Slashdot Mirror
Tech Boss Attacks 'Whiners' in Angry Email (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: The co-founder of a Silicon Valley investment firm said it is "not my job to make you all feel good" in a long email to staff and investors. Jonathan Teo from Binary Capital was responding to negative press coverage about the firm following allegations of sexual harassment by his co-founder Justin Caldbeck. He added that he was "tired and indignant," and raged against "whiners" who demanded his attention. Mr Teo has already offered to resign. He did so after Mr Caldbeck left the firm in June. "I'm incredibly sorry," Mr Caldbeck tweeted when the news broke last month. Mr Caldbeck's actions were one of several sexism scandals to rock Silicon Valley in recent months. They include a damning report into the work culture inside ride-hailing firm Uber, and the resignation of venture capitalist Dave McClure, who admitted "inexcusable behaviour" towards "multiple women."
This guy is whining about whiners. I guess he's looking for cheese to go with his whine.
This guy isn't accused of doing anything wrong. The guy who *was* accused has resigned. Right?
So why is it this guy's job to constantly apologize for the actions of someone he had no control over and who has already been forced out of the firm? It's not his fucking fault his former partner was an asshole.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"If you were teaching PR 101 this guy has just done everything possible wrong. He has insulted clients, he has insulted investors, he has insulted employees and he has insulted the media.
The issue is that "Sexual Harrassment" has been expanded to "anything that makes me feel uncomfortable"
Sexual harassment isn't whining, it's a fucking legal issue.
If he can't deal with issues in his company he doesn't need to get permission to resign, he needs to stop whining himself and just fucking quit.
It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.
I could swear this site is getting more and more like those rags you see on the shelf at the supermarket checkout lines. Quick, better go buy a copy of Us or the National Enquirer!
Not this at all. It would also be called flirting if the guy is extremely rich.
As the head of this company, it is his job to motivate employees. Otherwise known as "making them feel good".
This is yet another child with money.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
As it should. A work place is a place where work happens. Bosses hitting on their subordinates shouldn't happen. It's toxic to a work culture. My company has very strong policies about sexual harassment, including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate. While the latter isn't sexual harassment, it's terrible for morale, and can be incredibly disruptive.
Surely your an adult and you can keep your hands to yourself, and you tongue firmly planted in your mouth when it comes to sexual or even flirtatious comments. And if you are incapable of that, then I would suggest the problem is yours. I know damned few fucking women that come to work hoping their boss or the guy in the cubicle next to them hits on them
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Are you all incapable of actually holding down a job that involves working with women? Are you that emotionally-driven that you can't just do your goddamned job and treat your coworkers with dignity and respect? Whether it's sexual harassment, or any other kind of harassment, any boss who doesn't take that seriously is asking for goddamned trouble, up to and including costly lawsuits. If you can't keep it in your pants, literally or metaphorically, then a judge will make you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or, you know, just keep it in your pants like an adult. I have worked for most of my life with women, some as bosses and supervisors, some as equals, and some as subordinates, and I've never had any issues at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Opinion stated as fact. Nice work. And regarding "not with a majority of the popular vote", give it up. You sound like a football coach complaining that his team lost the game despite gaining more rushing yards than their opponent.
Yeah except that doesnt happen under Ayan Rand freedom either. It's about as much of a pipe dream as glorious communism.
Don't do business with the guy already holding all the cards? And he'll lose tons of money? Lol, free market idealists must smoke some good stuff.
Oh puhleese...
Trump's election does not change the generations long movement to political correctness that has taken over in the U.S.'s corporate culture.
Trump was NOT my choice for president & I am all for sexual equality and an end to harassment in the workplace.
When even an innocuous appreciative but not lecherly comment comment like "nice dress" on the one day a co-worker wears something particularly attractive is deemed sexual harassment, the movement has gone too far.
Yeah, yeah, keep pointing to the exceptions and strive to make people believe that ALL athletes/VC execs/geeks are sexual predators.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I know, right? Ever since Trump got elected, I've been grabbin women by the pussy every chance I get! But they don't mind because I'm rich and good looking. That's the thing, if you're rich and good looking, women don't mind if you grab 'em by the pussy.
It would be called flirting by the guy's expensive lawyer.
Couldn't agree more.
I limit my inexcusable behavior to my wife, and she seems to enjoy it.
Number 1 rule, DON'T FLIRT AT WORK, it's not why you are there and it's not what your employer is paying you for.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
First of all, no it's not.
The job of a CEO is to increase shareholder earnings. If making people feel happy happy is profitable to the shareholders, then sure. But if hiring a yacht full of hookers and playing circle jerk the dick into the donkey will make shareholders feel better, then that works too. CEOs have absolutely no responsibilities to anyone who works for them. Their job is to make more money for the shareholders.
Right now, there are a bunch of women (and maybe men) who know that if they throw on some fishnets and wrap some Botox around a penis they can get start capitol from this firm. They call it an early return on investment.
