What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google
gadgette.com
gadgette.com
There exists a breed of narcissists who are so incapable of tolerating rejection that they will consistently ignore every sign of it. In fact, the less you are satisfied with their actions, the more they will repeat them, desperately needing to see that your displeasure was just a temporary fluke and in the end they really are those cool dudes who are never wrong and everybody just admires them.
As a man I've never been asked to sit on one's lap (knock on wood), but some did give me a fair amount of trouble.
It doesn't help that their delusional serf-confidence can be confused with competence by some less experienced folks and get them promoted to management roles. In fact, I'd expect their density to increase as you go up the corporate food chain.
And the difference is they weren't "hitting" on me. When I was a younger man--yes some where, but I handled the situation. (I guarantee now they are just yacking about sex, and their personal stuff.)The last thing I wanted to hear on a Monday was a story about Shirly's elder son walking in on her and her new boy friend "rattling the bed". I still can't get that image out of my head, and it's been 20 years.
Actually, I have found both sexes guilty of talking about their sex life at work. It could be intimate details of the date you had on Friday night, or how your mate isn't attentive to your needs any more. I've never liked hearing personal stuff about my coworkers. Of course, I never said anything, because it was innocent conversation at the time, but if I was an attractive female, or a young attractive male, I might have thought differently.
Maybe we shouldn't talk about this stuff at work. Personally, I just don't like hearing anything that personal ever. That's what therapists get paid to suffer through?
I not conflating my experiences with her's; just stating we shouldn't talk about anything remotely sexual--hell--shut up about baby on the way. We see the cute baby bump, or suffer through how hard it was to fertilize the egg. (Guys like me look at it as a tragedy, not something great.) People talk way too much at work. In my experience, most are lonely and don't have close friends, and use workers as free friends, and free therapy. We don't want to hear it. The jokes are worn out. It's just done. Find friends outside of work to dazzle with your stories. I know finding friends is very hard. It's even harder, if all you have concentrated on is work since that first job out of college.
And yes, some are sexual predators. I've seen them in most work places. Ive seen gay managers give special jobs to their boy Friday. I've seen pretty girls promoted--just becase they are pretty. I used to see blatatent sexual harassment, but not in the last fifteen years, but it looks like it hasn't gone away, at least at Google.
Managing people is a responsibility and you can't act like people you have power over are just your colleagues. Perhaps in time if you build up a close working relationship with people you can be friends who do or say things that are more risky - because you've established boundaries.
It's also worth saying that if a colleague is being inappropriate the first stop doesn't have to be HR, it can be a manager - they are there to ensure teams work well. A good manager should even pre-empt the complaint if they observe the inappropriate behaviour. That's what makes it so bad when the manager is the one at fault.
That said, I think it's the "to a point" that's the difficulty here. Because that point is a socially-negotiated line and may be different between different coworkers, in different work contexts or surroundings, or just on different days. And... pardon to say... but "we" (as computer science professionals) aren't renowned for our attention to social cues and ability to navigate and be informed by same.
In short, I feel like sexual harassment training might better be spent training on soft skills / communicating and reading ones coworkers better.
PS: This absolutely applies equally to both parties in the original blog post. With the additional responsibility that the manager, as an individual in a position of authority, has a higher standard to uphold than the employee. Either they misread or ignored signals that these topics made the employee in question uncomfortable, or such signals weren't clearly given. In either case, communication breakdown.
PPS: Simultaneously, I know I produce my best work when I feel like my team (including management above me) knows and communicates with me as more than a cog -- and yes, sometimes this includes crass language / semi-appropriate jokes or stories. In a lot of ways, it's a verbal trust-fall exercise. If I'm uncomfortable with anything, I try to clearly communicate that back to whoever is sharing.
Firstly, what happened to her is definitely misconduct, but not sexual harassment. I get the impression that the "victim" here is trying to take advantage of the situation. She never asks the inappropriate person to stop here, instead goes to HR. I mean just in plain words "Please don't, this is inappropriate." would stop most such behavior from happening again in huge majority of cases.
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
"Being shamed"? What if that female colleague honestly thought that she was blowing the situation out of proportion? A mere disagreement is shaming? Just because someone thinks they are 'sexually harassed' doesn't make them right automatically. I mean is there any scenario where someone claiming they are harassed could be on the wrong side of the things (or blowing things out of proportion)? It seems the SF/valley area atleast is too politically correct to even entertain the possibility that the female could possibly be wrong or making a mistake. Anyone that doesn't agree with a narrow notion of SJW equality is literally the devil. And this sort of trend has made 'being victim' a somewhat coveted status that can be used for gaining publicity/career advances.
1. Your implicit dismissal of her as a victim by using quotes is, frankly, a pretty large part of the reason why women feel so frustrated in tech. Here you are, a third party to this situation, automatically assuming that she's somehow someone who is purposely trying to take advantage of a situation.
2. Why is it the woman's responsibility to tell her male manager that it's inappropriate to ask her to sit on his lap? I mean, c'mon. I'll ask a coworker to stop if he's playing his music too loudly, but this is hardly in the same league. Plus, he's in a position of power over her, as her manager.
3. This situation is _precisely_ why there's an HR department.
2. Yes, I expect you to say that you're upset by the situation. I cannot read your mind; most people can't read your mind either, and many of them don't know the line between a 'joke' and harassment. Telling someone you don't like what they're doing is a crucial step, because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong. We want the boss to learn that his joke is not funny, and to do that sometimes you have to say it to his face.
3. Neither side is communicating well, which is indeed why HR exists. It's also possible that the boss would've continued after being told explicitly to stop. This does not mean you reach for HR's hotline the moment something goes wrong. You don't respond to a slap by pulling a knife, and you don't respond to a knife with a nuke--at least, not without examining other options.
So it's safest to assume that the victim of sexual harassment is at fault, of course.
> because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong.
So in this scenario, you're taking the stance that the Manager at Google has no concept that asking an inferior employee to sit on his lap could be unacceptable workplace behavior?
That doesn't seem like a generous read to you? You honestly think that this man, who has been working in a professional environment for at least a decade, was completely unaware that asking an employee to sit on his lap could possibly be construed as sexual misconduct?
So to review:
victim of sexual misconduct: obvious potential liar
perpetrator of sexual misconduct: blameless victim of ignorance
Got it.
everybody: obvious potential liar
everybody: potential blameless victim of ignorance
That having been said, talking about your problems is a basic communication skill that everyone who's graduated high school really should have, since it helps ensure that everyone learns from their mistakes and nobody has to be fired. Something I've noticed often in thses sorts of conversations is that people assume their point got across even if the other person acts like they aren't reading the subtle social cues.
