I find this to be both very true, and very unfortunate.
It took me years (and being fired from a "zero tolerance" job) to figure out how to put women at ease around me. Most of it involves "avoid being alone with or physically close to them", and "censor yourself heavily".
It strikes me as a really unfortunate way to go through public life, but since I'm a physically large guy with stunted skills for recognizing subtle social cues, it's the only way to avoid making women uncomfortable (and, frankly, to avoid another harassment charge).
It's just as bad in politics. I lie to all women I meet in professional settings: I drop a line about my "fiancé" whom I'm very much in love with. It's sad and crazy how quickly that puts most women at ease.
One thing that looks interesting from the data is that women censor man-women contacts more than men. Of course women who are more open to these connections as well can get a huge benefit in their business life (which may incur a cost in their private life, like not having time for those ,,women only'' parties).
One thing I've noticed about American culture, versus the other countries I've been/worked in, is that it's highly litigious. I suspect that one of the reasons people feel uncomfortable is the threat of lawsuit (or being buried in a corporate landslide triggered by policies designed to avoid lawsuit). This in addition to the finger-pointing at older Evangelical attitudes in the article...
Yes, highly litigious. And in the midst of a profound transformation in gender relations. Over perhaps the last century. Things are just chaotic. So the safest policy is avoiding potentially dangerous and/or compromising situations.
Unfortunately, potentially compromising situations are the best way to get things done. If you want to avoid other people, you're going to be spending a lot of time at home by yourself, so to speak.
Not at all. I'm just positing that to interact with someone means risking social interaction that you don't want – serial harassment, for example. The only surefire way to never be securely harassed is to never talk to anyone.
You shouldn't do that, of course. But one-on-one meetings are extremely useful in many lines of work, and are also a time when you're likely to be accosted. This whole article is about how a ridiculous fraction of people polled think co-ed one-on-one meetings aren't kosher.
Generalization here isn't very useful. One-on-one meetings are often very useful, regardless of gender. But there are risks. One party may fear assault, and another may fear false accusation of assault. And even without intentional assault or intentional false accusation, there's enormous potential for miscommunication.
Self-awareness and prudence are the answer, I think. Don't meet one-on-one with someone until you know them well enough. Well enough to judge their intent. Well enough to get a sense of their communication style.
I think Americans in general suffer from widespread righteous indignation. How dare you park in my space. How dare you disagree with me. How dare you say an inappropriate comment. Agreed that we are a very litigious society, but it's that righteous indignation that fuels it.
What did they expect from the survey? Most American work places are not known for cultural or social open-ness, whether for good or bad. Of course the data will not reflect people engaging in any extra communication other than base minimum. I've been struggling with the idea over my career but I feel I've had most success when I did not socialize with coworkers other than for business. It's unfortunate because we see each other so much out of our lives but it seems socialization impedes career growth.
People worry about work meetings with a single person of the opposite sex present? Weird. In my part-time freelancing, I've had meetings and lunches with female clients and never felt any sort of tension or discomfort. Maybe because I'm the one doing the "selling", but the thought of hitting on these women while we're trying to negotiate a deal seems completely unprofessional and off the table.
Don't people understand that "don't shit where you eat" means you can still do your job effectively?
The graph labeled What Women Think, by Age and Religion shows that younger women are more inclined to view meeting alone as inappropriate, by a wide margin. Surprising.
I also found that interesting. i had to reread the chsrt to be sute, because my bias was that older women would find it more innappriate. I have two hypotheses about what's driving that:
1. Harrasment is more well-known now, and less tolerated
2. The call-out culture today doesn't actually prepare people to interact with members of the opposite sex as adults.
I believe (2) is more likely to be true. What I mean by two is that, with young people being encouraged to "call out" any interaction they might find slightly uncomfortable, they develop a sense of fear and wariness around cross-sex interactions, and can't manage their feelings of attraction.
From a male point of view, the risk/benefit ratio of being alone with a woman in a professional setting is quite high. Not surprisingly, people will act to mitigate their risks.
I suspect a big reason for this is (and I've seen studied of this specific to ballroom dance, but it seems, in my experience, likely true more generally) is that men are vastly more likely to seek (either initially or as the interaction progresses) sexual or romantic outcomes from such interactions regardless of the overt purpose and to perceive sexual/romantic interest on the part of the other party than women are to have or perceive such interest, which produced all kinds of bad outcomes from the interactions, with men perceiving that women lead them on and women perceiving that men make passes out of the blue.
