The glass ceiling is now made of concrete.

[DrZoidberg]

Workplaces also suck when employees have to put up with racist and sexist bullshit from their co-workers. Standards of behaviour are important.

Adults know how to tell the difference. The same words can mean different things depending on context.

Over time colleagues become friends. Friends have much more honest and crude way of saying what they're thinking. Speech is unfiltered and extreme things pop out. Just free associations. At least if people are happy and relaxed around each other. If they're not they shouldn't work there.

I'm not sure what kind of strange world you live in where one needs to be either for or against something and cannot be for parts of it and against other parts. Since I don't live in such a world, I can't relate to or comment on to your experiences in it.

I didn't see you make that distinction. And we have to now. Metoo is so associated with mob rule that unless you're saying you don't mean that, it'll be assumed that you do.

Or ... another plausible scenario is that the decades of a lifetime of pent up emotions over needing to endure this bullshit spilling out will cool down and people will learn to deal with the matter reasonably.
.

But it's not happening. I see zero backlash in the left against the mob rule aspect of it. Rather the opposite. It's being treated as a price worth paying or not a big deal. Its explained away... just like you just did. I think you are wrong. I hope you are right. But I think you're wrong. It'll be the new normal and society will find a way to work around it.

Just in this thread men have been insinuated to be babies for worrying about it. I think being fine about MeToo in the left is more common than not being so

 

[rousseau]

Again, whose careers have been lost unfairly?

Here's one article from a guy about it

https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/how-an-anonymous-accusation-derailed-my-life/

There's also a politician here in Ontario named Patrick Brown. He was set to be Premier (like a Governor) of the province, but was drummed out because of sexual assault allegations, which later turned out to be unfounded, but the election was already over and his replacement is now Premier. After the allegations went nowhere, he ran for Mayor of a major city and won, but it's still a large step down from Premier.

Regardless of how many careers are actually lost unfairly, though, the topic of the thread has to do with the perception of whether someone is risking their career by being alone with a woman or taking one on as a mentor. As a related example, my wife and her friends will not use Uber alone and will pay more for a taxi when they're travelling by themselves because they've heard stories of Uber drivers raping women and think that all the background checks and the like make taxis safer options. Now, over 99.99% of Uber rides are perfectly safe and they wouldn't get sexually assaulted but there's enough stories about it that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation.

If there is a similar sort of perception amongst male executives because they feel there are enough stories about false accusations that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation and that one-on-one time with senior leadership is a valuable thing for one's career, then the careers of female workers would be negatively impacted by not being able to participate in them.

Yea, this. You can talk about something like this as a part of social science, rather than getting political about it, and telling men they should know better.

What we're seeing is a natural reaction of men, whether rational or irrational, to something women are doing, whether rational or irrational. There's no real should about it, it's just what's happening.

The conversation around gender issues is a mess one way or another, and is always going to have problems because no one approaches it in good faith. Women obviously have problems that need to be addressed, they're just not always addressed in productive ways.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Adults know how to tell the difference. The same words can mean different things depending on context.

Over time colleagues become friends. Friends have much more honest and crude way of saying what they're thinking. Speech is unfiltered and extreme things pop out. Just free associations. At least if people are happy and relaxed around each other. If they're not they shouldn't work there.

And this would make sense if not for the thousands and thousands of cases of hostile work environments due to demeaning and inappropriate comments and "jokes" which people have had to endure in silence for their entire careers. So, if you completely ignore reality, your situation makes sense. If you want to talk about how things are in reality, it kind of doesn't.

I didn't see you make that distinction. And we have to now. Metoo is so associated with mob rule that unless you're saying you don't mean that, it'll be assumed that you do.

It's not associated with that, so that would be a very weird assumption for you to make. I can't stop you from projecting your delusions onto others, but it does lead to odd conversations when you do since what you hear people say will tend to be unrelated to what they actually say.

Or ... another plausible scenario is that the decades of a lifetime of pent up emotions over needing to endure this bullshit spilling out will cool down and people will learn to deal with the matter reasonably.
.