To be honest, if you choose to do business with a VC, you're already choosing to work with an opportunistic asshole. I suppose there is a small number of legitimate VCs out there, but a VC is in business to make money. They aren't there to do nice things or be nice people. They are gamblers that instead of using their money to actively be part of building something, they put as little money in to achieve the highest returns off of someone else's work. They don't care if you succeed, they only care if they can sell their share for more than they paid.
No, that's not the way it works. A troll which is called out as a troll does not get to claim said response constitutes a success. Only a response which does not acknowledge the trollish nature of a post constitutes a successful troll. You can't just declare yourself a winner, there are rules, and you're not Charlie Sheen.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ahh, Good old Victim Blaming.
Because women love all the media attention and judgments, putting their career at risk, just for a payday, that is probably less than a full year wage. Well worth loosing out on a career that you wanted to do all your life.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Yep, this is the new way to make up for the perceived pay-gap women claim they experience.
It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy. Anyone can hang an accusation of racist, mysoginist, xyz-ist....and it will stick and often cost you as that you are guilty till proven innocent.
Sure, some of these cases ARE legit, but there are so many out there that are not.
Guys....you need to be scared of being guys in the workforce.
Best advice is...DO NOT Attempt to date within the work environment, you are only asking for it....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If there were activities, rather than braggard locker room talk, to use to take Trump down, he wouldn't be President. He is vulgar and boasts of things he is seriously not capable of, and he is a media personality, which means the groupie effect comes into play.
Clinton meanwhile, is a documented serial sexual predator. Similar to how Microsoft is a documented monopoly, with an established body of evidence.
There are too many spring-loaded mechanisms in place these days that would pin Trump down, like a bug on the collectors cardboard, for him to be anything more than a loud vulgar braggard. Actually he's kind of a cuck in that regard. Bill Clinton is NOT a cuck. He's more of a monster. Swinging dicks can and do admire him for how well he's gotten away with it. Women who profess to be feminists admire him. What the fuck, eh?
Judging by the bitter, entitled comments here I can only imagine that many Slashdot posters are unable to get their sexual needs met, and thus are walking around in a constant state of sexual frustration.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There are no lack of workplace bullying lawsuits, and while I can't speak for every organization, the definition of harassment in our policies is pretty darned broad, and largely because our lawyers over the years have made it pretty clear that if a harassment lawsuit of any kind is delivered to our doorstep, we'd better be able to show that not only did we have policies in place to protect employees, but that they were enforced. Even the articles of incorporation and the shareholders agreement have language to force the removal of a director, which allows even members of the board to be held to account for violating company harassment policies.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
My company has very strong policies about sexual harassment, including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate.
No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship? That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law.
Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".
Your work sounds like a typical American puritanical bureaucratic shit-show. Nobody should be harassed at work in any way, including sexual harassment, but in the rest of the civilized world you can have consensual sex with whomever you damn well please without the church, your work, the government, or anybody else telling you what they feel is right or wrong or good for you.
I knew a husband and wife team who kept their relationship on the down-low but she worked for him in all the companies they were employed at together. Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.
I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
I get hte impression here that many posters are stark raving terrified of women, and incredibly resentful. I imagine there are all sorts of interesting psychological reasons for these feelings, though I confess I can't quite understand them. As I said elsewhere, I've worked with women my entire working life; they've been my bosses, coworkers, and subordinates, and while I've seen my share of antisocial behavior, I never saw women having any great predilection for that kind of behavior than men. I get that when the two sexes spend a good deal of time together, there's bound to be a certain amount of sexual tension, but we are all supposed to be adults that can manage our feelings and expectations, and understand what is appropriate or inappropriate in a workplace.
But here the hate and resentment in some circles is just profoundly disturbing. I suppose some of the posters are just genuinely afraid of women, don't really understand them, don't spend any time around them, and thus easily fall into believing in some sort of "us vs. them" narrative that is becoming rather common in men's rights circles. Some perhaps have had bad experiences, and I admit when I've personal relationship problems, it's easy to fall into an emotional and overly generalized view of the opposite sex as being somehow complicit in my own problems. But again, I'm an adult, I manage these feelings, recognize them as wrong and prejudicial, and get over my own hangups.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
including a ban on anyone entering into a sexual relationship with a subordinate. While the latter isn't sexual harassment, it's terrible for morale
I mean, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Are you all incapable of actually holding down a job that involves working with women? Are you that emotionally-driven that you can't just do your goddamned job and treat your coworkers with dignity and respect
It's funny that you first suggest that seeing people having a relationship is "terrible for morale" and then accuse others of being emotionally-driven. I'd rather think that Not My Fucking Business is the non-emotionally-driven to relationships of other people in any mature collective I'm in.
Ezekiel 23:20
Just a rough fish, though. Lots of those drying along the shoreline already. Only good for fertilizer or to give to the cats.
Sorry, non-emotionally-driven approach, of course.
Ezekiel 23:20
... he says. In the whiniest way possible.
Ahh, Good old Victim Blaming.
Because women love all the media attention and judgments, putting their career at risk, just for a payday, that is probably less than a full year wage. Well worth loosing out on a career that you wanted to do all your life.
While you make a good point about the practicalities, you don't seem to really understand how a lot of women are, from an emotional perspective. That's at least as important as praticalities to them.
