This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's surprising because it's uncommon here, or, at least, has been in the 20 something years I've been here. Notably my wife (also female, for verification here) has never made such claims against any of her work supervisors, the vast majority of whom have been men, and with one exception straight men, and this through her prime years of attractiveness, as it were, suggesting that the kind of dynamic you imply is to-be-expected among women is possibly not as universal as you propose. None of her female colleagues have made such strategic moves either. (I might point out that my wife was a temp for a year and was hired full-time, poached from the temp agency, based on her unusual level of competence, so she has been in the shoes, as it were, of a temp worker herself.)
Oh by those standards it's quite rare even in the wokest of woke institutions in the West. But even if it's just 1 out of 100 female employees making that move, that is going to have a noticable impact. Mainly because it changes the behaviour of male bosses who seek to protect themselves from it.
I don't disagree. I do think your earlier characterization ("She has the opportunity to introduce a status hierarchy that benefits her [women are morally superior and intrinsically more valuable and worthy of protection and provision than men] to counteract one that doesn't [he's the boss, she's a temp]. So she does it.") is overgeneralizing. My defense here (Not all women) has the potential to become caricature, so I'll leave that there.
I also would be firmly in this woman's corner if
a) My wife were in her corner, as I trust her instincts to be pretty exactly the same as mine in these regards or
b) if the details were different, i e. he asked not just her birthday but the year of her birth, plus her number, or her cup size, or anything that is obviously past the zone of friendly (even partially flirty) office chat.
In other words claims of harassment have their place even in my world of tolerance for men being manny and a general relaxed atmosphere the preference.
As I thumb this out the high school kid on the 5:03 am train across the car from me has his head lolling back in contented slumber with his right hand unconsciously down in his pants, presumably cupping his balls. To my immediate left a guy I used to see every morning in a blue jumpsuit and a red flashlight baton tucked in his bag (i.e. not necessarily Einstein on his way to the library) has reappeared and is muttering sweet nothings to himself absent-mindedly. Two dudes are unconsciously (?) manspreading so that the aged woman who gets on halfway to my stop (we just passed that halfway point) cannot politely sit down. All this neither here nor there but I felt the need to give an account.
I think psychologically this is easily explained.
He was awkward. He did something that was slightly out of the ordinary and that felt weird, which made her uncomfortable. If it made her uncomfortable, he made her uncomfortable, which means he is a [bad person]. "Creep" is the closest thing that pattern-matches to [bad person] in this situation, therefore it must have been sexual harassment.
You can argue until you're red in the face that this isn't logical or doesn't pass the reasonable man (sic!) test. The fact remains that she felt uncomfortable. And then we reason backwards from there.
Don't let me put words in your mouth, but I think that while what you are implying (her, whoever her is, discomfort level should not be the sole falconer guiding our flight) is reasonable, there are in fact circumstances that exist where she would be be justified in feeling discomfort. And thus justified in making a complaint. True?
Depends on what we mean by justified (are there gettier cases for emotions?), but I would even say that she is justified to feel discomfort in the case you presented. The question is what everybody else should do about it. My suggestion would be: nothing.
And it's not even like nothing happened! He put her in a slightly uncomfortable situation. Whether that should be punished by bringing in the big gun of sexual harassment allegations is the matter, really.
But to answer my interpretation of your question: there is a level of discomfort that warrants intervention by third parties. The most effective would probably be another man taking him aside and giving him the good ol' "dude, not cool".
Alas, melady hath suffered a slight. Her honour must be avenged. Which is to say, men and women working together will produce these kind of situations. The West has recently undertaken the experiment to solve it by giving women a metaphorical gun and the licence to kill. Let's see how it'll work out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link