But it's not happening. I see zero backlash in the left against the mob rule aspect of it. Rather the opposite. It's being treated as a price worth paying or not a big deal. Its explained away... just like you just did. I think you are wrong. I hope you are right. But I think you're wrong. It'll be the new normal and society will find a way to work around it.

Just in this thread men have been insinuated to be babies for worrying about it. I think being fine about MeToo in the left is more common than not being so

There is quite a backlash about the mob rule aspect of it. You yourself have posted links to polls regarding exactly that. The tone is most certainly cooling down and I'm not aware of anyone recently getting blackballed by a mob due to a mere accusation without the accusation being looked into. There was an actor near the beginning of the movement (Matt Damon, IIRC) who posted a tweet about how we need to reserve judgement until things can be backed up and he was shouted down as a rapist, but now that's the heart of the discussions. A radio station up here in Canada just took a song off the radio because of complaints about it being "rapey", and the backlash against their decision telling them to go and fuck off about bullshit like that (Canadian version of "fuck off", which is politely registering mild displeasure) was so loud that they needed to immediately reverse their decision and put it back on the air.

I don't know what part of the #MeToo movement you're paying attention to, but it doesn't seem to be the part which people in the #MeToo movement are paying attention to. I'm sure that there are still screeching harridans blowing their tops in unwarranted manners, but they seem to have been tuned out by everyone except the opponents of the movement who need to self-validate.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again, whose careers have been lost unfairly?

Here's one article from a guy about it

https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/how-an-anonymous-accusation-derailed-my-life/

There's also a politician here in Ontario named Patrick Brown. He was set to be Premier (like a Governor) of the province, but was drummed out because of sexual assault allegations, which later turned out to be unfounded, but the election was already over and his replacement is now Premier. After the allegations went nowhere, he ran for Mayor of a major city and won, but it's still a large step down from Premier.

Regardless of how many careers are actually lost unfairly, though, the topic of the thread has to do with the perception of whether someone is risking their career by being alone with a woman or taking one on as a mentor. As a related example, my wife and her friends will not use Uber alone and will pay more for a taxi when they're travelling by themselves because they've heard stories of Uber drivers raping women and think that all the background checks and the like make taxis safer options. Now, over 99.99% of Uber rides are perfectly safe and they wouldn't get sexually assaulted but there's enough stories about it that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation.

If there is a similar sort of perception amongst male executives because they feel there are enough stories about false accusations that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation and that one-on-one time with senior leadership is a valuable thing for one's career, then the careers of female workers would be negatively impacted by not being able to participate in them.

Yea, this. You can talk about something like this as a part of social science, rather than getting political about it, and telling men they should know better.

What we're seeing is a natural reaction of men, whether rational or irrational, to something women are doing, whether rational or irrational. There's no real should about it, it's just what's happening.

The conversation around gender issues is a mess one way or another, and is always going to have problems because no one approaches it in good faith. Women obviously have problems that need to be addressed, they're just not always addressed in productive ways.

The addage absolute power corrupts absolutely. Women have with MeToo been handed a gun that is risk and cost free to use.

A correlary is back when women had no rights in the West. Physical abuse of women was rampant (in a way it isn't today). Because it was risk free for men. Not until it came with s social cost did men slow down.

And we're already at the bottom of that slippery slope. #MeToo went rotten almost immediately. The difference is of course that women don't have absolute power. Men can easily just extricate themselves from working with women. Which will be the obvious result of #MeToo.

And the women mocking those men and calling them scared babies are just idiots. But right now, that's most people

 

[DrZoidberg]

And this would make sense if not for the thousands and thousands of cases of hostile work environments due to demeaning and inappropriate comments and "jokes" which people have had to endure in silence for their entire careers. So, if you completely ignore reality, your situation makes sense. If you want to talk about how things are in reality, it kind of doesn't.

The most hostile work environments I've worked in the boss was passive aggressive. They just say officially friendly things but with a cruel subtext.

On the topic of reality... you're so damn out in the woods on this. The words themselves mean almost nothing. It's the subtext that matters. The context.