The same way that sex is important to most men, being the center of attention is every bit as important to most women. This is why there is the term "drama queen" and not "drama king". Especially if it's a slam-dunk issue where they can be portrayed (accurately or not) as right or innocent or virtuous.
This isn't what the woman is thinking at the time. It's more of an undercurrent. It's not flattering or favorable so a lot of people want to dismiss it, but you're missing the whole picture if you discount this tendency.
When a manager has a sexual relationship, or even an emotional affair, with a subordinate, it alters the workplace dynamic. People will inevitably see favoritism, whether it's fair or not, and the manager's response, either to actually show his lover favoritism, or to go to the opposite extreme and be hard on that person as a show of resolve and strength, all have implications. A good manager understands he isn't managing robots, but human beings, who take their cues from management.
That's not even talking about the fallout of a breakup, which can have legal implications. Frankly I view anyone in management having an affair with a subordinate as a form of employment suicide, and there isn't a lawyer or HR expert in the world that will say "Just tell your girlfriend's peers to mind their own business". They're going to put it on the same level of horrible idea as open bars at company functions. In the risk-assessment world, having affairs with your staff is just one big bad fucking idea.
That's why the very best policy is not to have affairs with subordinates, and it's why most modern policies either outright ban such relationships, or require that the subordinate move into another department so that they are no longer under the manager's direct supervision. My company is very small, so there aren't enough "departments" as it were, so it's pretty much an outright ban. If I want to have a relationship with one of my staff, one of us is going to have to resign.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or, you know, just keep it in your pants like an adult.
Wasn't that the "stay small" part?
Ezekiel 23:20
David Bonderman has made a career of succesfully turning around many failing companies. He has made billions buying struggling companies and re-working their operations and building them into successful companies. He's one of the few "good" venture capitalists out there who actually puts money to work rebuilding failing companies instead of just stripping their assets. He's one of the few people who could have figured out how to save Uber. He made one sarcastic comment and gets some controversy and he just said screw this whole thing, I'm out and left and that's probably going to lead to the death of Uber. Good job, you idiots.
And I know of at least three cases in the last five years of organizations I work with where the "down low" blew up in various unpleasant ways, one in which the Executive Director (non-profit) had a rather torrid affair with his secretary, leading to the nightmare situation of severe disruption, and ultimately forcing the Board to basically oust him and take control, though so far as I was concerned, they waited far too long, and should have forced the two of them to decide whether they wanted to remain with the organization.
Bully for the couple in question. I'm sure it can work, but there enough legal and organizational risks that in general, yes, I'd say my company policy would ban her from being his direct subordinate (or visa versa).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Just because you are being blamed or you make allegations doesn't automatically turn you into a victim. Guilty until proven innocent also implies that the crime itself must be proven. A dead body doesn't automatically mean there's a murder (hence autopsies to see if it was or natural causes) and a woman crying "bully" doesn't mean she's a victim.
For some reason, for this category of crime, people decided that human nature of lying and exaggeration doesn't happen (guess all men are demons and all women saints), thus creating an automatic guilty until proven innocent dynamic that is poisonous to women, that want to make it on their own merits, as well as men.
Grandparent commenter was expounding their personal formula for success. Which is fucked up, but oh well. At least they were only able to do so anonymously.
I think the very idea of ascribing specific sexual behaviors to one gender is absurd, and utterly unfounded, and another example of how some posters on Slashdot seem to believe this bizarre notion that all women are whores and all men are testicle-driven morons.
My company's policy doesn't have gender specific language. It outright bans harassment, so it is irrelevant whether the harasser is a man or a woman, or the victim is a man or a woman. What counts is that the company will not tolerate the behavior, and that it has disciplinary mechanisms at its disposal up to and including termination of employment. Your myths about motivation are irrelevant, pretty much false, and would do the company know favors if it got called into court over a harassment lawsuit.
Let me ask you. Can you keep your feelings to yourself? Can you gently rebuff someone who comes on to you? Can you control your urges, get through the day, and not hit on coworkers?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This was ALWAYS good advice. ALWAYS.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
First of all, no it's not.
The job of a CEO is to increase shareholder earnings
No, it's not. There may not be any shareholders, or the shareholders may be the employees, but even assuming it's a publicly traded company with a capitalist charter, it's not. Selling all assets and allotting all proceeds as dividends would immensely increase the shareholder earnings. Investing anything in research will always reduce shareholder earnings with no guarantee of later increased earnings.
The CEOs job is to execute on the visions of the owners or board of directors. That might mean spending money to increase the chance of long term survival at the cost of short and medium term profits.
Or it might mean building a hugely expensive new head offices, because that's the vision of the board.
No chance of this being abused... Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?
Usually, they don't have to. Once it's found out, people tend to be fairly honest about it, especially since the penalty is not being fired, but being transferred to another department so there's no conflict of interest. Even if a company fired a worker and then claimed it was for a sexual relationship that didn't happen, that would open them up to a pretty big lawsuit. That's why you don't hear of that sort of thing happening.
