What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[ruby sparks]

For example, handsome Brad, who Jill quite likes and who might have a say in her future career prospects, says, 'nice haircut jill, really suits you'. Jill does not report. Obese, smelly maintenance man Jack, who didn't fix jill's broken window handle quickly enough last week says, 'nice haircut jill, really suits you'. Gets reported. You are right, under a no compliments at all policy the management have no decision to make and jack is in the wrong and Brad isn't because jill thinks so and all the power is hers.

And that's just the first example that springs to mind. What if jill is one of the women in Jolly's video who considers even a 'hello' to be sexual abuse? What if....someone subjectively and innocently misreads a comment or the intent behind it (please don't say it doesn't happen or is entirely irrelevant) or, on a particular day but not another.....ok I'll stop for now.

Some attempt to objectively and reasonably distinguish appropriate compliments or comments (or patterns of them) from inappropriate ones, however difficult a task for management, is surely better than a blanket policy which allows for no distinctions other than by the recipient. Or let me put it another way. I feel you're harassing me. Expect to be getting a slap on the wrist from the moderators.

 

[ZiprHead]

Recently overheard at a department meeting:

M: Well, I just don't see that something like a compliment is going to be grounds for firing. I mean, who doesn't say things like "hey that dress really suits you" or "your hair looks great today"? That builds morale, it doesn't mean anything more than that and everyone knows it. Aren't we professionals?

F: The thing is, would you walk up to Dave over there and tell him that he looks good in those pants?

M: Sure.

F. So do it then.

M: ... Okay no. I mean he does I guess, but..

F: But what?

M: Silence

F: *raised eyebrow*

M *Silence*

F. But he'd think you were hitting on him?

M: Ok, crap, fine, you got a point.

I paraphrase, but it went along those lines (M and F are both trained sociologists, too...)

That reminds me of the foot rub conversation from Pulp Fiction.

 

[J842P]

I tell my male colleagues they are looking good in their outfits all the time.

Is this a generational/regional thing?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I tell my male colleagues they are looking good in their outfits all the time.

Is this a generational/regional thing?

It appears to be.

 

[ruby sparks]

I can't tell if poli's anecdote is meant to be in favour of such policies, or against them, or neither.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, the old "waaah, not all men" fallacy.

If you wish to demonstrate that this is a fallacy, you'll need to demonstrate that all men are this way.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You think wrong. I am saying that the relevant issue is not what the actor intended or thought, but what the target or recipient felt.

Because they cannot be wrong, no?

I have no objection to considering the feelings of others to my ignorant verbiage, nor to revamping the way I think or speak to accommodate those feelings. But the unspoken premise that those feelings are regnant ignores the fact that different people have different sensitivities, and the speaker cannot be fairly expected to know who is overly sensitive.

Sometimes people make mistakes. Rather than expecting perfection, perhaps offering the opportunity to apologize and learn should be extended?

Implicit here is the idea that one party is automatically right, and also that feelings of one party are the metric.

You've set a very high standard here. Let's hope you aren't hoisted on your own petard.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it does not. Even if the problem isn't isolated to a small portion of men as you say, this doesn't indicate that.

I think it takes a pretty rigid mind to reject the suggestion that when 80% of women in general or slightly over 50% of women in the workplace say they have experience sexual harassment or assault at least once that this problem is not isolated to a small portion of men. Add in men who don't stand up and express disapproval, and I think it takes a very rigid mind to maintain it is small portion of men.

However many women experience X doesn't determine many men perpetrate X.

One robber can break into every locker in the workplace. It doesn't mean that everyone is a robber.

One rapist in a neighborhood can rape twenty women. One bank robber can rob five banks.

It really isn't this difficult to suss. One male harasser (out of five male employees) can harass harass the five female employees in the workplace. The females will report 100% harassment, and that is accurate. 80% of the males will say they didn't harass any females at all -- and that too will be accurate. But 20% does not equal 100%.

One cannot draw any accurate inference about male participation rates based on female victimization rates. The relevant dataset is how many males committed harassment.

 

[ruby sparks]

You think wrong. I am saying that the relevant issue is not what the actor intended or thought, but what the target or recipient felt.

Let's hope you aren't hoisted on your own petard.