TL;DR: I'm arguing with you because you're not thinking about both ends, and someone's gotta think of the other possibilities if we're to be sure that we're right; further, you shouldn't rely on subtlety to work with someone who can't handle subtlety. That's like expecting Java to be weakly typed. You gotta rule out the possibility that they're just stupid before you assume they're a dick.
>I remember thinking to myself, “Did I do something to encourage this kind of behaviour?” I had uncomfortably laughed at some of the sexual comments my manager had made because I didn’t know how else to react as a junior member of the team. Should I not have done that?
And the facts about her 'harassment' are covered in one sentence in the whole article.
> In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,”
She doesn't provide any context and keeps it as vague as possible. If you think about it, all/most of those things could have been light jokes that weren't specifically targeted to her. And I am certainly not defending her manager, but I still maintain that she did use this situation to her advantage. Getting a promotion, writing about it several years later in an attempt to promote her current startup.
No. That is neither a fair nor accurate paraphrasing of what the author said. That you would say this and then quote her is rather astounding.
She says quite clearly that she laughed uncomfortably because she didn't know how else to react.
> And the facts about her 'harassment' are covered in one sentence in the whole article.
She doesn't owe you or any other reader on the internet any fucking details whatsoever about her experience being harassed. You are nobody. She is not obligated to relive in excruciating details, the experiences she is referencing. She references the HR investigation. She explains how, in the context of the HR investigation--about which she rightly owes you no further details--she had to be:
> ...as specific as possible about all the infractions, the details, and the timelines. [She] had to recount any potential witnesses, for corroboration purposes. [She] felt humiliated. [She] cried.
There was disciplinary action with which she felt satisfied. HR departments don't typically take disciplinary action if they cannot find enough evidence to warrant such action.
Do you know what sexual harassment is?[1] A victim is not required to, and often is not comfortable, asking the person who is making their workplace uncomfortable to stop. HR exists precisely for these kinds of situations. The unwanted sexual harassment should not happen in the first place. It's not a victim's fault for deciding to go directly to HR.
Let's go ahead and review what occurred in one single week, as a new hire:
- kissed on the cheek
- asked to sit on her manager's lap
- offered unwanted details about her manager's sex life
- made the object of an apologist-style "Asian fetish"
So, out of curiosity, if you were a manager with a new female hire, who is an attractive Asian woman, help me understand ...
1. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to kiss the new hire on the cheek uninvited? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was kissed on the cheek?
2. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to ask a new female employee to sit on your lap? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was asked to sit on her manager's lap?
3. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to divulge details about your sex life to your new female hire? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she was told details of her manager's sex life?
4. What context excuses and makes it not sexual harassment to tell an Asian female employee that "all men go through an Asian fetish at some time"? What light joke that wasn't specifically targeted at her did she miss when she, an Asian woman, was told that all men have an Asian fetish? That is fucking textbook example of identifying a subject as the object of desire, then telling them they are the object of your desire, with disgusting apologist bullshit to try and make it not seem like you have any control over it.
All of this--and who knows, maybe more that wasn't divulged in the article--is sexual harassment. Even in cultures that kiss on the cheek, it's a token of familiarity not employed by strangers. SV does not have this culture. I've worked with a lot of different women over the years, in a number of professions. I've never kissed any of them on the cheek, uninvited or otherwise. I've dated a few women I've worked with, too--still never kissed any of them on the cheek in the workplace. Or asked them to sit on my lap. Or offered up details of my sex life. Or told them I had an X fetish, where they were clearly easily identified as X.
> And I am certainly not defending her manager...
You absolutely are.
---
> "Please don't, this is inappropriate." would stop most such behavior from happening again in huge majority of cases.
It depends. If there are witnesses, sure. But in private, the guy has a choice - treat this seriously and feel bad about what he'd just done or try to downplay it as a tease and continue hitting on her expecting that "things will work out". Some choose the former, some choose the latter. Some really go to great lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong.
Then there is also the question, whether somebody who behaves as if he couldn't even tell if a girl is into him or not should actually be managing a team of people.
She says she laughed at the sexual comments made by her manager.
> I remember thinking to myself, “Did I do something to encourage this kind of behaviour?” I had uncomfortably laughed at some of the sexual comments my manager had made because I didn’t know how else to react as a junior member of the team. Should I not have done that?
Which is, incidentally, why I try to avoid dirty jokes until I know my present company likes dirty jokes. This manager may not have figured that out.
Have you never uncomfortably laughed before? It's a pretty typical, and often automatic, reaction to situations for humans. It is also pretty easy to spot. It never ever means I'm totally cool with this; carry on.
Perhaps you do not understand what "sexual harassment" constitutes in typical usage, then.
I think sexual harassment and direct flirtation can become confused depending on the perspective of the recipient.
Men have been making advances toward women throughout history and, perhaps to a lesser extent, women do the same toward men.
Far more workplace flings happen than any company (and even many employees) will admit and it often starts with one party or the other making their desires known to the other party. I've also been part of and present for many very graphic conversations in the workplace involving both sexes and none of these, to my knowledge, were never seen as harassment or reported as such.
In reading the linked article the one thing I don't see is where she told the manager "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." Perhaps if she had simply been as direct with him as he was being with her, the entire HR fiasco could have been avoided.
It's telling that the female colleague felt that she was overreacting. At no point in the article does she mention the manager touching her inappropriately, or saying anything to imply that her job or compensation depended on her accepting his advances.
This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR.
I'm sure this won't be a popular view here but I think it's valid.
Edit: Replaced "HR Worker" with "Colleague". As some responders pointed out it was not the HR person who told her she was overreacting (thanks for the corrections).
It was a female colleague, not HR. According to the article, HR was fully behind her, as they should be.
> This honestly sounds like he was a guy who got attracted to a colleague, made steadily increasing verbal advances (which were not rebuffed), and then got blindsided by HR.
Not just a colleague, a report. This is what's important. HR would have frowned on a manager making advances on his reports, if nothing else. Especially advances on a new report during her first week.
Furthermore, she the boss and some other colleagues were cracking jokes about it during a team building event that I was invited to.
Edit: I realise this is anecdotal, but it feels to me like the author of the blog post immediately assumed she's a victim and panicked. Maybe the manager should've been more observant, but pointing fingers is useless without knowing what really happened. We only have her account of the story, which is probably distorted by the discomfort she experienced. This is not to say her discomfort shouldn't be taken into account, and yes I agree that HR should've sided with her, but I don't believe he should've been seriously sanctioned either.
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
While there is no explicit mention by the author of her saying, "I told him to back off", there's also nothing to imply that she accepted her manager's advances: i.e. that she went to dinner with him alone, or actually sat on his lap.