That sounds like a rule that is meant to express a policy but which is absolutely not enforcible and may, in fact, be against the law. Most companies have a rule against moral turpitude [wikipedia.org] of which even the feds have had to repeal the section on "adultery".
Most states are employment at will states. They don't have to "prove" anything, certainly not to a legal standard, to fire you, just like you don't have to have a reason to quit.
Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.
Most reputable companies would not put them in a boss/subordinate position. That's just fucked up if they did that.
How exactly does any of this disprove what I said? In fact it confirms what I've been saying, that such behavior is toxic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Those are some pretty broad strokes you're painting with.
Doubly so when it ends.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It isn't emotion it is biology. So to answer your question...no. I cannot work around women without my body responding biologically. My blood pressure will go up. My hormones are going to kick in. My body will respond physiologically. How I respond to those impulses is up to me. But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well. I'm tired of SJW's who know jack shit about biology act as if there isn't a root cause to all the sexual tension in a mixed gender workplace. Women (all people) should be treated with respect and disrespectful activity should be punished regardless of whether it is sexual in nature or not. But to have a casual compliment branded as harassment because a woman ran to HR after you said her dress was pretty is just INSANE! Extremism on either end of the spectrum needs to be stopped. There should be a middle ground and when there is a misunderstanding it should be addressed in a mature manner. Today maturity is almost non-existent in society. Your response is just as harmful as the guy catcalling. If you have none of the symptoms of biology I elude to above then you are a minority. For most it isn't as black and white as you make it out. And in most situations there are always more than one side to the story. Now put your pitchforks and torches away.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
We have generalizations because they communicate something meaningful.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Women want to lure men in to having sex with them. This is done for reasons of pecking order (and in this case it could result in economic benefit due to promotion) and/or a feeling of belonging somewhere and/or economic reasons and/or a desire (healthy or unhealthy) for attention. Women like workplace dating mostly because it allows them to almost entirely transcend class differences, which would be hard to do in their social circle outside work.
Yeah absolutely. That's what women do. They're just trying to catch me unawares and fall on my penis. If I'm not careful I've had 2 blowjobs before I make it out the parking lot and every time I pass by the copy machine there's a woman bent over it trying to get me to accidentally do it to her doggy style. I have to avoid elevators no matter what because they'll hit the emergency stop button and reverse gangbang me before they let me out on my floor.
It's horrible.
"If you were teaching PR 101 this guy has just done everything possible wrong. He has insulted clients, he has insulted investors, he has insulted employees and he has insulted the media.
Next, he'll be running for President.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The reason for the rules very often arises from experience. The purely consensual no strings attached relationships do blow up and they do disrupt the workplace badly. When the don't blow up there is often accusations of nepotism or favoritism when the boss promotes the person in the sexual relationship than to the others in the group.
I've worked some places where some early relationships formed in the startup days (handful of people working in close quarters with zero free time to see anyone outside of work). Then you've got people in a relationship in relatively higher levels of power in the company. So I want to bitch about a persons behavior to my boss, except that they live together. It's hard to complain about that person to others in the company because they don't want to cause waves, and the whole thing is a minefield.
If you're not able to find time to flirt outside of work then maybe shorten your work hours. Don't they have weekends in your part of the country?
Not as emboldened as when Bill Clinton got away for decades with abusing his office for decades to harass and physically abuse women, while his wife lied about it and shielded him from the consequences.
Fortunately, she was not rewarded with the presidency.
Hillary's defeat has indeed emboldened men to speak up for themselves. Good thing too.
This particular CEO appears to have had a public drunken meltdown. Which certainly sends a very bad signal to the shareholder, leading to the offer to resign.
>But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well
That's some quality shit right there, thank you. Made my day.
"If I don't hit on chicks I'll get ill and lose my mind."
Damn... Sounds like the latter is kicking in already.
If this isn't a troll, seriously, go get some help.
But you have to say "not with the majority of the popular vote". That's because it makes Trump turn orange with anger. And when Trump turns orange with anger you get some very entertaining tweets at 3am. And entertaining tweets from the president at 3am keeps this economy running!
But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well. I
Bullshit. There's nothing unhealthy about getting a grip and acting professionally. People do it all the time. It's called impulse control.
I read his response as "I'm incredibly sorry ... that someone called me out on bad behavior."
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Yyyeeeaaahhh because men NEVER EVER EVER spoke up for themselves before Trump. Riiiiiiiiight.
> Do you honestly think that white guys have it worse in life than everyone else?
Do you honestly believe that white guys don't have their own difficulties and inconveniences in life?
Should everybody just shut up about their own frustrations as long as there's a single group out there that has it worse?
It isn't emotion it is biology. So to answer your question...no. I cannot work around women without my body responding biologically. My blood pressure will go up. My hormones are going to kick in. My body will respond physiologically. How I respond to those impulses is up to me. But if, as society says I should, I suppress them it will cause physical illness and in many cases mental illness as well.
Does your cave come with electricity and broadband, or do you go down to the local town and beat each other over the head with sticks to fight for the only computer with dialup and electricity?
