Another Side of MeToo: Male Managers Fearful of Mentoring Women | Hacker News Reader

Another Side of MeToo: Male Managers Fearful of Mentoring Women

nytimes.com

This isn't new - the "Billy Graham rule" has been around since around 1948. My parents taught it to me. It's received some recent news as Mike Pence adopted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule

The question is whether you think that the self-protection from scandal is worth the systemic discrimination the rule requires you to do.

This would be systematic discrimination, not systemic.

If an entire denomination has historically male clergy and believes in following the Billy Graham rule, is it not systemic, too?

(But yeah, if it's just me by myself in an otherwise-equitable industry, yes. I'm not convinced I'm in an otherwise-equitable industry though.)

You are talking about a type of discrimination that you explicitly say "you" (i.e. one) choose to do, not about the nature of the evangelical clergy. Unless the "you" in your statement is only supposed to be a stand-in for the evangelical clergy reading your comment... Which I took it to not be.

See also the Aniyata rules from the Theravada Buddhist monastic code, dating back to the early part of the first millenium (BC).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patimokkha#Aniyata

>The question is whether you think that the self-protection from scandal is worth the systemic discrimination the rule requires you to do.

From a Christian perspective(both Billy Graham and Mike Pence are Christians) it's honestly more about being true to your wife than avoiding scandal (though it is both).

It's the same reason many Christian men put internet filters on their phones and computers, to protect themselves (and their relationships) from themselves.

> to identify men who make women uncomfortable

This is a very revealing trick: start with sexual harassment, but segue into a focus on workplace discomfort. It shouldn't be a manager's problem that their professional communication makes team members uncomfortable. Workplace social discomfort is universal, and it should not be a barometer for MeToo.

> It shouldn't be a manager's problem that their professional communication makes team members uncomfortable.

I would think it's quite the opposite - the purpose of a manager is to make their teams effective and keep up morale so they can be productive. If a manager's approach to "professional communication" makes their team members uncomfortable, that's a sign they're a bad manager, just like if my approach to "professional sysadminning" makes my teammates uncomfortable and fearful, I'm a bad sysadmin. Communicating well and productively and in a way that doesn't make people uncomfortable is a skill. Like any other skill, it's learnable to some extent and there's innate aptitude to some extent and if you don't have the skill you're not qualified for the job.

The problem is really complex. As a manager sometimes needing to give bad feedback, or assinging unpleasant tasks to females direct reports, it is always stressful for me. There is a chance that even without malice, the female subordinate interpret that I am being unfair or punishing her. So I just avoid it, I don’t know how to approach hierarchy that sometimes generate uncomfortable situations with a metoo era. The solution is not what the article suggests, I have daughters and I want a better world for them, but this is not about educating managers.

Someone should tell these guys about the Rock Test:

https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-f...

It's not rocket science (it's the Rock science!)

Does that mean Karen’s rich ass is going to buy me coffee??

What does that have to do with sexual harassment?

I was a half baked joke referencing Karen in the Rock article.

Article misses the point. It's not the fear of being denounced for being inappropriate. It's the fear of being denounced even when you behave appropriately.

Which is about as probable as being struck by lightning, being the victim of a terrorist attack or being bitten by a shark.

All these things belong in the Jeopardy category "remote risks that loom large in popular culture for no good reason".

From multiple experiences, I know this to be untrue.

It's consequently misandrist. And softly misogynist.

An American getting struck by lightning might be on the order of a one-in-a-million annual risk, but it's still a really bad thing if it happens TO YOU, so it's sensible we minimize our risk by choosing not to go out on golf courses during thunderstorms or choosing to install lightning rods on church towers. (The low mathematical risk already prices in the fact that we take such measures - the risk level would be much higher if we didn't!)

Getting falsely accused of sexual impropriety may be a low risk (whatever the base rate might be), but it's still really bad if it happens TO YOU so it's sensible that we minimize our personal risk with relatively low-cost policies such as the Pence Rule. (Once again, the low risk already prices in the fact that some take some such measures - the risk would be much higher if they didn't.)

Terrorist attack basically doesn't ever happen (statistically speaking) while our attempts to prevent it via mechanisms like the TSA are absurdly costly to the point of sheer idiocy, but cheaper simpler policies like "don't swim where there have been recent shark sightings", "don't carry metal golf clubs around in a thunderstorm" and "don't put yourself at undue risk of false gossip or malicious attack" seem basically sensible and proportionate to the risk being addressed.

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations...

Between 2 and 10% is a bit higher than that, and absolutely justify the fear.

Typically I think this is the right answer, but what is the appropriate way to turn things romantic?

If you're in a position of power, wait until you're not or the other person does the romancing. Patience is a virtue.

That article treats this issue so flippantly as to be condescending.

To whom?

I get the feeling, from your other comments here, that you are attempting to invalidate my perspective by pretending not to understand it.

Isn't that the way it's always worked? A friend who works at a university told me how male professors always leave the door open when they are talking with female students in their offices. They can easily ruin your life... just like that.

The professors ruining the students' life through traumatic actions done to the students, right? I'm sure that's what you meant.

What's the traumatic action here? A female student not being able to force a professor to change a grade under the threat of being called a rapist?

Rape and sexual assault come to mind, since that's what happens far more often than blackmail for petty ends. Plenty of studies have shown how bunk your claim is. It is a sexist conspiracy theory.

Honestly, it works both ways, unfortunately.

But an open door can protect both parties.

The way I heard it is less that "they" (the women) can ruin your life as that other people might infer something untoward which would be bad for both of you, but yes.

The other option is to have glass walls for offices instead of opaque ones, but that requires having some foresight in building architecture.

I knew one ex-coworker who was also a part-time professor who would always make sure that there was a second person anytime he was with a student.

No, it's not!

Having worked in a French university, around 2005-2010, we actually received an explicit memo that male should not receive female students in their office without a third person being there.

How does this stop two of them conspiring against the third one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com