[Discussion] Men talking to men about Feminism

This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.

In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.

HR works for the company, not it's employees.

Their precise job is to limit the company's liability and manage the risks of having staff.

In light of that, I'm amazed more HR departments don't do the same.

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

I would suggest that if a pair of workers decided to pursue a relationship, it would most likely be the woman who would have to leave.

Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

Arguably (and I could see how), this cuts off networking opportunities which like so many things more often negatively affect those who were already disadvantaged.

Bruce wrote:
Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

I would suggest that if a pair of workers decided to pursue a relationship, it would most likely be the woman who would have to leave.

I agree.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

Arguably (and I could see how), this cuts off networking opportunities which like so many things more often negatively affect those who were already disadvantaged.

I guess I’m confused, I don’t see how dating a co-worker increases your networking opportunities in any way that is even close to appropriate. This wouldn’t restrict work dinners, etc, you just don’t have sex with the people you work with.

Or are we saying that men wouldn’t want to associate with women/ promote women at work if there is no chance that it will lead to sex?

For busy individuals, finding love/friends in the workplace is not uncommon I would have thought. If I had followed this, I would have only a handful of long distance friendships from my university days, I wouldn't be married, and my daughter wouldn't have been born. Miserable just to think about it.

Docjoe wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

Arguably (and I could see how), this cuts off networking opportunities which like so many things more often negatively affect those who were already disadvantaged.

I guess I’m confused, I don’t see how dating a co-worker increases your networking opportunities in any way that is even close to appropriate. This wouldn’t restrict work dinners, etc, you just don’t have sex with the people you work with.

Or are we saying that men wouldn’t want to associate with women/ promote women at work if there is no chance that it will lead to sex?

I was referring to the no friends part.

lunchbox12682 wrote:
Docjoe wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:
Docjoe wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:
Docjoe wrote:

Not that I’ve heard of. Looks like it was written by lawyers.

And this was directed at the docs so I do think it is due to power boundaries.

Our clinic regularly goes to happy hour together after clinic and I go golfing with my nurse and her husband. So I plan to ignore the “recommendations”, the only one that is a policy is the no romantic relationships (which has always been in our contracts).

This does not impact me but what do folks think of eliminating dating people at work as a universal policy? Given the many ways to meet people actively looking for a romantic relationship (Match, Tinder, etc), seems like it’s probably really unnecessary these days and would avoid a whole lot of sexual harassment. If it was just clear that it is not an option, you wouldn’t have to worry about asking/being asked out on dates, etc as that would be a fireable offense. It also eliminates the gray zone around what is flirting and what is harassment. It’s all harassment.

Bad policy that will disproportionately affect women and their careers.

I don’t understand how not dating at work is harmful to women and their careers?

Arguably (and I could see how), this cuts off networking opportunities which like so many things more often negatively affect those who were already disadvantaged.

I guess I’m confused, I don’t see how dating a co-worker increases your networking opportunities in any way that is even close to appropriate. This wouldn’t restrict work dinners, etc, you just don’t have sex with the people you work with.

Or are we saying that men wouldn’t want to associate with women/ promote women at work if there is no chance that it will lead to sex?

I was referring to the no friends part.

Oh my bad. I agree, I think that is overly draconian but I suppose they worry that’s where romances start. But Inthink that is bad for morale if you just view your co-workers as a bunch of clock punching automatons.

SallyNasty wrote:
Hypatian wrote:

In general, if you're in a public area with other people around, everybody has plenty of personal space, and it's a compliment that you would feel comfortable giving to your mom, it's probably totally fine. (If your mom is unusual, you might have to choose different criteria.)

Yes, if your name is Oedipus I would say that this advice doesn't hold true.

I. Uh. Was thinking more of Marten's mom in Questionable Content. XD

And as far as no friends at work goes... that sounds really really terrible. D: Like, a recipe for really bad mental health.

Yup, I think the friend thing is tricky. And I think it’s OK to be friends at work, they just want it to only be at work.

I dunno, if I were a new employee and saw this, I think I probably would have avoided social interactions outside of the office. But I’m not going to cut out the friends I do already have.

Part of me can see the sense in this policy. Of course be friendly to your co-workers in the office but your friends outside the office should come from a different “pool”. I think this is especially true for those of the opposite sex. But to avoid disparities, making it a blanket statement would keep everyone on even footing. And this reduces the risk of interpersonal drama, work romances - all the toxic stuff that is polluting workplaces. Doesn’t get rid of it completely but probably reduces it.

Why opposite sex? What about homosexual relationships? Do you need to screen everyone for their preference before they start, then actively monitor their interactions with the corresponding genders? This feels like a straight-up moral panic reaction to some event or external stimulus experienced by your HR capability.... I can't think of a worse policy to even informally implement regarding collaboration and fears of job security.