Reporting to HR is not a "fiasco". It is always difficult -- for the reasons the author states -- to deal with advances by a superior. Not just because of fears of losing her job, but also of self-doubt about hurting the company. Pushing back against him beyond not sitting on his lap leads to fear of retribution. HR is as close to a third-party as she can get for this, and the main question is how it could have been headed off earlier.
"In that week, I was kissed on the cheek, asked to sit on my manager’s lap, told about my manager’s sex life and virility, and told that “all men go through an Asian fetish at some time,” among other wildly discomfiting, work-inappropriate things. Then I was asked to dinner alone."
That racist comment alone is reason enough to get the manager fired right away, let alone the rest of that list.
And no, she doesn't need to say "No. I'm not interested. Leave me alone." She doesn't even have to say that.
Don't even start using "throughout history" as a justification for anything. A lot of bad things happened throughout history.
So I refute your position. We all have to set boundaries in our relationships and the author of the article is no exception.
As I see it, she should not have to "set boundaries" nor should she even have to deal with such advances in any way. It's a working environment and not a dating club! What he did (ask her to sit on his lap) has no place in a professional setting.
There are many cases where your "explicit opt-out" scenario doesn't work:
1- It's not ok for a colleague to assume they can enter your office naked unless you tell them not to. They cannot assume they have your permission to publicly expose their dangly bits near you simply because you didn't tell them they shouldn't.
2- It's not ok for colleagues to take money out of your wallet and use it unless you tell them not to. The default is "no", your wallet is off-limits, and such an action can and will be considered theft.
3- People who are uncomfortable with sexual intimacy (either because that's their personality, or because they are prior abuse victims, or for whatever reason -- they really shouldn't explain themselves to you) should not have to be exposed to unwanted sexual attention at the office, especially in an asymmetrical situation where the other person holds power over them. The reasonable expectation is that the office is not a place for sexual intimacy by default. Note that the boss here has no way of knowing how the victim will feel about sexual intimacy, which explains why the boss should not attempt it at all in the first place.
Flirting and talking about sex (3) aren't.
"Wait, what's the big deal? Geez! Just tell me if you don't like having your ears licked, there's no need to make a fuss about it. I thought you were a cool guy, but now I see you aren't."
However, and in my opinion it's a very important however, I see two reasons why despite our distance to the situation, we can solidly agree that the manager was out of line:
1. He's a manager. Power is a tricky thing. If you're in a position of power, you need to wield it with responsibility. If it means never having romantic/sexual/flirty interactions with a subordinate, so be it. It's just too risky. My father is a church leader and he never meets women one-on-one, both for his and her 'protection', so to speak.
2. It's a man's world. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where the power dynamics favor men. That also requires some responsibility, as even just superior physical strength unbalances things by default. When I'm walking down a street, I often try to be aware of not 'following' a women if we happen to be going in the same direction (especially if it's a darker or less safe area of town). I do this not because I have to do so, but because I know how unsettling (or scary and threatening) it can to feel like someone is following you, both from stories of my female friends, and from my own (undoubtedly less-scary) experience as a, uh, 'small, skinny boy'.
Now there are not always rules or laws that demand all this of a person, but it strikes me as basic decency to regularly reflect on what 'power' you might have, overt or otherwise, and how this might affect others.
And if someone who is clearly a subordinate feels threatened, then that makes perfect sense. Part of your job as the one in power is to wield it responsibly. That includes the responsibility to make sure there are no 'misunderstandings'.
If they believe kicking you out instead of your harasser is less risky they won't hesitate twice to do so. I can confirm that from personal experience.
If you can afford it get legal advice first ... and then go to HR.
And if you can't, join a union (or form one if they don't exist), they can help pay for legal advice and/or have their own lawyers.
Also I believe most employment discrimination employees will work on a contingency basis, so you should consider reaching out to them regardless of your financial situation.
I understand the constant refrain from HN of never trust hr, but I think reporting to hr could form a better foundation for a lawsuit. Feel free to contact an attorney first. That is what I would do.
As the initial point of contact for a sexual harassment complaint, beginning to construct a paper trail that explains the superior's behavior and puts blame for the incident on the employee?
I'm not saying this as pro- or anti-HR, just that as the document-keeper of record they have a lot of latitude to influence the narrative if they choose to. Remember: performance reviews tend to go through them at some point as well.
I think the point should be not to trust HR with the only copies of any documents or evidence. Again, I would argue that if HR does the steps you suggest, they are exposing themselves to much more risk than if they did pretty much anything else. Not to say they wouldn't do it, but that it would be a foolish thing to do.
In the UK, for instance, terminating someone for reporting sexual harassment is a very good way of losing a lot of money at a subsequent Employee Tribunal and getting your company fined. There's a lot of great precedent for siding with the reporter, even if other flimsy reasons are given for their termination.
However, the point made is a correct one. An HR person has a duty not to you but to the company, so never assume they have your best interests at heart.
If your case is as clear-cut as the one in this article you might indeed not need a lawyer but if there's any wiggle room; if it's discrimination and not harassment and the accused is sufficiently important to the company and HR judges that you might not have the energy to file a lawsuit etc. etc. etc. then it's still very easy to end up getting kicked out of the company.
This is what I told a family friend who also got the sit on my lap request. Well lets say her husband got laid off for a few years and they weren't in any trouble.
On the other hand, from an outcomes standpoint, this gets a lot more murky. "I see you recently graduated and worked for Google for a month?" "Yes, I had to leave under difficult circumstances" isn't a great conversation to be having career-wise, right out of college, interviewing for a replacement job. So I empathize with the blogger's confusion as to the right course.
Same problem as whistle-blowing.
You should go to HR anyway as a way to strengthen your case and have a documented precedent, but it should never be your plan A. They cannot be counted on to help you directly, because that's not their actual job.
However, the laws are written to protect employees from abuse, and if they're decent laws, the company should have a strong incentive to do the right thing, and then never give a bad reference when another company asks if they should hire the offender.
Of course, after the lap thing... I don't even have words... How can you treat other people like that.. you are put in a position of power/responsibility and they use it to degrade others..
Because here we're used to the symbolic ones for close friends and reserve those smooches for intimate or romantic relationships.
> During the HR investigation that ensued, I remember being shamed by a female colleague who thought I was blowing the situation out of proportion. She thought I was being overly sensitive, and that it was wrong of me to report my manager. That hurt. I thought she would’ve naturally supported me.
Maybe you think she should have gone to HR earlier? Hard to say, but there is no hard and fast rule on this... I mean not just that people disagree on what sexual harassment entails, but it's also not easy to see the signs of sexual harassment. For example, let's say on my first day of work, a co-worker asks if I know of any good pho joints. Am I being asked that because I'm Vietnamese? Or is it because this new co-worker has seen me tweet about how much I like pho (and it's just a coincidence that I'm vietnamese)? Or is it because we're in Northern California where there is known to be a decent quantity of pho joints (for America), and asking about pho is not much different than asking about BBQ if you were in the South?