As a married man, I'm wary of going to lunch alone with someone of the opposite sex - for most of the reasons in the article. Not because I would say or do anything inappropriate but for two reasons - the appearance of impropriety and it's way too easy to get caught up in emotional affairs and to take your eye of the ball in your own relationship. If for no other reason is that it's easy to get caught up in how great your coworker is - you work with them everyday, you by definition have a lot in common, and your work relationship is "easy". You don't have to worry about all of the compromises and stresses that are involved in maintaining a household and you only see each other's best self.
On the other hand, if I did have both male and female reports, I would treat them all equally - no solo lunch meetings, no late nights alone, etc.
When I was single, and most of my coworkers were single it was a lot different.
I find Pence's policy fine. I find it simply a matter of respect. She's the tops, I wouldn't even want to be seen with someone else. (Or to give anyone, no matter how misguided, bad ideas.)
I know of many happy marriages based on the same.
Shops in the US can't do like a number of highly-productive British businesses where schoolyard banter is a sign of mutual ball-busting and mental toughness.
Simple rules for men to follow in American businesses:
1. Don't hire women unless nearly all men in the business are nonbrogrammers or married.
2. Don't schedule 1:1 meetings with women in secluded offices or meeting rooms.
3. Don't ask women personal questions, hit on them or do anything else to make women uncomfortable. Basically, stick to business topics like a robot and then still walk on eggshells.
4. Don't hire SJWs, jerks or uncool people of any sex or gender. SJWs can still sneak in looking for excuses to attack people based on stereotyping because of their involuntary membership in various identity groups whom "must be attacked."
"1. Don't hire women unless nearly all men in the business are nonbrogrammers or married."
Discriminating in hiring based on sex is illegal under US law.
And if you've already hired a bunch of employees who are not likely to be able to work with women, you've probably made some very poor hiring decisions.
26 comments
[ 0.30 ms ] story [ 54.4 ms ] threadIt took me years (and being fired from a "zero tolerance" job) to figure out how to put women at ease around me. Most of it involves "avoid being alone with or physically close to them", and "censor yourself heavily".
It strikes me as a really unfortunate way to go through public life, but since I'm a physically large guy with stunted skills for recognizing subtle social cues, it's the only way to avoid making women uncomfortable (and, frankly, to avoid another harassment charge).
You shouldn't do that, of course. But one-on-one meetings are extremely useful in many lines of work, and are also a time when you're likely to be accosted. This whole article is about how a ridiculous fraction of people polled think co-ed one-on-one meetings aren't kosher.
Self-awareness and prudence are the answer, I think. Don't meet one-on-one with someone until you know them well enough. Well enough to judge their intent. Well enough to get a sense of their communication style.
Don't people understand that "don't shit where you eat" means you can still do your job effectively?
1. Harrasment is more well-known now, and less tolerated 2. The call-out culture today doesn't actually prepare people to interact with members of the opposite sex as adults.
I believe (2) is more likely to be true. What I mean by two is that, with young people being encouraged to "call out" any interaction they might find slightly uncomfortable, they develop a sense of fear and wariness around cross-sex interactions, and can't manage their feelings of attraction.
On the other hand, if I did have both male and female reports, I would treat them all equally - no solo lunch meetings, no late nights alone, etc.
When I was single, and most of my coworkers were single it was a lot different.
Simple rules for men to follow in American businesses:
1. Don't hire women unless nearly all men in the business are nonbrogrammers or married.
2. Don't schedule 1:1 meetings with women in secluded offices or meeting rooms.
3. Don't ask women personal questions, hit on them or do anything else to make women uncomfortable. Basically, stick to business topics like a robot and then still walk on eggshells.
4. Don't hire SJWs, jerks or uncool people of any sex or gender. SJWs can still sneak in looking for excuses to attack people based on stereotyping because of their involuntary membership in various identity groups whom "must be attacked."
Discriminating in hiring based on sex is illegal under US law.
And if you've already hired a bunch of employees who are not likely to be able to work with women, you've probably made some very poor hiring decisions.