Too late. I've already reported him for being rude and offensive to me.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

These comments are not appropriate at the workplace.

I have a friend who actually called me yesterday to tell me about and ask for advice about a guy at her new job. HR apparently came out with a sexual harassment policy that includes something about not complimenting women on their looks. This guy apparently complained and argued ad nausemum with my friend how this is not sexual harrassment and he should be allowed to compliment her. Argued and complained for over an hour. She ended up ignoring him, and then he overhear her tell someone else that she was going to the gym after work. He then told her that "see if you allow me to compliment you, then you wouldn't feel like you have to go to the gym". I told her to go to HR and her supervisor, start documenting this and worst case video it.

This guy clearly does not understand what harassment is, and still feels entitled to his way of thinking. I think this is still harassment, just a different twist.

At first, I thought, eek, is that policy really necessary and could I say 'nice haircut' to a male colleague but not a female one, and then, shortly after 'ad nauseam' I began to wonder about this guy and by his last comment I was completely agreeing with your advice to your friend, even if he was ostensibly trying to be witty. And if he wasn't even that, it's a bit scary that there are men out there who would seriously think that way.

I finished with the additional thought, 'this is why I would never want to be and would not be very good at being either an HR manager or a football referee'.

Since I am now retired, and I rarely worked with men during my career, I will give my opinion. If a male coworker told me that he liked my new hair style or something as innocent as that, I would take it as a nonsexual compliment. But, during my last year of work, the maintenance man frequently said things to me that bordered on sexual harassment. For example, one day as I was walking toward the office at the start of the day, he said, "You look ravishing today. Come give me a big hug"! I just rolled my eyes and made sure that I was out of his reach. Another time he said to me, "If I had met you before you met your husband, oh boy etc." Ew. Ew. Ew. I don't know if I call that full fledged sexual harassment since he wasn't my superior and he was kind of a dumbass, but it was very inappropriate and I would have preferred that he had just wished me a good morning.

Now I am going to admit that every once in awhile there is a female employee that sexually harasses the men. My husband worked with such a woman in his final job. The thing is that none of the men felt threatened by Betty. She was a low level hourly employee. She even said inappropriate remarks to the plant manager. He told us that he sometimes didn't know what to do about her. Nobody ever complained about her or took her seriously. I don't think she ever tried to touch anyone. She just bragged about her many sexual conquests with famous soul singers and sometimes she made inappropriate comments. The thing is that none of the men ever seemed to care. Maybe there is a double standard or maybe most men don't take a woman like Betty seriously. Instead they seemed to think she was a hoot. Have any of the men here ever worked with a woman like Betty? Were you made to feel uncomfortable by her? Did you just think of her as a joke? In all of his working years, this was the only time that my husband worked with someone like that. Her behavior was certainly inappropriate but the employees had mostly all worked together for years, so perhaps it was more like having a kooky family member that sometimes says inappropriate things.

I also think there is a big difference between a superior making inappropriate remarks and someone that is in a low level position making those remarks. One has the power to fire you or make you work life miserable. The other has no power over you. I never ever felt threatened by the maintenance man. He was 71 years old and I was 68. I would never even consider reporting him. I just thought he was a jerk.

Two types of sexual harassment:

1) direct harassment from a superior in the form of quid pro quo -- "give me some tail if you want that promotion/don't want to be fired/want that raise" etc, and

2) hostile work environment, which need not emanate from a superior. Say your boss was aware of the maintanence-man's ew-ew-ew comments and even after you said something did nothing to stop those comments. The harassment was coming from a peer, subordinate, or even a contractor, and was permitted to continue.

Both are forms of sexual harassment, legally actionable.

 

[ruby sparks]

You think wrong. I am saying that the relevant issue is not what the actor intended or thought, but what the target or recipient felt.

Let's hope you aren't hoisted on your own petard.

Too late. I've already reported him for being rude and offensive to me.

Sorry. I was kidding.

