Look. Here's what's bugging me, and I'm sorry Bandit wandered into my sights today. (It's not personal).
For centuries, women and minorities have been inferior to white men in the West. After all that time, we get a set of laws that helps equalize that equation, and what comes up? Equality is actually reverse racism. It's reverse sexism. It's black people and the poor as "takers" and women as "feminazis" who are "feminizing" our boys by making them think before they say something sexist.
I for one don't want to see the gains women have made in the workplace put aside because someone who is statistically economically and socially advantaged thinks they have to fear their co-workers, and regards the laws that created that equality of opportunity are actually "political correctness"; ie, ideologically imposed restrictions on them, rather than attempts to create equality of opportunity. So much is language is designed to create a state of mind that could eventually put women and minorities back into "their place".
Reverse racism is real. Reverse sexism is real. They are both very, very rare compared to actual racism against minorities and sexism against women, unlike the way they are presented on Fox. (I bet no one asked themselves who was the target of reverse discrimination in those first two sentences.) It's coded language and I'm really, really tired of listening to guys in my office, men who make hundreds of thousands a year, Female Doggo about how they can't "say what they think" in the office because "Democ-Rats and Feminazis have it in for us". These are the same guys who passed around misogynistic porn in company email (at my previous company) and made racist jokes when it was "just us guys". I'm not saying Bandit is that way, but he hit that nerve. This is something I run into on a daily basis; many of my very well to do co-workers are so conservative that one of them accused me of "voting against my class" when I expressed dismay at something Romney said, and he was a manager. (And yes, I extracted myself by saying that the context of the conversation made me uncomfortable, since he was a manager, and we've been fine ever since.)
If I've offended Bandit, then I'm sorry; I think he's a good guy and I like him. But the principle here is too important to be waved away with codewords and glibly explained as "fear of litigation". Both things redirect from the actual issue; if you don't accept that both sides are actually equal, then you need to establish whether that is so, and that's only done by actions. Anything less is just speculation and fear. If you think an equal has offended you, do you bring it up to them? Or just let it go, knowing they will likely do it again? If you think women are really equal in the workplace, then don't just take that stuff sitting down. Treat them as an equal and let them know what you think.
And really, is taking someone aside for a moment and letting them know you're uncomfortable really *that* hard to do? What if the response is that the behavior stops? Isn't that at least a possibility?
Bandit was completely OK with the salty language of his female coworker. However, he was completely uncomfortable responding to her in kind because his response to her, though she would find it completely acceptable, might be overheard by someone else and reported as an HR violation.
That's a problem but it's not one of "office culture" or "political correctness". It's a problem of a poorly run office or company. That's my point; if that's really his concern, why does he associate it with "political correctness", and imply that rules that are intended to put women in an equal position are somehow just foolish impositions put in place by Democrats? Because that's what "political correctness" means, Democrats controlling you and forcing you live "their way".
How could HR's perception of its liability not be related to the office culture?
Unless the rules are written to preserve a particular culture which allows discrimination, the two have nothing to do with each other. Typically in a large company, HR isn't even in the same location and there is no personal contact involved. I'm open to being corrected by Bandit on this; maybe his HR person was there, and female, and laughing along, I don't know. But how is a badly run company an example of "political correctness"?
You guys already argued that the legal implications were detached from the reality. Now you're arguing it's not, they are closely tied? Which is it? Is the company enforcing bad rules without fearing litigation (and thus keeping people down), or are they willing to violate policies to avoid litigation (as in not investigating actual events and just knee-jerking responses to fit some weird idea of what they could be sued for... God, the more I think about that, the less lawyerly it gets...)
"Office culture" implies to the ways in which co-workers interact, not the rules and policies that bound their interactions. The rules constrain them, but fear of the rules is a problem that is not really related to the culture of the office in the sense it's usually used. Again, the exception is very badly run companies, where cynicism and cronyism and abuse are commonplace. But that's not a culture, except maybe in the sense of Streptococcus. And it's certainly not politically correct...