I venture to say others don't have that problem. Including me.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Thanks to political correctness, you can't even comment about someone "looking nice" anymore without being written up. Women, those wanting to climb the corporate ladder at any cost, will do ANYTHING to get themselves "noticed", going so far as to make allegations against a coworker. The problem with sexual harassment is that unless you have proof, it's a he said she said issue. But, with the Gloria Allreds of the world waiting for a chance to pounce on a microphone & camera, and, the media looking for another "juicy" story to help cover the 24/7 news cycle, it turns into a political circus.
I thought suppressing your emotions was harmful? Bottle it up inside and say nothing. Didn't Elsa from Frozen sing a song about this?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's also being viewed by a lot of women as a first-class ticket to unlimited media attention and a big fat legal payday.
Can you provide a few examples of women who claimed harassment, and received a payout that you feel was unjustified?
"Exactly how does your company plan to prove sexual relationship?"
If the penis doesn't fit, you must acquit!
I'd imagine that most strippers and Hooters waitresses would disagree with this statement.
It doesn't work like that. I can give you some lessons if you want. Lesson one: you just responded to my troll, therefore, I won. See how that works? That'll be tree fiddy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
What, women don't like attention? Women love attention. Since when is that a men's rights issue?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Women.
Women complain about other women.
They complain about their thigh gap, their unrealistic beauty, their bitchiness, their attitude, their competition for men, etc.
Men admire and want to be like other men they find ideal.
Women want to degrade and destroy any woman who might be better looking.
so because you choose not to control your biology, you piss and squat and shit all over the place too. fantastic. so on the evolution ladder you're lower than dogs. that'll teach them wimminz and sjw's ehyup!
IS that the world you want to live in? Where no one can speak? There is NOTHING wrong with admiring someone else's appearance and telling them that.
Good-bye
So, are they hiring over there?
Slashdot seem to believe this bizarre notion that all women are whores and all men are testicle-driven morons.
Doesn't help when this tripe is sitting at a +5.
If I ran a company I would also forbid relationships between a boss and a subordinate. Terrible for morale as you say.
Outside of that employees flirting as is human nature and occasionally hooking up could be a good thing for morale, makes the place more lively and happy as long as all is done in good taste for the parties involved.
Culturally men need to initiate romantic relations. However in terms of work, this puts the woman in a bad spot, because if she shuts them down, either they may loose a good working relationship, or be in a position where they are powerless to avoid retribution.
The fact that they have legal standing, meaning if there is threat that they can bring up legal action, should put men who would try to do this, or even try to push the line.
They are sexual tensions, but we don't need to act on them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Until a love triangle forms... Even relationships between equals in a company can be problematic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
About all I've learned from your post is that you are likely mentally ill, or at the very least severely emotionally retarded.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I would take carry the first part of your analysis into the second and say that if he's a partner he is responsible, and so if he's not "accepting any responsibility" then he is already doing whatever "it" is, as an accomplice and that he has in fact been caught out.
That's long debunked psychobabble. The brain isn't a pressure cooker, and no, holding back your emotions is not only healthy, but pretty much a requirement of living among your fellow human beings. Those that lack impulse control are rightfully viewed as having some sort of emotional and/or cognitive defect.
I certainly have felt attraction to coworkers throughout my working life, and even where I wasn't married and thus had no significant other to betray, it just never felt appropriate to act on such feelings. The way to deal with them is to shift your focus elsewhere. If you're looking for love, well there's a whole world of people out there, so find your dating opportunities elsewhere. At least that's always been my rule, and while there might be a few days of discomfort as I grapple privately with my feelings, in the end, such attractions fade.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There is when it's in a workplace setting. What might be appropriate at a nightclub or a bar isn't going to be appropriate in your 9-5 job. You're not being paid to hit on your coworkers, and they're not being paid to tolerate it. Social rules are built on context, so what is an appropriate action in one environment is a major faux pas in another; as in it's totally acceptable to defecate in a washroom, but totally unacceptable to do it on the sidewalk.
For christs sake, didn't you have parents to teach you how to behave? Do you suffer some sort sort of impulse control issues? Are you mentally ill? Are you twelve?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
True. I think it's better to let adults handle it if it happens though, rather than put more too many rules in place. I'm reminded of what Jack Tramiel said when asked how he could do deals with Germans after having been in a concentration camp.
"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."
No it is not okay, and what Bill Clinton (and heaven knows how many other presidents) have done is a classic example of an authority figure abusing their power for sexual favors.
Neither was it okay for the current POTUS to brag at one point that he could grab the genitals of any woman he wanted.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Normally when someone makes allegations it is because they do feel victimized. Of course it is up to the courts to see if what they did happen was indeed wrong.
However it is way too easy to just say they are just over reacting, when there is a problem. When there is a Allegation, you need to take it seriously. Normally the people who get in trouble with this, during the investigation is due to many woman stating it is an issue, and not just one poorly phrase comment, or an accidental touch, but a historical trend of problems.
You example about the dead body. You are stating that if they found a dead body and a person next too it. They will just take his word that he had nothing to do about it, and do no further investigation, and no autopsy. If there is an allegation or some evidence it should be investigated.