It's possible that such a question is a symptom of deep-seated racism/stereotypes, and that in a hindsight report, I'd be sure to include it as an anecdote to illustrate what was going on even from the first day. But I'd have to admit that I'd be very reluctant to turn this kind of incident into an HR thing -- at that very moment.
In the OP's case...yeah, if she were getting kissed/propositioned on the first day, that would be an HR thing. But if someone were to note how young she was, or what a cute dress she had on...comments that often but not always signify non-professional behavior...I can see why she wouldn't go to HR on the very first day.
It's harder to enforce judgements on this kind of thing though, because ambiguity exists about the intention. It's much easier to punish clear "do me a favor for the promotion/bonus" situations.
I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best.
I'm just astonished she didn't get an immediate transfer to another group. I would be livid if this was happening and HR didn't remove the power dynamic immediately.
So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love (mutually)? Fire the manager? If not, then your "rule" can't be applied indiscriminately.
The default position should be to assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything unless otherwise stated.
It's like a good firewall policy - default block all and then explicitly allow.
"Not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace" was not the assertion. The assertion was "going to such extremes as to guarantee that no claims of sexual harassment could at any time be made against you would make you unhappy and miserable in a workplace".
This isn't an absolute kind of issue.
If instead you meant "assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything [approaching any kind of sexual tone]", then that's more realistic but simultaneously introduces a lot more gray area.
It reminded me of the veil (no offence to any culture). And I am sure you don't imply that. But if you advocate the other extreme, then there is always the risk of it going extreme in other direction.
To use your analgoy, you could run a server entirely via port 22. But it can't host a webpage, run game servers, or do much of anything else if it only accepts SSH via 22.
The process of socializing is kind of like vetting another server to see if you can trust them enough to use FTP or whatever. Sometimes, yeah, they screw with you; but not always. And the benefits once you do find someone trustworthy are greater than the chance of a bad actor.
Now, whether or not one should trust coworkers, and how much, is a personal question. You gotta decide that on your own.
Under absolutely no circumstances is it even remotely appropriate for a manager to flirt with any direct reports. It is always 100% wrong and there is never any room for this type of bullshit.
If not, then it's hard to say "it is always 100% wrong".
And then, what about the rest of the team? How do they feel about the relationship? Does it hurt their ability to do their jobs? Do they feel they are treated fairly?
The way that you have worded that scenario makes me think that nobody in the organization knew about the relationship before the wedding. In that case, I would likely want to fire the manager, though I can see how that could open up a metric shit ton of litigation, so I may not get my wish.
If I couldn't outright terminate the manager, at minimum, I would make sure that he/she was no longer his/her spouse's direct manager. That might mean a transfer to another department, or it might even mean a demotion.
Perhaps most damaging, I would never particularly trust the manager or his/her judgment again. Continuing to supervise someone who you are in love with is just an incredible conflict of interest. Keeping it a secret and not giving me the chance to make sure that there are controls in place just makes it all the worse.
Just a few notes to my answer:
1.) I am Canadian and Canadian courts have ruled that managers have an implied duty to make sure that the workplace is not poisoned by sexual harassment. Further, they have ruled that managers also have an implied duty to protect the company itself from any sort of harassment claim.
2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
So, assuming everything was done correctly ("by the book") after the relationship had begun, would you still consider flirting inappropriate in all circumstances?
> 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
In an ideal world, this would be awesome. In the real world, people fall in love unexpectedly (even if they don't want to). What do you want them to do in that case? Repress their feelings, hide and lie about their relationship, quit their jobs hoping that it was worth it? I firmly believe that reasonable, emotionally mature people are able to handle relationships (and breakups) in a normal, not psychopathic or disturbing way.
Who would ask his love interest to sit on his lap at work?
Do you really think that this is appropriate for even lovers in the workplace?
Even if there was something going there between them, it's unprofessional to flirt and fool around while working. Call me old school or what but we have weekends and off-work hours for these types of activities and everyone should make use of them accordingly.
If it was the first time this guy has done something wrong, which is kind of unbelievable, then it's not a horrible result. Maybe he really is just that socially backwards that he needed an HR intervention to learn what everyone fucking should know. But the cynic in most of us is saying that this is a pattern of behavior that was probably repeated in a more covert manner.
It would be interesting to see if the data supports that statement. Is there less sexual harassment in education or medical professions where women are the majority ? According to my experience, I don't think so.
It's like saying that everyone who abandoned a certain film halfway says the film is bad and concluding that most people in general hate the film: your data points are coming from a group who almost exclusively hated the film in the first place: they're not representative of the entire population.
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of
If you're still unconvinced, you might want to start examining your own sample bias.
As I re-read the paragraph I just wrote above, I can't feel but be amused by your suggestion that I should examine my own sample bias despite your blind defense of your own; in other words: your presumption that somehow yours is "better" or "truer".
But I can see we're unlikely to make much progress on this front.
edit: To make it clear, I definitely didn't witness incidents like kissing and lap sitting.. but more subtle ones might come under my radar.
Nobody's blind to that. Most of the time it's just that nobody wants to get involved in cases like that. For all one knows ones could be accused of doing nothing about it. So people prefer "not to see" and "not to know", just like in blatant cases of racism at work. So it's not blindness , it's just individualism.
> but I'd guess Eastern-ish Europe would be worse
Why just Eastern Europe ? I'm French and sexual harassment is an endemic issue. Same in Italy. We might have stronger laws against it but good luck when it comes to proving it happened in a court of law.
Eastern Europe for example has much less of a glass ceiling problem but gender roles are stricter and but racism and homophobia are orders of magnitude worse.
In the Dutch workplace (where I'm from) homophobia is for example much less of an issue; but racism is still pretty ingrained and while there are less strict divisions in gender roles but the glass ceiling for women is much stronger.
That leads to the other side of how toxic this is: if you're harassed, how do you know who's safe to tell? It's probably safer not to tell other men if you don't want to risk finding out that they're part of the problem or just unsympathetic without unrealistic levels of proof.
In that case it was jokes that I don't think had any malice but would definitely look bad in front of HR.
Speak up! Diffuse situations in the moment when you can, provide private feedback when needed, make corporate complaints when necessary.
You don't have to go to Eastern-ish Europe for that. I've spent some time in offices around London over the last couple of years and I've found that it's much more likely to witness sexually-charged conversation in the IT workplace than here in the US.
So, yes, it is a problem in Silicon Valley - and ignorance of the severity of the problem is a large part of the problem (you'll find a lot of research on sexual harassment in other industries but very little on tech and SV in particular).