Like I said, no middle ground. If you have any desire to talk a bit more freely with any co-worker suddenly you're Todd Packer. Not even worth debating this. Ironically bandit was trying to point out that he sees women as being capable of engaging in a full range of discussion without needing "protection".
So I'm in an office the other day and a group of guys and gals are just standing around chatting. Couple of the guys and I started having a sidebar about sports, and one of the girls turns to another and says something along the lines of "hey, the army guys are off duty tonight, we should go get drunk and..." well basically the rest was not for polite conversation.
It sounds like a female Todd Packer he is talking about to me. And his issue isn't that he was offended, it was that he was scared top partake in the conversation. so yes, if Bandit is making that case, he's looking for an opportunity to engage in conversation that you don't have to be male or female to find offensive and inappropriate for the office
You are the one trying to take this is into a fantasy land where the poor, meek males of the office now can't have open innocent conversations. That's not the reality Bandit described, and you will have to show me some evidence that that is a culture that actually pervades anywhere. Personally I think fighting for the right to chat about getting drunked and f*cked on the job is a waste of time.
I've seen a slew of guys fired at Walgreens for sexual harassment, and I never saw a guy deserve to keep his job, and I've never once feared for mine.
CheezePavilion wrote:How could HR's perception of its liability not be related to the office culture?
Unless the rules are written to preserve a particular culture which allows discrimination, the two have nothing to do with each other.
I disagree. If there are rules written to preserve a particular culture which inhibits discrimination, that can help protect an employer from liability:
Where a hostile environment is alleged...To rise to the level of hostile environment, the behavior must be frequent, severe and pervasive. It is not enough that a single such incident, or a few isolated incidents, have occurred, or that only one employee engages in such conduct (unless that employee is in a supervisory capacity).To establish a prima facie case for hostile work environment sexual harassment, the alleged victim must prove the following five elements:
He or she suffered intentional, unwanted discrimination because of his or her sex.
The harassment was severe or pervasive.
The harassment negatively affected the terms, conditions or privileges of his or her work environment.
The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex.
Management knew about the harassment, or should have known, and did nothing to stop it.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile...
If that's the office culture and HR finds out about it, that's evidence that management knows about a work environment that is pervasive. I don't think it's a winning legal argument when some future employee sues for the company to say "oh yeah, we knew about the office culture this person says was hostile, but no one complained then so we didn't do anything about it." Now, if HR can say "oh--we take seriously any evidence of an office culture that could be a hostile work environment, and we try to preemptively change that office culture before anyone suffers harassment from it" that to me sounds like a much stronger legal case.
Like I said: it's perfectly rational CYA behavior.
Wow, heated up while I was away doing business stuff.
OG and Cheeze pretty much nailed where I was coming from. There is a huge gray area where people are human and want to cut loose and interact with each other in ways that the letter of the law says isn't appropriate. I think people should be free to do so. When the intent is to make an unwelcome advance or diminish someone, it should be punished severely. When it's not, we need to be able to recognize that people aren't and shouldn't be robots.
The harassment would detrimentally effect a reasonable person of the same sex.
That's the rub isn't it. I tend to think a reasonable person wouldn't be offended to overhear a dongle joke not directed at them. Apparently others disagree.
Mmm. Intent *really* isn't enough. It is easy to make people feel really really uncomfortable without intending to.
Consider the hypothetical case that I'm at work and someone who doesn't know I'm trans (because, honestly, why would they think that?) makes some awful comment about trans people. They don't intend that to be an attack on me, but it is, nevertheless, an attack on me.
Now, that's a case where one could reasonably argue that "well, if they knew that you were trans, they would know not to make that sort of comment". But that doesn't actually help in all cases. This is one of those situations where "privilege" rears its head: if you're in a position of privilege, you don't have to think very often about the sorts of things that make people who are not in a position of privilege uncomfortable. Because of that, it's very easy to make flip comments that are "no big deal" from your point of view, but really upset other people.
