On the one hand we're puritanistic when it comes to sex and relationships (VP won't dine with opposite sex if not accompanied), while at the same time exalting sexual revolution, freedom of association, etc. But we want to control how people behave at work in a proscripted manner.
It's like we can't decide what we want.
Obviously harassment is detrimental to the affected, but also, we should not be told to shy away from forming relationships at work. People spend upwards of third of their lives at work. It makes little sense to deny that to people out of hand.
That said, clear directives about abuse and harassment are necessary so people can work in an exclusive environment where they feel welcome.
Discouraging relationships at work serves that important end. Moreover, it seems that most of the voices demanding the right to inflict romantic overtures on coworkers are comin from men. I’ve never heard a professional woman say “you know, what I really want is for more guys to ask me out at work!”
I don't see why I'd impose my preference on others, when coworkers hooking up is as natural as coed students hooking up in university. The one thing id agree upon is people needing to be behaved, and if they can't, ie, engage in harassment, then we should have strong structures to handle those cases.
In Andy's case it's not even clear if he indeed was a harasser or just played favorites/had a perceived bias towards his subordinate girlfriend that was not liked by other women in his team.
If what 1/Nth of a group (the harassers) do, is applied to "all men" or "all VCs" or wharever, and are all "presumed guilty" then you can also blame those doing that lousy extrapolation.
The idea that "all X are Y", is of the same nature as the racist notion that "all blacks are criminals" because they know of some black criminals.
I'm not discussing the parent comment itself (that would be extremely narrow focused).
I'm answering the ideas expressed in the comment, based on the general context, and how we've seen things play out in the world.
I understand where you are coming from, but I feel like jumping to conclusions about anything related to this story is way too soon.
Yes, on the toxic role SUCH (not ALL) generalizations have. So no need for sarcasm ;)
(Generalization, I'd say, is both the start point of knowledge, and the start (or maybe end?) point of prejudice. It's a tool. If it's not representative, or if it's representative but misreads the causes why it is so -- e.g. "blacks are overrepresented in jails because they're an inferior race with crime in their dna", it's harmful. Otherwise, it allows us to use abstractions, which elevate our thinking just like a higher level programming language does).