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20071018041054/http://www.sexual...
Edit: The way the page is written makes it hard to understand what most of it actually means, but if I interpret it correctly 50% of 65% of 60% received sexual advances from a superior more than once. So about 20% had experience of a boss failing to take a hint.
"The owner of the company I work for approached me in the car park and asked me to dinner, I said to ask again nearer the time"
Fortunately for Bill Melinda went with option 2. Had she gone with option 1... Unfortunately the problem is that it relies on the other person, which is why many places have policies about this sort of thing.
If you consider even a single unwanted sexual advance to be harassment then you get silly conclusions which I expect you don't endorse. For example, I've been "harassed" repeatedly by fatties and gay guys in the past few weeks - they approach me and go away when I display disinterest. Pune and Bombay are so unsafe for men!
> The EEOC has defined sexual harassment in its guidelines as:
> Unwelcome sexual advances ..
> Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment
It's right in the first two lines - what am I missing?
It would be an extremely narrow definition to attempt to carve out unwanted sexual advances, especially from a superior, in a workplace not being sexual harassment.
Right, this is why I stopped reading the article after the first sentence and flagged it. One-off unwanted sexual advances are not only not sexual harassment, they're specifically exempted by law from being so.
I don't see where she says she ever even hinted to the manager that his actions were inappropriate. I suspect a single "cut that shit out, stop acting like a damn teenager" might well have stopped this problem in its tracks. But we'll never know.
I read these tales of woe and wonder why people today lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves, rather than resigning themselves to the status of "victim".
Good for her. What happened next was that the offender moved on to someone else, and when they found someone who wasn't so confident as your mother, sexually assaulted her.
It's nice that you wonder why people don't stand up for themselves, but you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim. It is interesting that you imply that in previous generations, there were no victims. This does not tally with the evidence I have that indicates that sexual assault and other such crimes have been with us for a long time.
Uh, no, but I can see how your expectations have been molded to believe this is the only possible "thing that happened next".
> but you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim.
No accident. The "victim" shares the responsibility of standing up for themselves. This culture of victimhood has helped no one but Tumblr.
Do you think your mother was so special that a man who attempted to sexually assault her tried it that one time only, on her only? While it's not impossible, the balance of probability very much suggests that a man willing to try this on your mother is willing to try this on other women as well.
As an aside, this is a text interface. There is no need to represent in text exactly what comes out of your mouth. You need not begin your sentences with "Uh".
Why do you place the word "victim" in quotes? Do you suggest that they are not victims?
A sexual harassment is analogous to a situation where a person hits another person, the other person fails to duck/block and gets hit in the face. I really can't see how the victim could be responsible for getting hurt.
The fact that some people have practiced the art of boxing and could have avoided it easily does not change this situation.
Person-to-person interaction is quite different from feeling victimized due to a general phenomena.
I was 'merely asked for a beer' once by a big hairy guy who had stalked me in a public swimming area. And I'm a straight male. I can tell you, sexual harassment is kinda like porn - you know what it is when you feel it.
It also may be that people today don't want to stand up for themselves because they risk that the other party will play victim. There is this other comment which says that if she punched him, she would risk an assault accusation.
Maybe it's the whole "somebody has to be a victim" mentality? Maybe it's lot less clear cut in most cases.
I have to say, I would much prefer women to simply slap the men who do these uncomfortable things. I don't see anything wrong with it. Now if this would escalate afterwards, perhaps then should courts (or other institutions) be involved.
> you should be careful that people don't accidentally think that you're ascribing blame to the victim
I don't agree, the people who think that are the ones making an error, and we shouldn't accommodate them.
How can we have an honest discussion about what is moral and what not, if we have the need to blame somebody? The blame can only come after it is decided what action is immoral, and understanding circumstances. Assigning who is a victim in advance prevents this understanding.
> It is interesting that you imply that in previous generations, there were no victims
I don't think he does, it's the faulty reasoning of yours (as you say in the previous sentence) that leads to conclusion that there is always 100% victim and 100% perpetrator.
> the evidence I have that indicates that sexual assault and other such crimes have been with us for a long time
I agree, that is very much true. But there is also other side of the coin, people (of both sexes!) are taking risks to get good sexual partners, it's just human nature. Ignoring the fact that people sometimes risk (and it fails!) in the interest of declaring somebody a victim does no good either.
I mean, even if you move the boundary of what is acceptable in society (in either direction), there will always be people who will risk to cross the boundary, because that risk pays off. So I am not sure what is bigger involvement of institutions in these matters going to resolve.
It's one of the blind spots of left and feminism (I am leftist), we don't want to hear about people who do take risks (because it's slightly irrational, after all), because our ideology cannot deal with them in any meaningful way.
And personally, I see the mere existence of bosses (and human social hierarchies in general) as a bigger problem, of which sexual harassment is only a symptom.
Yet you instantly have to recognise that you just blamed the victim for not being more assertive, and not being able to protect themself from something that they should never have to deal with - it's not even close to acceptable behaviour.
I am not unsympathetic to your point, I just kinda wish some consequences would start arising for the seemingly endless tide of entitled pricks who either don't care or don't know any better.
You and every other commenter seems to think I don't understand that. Not sure why.
Is your attitude that it's acceptable for these people, who do not push the problem onto someone else, to be sexually assaulted? If it's not acceptable, why is it incorrect for the victim to seek help? If I were burgled, I would seek help. If I were mugged, I would seek help. Why is it incorrect for me to seek help if I am sexually assaulted by a manager?
Furthermore, given that my employer has a duty to ensure a safe workplace, why should I not upbraid my employer for failing in that duty, or advise them of the problem so that they can correct it? If I saw a dangerously loose carpet, I would tell them. If I noticed some buzzing wiring, I would tell them. Why should I not tell them that one of their employees is sexually harassing people?
In a normally common-sense forum here, I'm kind of amazed by the number of comments here that go straight to the nuclear extension of the other's point. Can we assume that we're all against sexual assault here and have a bit more charitable discourse?
That phrase has lost meaning. Listing things the victim could have done differently or better is nothing but exploration of the causal chain. Blame in any logical or legal sense accrues only to a proximate-cause rule-violator kind of party.
Seriously? There's a difference between assigning blame and saying what could be done better. If I tell you that you should maybe next time lock your car after it was stolen, I still believe that the actual thieves are to blame.
My mother worked in the oil industry in the 70s and 80s, and these are the exact things she would say. (talk about male-dominated industry!)
Heading off to HR only sweeps the conflict under a bureaucratic rug and never really deals with the problem effectively.
Todays office culture is so toxic, and I fear it will get worse as "trigger warning" and "safe places" graduate from college campuses to the workplace.