And that's why these policies exist: Because you need to have rules in place so that if somebody is actually offended, they have a neutral way of getting that out there, and there's a standard way of dealing with the situation. One that doesn't play favorites. One that doesn't [em]require[/em] that the person offended confront the person who offended them directly. One that allows everybody to know what's expected of them. One which can be fixed if the policy itself is causing problems.
In your situation, I think the right thing to do (assuming my reading of the situation was right, and that you were afraid to join in because you thought it might be taken amiss by one of the female participants) would be to go to one of the women involved and say "Hey, the other day when you were talking about X, I felt kind of uncomfortable because I wasn't sure whether it would be okay to join in on the discussion or not. Just so I know, in the future, what would you prefer people do in that sort of situation?" Or, if it's too awkward to go to one of them, consider going to HR, not to complain, but to ask that question. You don't need to go to them because somebody said something that made you uncomfortable and you want them to stop, you can also go to them with questions about what it's appropriate for you to do.
And the best case scenario is: after a while everybody understands the policy better, and if needed the policy is clarified so that it's easier to know what's appropriate in that sort of scenario.
You are the one trying to take this is into a fantasy land where the poor, meek males of the office now can't have open innocent conversations. That's not the reality Bandit described, and you will have to show me some evidence that that is a culture that actually pervades anywhere. Personally I think fighting for the right to chat about getting drunked and f*cked on the job is a waste of time.
I think you're putting words in people's mouths and mischaracterizing what they actually said. There is a grey area between being Todd Packer and following the letter of the law on this. Bandit seemed to be lamenting surrendering our right to be human beings (male or female). Nothing more. I didn't even see it as a direct refutation of PC. But rather "hey, here's an unintended consequence".
Wow, heated up while I was away doing business stuff.
OG and Cheeze pretty much nailed where I was coming from. There is a huge gray area where people are human and want to cut loose and interact with each other in ways that the letter of the law says isn't appropriate. I think people should be free to do so. When the intent is to make an unwelcome advance or diminish someone, it should be punished severely. When it's not, we need to be able to recognize that people aren't and shouldn't be robots.
I would certainly agree that there are grey areas.
I would respectfully suggest that a conversation about finding soldiers and what to do with them that is (apparently) so salacious it can't even be posted on a gaming forum isn't a great example to choose if that's the point you're trying to make.
And maybe I'm the odd man out here - I've worked for decades, in a variety of businesses and industries (large and small), and have never felt that I've surrendered any part of my right to be a human being by not getting to tell my co-workers whatever the hetero cis male equivalent of that "army guy" story is.
Jayhawker wrote:You are the one trying to take this is into a fantasy land where the poor, meek males of the office now can't have open innocent conversations. That's not the reality Bandit described, and you will have to show me some evidence that that is a culture that actually pervades anywhere. Personally I think fighting for the right to chat about getting drunked and f*cked on the job is a waste of time.
I think you're putting words in people's mouths and mischaracterizing what they actually said. There is a grey area between being Todd Packer and following the letter of the law on this. Bandit seemed to be lamenting surrendering our right to be human beings (male or female). Nothing more. I didn't even see it as a direct refutation of PC. But rather "hey, here's an unintended consequence".
So I'm in an office the other day and a group of guys and gals are just standing around chatting. Couple of the guys and I started having a sidebar about sports, and one of the girls turns to another and says something along the lines of "hey, the army guys are off duty tonight, we should go get drunk and..." well basically the rest was not for polite conversation.
That's the comment. Wishing you could get in on the part of the discussion pretty much defines one as kind of a, we'll say, Dudebro. It's definitely Packerish.