People who get horrified by tweets and formulations out of context have misunderstood how human communication work. We normally speak on two or more levels at once. Regular people and comedians are treated as if they're running for office. It's crazy.

People who think like you on this are, apart from living a lie, guilty for people like Trump getting elected. It's a crazy way of thinking.

It's not associated with that, so that would be a very weird assumption for you to make. I can't stop you from projecting your delusions onto others, but it does lead to odd conversations when you do since what you hear people say will tend to be unrelated to what they actually say.

If you deny that connection I see no point continuing this discussion. Conversation can't go anywhere if either party denies reality. I suggest reading about all the #MeToo accusations so far. It's not pretty picture.

There is quite a backlash about the mob rule aspect of it. You yourself have posted links to polls regarding exactly that.

A couple of meek voices among intellectuals in a storm is nothing.

I see nothing but an intensification. It started with Hollywood. And now spreading to all business fields.

I don't recognise the world you live in

 

[Toni]

I don't recognise the world you live in

Maybe because you see nothing wrong with a prominent journalist telling a 14 year old--or a 40 year old--that they can have the job if the sleep with him, and excuse it as a drunken joke.

Those are some pretty powerfully screwed up goggles you view the world through.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, whose careers have been lost unfairly?

Here's one article from a guy about it

https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/how-an-anonymous-accusation-derailed-my-life/

There's also a politician here in Ontario named Patrick Brown. He was set to be Premier (like a Governor) of the province, but was drummed out because of sexual assault allegations, which later turned out to be unfounded, but the election was already over and his replacement is now Premier. After the allegations went nowhere, he ran for Mayor of a major city and won, but it's still a large step down from Premier.

Regardless of how many careers are actually lost unfairly, though, the topic of the thread has to do with the perception of whether someone is risking their career by being alone with a woman or taking one on as a mentor. As a related example, my wife and her friends will not use Uber alone and will pay more for a taxi when they're travelling by themselves because they've heard stories of Uber drivers raping women and think that all the background checks and the like make taxis safer options. Now, over 99.99% of Uber rides are perfectly safe and they wouldn't get sexually assaulted but there's enough stories about it that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation.

If there is a similar sort of perception amongst male executives because they feel there are enough stories about false accusations that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation and that one-on-one time with senior leadership is a valuable thing for one's career, then the careers of female workers would be negatively impacted by not being able to participate in them.

Yea, this. You can talk about something like this as a part of social science, rather than getting political about it, and telling men they should know better.

What we're seeing is a natural reaction of men, whether rational or irrational, to something women are doing, whether rational or irrational. There's no real should about it, it's just what's happening.

The conversation around gender issues is a mess one way or another, and is always going to have problems because no one approaches it in good faith. Women obviously have problems that need to be addressed, they're just not always addressed in productive ways.

Actually, the article in the OP basically said that men should DO better. Not be misogynist jerks who cop feels or worse and all that stuff.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't recognise the world you live in

And I don't recognize the world that you live in. Fortunately, there aren't any people who actually need to work in that world, so it's not much of an issue.

 

[Politesse]

Again, whose careers have been lost unfairly?

Here's one article from a guy about it

https://quillette.com/2018/09/25/how-an-anonymous-accusation-derailed-my-life/

There's also a politician here in Ontario named Patrick Brown. He was set to be Premier (like a Governor) of the province, but was drummed out because of sexual assault allegations, which later turned out to be unfounded, but the election was already over and his replacement is now Premier. After the allegations went nowhere, he ran for Mayor of a major city and won, but it's still a large step down from Premier.

Regardless of how many careers are actually lost unfairly, though, the topic of the thread has to do with the perception of whether someone is risking their career by being alone with a woman or taking one on as a mentor. As a related example, my wife and her friends will not use Uber alone and will pay more for a taxi when they're travelling by themselves because they've heard stories of Uber drivers raping women and think that all the background checks and the like make taxis safer options. Now, over 99.99% of Uber rides are perfectly safe and they wouldn't get sexually assaulted but there's enough stories about it that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation.