In all seriousness, I agree with you Thumpalumpacus and you put it well and reasonably, imo, as regards the issue (inappropriate compliments) when you say you are fine with trying to accommodate others. And I also do recognise that there is an issue. I'm just not convinced that a no compliments policy is the best solution (compared to some other sort of policy which aims for the same outcomes) perhaps especially when the policy is gendered, and I say that while agreeing that the problems are not borne equally by the different sexes or genders.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it does not. Even if the problem isn't isolated to a small portion of men as you say, this doesn't indicate that.

I think it takes a pretty rigid mind to reject the suggestion that when 80% of women in general or slightly over 50% of women in the workplace say they have experience sexual harassment or assault at least once that this problem is not isolated to a small portion of men. Add in men who don't stand up and express disapproval, and I think it takes a very rigid mind to maintain it is small portion of men.

However many women experience X doesn't determine many men perpetrate X.

One robber can break into every locker in the workplace. It doesn't mean that everyone is a robber.

One rapist in a neighborhood can rape twenty women. One bank robber can rob five banks.

It really isn't this difficult to suss. One male harasser (out of five male employees) can harass harass the five female employees in the workplace. The females will report 100% harassment, and that is accurate. 80% of the males will say they didn't harass any females at all -- and that too will be accurate. But 20% does not equal 100%.

One cannot draw any accurate inference about male participation rates based on female victimization rates. The relevant dataset is how many males committed harassment.

The last statement is true. But we don't have that dataset. Nor is the statement that "it strongly suggests that this goes beyond a small portion" an accurate estimate. It is a suggestion, based not only on the numbers, but observation and reason. That language does not rule out a small portion - it implies it is unlikely in my opinion.

And, as I have pointed out, extending the analogy of crime does not "suss". Crime is a clearly defined action with a clearly defined outcome - what a victim feels in the case in the sexual harassment is not.

 

[laughing dog]

You think wrong. I am saying that the relevant issue is not what the actor intended or thought, but what the target or recipient felt.

Because they cannot be wrong, no?

I have no objection to considering the feelings of others to my ignorant verbiage, nor to revamping the way I think or speak to accommodate those feelings. But the unspoken premise that those feelings are regnant ignores the fact that different people have different sensitivities, and the speaker cannot be fairly expected to know who is overly sensitive.

Sometimes people make mistakes. Rather than expecting perfection, perhaps offering the opportunity to apologize and learn should be extended?

I have never said otherwise.

Implicit here is the idea that one party is automatically right, and also that feelings of one party are the metric.

You've set a very high standard here. Let's hope you aren't hoisted on your own petard.

Absolutely agree with both statements. Where I work, people are hoisted on that petard all of the time, including me. I don't have to agree with that policy or like it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You think wrong. I am saying that the relevant issue is not what the actor intended or thought, but what the target or recipient felt.

Because they cannot be wrong, no?

I have no objection to considering the feelings of others to my ignorant verbiage, nor to revamping the way I think or speak to accommodate those feelings. But the unspoken premise that those feelings are regnant ignores the fact that different people have different sensitivities, and the speaker cannot be fairly expected to know who is overly sensitive.

Sometimes people make mistakes. Rather than expecting perfection, perhaps offering the opportunity to apologize and learn should be extended?

Implicit here is the idea that one party is automatically right, and also that feelings of one party are the metric.

You've set a very high standard here. Let's hope you aren't hoisted on your own petard.

Yes, exactly.

It also puts us at the whims of the crybullies (those who look to take offence (even on behalf of others who are not offended) so they can lash out at others) and creates an environment of walking on eggshells, not knowing who is fragile about what. A reasonable person test is vital here. A right to not be harassed is not a right not to be offended.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't have to agree with that policy or like it.

But....you do agree with it.....because....you've been recommending it?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Too late. I've already reported him for being rude and offensive to me.

Sorry. I was kidding.

In all seriousness, I agree with you Thumpalumpacus and you put it well and reasonably, imo, as regards the issue (inappropriate compliments) when you say you are fine with trying to accommodate others. And I also do recognise that there is an issue. I'm just not convinced that a no compliments policy is the best solution (compared to some other sort of policy which aims for the same outcomes) perhaps especially when the policy is gendered, and I say that while agreeing that the problems are not borne equally by the different sexes or genders.