And the person who feels that they are being wronged shouldn't be afraid of standing up for it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If they have internet and still can't figure it out, there is no hope at all. They obviously wouldn't know what to do if their fantasies were available to them.
Nope, didn't say that...
Just saying that the category of "white guy" is the only one that people are completely, 101% free to disparage, and attack without impunity these days.
All over sexes, and races are protected classes from attack and disparagement....."the man" is always at fault these days.
The white man is very easy to blame these days for almost any given social ill out there today.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When a woman changes her hair. You're generally supposed to notice, say something nice. 'You changed your hair, it looks good' etc. They would certainly comment if you wore a new suit (for the first time in years?). Just be a little careful, _you_ are no judge of woman's hair. Complementing their 'new hairstyle' when they were up all night with puking kids if a faux paux. That one bit me. Watch and listen to the other women, they know.
BTW If a woman comes in with a new push-up bra, don't say 'nice tits', say something nice. 'You changed your hair...no...well something's different today...it looks good.' Don't stare while saying this...or maybe do...if she's smiling.
Just not, if she's in your report chain, than you ignore the tits. If she bounces them, you have an excuse for looking. They're hypnotic.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Conversely, how many payouts can you find that were justified?
Irrelevant. That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with the fact that (so far) zero citations for unjustified payouts have been provided by people claiming that they are common.
Let's face facts, women are very good at playing the victim card.
Your zero examples say otherwise.
You're inability to comprehend this subject is understandable. As humans we like to believe we are above other animals because we are "smart". I clearly stated my reaction to my body's impulses was up to me. What was not was my body's response to external stimulus. Using your example. If I was able to "control my biology" I would simply not ever need to go piss or shit. Since I am not able to control that portion of my biology I do in fact frequent facilities designed for the expulsion of said waste products. Of course you were just attempting to paint me as a knuckle-dragging nincompoop so as to discredit my assertion. You don't happen to work for CNN do you?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Culturally men need to initiate romantic relations.
Well, there's your problem. That, of course, combined with some women either looking for a payday (e.g. making shit up) or being so full of themselves that every man who even glances in her direction must want her (e.g. imagining shit) can make it dangerous to even have women present in the workplace.
Admittedly, many (if not most) claims of harassment are legitimate, as most women with their head screwed on straight enough to land a job in the first place aren't that full of themselves. That, however, does not negate the fact that the ones who get the most media attention (and biggest payouts) happen to be the ones who don't have their head screwed on quite straight.
More to the point, why should two people not explore their relationship compatibility just because they work together? If they're not both adult enough to take "no" for an answer and drop it, well then, there's harassment and whoever can't hear "no" should no longer be employed. But it's important to recognize that this does, in fact, go both ways, and that it's not harassment until the would-be harasser knows it's unwanted; that is, until you say "no". Of course, once you've said "no", it does need to stop.
To be clear, I'm referring to verbal advances. Physical contact should always be opt-in, but there's really no way to opt-in to speaking, so that's got to be allowed to be opt-out. I mean, I suppose you could ask someone's permission to ask them out, but then someone complains about that and you have to ask permission to ask permission to ask them out... or we can just be adults and say "no" and drop it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
A dead body doesn't automatically mean there's a murder (hence autopsies to see if it was or natural causes) ...
You example about the dead body. You are stating that if they found a dead body and a person next too it. They will just take his word that he had nothing to do about it, and do no further investigation, and no autopsy. If there is an allegation or some evidence it should be investigated.
I don't understand how you come into your conclusion from the parent post regarding the dead body??? The parent only said there should be an autopsy and it does not matter if there was a person next to the body or what the person said. Your interpretation surprised me a lot...
I knew a husband and wife team who kept their relationship on the down-low but she worked for him in all the companies they were employed at together. Your company would "ban" the guy from having sex with his wife FFS.
In other words, this man's ethical flaw was not sexual harassment, but nepotism. If they were married before they got those jobs, then there's little likelihood that he was able to use his position as her superior to coerce favors from her. But boy, I'd love to work on their team because I'm sure he never treated his wife better than the rest of the employees. It's especially unethical if they kept their relationship secret, not only from their specific team, but from the company or those above them in the management chain.
I do not have a signature
Your zero examples say otherwise.
So do yours.
And there's a bit of truth in what both of you have to say; a woman seeking a payday is more likely to pursue legal avenues even after the alleged harassment has been dealt with so you will find many more instances of that if you actually look. Most women (in my experience) just want to be treated like human beings and will only complain about conditions when they're not; and once the situation has been remedied, they're most likely to carry on like nothing happened. By and far, the ones who sue are not the reasonable type -- the whole purpose of civil courts is to sort out which party is the unreasonable one in a dispute; two reasonable people never sit opposite each other in a courtroom.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I know damned few fucking women that come to work hoping their boss or the guy in the cubicle next to them hits on them
And I know damned few men who hit on their coworkers. Sometimes asking someone out for coffee or a drink is just a means of getting to know them better, possibly for the purpose of building an understanding that allows them to work together better.