If there is a similar sort of perception amongst male executives because they feel there are enough stories about false accusations that the potential of it is sufficient for them to avoid the situation and that one-on-one time with senior leadership is a valuable thing for one's career, then the careers of female workers would be negatively impacted by not being able to participate in them.

Yea, this. You can talk about something like this as a part of social science, rather than getting political about it, and telling men they should know better.

What we're seeing is a natural reaction of men, whether rational or irrational, to something women are doing, whether rational or irrational. There's no real should about it, it's just what's happening.

The conversation around gender issues is a mess one way or another, and is always going to have problems because no one approaches it in good faith. Women obviously have problems that need to be addressed, they're just not always addressed in productive ways.

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

But this is dealing with executives perception of the risks, which may or may not have any correlation at all to the actual risks. There's nobody who's avoiding mentoring female employees because of a dispassionate and logical analysis of statistical data trends. There are people who are avoiding doing so because of a few scary stories which may or may not accurately reflect what really happened in the situations they're about.

 

[Politesse]

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

But this is dealing with executives perception of the risks, which may or may not have any correlation at all to the actual risks. There's nobody who's avoiding mentoring female employees because of a dispassionate and logical analysis of statistical data trends. There are people who are avoiding doing so because of a few scary stories which may or may not accurately reflect what really happened in the situations they're about.

This should, eventually, have an empirically demonstrable effect if it is indeed worth worrying about.

 

[Toni]

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

But this is dealing with executives perception of the risks, which may or may not have any correlation at all to the actual risks. There's nobody who's avoiding mentoring female employees because of a dispassionate and logical analysis of statistical data trends. There are people who are avoiding doing so because of a few scary stories which may or may not accurately reflect what really happened in the situations they're about.

This should, eventually, have an empirically demonstrable effect if it is indeed worth worrying about.

One would think so, yes. Instead of just hysterical and counter factual allegations.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

But this is dealing with executives perception of the risks, which may or may not have any correlation at all to the actual risks. There's nobody who's avoiding mentoring female employees because of a dispassionate and logical analysis of statistical data trends. There are people who are avoiding doing so because of a few scary stories which may or may not accurately reflect what really happened in the situations they're about.

This should, eventually, have an empirically demonstrable effect if it is indeed worth worrying about.

But what people worry about isn't generally based off of empirical data sets, whether or not they should be. It's more usually based off of whether or not they find anecdotes relatable. It's like with women not wanting to ride Uber on their own. There's millions of safe Uber rides and a handful of cases of sexual assault, yet they can relate to the situations in that handset of examples to enough of a degree that they avoid situations that a dispassionate examination of the data concludes they don't need to avoid. The perception of a risk is more important to their decision making than an analysis of the risk.

Similarly, the perception that a false accusation could derail their career, based on a handful of examples where that's happened, is more important to their decision making than an actual analysis of the risks of that happening.

Now, that is of course where the similarity between the two examples ends, because the effects of the Uber one are trivial so it can be shrugged off as "just a thing" and ignored. Aligning the perception of risk with the reality of risk doesn't have much more of an impact than not doing that, so why bother? Inaccurate perception of risk about getting accused of sexual assault, however, can have a legitimate impact on the careers of women who don't get to benefit from mentoring and the like due to male executives wanting to avoid situations which could be potentially dangerous to themselves.

I can see a couple of solutions to this. The first is to push back against the more radical elements of the #MeToo movement which assume guilt and destroy careers without verification, as happened to the Patrick Brown guy here where I live. That's happening, as can be seen with the latest accusations against Neil DeGrasse Tyson, where everyone is reserving judgement and none of his shows are cancelled or put on hold or anything while they're being looked into in a professional manner. I expect he's losing money in speaking appearances in the short term, but if he's cleared and his shows start airing, his career will just go on. The second is to keep talking about it. People who don't just accept unproven accusations right off the bat aren't being shouted down anymore and conversations about how to deal with these things in order to both protect both the accused and the victims are happening. There's probably a lot more ways as well.