Rather, just be a stronger person and call out the bastard to is acting the fool.
It's great that your mother felt confident standing up to abuse. Not everyone does — and someone early in their career, knowing that their entire life trajectory can be affected by their boss's reviews and networking, is going to feel different than, say, an established figure in the field or a worker at a union shop who can expect their support. The author of this article appears to have gone to Google directly from college and it's only reasonable to worry about jeopardizing your first big job by leaving quickly.
The other thing to pay attention to is the nature of the abuse. It's easy to reject some guy who makes a crude leer in front of witnesses. Her former boss was apparently more subtle than that since he managed to get at least one female coworker to take his side excusing his behavior.
That's not an accident - the men who do this kind of thing usually aren't the crude street-harassers of stereotype and are smart enough to pick women who are more likely to be vulnerable while leaving as little clear evidence as possible.
You could spend less time assuming I didn't read everything. The attitude of "saying she should stand up for herself, at least once, before going to HR" is hardly "condemning".
That is not the attitude you have been espousing. 

Again, it's great that your mother was able to successfully break a barrier. That doesn't mean everyone will also have success as easily using the same approach or that it's ever reasonable to dismiss someone else's life experience because you think they should have been more confrontational despite knowing so little about her situation and the power dynamics involved.
No, it doesn't, and I never said it did. But you can only succeed at the things you actually attempt.
And of course, she didn't publicly tell her "tale of woe" because at the time she wouldn't have just one guy telling her she shared the blame for it, but the whole society. So she suffered in silence. Which is great, because it allowed everyone else - even years later - to pretend it didn't exist, and that people were just braver and stronger, unlike the kids these days.
Interestingly enough, the author of the article never calls herself a victim or uses the word at all. Sure she was scared, and yeah we don't know what she said to her manager. But she's talking about her feelings about being sexually harassed in a very public forum, subject to all that comes with presenting your viewpoint on the internet. She's encouraging others to speak out about it, presumably to find the "intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves" that you find so lacking in people today.
She's also gone on to co-found a company. That doesn't sound like a victim to me, or a tale of woe.
I don't think sharing your feelings about being sexually harassed means you're acting like a victim. Quite the opposite. You're pointing out that this happens, and that if it happened to you then you're not alone, and it's not ok. There's strength in empathy.
Your mom sounded pretty tough and she undoubtedly dealt with a lot of BS, but I'm certain she would have appreciated someone telling her that that BS was not ok. That's not being a victim or being weak, that's just being human.
But over time she told me that it really wore her down and made her feel negatively about work. Even if people were stronger historically, it didn't mean that the environment was ok, or that it didn't really bother them.
holy frack - that's insane - and no way the first time they've said these things in front of other people before with no-one challenging the behavior as unacceptable
easy guide for men: if you wouldn't say it to a friend's daughter, or someone saying it to your daughter, don't say it to any woman you aren't in a personal relationship
My understanding is that the manager's actions would likely be considered low level harassment, tipping towards misconduct considering the short duration (1 week) and minimal resolution attempts outside of HR. Definitions are hard for this subject, but my understanding is the phrase escalates with severity from misconduct->harassment->assault.
I agree that the manager was in the wrong, but I worry about a culture that cannot readily distinguish the severity of conduct, and in-turn come up with an appropriate response.
In this scenario, I feel going to HR was appropriate, but I also feel this writing takes an overly hostile tone, instead of one focused on improvement. I'd find this tone appropriate if there were more pushback from HR, or if harassment continued and HR wouldn't help resolve. But as far as I can tell, OP is happy with HRs response.
Perhaps instead we can explore what HR can and should do to prevent self-confidence issues at the conclusion of these investigations? To me, that would be more beneficial than asking others to pursue a path which - all things being similar - results in self-doubt.
It's not just the act itself, it's also the act in the current historical context (institutional inequality) and work context (workplace power inequality).
Unfortunately the effects on OP are probably much bigger than we expect because of the way we are socialized, our culture, etc. Some might say that it's not the guy's fault that our society is so imbalanced, but I think we should be more conscious about this in general. To prevent the self-confidence issue, we could probably fix our education and general culture, but in the short term we could just not harass women at work. That's a pretty easy short term solution :)
And you can't put the burden on women to actively signal that they are not sexually interested in a professional setting. That's at best a large distraction for them, and at worst very draining and emotionally damaging.
It'd be interesting to hear the manager point of view on this issue. We have only one side of the story here. Maybe the manager genuinely thought this was a case of mutual flirting there.
Or flirting in the workplace = sexual harassment?
EDIT: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassm...
"A key part of the definition is the use of the word unwelcome. Unwelcome or uninvited conduct or communication of a sexual nature is prohibited; welcome or invited actions or words are not unlawful."
"The courts have generally concluded that a victim need not say or do a particular thing to indicate unwelcomeness. Instead, a court will review all of the circumstances to determine whether it was reasonably clear to the harasser that the conduct was unwelcome. "
Even if it was mutual, HR would probably have moved either her or him to a different team if their relationship had progressed.
So write a blog post on what lead you to such abundance :)
> if I wrote a blog about my experiences I'd become a laughing stock of the Internet
So write a blog post on what lead you to such abundance :)
> go deep into conversations with girls then eject to avoid boredom on both sides
That's a big mindfuck for attractive girls used to needy guys like this Google manager desperately hitting on them whether it's fun or not. You may want to cut them some slack if they go crazy after that :) Generally, I think I found Strauss' The Game quite enlightening in this regard. It shows kinds of bullshit and drama I'd never realized that women are going through.
Hold a door? Thats harassment.
Wink ;-) in an email or IM? Thats harassment.
Tell an off-color joke? Thats harassment.
Complement female coworkers outfit? Thats harassment.
Stand too close in an elevator or inline at the canteen? Thats harassment.
Getting caught looking looking at a female coworkers boobs? Thats harassment.
The problem is that at the end of the day it is all up to how that female employee "feels." If she is especially sensitive, then everyone around her has to walk on eggshells.
Why can't anyone have a sense of humor about any of this?
I think I'm going to watch 9 to 5 with Dolly Parton tonight, just to remember a time when people had a sense of humor about dealing with toxic office culture.
Harassment, to me, is what bill collectors and bullys do. They call you repeatedly, they post about you on social media. They follow you home.
Why not call it this -- her boss is an asshole, and she didn't call him out on it.
If I ask someone out, they say yes, and keep rescheduling 100 times, me continuing to ask them out and not take the (subtle, non-obvious) hint is still harassment.
I'm not talking about a glance because a woman is wearing a new shirt. That's not harassment, nobody ever said it was, and asserting otherwise is a straw man. But ogling the hot girl every day is.
