If you are in a position of power over another person, I would say there isn't an appropriate time. The number of hours you work isn't really relevant.
Put it this way: when is an appropriate time for a college professor (that works long hours!) to ask a student out on a date?
A student generally or one of his students? There is a difference. And not too long ago a professor dating a student that he/she didn't have power over was not that uncommon.
There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.
> There are a lot of things that are not uncommon, but are still totally inappropriate.
Sorry! I was responding late at night, and, even though I quoted it, I totally missed tanderson92 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14680337) 's caveat "that he/she didn't have power over", which, of course, totally changes the ethics.
(It still doesn't seem persuasive to me to argue the ethics of a behaviour in terms of what used to be common, since it is still true that a lot of awful things used to be, and still are, common; but my comment was mostly based on a misinterpretation.)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking someone on a date. If they say no? Cool. Yes? Awesome. The act itself is not criminal, actions taken based on that (like retaliation) are.
Demonizing basic human behavior has no place in western society.
Is neither illogical nor slippery moral construct. If you disagree with the rule, you should find better argument then just calling it "not hard logic enough".
On related note, if hiring manager asks for dates regularly, any hired women will be assumed less competent and assumed to sleep her way to success - no matter what her response. It is not like these accusations were far away for good looking women, they are pretty much guaranteed in this setup.
That is not cool.
What's wrong is retaliation based on those things happening.
Ignoring half of the equation to paint women as a unique victim class is disingenuous, and ironically, it is a power move. Topping from the bottom.
HR taking the company's side... A superior leveraging their position to extract concessions rather than engage a person on equal ground... These are universal problems. Twisting everything into a gender issue because of sexuality involves the automatic assumption that a woman's sexual virtue is something special and any other abuse of power is just not as big a deal. A very gender essentialist and conservative position.
As an actual leftie, it should make me sad, but tbh it amuses me to no end in its absurdity. In the name of progressive politics, all sorts of traditional views are being promoted. Men should be chivalrous, women need protection, public shaming is good, morality must be enforced by a clerical class, with everyone else kissing the ring in acquiescence. Bizarre.
As if politics are far more built-in than we want to admit, and freedom and tolerance can become labels for the exact opposite.
Do exploitative power imbalances fade into political and economic background noise when they're "only" about money and/or hierarchy, and no dating or sex are involved?
Do "uncomfortable feelings" around dating and sex have a paradoxically privileged place in this discourse, over "uncomfortable feelings" caused by more overt forms of verbal, financial, political, or legal abuse - and if so, why?