Cheeze is right that many HR departments are only on board in order to cover their butts. But I don't think it is too Orwellian or oppressive to hope that in the future more people will see these kinds of discussions as childish, immature, and really good way to look like a douche at work. Even if we ignore the gender politics of it, I don't have a problem with quality management judging folks that feel like this conversation and dongle jokes on the job as people they would rather not have around.
While it's unfortunate that some segments of society are going to be dragged kicking and screaming, it's better than the status quo of 10 or 15 years ago. But someone has to defend the right to talk about getting drunk and f*cked at work, I guess.
I don't think its unreasonable to say you do have to surrender certain rights in the workplace. Dress codes are an obvious example. Is it really so bad you can't make off color jokes? Is that actually sad? I just can't sympathize with that view point.
I don't think its unreasonable to say you do have to surrender certain rights in the workplace. Dress codes are an obvious example. Is it really so bad you can't make off color jokes? Is that actually sad? I just can't sympathize with that view point.
It is sad, as are dress codes considering the amount of carbon we put into the air because men still dress like we're stuck in Merry Olde England in the midst of the Little Ice Age while women are expected to dress both fashionably and seasonably yet not too seasonably in winter.
It's just that even when things are sad, sometimes that's okay because they're for a greater good. The loss of "finger-->butt" stories at the office? Sad, but worth it because of how much better society is overall: like I said earlier, even the best of medicines can have side effects.
Dress codes? Not so much.
To take a different look at this, I'll relate a different kind of story that has similar consequences.
This is a true story, but I've cut it down to simpler terms to avoid identifying anyone.
A man works for a company and is a truck driver. This company also has custodial staff; janitors, maintenance, etc. The custodial staff have a union, where they pay dues and use their combined negotiating power to make sure this company provides them fair work hours, benefits comparable to other positions in the company, etc.
Because it's simpler for the company, they give the truck driver, who is not part of the custodial staff, the same pay scale, hours, and benefits as them. He is now the recipient of union benefits without having to pay dues. This goes on for years, as no one really wants to be the one to point out that the truck driver is getting benefits that the union had to fight for. He didn't really ask for these things, he just got them. But eventually, the union elects a president who decides this is unfair enough that the truck driver should really be paying union dues, and he approaches the company. The truck driver now has to pay union dues, or lose benefits.
The truck driver doesn't know that his position was because someone else made things better for him. This is what he was given. Now, someone has pointed out that no, he doesn't deserve those things by default just because he got hired after the union had fought and won those battles. We can hope that the truck driver would see the fairness in paying his dues, but he's likely to be angry. In reality, the inequality was corrected. From his perspective, his paycheck is a little smaller, despite the fact that it was much larger to begin with than it would have been otherwise.
Forgive me if I have little sympathy if the truck driver is standing around lamenting those lost dues.
Whoa whoa whoa. Say what you will about political correctness in the office, but let's not go disparaging dress codes. There are oodles of reasons why dressing appropriate for a given event both gives people structure and mental comfort while also allowing room for personal expression.
There are, of course, plenty of discussion points we can explore regarding sexism in dress codes (you hit on one, Cheeze), but that's a whole other topic.
Whoa whoa whoa. Say what you will about political correctness in the office, but let's not go disparaging dress codes. There are oodles of reasons why dressing appropriate for a given event both gives people structure and mental comfort while also allowing room for personal expression.
There are, of course, plenty of discussion points we can explore regarding sexism in dress codes (you hit on one, Cheeze), but that's a whole other topic.
I really didn't intend on derailing with the dress code talk, just wanted to provide another example of "surrendering a right" in the workplace.
Mike's story is great.
Seth wrote:Whoa whoa whoa. Say what you will about political correctness in the office, but let's not go disparaging dress codes. There are oodles of reasons why dressing appropriate for a given event both gives people structure and mental comfort while also allowing room for personal expression.
There are, of course, plenty of discussion points we can explore regarding sexism in dress codes (you hit on one, Cheeze), but that's a whole other topic.