 

[blastula]

But what people worry about isn't generally based off of empirical data sets, whether or not they should be.

We don't have any good data that male executives are reacting this way in any significant numbers.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

This shouldn't surprise anybody. This is what happens when the digital mob lynches mens careers based on nothing but unsubstantiated accusations.

It took about a week of #MeToo before I realised that it'll do more damage to women's rights and gender equality than helping it. I think women will increasingly be locked out of the early stepping stones of careers. Eventually women will be gone completely from any management positions in industry.

And I think this is where it's inevitably heading because there's no way to go back to the way it was.

Yeah, how dare women complain about sexual harassment and not expect to be punished for it? How dare women expect adult men to treat all people with dignity and respect and as equals? We need to just shut up about shit, bring the mens their coffee with smiles on our faces, and when we are being groped or worse, simply assume the blank look and think of England.

You'd almost think that women expect to be treated as....people or something.

Don't those silly broads know that they exist solely to sexually gratify men?

Don't tell me you think women should be treated equal to men. If you did, that would mean you are "persecuting" men, and then we would have to listen to most of the participants in this thread weep and rage for years. C'mon, you know how delicate they are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But what people worry about isn't generally based off of empirical data sets, whether or not they should be.

We don't have any good data that male executives are reacting this way in any significant numbers.

It'll take many years before it shows effect. The women already on the inside of these major companies aren't going to get kicked out. They've already proved they can be trusted. Nor effect older women that much. It's the young women who are now going to be treated like they are toxic. We'll in the coming years see a drop off of young female interns who are fast tracked for high level management positions. On the numbers that are measurable on the outside in the companies the numbers will be fine for about 10 years and then I predict a sharp decline of women on high level management positions. But of course, on the inside of these companies it's already obvious. Just talking to them says it all.

I hang out with top level managers and CEO's of Stockholm. I can hear how they're talking. They're all afraid of taking on young women now. It's genuine fear. They're all terrified that things they've said in the past can be used against them. Nobody knows if they're safe, because the incriminating statements are always taken out of context. According to the rules of #MeToo I'm sure all men are guilty. Because #MeToo ignores how men actually talk. Or I shouldn't say men... I mean humans.

 

[rousseau]

Yea, this. You can talk about something like this as a part of social science, rather than getting political about it, and telling men they should know better.

What we're seeing is a natural reaction of men, whether rational or irrational, to something women are doing, whether rational or irrational. There's no real should about it, it's just what's happening.

The conversation around gender issues is a mess one way or another, and is always going to have problems because no one approaches it in good faith. Women obviously have problems that need to be addressed, they're just not always addressed in productive ways.

If this were a social science conversation, there would be data rather than anecdote at the center of the discussion.

Touché. I should have known better than to wade into a gender-based thread at this forum anyway.

 

[Toni]

But what people worry about isn't generally based off of empirical data sets, whether or not they should be.

We don't have any good data that male executives are reacting this way in any significant numbers.

It'll take many years before it shows effect. The women already on the inside of these major companies aren't going to get kicked out. They've already proved they can be trusted. Nor effect older women that much. It's the young women who are now going to be treated like they are toxic. We'll in the coming years see a drop off of young female interns who are fast tracked for high level management positions. On the numbers that are measurable on the outside in the companies the numbers will be fine for about 10 years and then I predict a sharp decline of women on high level management positions. But of course, on the inside of these companies it's already obvious. Just talking to them says it all.

I hang out with top level managers and CEO's of Stockholm. I can hear how they're talking. They're all afraid of taking on young women now. It's genuine fear. They're all terrified that things they've said in the past can be used against them. Nobody knows if they're safe, because the incriminating statements are always taken out of context. According to the rules of #MeToo I'm sure all men are guilty. Because #MeToo ignores how men actually talk. Or I shouldn't say men... I mean humans.