Having been a business manager for twenty years or so, I can tell you it is no easy thing to regulate. I agree that a "no compliments" policy is not viable whether or not the policy is gendered (and indeed, making it gender-specific is itself probably a no-go legally). In my own experience sexual harassment tends to be committed more by males -- or, at least, females seem more willing to come forward and report it (perhaps a male would be embarrassed to report harassment to his male supervisor?) I've fired people before for sexual harassment.

I got a laugh about your "report", though.

The last statement is true. But we don't have that dataset. Nor is the statement that "it strongly suggests that this goes beyond a small portion" an accurate estimate. It is a suggestion, based not only on the numbers, but observation and reason. That language does not rule out a small portion - it implies it is unlikely in my opinion.

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that if we cannot draw conclusions from what we know, we cannot draw conclusions from what we know.

And, as I have pointed out, extending the analogy of crime does not "suss". Crime is a clearly defined action with a clearly defined outcome - what a victim feels in the case in the sexual harassment is not.

I'm not comparing the two in terms of impact. Focus on the math.

Where I work, people are hoisted on that petard all of the time, including me. I don't have to agree with that policy or like it.

I'm fine with a no-harassment policy, and in my training that has always weighted the feelings of the victim more than the perpetrator. However, also in my training, I'm required to perform an investigation that also takes into account the intent of the perpetrator (and please note that in both cases I'm using "perpetrator" with the modifier "hypothetical" implied). I agree that the feelings of the victim should carry more weight. I also think that in any SH investigation, intent does matter.

However, just as sometimes racism is so subtle that people often don't know they're repeating racially offensive tropes, so too sexual harassment can be perpetrated without intent on the part of the harasser. It's not cut-and-dried and that is exactly why we investigate upon receiving a report.

It also puts us at the whims of the crybullies (those who look to take offence (even on behalf of others who are not offended) so they can lash out at others) and creates an environment of walking on eggshells, not knowing who is fragile about what. A reasonable person test is vital here. A right to not be harassed is not a right not to be offended.

I completely agree with your last line -- indeed, I've repeated it often enough over the years -- but it needs to be pointed out that far too often, harassment goes far beyond perceived offense. I don't think you're saying otherwise, but I wanted to be clear about that.

I've never to my knowledge maintained a work environment where anyone felt they had to walk on eggshells, though. It's really not that hard to build an atmosphere of mutual respect and inclusion.

 

[laughing dog]

Sure. I'm simply pointing out that if we cannot draw conclusions from what we know, we cannot draw conclusions from what we know.

We can certainly draw conclusions from incomplete data. Just because there is some uncertainty does not mean we cannot draw conclusions or act on them.

I'm not comparing the two in terms of impact. Focus on the math.

Context free math is simply numbers. Showing something is mathematically possible does not mean it is probable.

I'm fine with a no-harassment policy, and in my training that has always weighted the feelings of the victim more than the perpetrator. However, also in my training, I'm required to perform an investigation that also takes into account the intent of the perpetrator (and please note that in both cases I'm using "perpetrator" with the modifier "hypothetical" implied). I agree that the feelings of the victim should carry more weight. I also think that in any SH investigation, intent does matter.

Intent is irrelevant to the effect on the victim at the time of incident. Intent is important if one is trying to ascertain blame and punishment.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

and creates an environment of walking on eggshells, not knowing who is fragile about what.

Your idiotic "crybullies" comment aside, you should absolutely always be in an "environment of walking on eggshells" in the business world. It's not a clubhouse ffs. It's where business is conducted by professionals, not a fucking playground for dipshits.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't have to agree with that policy or like it.

But....you do agree with it.....because....you've been recommending it?

I am describing the world we live in.

 

[ruby sparks]

Your idiotic "crybullies" comment aside, you should absolutely always be in an "environment of walking on eggshells" in the business world. It's not a clubhouse ffs. It's where business is conducted by professionals, not a fucking playground for dipshits.

That was a bit more than a tad harsh, imo. And I have been critical of JP in my time.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have to agree with that policy or like it.

But....you do agree with it.....because....you've been recommending it?

I am describing the world we live in.

I bet you wish you'd have had Thumpalumpacus as a manager then.

Oops. I thought you said, " I am describing the world I live in", as in the world you, laughing dog, live in.

Luckily for me, I don't live in such a world.