And I don't know why you insist on continuing to argue against points I'm not making. I'm saying continued unwanted advances = harassment, regardless of the existence or lack of "clear rejection." If you flirt with someone at work (what exactly are you being paid to do?) and they reciprocate, it's not unwanted. If you do it once and they don't reciprocate, and you stop, it's not continued.
> I'm saying continued unwanted advances = harassment
Seriously, if they go bad, they go very bad. If they work, they can be great. But please be careful!
That aside, it depends on your relative levels and how closely you work together.
1. If you are a manager who is attracted to one of your reports, it is never acceptable to flirt. If you can't resist, quit your job first.
2. If you are attracted to your manager, be very very careful. He or she may worry that they have harassed you and that kind of worry makes any sort of positive resolution very difficult. There's a good chance that one of you will end up transferred to a totally unrelated team. If you like your job, it isn't worth taking this kind of a crapshoot.
3. If you are at the same level, ask yourself if you are mature enough to maintain a good working relationship if he or she rejects you. Then, take some time to think over the worst case scenarios. How will you react if you two date for a year, you are madly in love and he or she breaks up with you?? Will you let that boil over into your work world?? What if there is infidelity? What will you talk about outside of work?? If you only have work in common, tread lightly - one of you will move up or out. Then what?? What happens if he or she gets promoted? Will you feel jealous or proud?? Once you have thought carefully about those things, tell him or her how you feel (preferably outside of work hours) and ask him or her out. If the date goes well and you want to go on another date, tell your manager quickly. If the date goes horribly, be cool and don't let it change the working relationship.
Also, for the love of whatever you consider holy. If all goes well, don't do any of that cute dating bullshit at work!! Don't hold hands. Don't call each other pet names. Don't get caught making out in the supply closet!!! :)
This whole topic is filled with loaded words like "harassment" and "victim."
Furthermore, workplace harassment laws are tipped in the females favor. If she even perceives something, then it happened.
If you think that sending a wink to someone is treating them as a lower life form, then I don't think there is much I can say...
Simply, the victim's feelings matter.
There is a difference between a wink and a wink after something sexually suggestive. If you can't understand that difference then yeah, there's nothing else I can say.
We have delegated to the state what our personal responsibility should have been all along.
"Hey, asshole -- keep it in your pants or I will tell the whole office that you went through an Asian-fetish. Now can we discuss this TPS report or not?"
Secondly, a wink after something sexually suggestive is a little redundant, wouldn't you say?
I don't understand what is so difficult here. Her manager harassed her and the fear and embarrassment that she felt were real. If the genders were reversed, the result would have been the same. That is because in a civilized society, if you act in a way that makes someone uncomfortable, there needs to be accountability.
Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).
> Simply, the victim's feelings matter.
So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed?
Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.
That is only in the criminal system. And, that truism has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even in the criminal system, if you yell, "I'm going to kill you" and run at me with a knife, you may feel that you are joking. But, if I feel fear for my physical safety, my feeling of fear overwhelms your feeling that it was a joke.
You're also not thinking through the entire system. You seem to be under the belief that criminal/tort law requires an actual physical injury. That is simply not the case.
> So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed?
> Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.
And, that is why we have lawyers and judges.
Consider laws about assault. Assault does not require actual physical harm in order to be a criminal or tortious act. It only requires two elements:
- the assaulter needs to demonstrate intent. This requires more than words.
- the victim needs to feel fear for his/her safety.
Or, let's consider laws about sexual harassment. In the United States, simple teasing is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it creates an offensive or hostile work environment. The feeling has to be justified (hence the role of judges and lawyers), but it is still all about feelings and reactions.
You should read the US civil rights act. It's well written and quite interesting.
I think it's obvious but I'm neither American not a lawyer.
I don't think holding a door has ever been seriously considered harassment. Yes, some people do get upset by it.
> Wink ;-) in an email or IM?
If you need emoticons in professional correspondence you should probably rethink what you're trying to say. I also don't think an emoticon has ever been considered harassment.
> Tell an off-color joke?
A. What's your definition of off-color?
B. Unless you're a comedian, you probably shouldn't be telling racist/sexist/offensive jokes at work anyway.
> Complement female coworkers outfit?
Unless you're working in fashion I don't think you have any reason to do this, especially if it's not someone you wouldn't consider a friend. Here's a good rule: If you don't have a "chat on the weekends" type of relationship with someone, you probably shouldn't be commenting on their personal appearance at work.
> Stand too close in an elevator or inline at the canteen?
I think everyone can imagine that this has been done intentionally to make someone uncomfortable, especially in an elevator or in line.
> Getting caught looking at a female coworkers boobs?
Of course it's harassment, Jesus.
> Why can't anyone have a sense of humor about any of this?
I know, right?! I mean, I was just standing half an inch away from you in an empty elevator, commenting on how you were dressed and staring at your chest. Have a sense of humor about it!
I get emojis from our legal and marketing teams all the time. It is a part of office culture in many / most places I would imagine.
Here is my off-color joke:
Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. One. AND THATS NOT FUNNY!
Yes, I can complement anyone I like. I don't need to have a pre-existing relationship to do so.
Here is the problem -- there are so many unintentional actions that occur. I might be in a hurry and reach across someone in the canteen. Rude? Perhaps. Harassment, nope.
What if the other person doesn't want to hear your opinion or complements regarding a personal quality of his/her, would you stop and keep it to yourself or just keep embarrassing yourself till someone puts you in your right place?
Others might need an assist.
The point being is that I don't need permission to tell someone something that I think is innocuous, such as a complement.
2. This is partially why HR exists. HR isn't just there to handle payroll. More people should do this, rather than let things fester or ignore things that should be reported.
Women don't(in some cases: don't want) to realise that they can send out misleading signals, which itself would not be an issue if they would clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate.
Men might do something physical without any bad intentions and women might interpret them otherwise.
Here is how I see it:
If someone violates your intimate space, send a subtle signal that it's not okay: move away, turn away or do a grumpy cat impression.
If the person does not understand the subtle signal, use words.
If words fail, contact the authorities.
I'd wish we could move away from the one dimensional "males in tech are sexist" angle onto something more scientific. However, judging by the tile of the post, we are galaxies away from that.
Sigh. This is nonsense.
Men don't, or don't want to, realize they frequently misinterpret so-called "signals", or don't pay attention to them at all. There's a sad truth that women actually send signals men completely miss, while men actually pick up signals that were never sent.
A woman should never have to expend extra effort to clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate. An easy way to guarantee this is to constantly be mindful of your actions and never do anything inappropriate.
General rule of thumb as a man: treat physical interactions with women in the workplace the same way you do other men in the workplace--inherently non-sexual. Second rule of thumb: all that sexual conversation you might be used to having with other men--don't do it with women.