I do, however, know men who've been accused of sexual harassment for doing just that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So, you agree with me. You just don't know you're agreeing with me because you didn't fully comprehend what I posted. I didn't say you had to act immediately. I said if you ignored it you would suffer bodily harm. The anger in your post indicates you've been ignoring it for an extended length of time.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Scrolling through the comments. Just wow.
Looks like we've got a bunch of boys over here giving feminism and the misogynerd narrative plenty of ammo by freely admitting that they're unable to control their own urges.
Additionally, the little boys over here seem to be more than willing to allow feminism and the media to frame the narrative such that these sexual harassers are technologists in technical careers.
Fail.
Your zero examples say otherwise.
So do yours.
Nonsense. So far what we have is zero evidence of any women getting paydays from allegation complaints, justifiable or not. Against that we have allegations that there are lots of unjustified paydays. It's on the maker of the claim to support it, not on the objectors to disprove it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Did the person you're replying to top post?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So far what we have is zero evidence of any women getting paydays from allegation complaints, justifiable or not.
Oh?
That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with...
That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.
Like you said, it's on the claimant to support their claim. Read the rest of my comment for my thoughts on which of you is right, and why.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I remember the White House Correspondents dinner where Obama mocked Trump and basically dared him that if he doesnt agree with Obama run for President. Well Trump took him at his word.....
**Life is too short to be serious**
Who's doing the disparaging? I don't think anyone gets free reins for that. I'm saying that as a white guy in a multicultural area, and I'm not seeing any blame, disparagement, racism, sexism, etc against myself. I am fully able to take advantage my privilege at any time.
That's why the very best policy is not to have affairs with subordinates, and it's why most modern policies either outright ban such relationships, or require that the subordinate move into another department so that they are no longer under the manager's direct supervision.
I think there's a less draconian option available, which I've seen be effective at several companies.
The policy should be to require that superiors who engage in a personal, and especially sexual, relationship with any subordinate have to report the relationship to HR. Though that's all that needs to be published in the employee handbook, HR policy should then be to take something like the following actions:
1. Establish a specific reporting channel for allegations of favoritism by the superior.
2. Inform the couple that any allegations of favoritism will be assumed to be true, unless proven otherwise, and that while this is guilty-until-proven-innocent policy is perhaps unfair it's a cost of having such a relationship. Also, that any HR action taken in response to allegations will fall on both, but primarily on the superior.
3. Make clear that in the event of a breakup, it will be the responsibility of the couple to maintain a good working relationship, and that any allegation of negative impact on the workplace will be similarly assumed to be true.
4. Make clear that any promotion, bonus, etc. for the subordinate must be approved by another manager and with oversight from HR.
5. Have the superior inform all of their other subordinates of the relationship, the expected non-impact on workplace dynamics, the additional career oversight, and the reporting channel to be used if any problems are noted, with explicit instruction that there is no need to discuss any concerns with the superior first, and that it's wholly appropriate to take them directly to HR. This meeting must be attended by HR.
Faced with this situation, most couples opt to have one of them change jobs, but I have seen several who made it work, at least while they were together. It only works when the superior is already seen as fair, trustworthy and mature by their subordinates, and when the subordinates are also capable of professionalism. I've never seen it sustained effectively after a breakup; always one or the other changes jobs.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I don't think anyone has ever been branded a sexual harasser simply for complimenting a dress or someone's looks. If you're not adult enough or self-aware enough to understand how to speak to other people without making them uneasy -- then keep your mouth shut. The same applies to most situations in life actually.
// you're into her - and have an inkling that it's reciprocal
... people. You talk to someone you like as a person and you know what.. you'll gain their trust, grow to respect each other, and maybe you ask them out when you're off work at a shared interest event (that you've learned about.. by talking to them). It's honestly not that hard to be normal and not stalker-y. All that nonsense in the comments about how tough the struggle is to control your sexual impulses is about the stupidest thing I've read today. It's on par with "baby, we need to do this or I'll get blue balls" -- and I've used that line myself in my early years. The implication is that the same or opposite sex are in some way responsible for relieving or satiating this desire. Go squeeze one out and get over yourself. For the record, that line never worked for me and I usually felt stupid later.
Good: "Hey Shelly, that's a cool outfit"
Good: "Hey Shelly, that's a really pretty outfit, your eyes almost sparkle when you're wearing it."
Bad: "You look really sexy in that outfit", "Your tits look amazing in that shirt", "damn you look fine"
But hey, does communication with the opposite sex only have to occur when objectifying?
Better: "Shelly, that was a really nice bit of code you wrote for the indexer last week. I saw the check-in and liked that you improved the response time by 3ms!"
It's so much better to simply treat people as
True maturity is treating the people around you as actual human beings. You tend to form healthy and meaningful relationships that way.
I didn't say you had to act immediately. I said if you ignored it you would suffer bodily harm.
You shouldn't ignore it. You should recognize it for what it is and take care not to act on it. This includes watching your own behavior to ensure that you don't stare or do anything else "creepy". Don't pay either excessive or insufficient attention, don't either highlight or in appropriately ignore the target of your attraction's gender. In short, work hard to behave exactly as you would if you were not attracted.
