As a current Googler I am surprised to hear this. I think most of the people I work with would agree that while it might be normal to think something like that, you should keep it to yourself.
> Truth is, it's dangerous to not "keep it to yourself", so people don't talk about it.
I meant people don't talk about it out of respect for their coworkers, not because they are afraid to get fired. I'm sure there are some who are just afraid to get fired, but I sincerely believe they're the minority.
I find it amusing that I only have to concern myself with "respect for my coworkers" if my opinion is different from the liberal side on some cause célèbre. I.e. if I comply with liberal dogma and say that having lower hiring bar (or other kinds of preferential treatment) for women is OK, I can say so publicly without fear of it being a career limiting move, but if I believe the opposite and say so publicly, I'm 100% guaranteed to receive a ping from HR reminding me to STFU and never mention it again.
I can see why you would think this because as far as I can tell a large majority of Googlers are liberal, but I don't believe this is the case? I'm pretty sure if you went around saying Trump supporters are racists or something you would also quickly get reprimanded..
Indeed I had to call some people out for being really insulting to conservatives because that is really not okay either =/
Slightly off-topic but I don't understand this viewpoint.
The conservative stance, as best I can tell from following politics, generally involves enriching the 1% whilst actively wanting to hurt the less well off and minorities. To me, that does not warrant politeness and pleasantries.
As an outside observer I always equaled conservative with Republican. Can you explain why this is not the case?
Of course.
> do try to hear the actual conservative POV from an actual person offline
What about living for decades under conservative rule in the UK? Or watching what the GOP have been doing for the last 20 years? Do those count as hearing the "actual conservative POV"?
There is nothing disrespectuful about saying saying someone looks good in a bathing suit. It's normal social interaction. In fact the supression of various forms of normal social interraction, either by some explicit rule or law, or by some sort of chilling effect is what's causing all these crazy problems.
Colin Kaepernick believed in something and he's paying the price. If you're expecting me to feel sorry for this cupcake, that ain't gonna happen. I have a sliver of respect for him for writing it and zero respect for what he wrote. I sure don't think I'd want to work with him.
understandably, as that is extremely unprofessional and sexual harassment
It's important to understand and prioritize intention or else: >increases [in our] our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies.
This means distinguishing between a well-meaning comment and a maleficent or predatory remark.
if you really didn't intend to say something that made someone feel disrespected, your response should be "Oh, I am so sorry, I won't make that kind of comment in the future", not "Well you're wrong for being offended." that kind of response is basically saying "your feelings don't matter, all that matters is what is going on in my head and not what I actually did and how it actually made you feel"
You'll find that the U.S.A's EEOC does not label one-off remarks as sexual harassment.[0]
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment#EEOC_Definit...
And is the primary authority's (EEOC) definition of harassment in general: Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.[1]
Neither of which make the remark in-question constitute of sexual harassment or harassment in-general. I'm sure there is a proper word that accurately describes unwanted remarks about a person's body, but by calling it sexual harassment you are marginalizing the serious cases of sexual harassment that fit under the legal definition.
[0]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm [1]https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm
That said, I acknowledge it's very situational whether something might be read as unwelcome. Which is why avoiding these things in a professional context seems pretty wise.
Anyway, since we're replying here to door's comment... I think they're right regardless of whether we want to call it "sexual harassment". If you offend someone in a way which feels creepy / harassing to them, even assuming that you absolutely meant it in a non-sexual non-flirtatious entirely-platonic matter, your should apologize, maybe clarify your intentions, and say you'll do better in the future. Attempting to argue that you didn't mean it that way so they shouldn't be offended is counterproductive.
My only gripe was with semantics, which have the potential to do more harm than good.
Could you elaborate on
>Usually if it takes work to distinguish it's not worth it within a work environment.
"That's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all."
If there's a missing "if" before the "it's" in his first sentence, I can only assume he means it takes effort to restrain oneself from being unfiltered, but there's an uncanny taste of an insult I can't pinpoint.
I think for clarity I'd add a comma:
> Usually, if it takes work to distinguish, it's not worth it within a work environment.
Such that it's read as:
> Usually, if it takes work to distinguish [whether it's worth it,] it's not worth it within a work environment.
The idea is that in a professional environment, part of "being professional" is avoiding those situations where your comments might be read as unwelcome. With a viable rule of thumb being to just err on the side of assuming they'd be unwelcome in any case where you have to think about it.
I see now looking through that lense it makes sense. After re-reading my comment he was replying to I think I understand exactly what the OP was trying to convey.
"If you have to consciously figure out if comments are malevolent or not, you should find a new workplace."
And that "that's why professional environments are effective and make a pleasant place to work for all," implies more real work is done when you're not playing office politics, and everyone comes out happier because of it.
In retrospect, it seems like a silly thing to try and figure out.
"Hey Googlette, you look really good in a bathing suit" is a comment about how the woman's body looks in a revealing outfit. I'd say this is generally unprofessional, though in some contexts (perhaps she'd just been expressing a lack of confidence in her body), it could still be appropriate.
"Hey Googlette, that bathing suit looks really good on you" is a comment on the particular bathing suit and how the combination works well. It's potentially more of a comment on her good choice and fashion sense than on her body. If the bathing suit is particularly risqué then it might be inappropriate but if it's just a normal bathing suit I don't think it'd be any more inappropriate than "your new haircut looks really good" or "is that a new top? It looks really good".
"I've been working out a lot the last few months. I managed to lose a lot of weight and I think I look good."
"Yeah, you looks great, that work definitely paid off."
The coworker brought it up, which indicates that they're comfortable talking about it and the comment is a celebration of the coworker's achievement rather than any kind of expression of sexual desire.
And then of course there are professions where the body is directly relevant to the work, like acting, modelling and sports/atheleticism.
All this really depends on context though. In a corporate office where everyone's barely more than strangers, I don't think even the situation above would be appropriate. In a small business where a "coworker" is as much a close friend as a colleague, I think the threshold for what's acceptable is very different.
Right. Its a comment on a thread, it has zero context. You don't know whether it was or wasn't appropriate based on the context.
You're jumping on the "unprofessional" bandwagon without investigating further. An "affirmative stance" if you will.
You don't see the irony?
This is why I avoid gender politics like the plague, the debates are not grounded in logic and rationality.