It's for this reason that expecting the victim of unwanted behaviors to send subtle signals first is pretty silly. If we're going to suggest anything, let's not go with something subtle and ambiguous that is likely to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by the person who is already behaving inappropriately. Instead, let's opt for expecting something like this:
That's fucking offensive. Don't ever fucking do that again. This is your only warning.
Pretty clear. Straight to the point. Pony up an apology, or admit that you're being a lecherous fuck.
Don't feel comfortable being direct? Go directly to HR.
Don't have HR? Give that "fuck off" directive a go. Worst case outcome? You realize this isn't the place for you and move on.
---
> Men might do something physical without any bad intentions and women might interpret them otherwise.
Bullshit. Here are examples of "something physical without any bad intentions" that are pretty impossible for women to misinterpret:
- high fives
- fist bumps
- shaking hands
- a pat/slap on the upper back or shoulders to say good job
- a light punch/slap to the arm in an obviously playful way (probably only best with well-known company that already trusts you)
Oh, and if you actually are paying attention and notice a woman recoil in any way from these types of interactions: make a mental note to not do that again. There's probably something in her past experiences that makes her uncomfortable with this, and it really doesn't put you out at all to remain mindful of that as you interact with her in the workplace.
Here are examples of "something physical" that cannot hide behind "no bad intentions":
- touching a woman anywhere, in any way, not covered above
- kissing a woman anywhere, in any way
- asking a woman to sit on your lap
- positioning yourself in such a way next to a woman that you intentionally make physical contact of an intimate sort
Why? Because women can fucking tell when you're making an advance. And men cannot hide behind a silly schoolboy's defense of "mixed signals".
After almost 35 years of life as a heterosexual man who doesn't have much trouble with women, here are a few general rules and suggestions on how to handle interactions with women to ensure you don't ever "misread" signals. I'll give them in a half-assed order of importance.
General rules:
1. Treat every woman with absolute respect as a person, not as a sex object, every time.
2. Don't interpret or estimate your probability-of-fucking.
3. Trust that women don't really ever play "hard to get". Ever.
4. Trust that women will make it very clear when they're inviting you to increase physical intimacy.
5. Understand that just because a woman smiles or is nice/polite/kind/open, doesn't mean she is saying, "I want to fuck you."
6. If in doubt, ask don't act.
General suggestions:
1. Allow a woman to set the tone of physical intimacy. Reply in like kind.
It's really, really, really easy to tell if a woman is physically/sexually/romantically interested in you as an adult. She will typically do more than simply "send signals". If a woman trusts you enough to touch you on the arm, it's probably okay to touch her arm. That doesn't mean it's okay to rub her arm. If she touches you on the leg, it's probably okay to touch her on the leg. But feel free to ask, cos there's no harm in that. She might be doing it subconsciously, and you'll be able to alert her to this without groping her leg and making her feel assaulted. If she's rubbing your arms and legs, that's a pretty unmistakable indication that she's feeling safe, trusting, and probably okay with you returning the same level of physical touch. But that doesn't mean you should grab her breasts and jam your tongue into her mouth.
At the club on the dance floor? Don't walk up and start grinding some woman with your junk. If the lady wants to grind, she'll make the move. And then she might want to go do the same on some other guy. C'est la vie. Why? Because she's often just out to have a good time, not find someone to go home with. If she is looking for someone to go home with, follow the directives above and you'll be certain to never find yourself the perpetrator of a sexual assault or harassing behavior.
2. Just because you like feeling like a piece of meat, doesn't mean she does.
I have experienced, on more than a few occasions, a relatively unknown female coworker telling me I have a nice ass, or some other such physical attribute. Cool. Flattering. My response: laugh it off. I don't turn around and say, "Well, your ass is damn fine, too." Accept the compliment. For whatever reason, some women think it's okay to do that. And they can be the same women who would be offended if you did it to them. Big deal. That's how it is. They know when they're attractive, because every fucking dude in the world tells them so. Don't ever be that guy--unless you're actually in a relationship with her; then, by all means, tell her all the time. Just steer clear of making comments to a woman in the workplace about her appearance. 100% guaranteed success rate there.
3. Physical intimacy doesn't belong in the workplace.
This one's pretty damn easy. Even when I've been in a serious relationship with a coworker, we never brought that into the workplace. There's no need to kiss in the office. Or have my girlfriend sit on my lap. Or touch her in an intimate spot. It's the fucking workplace. Treat it as such. All the more fun when you get home later. It can wait.
---
I seriously cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 2016.
The sad truth, is that (some) men are bad at receiving signals and (some) women are bad at sending them.
> while men actually pick up signals that were never sent.
Some women(and men) subconsciously send out signals that can be interpreted as an invitation, especially if we are talking about people from different cultures.
> After almost 35 years of life as a heterosexual man who doesn't have much trouble with women, here are a few general rules and suggestions on how to handle interactions with women to ensure you don't ever "misread" signals. I'll give them in a half-assed order of importance.
Some people actually do have a problem with reading other people. There are a lot of them in tech.
> I seriously cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 2016.
Society is moving constantly and there are problems that will just never go away, because it's just hardwired to our monkey brain.
I am in no way excusing sexism and harassment, however I see that reality is more complicated than "men evil, women good".
If we go down the path of stigmatizing men and come up with more severe laws to punish them, the divide that caused this mess will only get bigger.
The Silicon Valley situation is more visible for the simple reason that diversity is still a problem, so having so few girls makes this a huge problem and a barrier hard to overcome for women. I feel truly sorry for all the female colleagues having troubles with bosses and colleagues harassing or also bullying them (have you ever heard somebody saying: "she's a girl, let's give her this task b/c is very trivial").
You should start by referring to female workers in SV as women.
The correct response is to punch him in the face, defend your personal space with extreme prejudice.
In any case, as reported in the article, people in that situation are more likely to be paralysed by shock and doubt. A blunt, self-assured response in the moment is unlikely.
I am also suspicious of approaching HR first. Perhaps a lawyer has written about how to handle this online, especially what and how to document, how to handle any witnesses, etc., but if not I would hope my wife would talk to a lawyer first. I guarantee that HR knows how to handle the incident, but they are working on behalf of the company. That doesn't mean they are working on behalf of the manager, though, so they can be at least half-trusted (IMHO). But I would still prefer that my wife have her own source of knowledge on this situation.
This was their motto a decade back and what they are doing does not reflect it even remotely. I'm pretty sure they are not known for "do no evil" culture, just that the slogan is tied to them somehow.
"Don't do evil" is impossible for a corporation with 50k employees. "Don't be evil" is a worthy ideal to strive for.