I really didn't intend on derailing with the dress code talk, just wanted to provide another example of "surrendering a right" in the workplace.
Mike's story is great.
I don't see how the story fits. It's a story about someone lamenting the loss of their free ride, but that's not what this is about. Without trying to get too deep into a performance of Analogy Theater here, there would have to be some change in the workplace that negatively effects the custodians while still resulting in a net benefit for them.
Tooting my own horn here again, but I don't see why "even good medicine can have side effects" isn't the best analogy here.
Tooting my own horn here again, but I don't see why "even good medicine can have side effects" isn't the best analogy here.
Because it reinforces the the notion that not being a dick is a hardship.
CheezePavilion wrote:Tooting my own horn here again, but I don't see why "even good medicine can have side effects" isn't the best analogy here.
Because it reinforces the the notion that not being a dick is a hardship.
It also reinforces the idea that just because you can come up with a negative side effect for a change in society, that doesn't mean that change shouldn't be celebrated. That's a net positive in my book.
CheezePavilion wrote:Tooting my own horn here again, but I don't see why "even good medicine can have side effects" isn't the best analogy here.
Because it reinforces the the notion that not being a dick is a hardship.
*Giggles*
"Hey, the other day when you were talking about X, I felt kind of uncomfortable because I wasn't sure whether it would be okay to join in on the discussion or not. Just so I know, in the future, what would you prefer people do in that sort of situation?" Or, if it's too awkward to go to one of them, consider going to HR, not to complain, but to ask that question. You don't need to go to them because somebody said something that made you uncomfortable and you want them to stop, you can also go to them with questions about what it's appropriate for you to do.
And the best case scenario is: after a while everybody understands the policy better, and if needed the policy is clarified so that it's easier to know what's appropriate in that sort of scenario.
I think you are spot on. I've always approached certain people and asked whether or not a quick response from me regarding their "inappropriate" is something that they would feel comfortable about. Because there is a lot of times when I'm at work and I walk into a group of women discussing something that may be considered inappropriate and I like to add a funny little remark, mostly fully inappropriate as well. But I'm always aware of my surroundings (well for the most part) and I do my best to keep myself in check. I've never reported anyone for saying something that I may find too vulgar or rude for the workplace. Only because I approached them in private over it and discussed why what they have said may have insulted me.
I think it's very important to touch bases with the person before you jump to extremes, because often, more times than not the person ends up being kind at heart and had no idea that what they said was offensive.
It's hard to know what to say here. From my perspective, what those ladies said by the watercooler doesn't belong at work, and I don't care what sort of plumbing you have.
Thing is, that isn't new. There have been "Ranger-ettes" (as my son and his buddies used to refer to them) down by Ft. Lewis as long as the 2nd Battalion has been there. The only new thing here is those women felt safe enough to talk about it just the same way their male counterparts have been talking about it all these years. It's not just a workplace thing; society in general is talking about stuff that makes me pull a nearly Vulcan brow these days.
The concept of approaching them privately and politely and letting them know you were uncomfortable, and maybe getting some official feedback on where that gray smudgy line runs through your office culture is a good thing if you trust your HR department to not start a stupid witch hunt. Those girls may not actually realize what's sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose.
It's hard to know what to say here. From my perspective, what those ladies said by the watercooler doesn't belong at work, and I don't care what sort of plumbing you have.
Thunderous applause to this. If the "it's not appropriate for a work environment" excuse isn't good enough for you, remember that you're also not getting paid to drink booze on the clock.
momgamer wrote:It's hard to know what to say here. From my perspective, what those ladies said by the watercooler doesn't belong at work, and I don't care what sort of plumbing you have.
Thunderous applause to this. If the "it's not appropriate for a work environment" excuse isn't good enough for you, remember that you're also not getting paid to drink booze on the clock.