Maybe it's different for doctors but if you're all human as I suspect, forbidding people to build platonic relationships is antithetical to maintaining a positive working culture.

The friendship recommendation is just insane. The romantic one is a little more sane, but still draconian. Treating work like a dating pool is obviously something you don't want, but forbidding relationships from happening at all is also bad, especially given how awful the life-work balance is in the US. I think there'd need to be some very clear guidelines involving power dynamics and some sort of formal agreement where employees promise that starting a relationship (or ending one) will not unduly affect their work and that they'll remain professional while at work (no making out or lover's quarrels while on the clock).

I met my wife at work. My parents met at work. Probably about 3/4 of the marriages and long term relationships I know involve people who met at work. The policy to not date at work is a dunderheaded response to dunderheaded behaviour.

Trying to forbid any kind of friendship is next level. It doesn't even prevent the problems it tries to. It just makes ordinary behaviour illicit if you're lucky, or will create a toxic environment if you're not.

Yeah, I have never seen it enforced until there was a problem occurring.

I have had to go through HR dissecting a work friendship as a Co worker was trying to accuse us of being too friendly. None of it was true, the accuser liked to make up dramatic stories. We were friends and about the same age, sat next to each other, and had a good friendship. Most ladies (I was one of 4 men in the office) were gossiping on the events listed above, mostly that we talked a lot and our desks were right next to each other.

We both made our statements and had to sign off stating we were not an item. It was obnoxious and annoying to deal with especially as it started with another workers total insecurities at the job. She accused me of many items to our boss, a real piece of work. I have had bad duck with coworkers named Lisa since then. They always try to sabotage my work somehow. Happened at my last job too, not the relationship thing but just work jealousy and sabotage.

Sorry that is my ranting work fake relationship experience.

WRT to relationships I am totally down with prohibiting relationships up and down any chain of command or power hierarchy.

Most places I've worked have had similar prohibitions. But making it grounds for firing is insane. Anywhere I've worked has just required that people in relationships are moved to different departments. Although I suspect that moving just the senior person ought to be sufficient.

DanB wrote:

WRT to relationships I am totally down with prohibiting relationships up and down any chain of command or power hierarchy.

Most places I've worked have had similar prohibitions. But making it grounds for firing is insane. Anywhere I've worked has just required that people in relationships are moved to different departments. Although I suspect that moving just the senior person ought to be sufficient.

Is it ever been the senior person moved?

lunchbox12682 wrote:
DanB wrote:

WRT to relationships I am totally down with prohibiting relationships up and down any chain of command or power hierarchy.

Most places I've worked have had similar prohibitions. But making it grounds for firing is insane. Anywhere I've worked has just required that people in relationships are moved to different departments. Although I suspect that moving just the senior person ought to be sufficient.

Is it ever been the senior person moved?

Rare but depends how woke the business is but probably not the first offense.

Docjoe wrote:

So we got a training from our HR folks today about interactions with co-workers in today’s “climate”. We already have a policy that states having a romantic relationship with anyone else in the company is grounds for immediate dismissal even if consensual. Now we are instructed that we should avoid “friendships” with coworkers. We should not be friends on social media, we should avoid social interactions outside of work, buying birthday/Christmas gifts, etc should be avoided. The bottom line is these are not your friends, they are people you work with. Keep it professional. The implication was that this was especially true for those of the opposite sex.

It’s kind of a bummer but I can see the point especially from a liability perspective.

A couple of questions:

Is your clinic part of a larger health care provider/company?

Is the friendship discussion aimed at what is basically management/leadership at said clinic?

I think I found a photo of the Docjoe's HR guy:
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/CQTglwB.jpg)

Forbidding friendships is an easy route for a business to disclaim all liability while ignoring how humans actually work.

It strikes me that HR's directive there is based on some really nasty misconceptions. You see the same thing with people like Pence who go out of their way to avoid being in the same room as a woman. It stems from certain semi-reasonable assumptions in their worldview, which then get turned up to 11 as they build fences around the fences to prevent themselves from even appearing to sin (while ignoring the actual way they harm others).

There was this Jesus guy who had a lot to say about people who followed rules rather than helping their fellow humans, but that's a topic for another thread.

...

Then again, some men have some weird ideas about how sex even works. And it's an easy cop-out to just ban all relationships rather than trying to deal with remedial sex ed for people who should theoretically be adults.