Poor babies! To think that past sexism and misogyny which is totally, 100% erased from their minds, actions, and beings could possibly be held against them if they try to grope some woman or tell a 14 year old--or 40 year old she can have a job if she'll sleep with him! How terrible women are not to take each incident as a totally separate incident and not as one in a chain of events that demonstrate systemic, entrenched discrimination and misogyny!

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

 

[Underseer]

But the motivations are essentially identical. The fact that Uber drives aren't really impacted and female workers are doesn't change what's leading to the behaviour. These people are worried about finding themselves in a bad situation which they don't feel they'd be able to deal with and therefore take steps to avoid this situation.

Are you seriously equating the genuine fear women gave for their physical safety—backed up be millennia of experience and cultural reinforcement of those fears—with concern—sometimes legitimate and sometimes a convenient cover for reluctance to mentor female students or colleagues? Because I’m telling you right now that millions of good, decent men manage to mentor girls and women without being accursed of rape or harassment.

Maybe DrZoidberg thinks that complaining about sexual abuse and sexual assault is unfair because he thinks all men are rape-monsters who can't stop himself. Whoops, Freudian slip!

 

[Jokodo]

You think it should be without consequence to tell ANY applicant, whether 14yo or not that they can get the job if they sleep with you?

I’d fire that person for that. That does not belong in a workplace, it will undermine morale and trust and create a poor work result. That man is costing the company money in lost productivity. Out he goes. And that is not “mere accusation.” It’s clear he did something worthy of being fired. The fact that he ALSO did more things bad just makes the employer more certain.

It is not a joke, it is not acceptable it is a firing offense, it is unequivocally wrong to make such a "joke" and that he did it on the company record is reason enough for him to take his firing like an adult and not call the whaaaambulance. He fucked up big time, he was wrong.

He didn't also do more bad things. This is the only thing he actually did that was actually bad. All the rest was bullshit accusations. But the employer acted as if all accusations were serious and genuine. Which is my point and the reason I brought him up.

Why does everybody here seem to see this as black or white? I never said he's innocent and doesn't deserve punishment. I agree that it is a firing offence. But then again, the guy had worked there for 20 years and it was his first and only occurrence of it. There's many other forms of punishments than destroying his career.

The fact remains that no employer in Sweden dares hire him now. The career he's worked on all his adult life is over. Seemingly permanent.

edit: Here's another theory. Perhaps the girl in the application stressed how she was pretty, friendly and nice rather than just submitting examples of writing. Which is what is important for a writing job. And he got annoyed and the proposition was sarcasm. I haven't actually seen the e-mail. It has not been released. Neither the application, the name of the 14 year old girl or anything about this.

All we know is that the prosecutor decided against pressing charges. Propositioning 14 year olds for sex is illegal in Sweden. So the police didn't think this was enough. Which... if we are to follow due process means that we also should ignore this.

So what if the prosecution decided that this was not literally a case of propositioning a 14 year old, and that almost propositioning a 14 year old is not punishable so it declined pressing charges? Almost propositioning a 14 year old (or indeed any applicant) is still a case of highly unprofessional behavior. Companies explicit or implicit rules of conduct don't have to be literal copies of criminal law, and people are fired all the fucking time for unprofessional, though legal, behavior. I don't think there's a law against playing minecraft for four hours while drunk on a a weekday morning, but try doing it at work!

And he's your key example? Men like him are so scared for their reputations?
He should just try to not be an asshole and he'd have nothing to worry about.
Maybe he should smile more.

I don't think it's an unfounded fear. It's a real threat and something powerful men should worry about. It's like going to a casino and choosing between regular roulette and Russian roulette. Why even bother risking your life? And that is what this is about. These are powerful and ambitious careerists. Their jobs are important to them. It's most likely the most important thing in the world to them. Which is why they're powerful. You're asking them to risk that unnecessarily. Again... Why would they?

You have yet to show it's a real threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not the owner of any major corporation but personally, I would not be happy with any of my CEO's who were more concerned with maintaining their own personal status rather than doing what is best for my corporation.

You're even assuming their employer would want them to. They're going to be named in the lawsuit also, the employer very well might prefer that the young women not be mentored rather than face the risk of a bogus claim.