., is not sexual harassment, prima facie. But this is where we are, unlike Europe. I dare say in Europe there is less sexual harassment in the workplace, but simultaneously there is more open talk about sex at the workplace; people don't have a puritanical knee-jerk reaction to sex. Talking about sex and complimenting people in the workplace is not some weird taboo. They understand people are sexual creatures and don't try to pretend they are not.

Again, it's reprehensible and bad to sexually harass people. I think any normal person would agree --but I would have to disagree with saying that to combat sexual harassment it's necessary to extirpate sex from people's conversations at work. It's unnatural. What's next, sing a contract explicitly allowing consensual sexual talk at work to ensure correctness?

To put this another way, women also like to talk about sex in the workplace. What they don't like is talking about sex turning into an invitation to sex. It's not. Sometimes people just want to talk. And it's not as if women are sexless beings without impulse. As men, women too have sexual thoughts about people at work but they don't typically act on them in a repulsive way, where as men don't control their impulses as well (plus tend to have the power imbalance in their favor).

It isn't that you have to pretend to be asexual.

Just don't sexually harass people who work under you as subordinates; that's abusing your position.

I don't think you even remotely understand the problem. The problem isn't the place human sexuality plays in conversation, but the fact that women in Silicon Valley work in male-dominated environments that have been getting increasingly hostile towards women over the last two decades, and people working in such environments quickly sublimate the power structure. It's not that talking about sex makes the atmosphere hostile, but the other way around: women (and men) don't feel comfortable where they don't feel safe. If all employees felt safe, secure, and respected, they -- including women -- will be happy to talk about many subjects, including sex.

No, I get it. My issue is that they get conflated in the media and in discussion. Combating sexism and harassment is good, no two ways about it -it is a problem? Yes, I know of women who have to turn down repeated requests for dates, from the same people over and over and over. Myself I remember some guy asking me out repeatedly --knowing very well I'm not into guys. But, it's a shame that there is no nuance and any semblance of sexuality is automatically seen as treading the very thin ice of harassment.

People aren't sure any more if a compliment is going to be interpreted as harassment. Harassment meanwhile goes unabated, and as you conclude, may be getting worse.

But the harassment, in this case, is only a symptom of the sexism that is making its way into the very core of SV workplaces. Everything gets amplified when the perpetrator enjoys more power and the support of the boy club. This case is just one more demonstration that the problem is not the limits of propriety, but a very unfair distribution of power.

If someone hurts you, whether or not you will experience the offense as a dangerous threat depends very much on whether the offender makes the offense knowing they enjoy the protection of power, which allows them to harm people who don't.

It can't be a symptom of sexism, else I could not ever be accused of harassing a man. Yet, could be capable of harassing a man, or a man harass me. Or one woman another. And power amplifies it, or squelches it (one rarely sees a superior get sexually harassed, but it's not because a potential harasser does not exist). Harassment is to me, more a disorder, at least that's how I have experienced it.

This particular harassment -- and the great distress it has caused -- is a symptom of sexism.

Who wants to work with creeps always making comments re: a co-worker's rumpus? Not me.

> which by the way happened outside the office

The proximity to the office is irrelevant according to NY and CA law.

> you're only further making men not want to work with women

I hadn't realized this sentiment existed.

> while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness

There is a big difference between oversensitivity and a reasonable response to being treated differently because of one's looks/gender. Imagine if you walked into work every day and an executive said "Nice legs" or "nice blouse" to you. By your definition that is harmless.

Then give up your job and go home. You don't have a right to a job, and you don't have a right to make inappropriate comments.

It's not a simple compliment. At best it's a complicated compliment.

> None of Vic's compliments, which by the way happened outside the office, constitute sexual harassment.

1. "Outside the office," is irrelevant (it's ALWAYS wrong to make inappropriate remarks about a colleague or—worse—subordinate), and since the remarks were made at a company offsite they can be considered in a "work environment."

2. You're way off base. Commenting on a colleague's personal appearance to other colleagues is totally inappropriate. Commenting on a colleague's appearance in a bathing suit is totally inappropriate.

> By vilifying innocent remarks, you're only further making men not want to work with women

I hope men like you feel uncomfortable enough to get the fuck out of this industry. I don't want to work with you, and I'm male! Get lost!

> while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness

The problem is that the offenders in these situations aren't AT ALL sensitive to the feelings of others. There are a plethora of examples of men alienating women with their shitty and insensitive comment and attitudes. Reactions to this are not about "oversensitivity" but rather a plea for ANY KIND OF SENSITIVITY AT ALL PLEASE.

> Who wants to work in an environment where they can't make a simple compliment without being publicly ousted as a mysogynist offender?

If you think these remarks are appropriate and non-sexual then you should probably just keep your mouth shut.

I am curious if you believe that there is a standard for human sexual behavior that is safe and never inappropriate.

I think it is quite likely that Gundotra is a sleazy slimeball and Google has covered its ass by trying its best to ignore the complaint. He should probably be fired and Google should never be allowed to pretend it doesn't have a sexist culture.

However: I do not think that things are as simple as declaring the rules of a "work environment" and enforcing them.

After-hours events or company vacations can be considered work environments, but they're also deliberate attempts to escape the work environment. If you extend the logic of standardizing all work environments, what you might find is that it's simply inappropriate to be around coworkers in sexualized situations. (And if you don't think bathing suits are designed to sexualize bodies, I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.)

Edit: Perhaps I should make it clear that I find nothing inconsistent in demanding that work events be completely professional, that all corporate interaction be sterile, and that's basically what I expect from my employer. No booze cruises. No getaways to beach locations. No employee dating whatsoever, not even a hint of acceptability for that kind of relationship.

I just don't know that this is a realistic expectation, and I don't trust anyone that is certain of a solution. Sometimes problems cannot be solved and we can only punish who we can punish and move on.

> He should probably be fired

Gundotra left Google many months ago.

During the whole Real Names debate, VG's standard example of a name he didn't want on G+ was "dogfart". That example was named repeatedly, becoming a trope. Google's top many results for that term are ALL for a porn company.