Come on. Everyone brings a slightly different version of themselves to work. Whether that's refraining from drinking on the job, refraining from blue talk, dressing for the job, being respectful of authority when you might not normally be or just being more polite and courteous than you normally would. No one is saying that there isn't a reasonable trade-off between meeting expectations of a job and what that job provides. It's possible to both understand all of that, respect all of that and even live all of that but still wish things were different.
Many of you are acting as if the rules are all that stands in the way between the office turning into a frat party. And you're leveling those accusations at fellow Goodgers who you...
A) Probably don't really know
B) Have never see in their working environment
It's possible to both be bummed at the side-effects of necessary policy and heed it because you know it's the right thing to do.
That's the thing, I DON'T wish things were different. There's no side-effect that I'm bummed about. Like I said before, I can't sympathize with the idea of being bummed about no off-color jokes at work.
PS: Portraying someone's disagreement with your behavior/line of thinking as being on a high horse is really childish.
Why do I feel like I'm reading a completely different thread from DSGamer? :l
Why do I feel like I'm reading a completely different thread from DSGamer? :l
If that burning sensation lasts for longer than 4 hours you should call your local physician.
Come on. Everyone brings a slightly different version of themselves to work. Whether that's refraining from drinking on the job, refraining from blue talk, dressing for the job, being respectful of authority when you might not normally be or just being more polite and courteous than you normally would. No one is saying that there isn't a reasonable trade-off between meeting expectations of a job and what that job provides. It's possible to both understand all of that, respect all of that and even live all of that but still wish things were different.
Many of you are acting as if the rules are all that stands in the way between the office turning into a frat party. And you're leveling those accusations at fellow Goodgers who you...
A) Probably don't really know
B) Have never see in their working environment
It's possible to both be bummed at the side-effects of necessary policy and heed it because you know it's the right thing to do.
I'm taking bandit0013 at his word.
So I'm in an office the other day and a group of guys and gals are just standing around chatting. Couple of the guys and I started having a sidebar about sports, and one of the girls turns to another and says something along the lines of "hey, the army guys are off duty tonight, we should go get drunk and..." well basically the rest was not for polite conversation.
Our sidebar stops and we just kind of look uncomfortably at each other. After a moment it passes and everyone breaks up and goes back to work. Now the guys I was talking to I'm pretty tight with, and I know they don't mind language, or sexual jokes, etc... but I realized that the reason we felt awkward was because a woman was making the remarks, and the office culture in our country has changed to the point where a woman can get away with remarks like that but we as guys are afraid to join in because of what could happen.
Now that, my friends, is what makes me sad.
This read to me like he was uncomfortable about language a female co-worker was using, or possibly just lamenting the fact that he can't engage in banter that is (apparently) too salacious to post on a gaming site for fear of repercussions, while his female co-workers can.
He's since clarified that this was actually about pointing out there are grey areas that would be acceptable social interaction but are contrary to HR policies.
Which I'd actually agree with - but I'd argue that the situation bandit0013 described in his original post is pretty clearly not an example of that.
It's hard to know what to say here. From my perspective, what those ladies said by the watercooler doesn't belong at work, and I don't care what sort of plumbing you have.
Strongly agreed, and (if I'm parsing the current arguments correctly) it's a little odd to me that anyone's mourning the loss of that kind of conversation. Maybe I've misunderstood again?
I must work in the filthiest city in the world, then, because I've seen exactly the situations bandit describes many times. And honestly I've never thought to turn people in to HR.
I must work in the filthiest city in the world, then, because I've seen exactly the situations bandit describes many times. And honestly I've never thought to turn people in to HR.
I may have missed it - did anyone respond to bandit0013's post saying that HR should be a first recourse?
DSGamer wrote:I must work in the filthiest city in the world, then, because I've seen exactly the situations bandit describes many times. And honestly I've never thought to turn people in to HR.
I may have missed it - did anyone respond to bandit0013's post saying that HR should be a first recourse?
Hehe, you kind of did.
Pages