Pro tip: The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself. We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog".
Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed.
Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2.
This playbook is old. It's unacceptable. It's a way to try and shield men from the consequences illegal, unproessional, and immoral actions. It's an attempt to undermine anyone who notices.
You're doing something awful. Stop it.
> "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence
> Tragically comedic hyperbole.
>> Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed.
> The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself
>> Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2.
> We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog"
There are no straw men here. Only classic deflect-and-gaslight tactics older than either of us. But hey, you go on misusing the phrase "straw man", champ. Credit to your gender, etc.
Stop defending sexism. If your behavior is indistinguishable from sexism save for intent, it is sexism. Period.
Step 3: You're assuming the victim would necessarily feel shame by trying to help them deal with assholes, and you're also assuming that shame was the intended outcome of telling them to stand up/call out idiots in the midst of their idiocy.
I cannot parse your second paragraph. Victim helps "them"?
Also: I repeat. If your actions are indistinguishable from sexism they're sexism. Your intent doesn't matter. Your defense here is that you're reading the gp charitably.
Someone strong enough of character would be able to withstand the initial stupidity and confront the perpetrators and convince them to stop. Should she have to do that? No, but maybe her actions could lead them to be more mature and they'd all respect each other, and the next woman would have that much better of an environment to go into.
By immediately coddling them, you are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you think are doing.
I think that's what the OP was trying to say, but I can't read minds so who knows.
This seems arbitrary.
This is not some punishment game on reality TV. It's a workplace. Being professional with employees is the bare minimum. Even teenagers can do it. Why do you want to coddle these men?
When someone is being subjected to abuse in what is supposed to be a professional setting, the correct strategy for them is to take matters into their own hands and probably begin a disruptive and draining conflict which they are almost certain to lose in the end because the deck is stacked against them. Under absolutely no circumstances should the victim ask for assistance, because that would demonstrate weakness and a lack of self-respect. If only the victim had better strength of character, they could put those assholes in their places and nothing like this would ever happen again.
I really don't think I can make myself see the world that way. I don't think I want to.
If she struggles, it'll be a "poor culture fit." At-will employment means it's very challenging to push back against your boss's toxic culture. But if she doesn't, she isn't "strong enough" for the industry.
The summary is: Get fired, get out, or shut up.
> By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism
You say here that if at any point any authority figure (which you curiously include "parents" in the list of) is involved it will disqualify the subject of these treatments any hope of future respect. To name the torment as such is to condemn yourself to it.
I'm starting to think you may be using the phrase "strawman" in the more popular counter-factual sense than have a grasp of how the word is historically used. Because it sure seems here like you're saying, "Never go to an authority or appeal to the rules a group establishes because if you do, you forfeit all respect in perpetuity."
Maybe you didn't mean to say that. Maybe this didn't read like you intended it to. But it's not fair that you call foul on us for reading what you wrote and interpreting it within the scope you defined.
Signal boosting this.
There were examples of sexism in the article but I didn't see anything about sexual harassment, they are very different things and shouldn't be mixed up.
(Lots of harassment stories are about unwanted advances or actual sexual assault, which also is, in the workplace, harassment but is not necessary for harassment.)
Edit: Ah, now I see, I think we read the story a bit differently. I read the following part as being said to everyone and not just her, if he had singled her out then it would be sexual harassment but to me this looks like it is directed at the entire group:
> When this director arrived, we were all seating around a large table, on 2 benches. The first thing he said was "Move over, I need room for my big dick"
The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. The whole racism/sexism view-point comes from a misunderstanding and attribution of malice to innocent parties, it's so god damn ironic.
I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.
I'm sorry. In what professional work environment is "move over I need room for my big dick" an appropriate statement? In what environment is it appropriate to actively mock a team member for posting an article, to the point where they cry in the workplace?
The range in which "intent" would have tipped the ever-sensitive scales of our judgement was somewhere well before, "This app is big like my dick."
It's ironic that people strive to defend this sort of garbage as work appropriate, and pass it off as a norm. It was not, and only recently have some places allowed it to be. Places that open themselves up to justifiable lawsuits, reduce productivity, make tech work more expensive for everyone, and increase the sum of human misery in the world.
> I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism.
Okay good but...
> But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory.
I'm sorry, but ... what on earth are you talking about? What context would make this okay? What backstory would permit this behavior? To me, this reads as, "I will oppose it unless I feel like making decisions about unobservable phenomena.
> Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.