Spoiler:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWkojxXUMAA2qVb.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWkokQlVwAAZXlz.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWkoksGVQAAsYtz.jpg)
IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWkolPdUQAE9Lm7.jpg)

Dear women

God made virgins for husbands not boyfriends. Keeping your virginity till marriage is the best gift you can give to a husband. A Virgin is more likely to have a TIGHTER connection with her husband than a LOOSE woman who has had multiple sexual partners #RenosNuggets pic.twitter.com/54PSZjno8W

— Reno Omokri (@renoomokri) February 13, 2018

Once I worked as an intern in the state capital. One of the representatives I worked for was this middle-aged guy. And he hated the tampon and napkin machines in the women’s bathrooms. Hated them. He insisted that they weren’t necessary.

I found out why after I’d been working there, oh, about a month. My period started suddenly, as it sometimes does, and I asked to excuse myself to go to the ladies’ room. He wanted to know why. I told him.

He started ranting about how lazy women were. How we wasted time. How we were so careless and unhygenic, and that there was no call for that. He finished by telling me that I certainly was NOT going to the ladies’ room and that I was just going to sit there and work. He finished this off with a decisive nod, as if I’d just been told and there could be no possible argument.

“If I don’t go,” I said in an overly patient tone, “the blood is going to soak through my pants, stain my new skirt that I just bought, and possibly get on this chair I’m sitting in. I need something to soak up the blood. That’s why I need to go to the bathroom.”

His face turned oatmeal-gray; an expression of pure horror spread across his face. He leaned forward and whispered, “Wait, you mean that if you don’t go, you’ll just keep on bleeding? I thought that women could turn it off any time that they wanted!”

I thought, You have got to be kidding.

Several horrified whispers later, I learned that he wasn’t. He actually thought a) that women could shut down the menstrual cycle at will, b) that we essentially picked a week per month to spend more time in the bathroom, i.e. to goof off, and c) that napkins and tampons were sex toys paid for by Health and Human Services. I didn’t know the term then, but he believed that tampons were dildos. Which was why he and a good number of his friends considered them luxuries.

And that’s how, at twenty, I had to give a talk on menstruation to a middle-aged married state representative who was one of my bosses. American politics, ladies and gentlemen.

(via)

DanB wrote:
lunchbox12682 wrote:

I cannot understand why it is such a problem for some.

Because there exist 2 tranches of other men

1) Men who feel it is their right to tell any woman they please that they are cute/sexy/pretty/attractive and would like to have this discussion so that they can, on the sly, complain about it being unacceptable that they can't just tell any woman that they are cute/sexy/pretty/attractive
2) Some decent guys who have become confused by group 1 muddying the waters and would like a little clarification so that they stay on the side of decency.

Group 1 is not actually confused, they're mostly butt hurt because they perceive that their god given right to treat women however they please is being taken away.

As per the research linked on page 1 (here again):
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.co...

Men don't have a problem with reading social cues but some will play the confusion card when it serves their (sexual) self interest.

I'm going to make this a little messier, because the clean version is easy to feel confident and proud about. I know how I feel about it, but:

Variant: Men who see other people who look unhappy and want to make those people feel better.

Related: IMAGE(https://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/chicago_photo/2015/09/img9545-1441914954.jpg/extralarge.jpg)

I think that is just an unexamined desire to have women perform prettiness. How often do guys tell other guys to "cheer up, luv" or "give us a smile"?

DanB wrote:

I think that is just an unexamined desire to have women perform prettiness. How often do guys tell other guys to "cheer up, live" or "give us a smile"?

It defintely happens and is more os less common, but even then there is a layer of context with one over the other.

*edit*
Also my brain can barely process what Gremlin posted. What does it take to be that obtuse?

lunchbox12682 wrote:

*edit*
Also my brain can barely process what Gremlin posted. What does it take to be that obtuse?

The scary thing is that I can link to a lot more along those same lines. "Men's Rights Activists" and Pickup Artists seem to have a sideline in bizarre theories to justify their behavior. It's no accident that Milo is shilling on Alex Jones' youtube show now.

My current working theory is that it's what happens when humans take taboos, social norms, and religious prohibitions and try to come up with ad hoc justifications for them. Thus you take a preexisting bias against women who have sex, violating a religious taboo and (more importantly in their mind) having the affront to not have sex with them and coming up with a post-hoc justification to treat the women badly. Add in a lack of knowledge about anatomy and sexuality and it's easy for them to believe it. This is the kind of thing that ends with rants about "precious bodily fluids".

Or maybe they're just happy to have any excuse to justify their misogyny.

Stengah wrote:

I think I found a photo of the Docjoe's HR guy:
IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/CQTglwB.jpg)

Stengah, I know this thread isn't for laughs but thanks for this one!

lunchbox12682 wrote:

*edit*
Also my brain can barely process what Gremlin posted. What does it take to be that obtuse?

If you ever need to be 100% sure on how not to treat women you should spend about an hour of your life on reddit's /r/cringepics