The cold hard logic is that actions indistinguishable from sexism by both third parties and the aggrieved party ARE sexism. Intent is immeasurable. Pleading intent is asking others to take on an act of faith in defiance of the facts.
It seems that any response other than total outrage gets shot down as heresy. I'm just not sure that's the most pragmatic approach to fixing this problem.
Communicating to these guys, the level of hurt they're inflicting may actually bring a better resolution.
While I'd never make comments like that around at work, I'm very conservative, I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could "destroy people".
It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs. Again totally different, but I've always felt it was up to me to control my reaction. I can easily get hurt or offended, that they're rejecting me and that the work place is hostile to someone that believes as I do. But I work to avoid thinking along those lines as it will do me no good. I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that those things don't bother me.
That's sort of the question the author posed, now isn't it?
> but it really is possible they have no idea the impact they're having on this woman
Presumably some did, as they apologized. Again, exactly what are you proposing here? At what point does carelessness become neglignece. Are you suggesting this is a large group of people with a very specific and very similar set of neurodiverse characteristics?
What?
> I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could "destroy people".
If at some point people could stop talking about their dicks and start doing their jobs that'd be amazing. How do you find time to work in between all the posturing?
> It's not the same as sexism
Except that it's indistinguishable from sexism without a powerful form of mass telepathy...
> I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that those things don't bother me
It's impressive that you started off with "Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here?" and ended with this. It's a total around-the-world of the gaslight playbook. Be more sensitive and think about the feelings of the men harassing the woman. And hey, she should be tougher anyways.
What you're saying and promoting is needlessly unfair. Stop it.
I think you are saying there needs to be empathy for the author? If you are, I totally agree. But I was saying also for everyone that is coming down hard on the guys some empathy there might be more constructive. If they knew the degree of impact their behavior was having they might moderate their behavior.
>If at some point people could stop talking about their dicks and start doing their jobs that'd be amazing. How do you find time to work in between all the posturing?
Yeah sure I'm not a fan of that sort of behavior. I don't think it's posturing at least in my workplace it tends to be self deprecating humor, of a sexual nature. But I think you missed my point. I've seen people bond over this kind of behavior, but never seen someone hurt buy it. The degree of hurt described by the author is beyond what I'd have thought possible. This is because it is so commonplace around me. Not because I think it unreasonable.
>Except that it's indistinguishable from sexism without a powerful form of mass telepathy...
My comment was "It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs". I think you must have misunderstood? I was saying mocking my beliefs is different to sexism? You disagree?
>It's impressive that you started off with "Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here?" and ended with this. It's a total around-the-world of the gaslight playbook. Be more sensitive and think about the feelings of the men harassing the woman. And hey, she should be tougher anyways.
I'm not saying she should shut up and be okay with this. I'm saying everyone is in control of their own emotions. You can limit the amount of influence you allow others to have over your emotions. If you do this your life will be better. Only let those who love you and you trust be strong influences of your emotions. Because bad people exist and you will have to interact with them. By all means call them out, get them removed from power. But never ever let them get under your skin. You have the ability to rise above that, to be sovereign over your happiness.
I also find the accusation of gaslighting unfair. This is a form of systematic psychological manipulation. It's a big deal to accuse someone of that.
>What you're saying and promoting is needlessly unfair. Stop it.
I think that you've misunderstood me as I don't think anything I'm promoting is unfair.
How would you know? Are you confident everyone around you would be comfortable telling you that your behavior hurt them?
> My comment was "It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs".
Hey. I wanna draw a line here as well. These conversations are ALSO not work appropriate, in the same sense that it is not appropriate for a Christian to suggest gay people don't deserve equal rights.
Those topics are best left out of the workplace.
> I'm not saying she should shut up and be okay with this. I'm saying everyone is in control of their own emotions.
This is false, according to the science. What's more, keeping a tight reign on one's behavior comes at a mental cost, and that energy could be better spent elsewhere.
> You can limit the amount of influence you allow others to have over your emotions.
Please consider updating your information here. This is victorian era stuff.
> I also find the accusation of gaslighting unfair. This is a form of systematic psychological manipulation
I think you're complicit in gaslighting. You're suggesting we have more empathy for the people causing pain because they just don't know. You deflect talk of gender harassment by re-centering the conversation on religious beliefs. Then you STILL rebutt her feelings by saying SHE specifically should be in more control.
Yes, it's a pretty big deal. But I think maybe yours is the more honest sort of gaslighting, where you're conditioned to accept this behavior. I suspect if you critically examine it more you'll realize that the cons of allowing it far outweigh the pros.