If you need sexual release, by all means seek it out, just don't do it at work. If you don't have a social life outside of work, either because you spend too much time at work or because you're a couch potato in your off time, then focus on fixing that.
If you're really attracted to one particular co-worker, and if company policy and your roles don't make a relationship impossible, then you can pursue her... but only outside of work. This means you first have to find a way to see her in a non-work context, without stalking or some other creepiness. That essentially means you have to start with a very careful suggestion for non-work personal interaction that is clearly not a date, and to be completely prepared to accept "no" for an answer, and to consider it final. Note that business trips are work interactions, beginning to end. Once outside of the work context, you can test the waters for the possibility of a date. Again, fully prepared to accept "no" and to consider it final and binding. From there you can proceed, but with only with a focus on avoiding any spillover into the work environment. That doesn't mean you should keep it a secret; quite the opposite, because secrets get found out and promote suspicion.
If all of that sounds really hard, it's because it is. You're really better off doing your romantic socializing away from the workplace entirely.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
On behalf of ACs, it's not the best time to be a racist, sexist, white guy... But it's definitely still better to be that than any other -ist group.
It's not a good time to be a guy...especially a white guy.
Oh my precious little snowflake, how hard it must be for you!
You assert a lot of stuff with no evidence. Must be fun, let me try: the opposite of everything you just said.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
for heaven's sake grow up - if you really believe this, and aren't just trolling, and have actually escaped your parents' basement, then stop posting as the eponymous Anonymous Coward
That fact that there were very few justified payouts has nothing to do with...
That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.
Nice misattribution. That was ShanghaiBill's comment, not mine. And he was wrong to say that... but the fact that he flubbed his response to the original claim that there are many women who've received unjustified payouts doesn't change the fact that that was the original claim.
Like you said, it's on the claimant to support their claim.
So, let's see some support for it. Though it was an AC that made the claim, not you, so it's really not on you to support it... unless you also are making the claim. Which your comment appears to imply. Are you?
Read the rest of my comment for my thoughts on which of you is right, and why.
Okay, let's take a look at what you claimed:
There's a claim. Can you support it?
Never is an awfully strong claim, and a particularly hard one to support. Actually, it's plainly false, even without seeking specific counterexamples, because there's an obvious class of cases where it's false: any situation where the facts of the matter are in dispute can have entirely reasonable people on opposite sides.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You clearly got my point, so.... ok?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
When even an innocuous appreciative but not lecherly comment comment like "nice dress" on the one day a co-worker wears something particularly attractive is deemed sexual harassment, the movement has gone too far.
Whether that's harassment depends. Do you also compliment your male co-workers when they dress nicely? If your female co-worker indicates that she's uncomfortable with the compliment (even non-verbally), do you stop saying such things?
I can and do indeed compliment my co-workers appearance whether male or female and without fear of overbearing PC considerations, but then I've been living in France for 30 years. The bullshit where it's not what you say but how someone chooses to hear it never took root here, thankfully.
Does that mean that I can be a knuckledragging cad with my comments? No and there are penalties here for true harassment -- but not for the overbearing PC workplace environment that has become prevalent in the U.S. and that is mocked by my co-workers both male and female. As I'm the only American this and other American excesses come up regularly.
If the answers to either of those questions is "no", then yes, it's harassment, and that has nothing to do with any "movement".
How amusing that you're so deep inside the PC police state that you cannot even see it. Innocuous comments and even more so, an off color remark is only harassment and sufficient cause for a lawsuit in the U.S & less so in the U.K. Here, the PC gender police do not have the upper hand so it needs to be much more systematic.
I've counselled a few co-workers through some harassment. For one, a co-worker with whom innocent flirting was second nature (& a joy to be around) was harassed by a knuckledragger who refused to accept that flirting!=desire that his continued hitting on her and increasingly explicit sexual innuendos were unwanted which led to his spreading rumours that she was sleeping around. THAT was harassment & I'm proud to say that he lost his job in part thanks to my testimony.
Oh yeah but you go ahead and label "nice dress" harassment... If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Meh, I could do without flirting. I figure why play those little head games? If you are interested, then say so. And more importantly, say why; as anyone taking such an interest in me has to be either desperate or damaged.
This space unintentionally left blank.
That's your allegation that women are "getting paydays" from supposedly justified complaints.
Nice misattribution. That was ShanghaiBill's comment, not mine.
Nope. I never said that either. In fact, nobody said that.
"Men admire other men..."
Oh please, come out of your Crossfit/Tough Mudder daze and wipe your friend's jizz out of your eye. Men belittle and degrade other men all the time.
Don't go for their football team? Have a chat to 'their' girl while waiting at a bar? Have the audacity to walk down the street minding your own business? Better prepare to be belittled, jeered at, shunned or otherwise "shown what hapoens".
I'm a male and I'm not impressed nor do I "admire" most other men I meet.
that comment on folks cloths unless they're way out of norm. I can't remember the last time a guy said 'Nice Shirt' to me without following it up with 'got an interview today?'. It's just not something guys do. Girls do, but not guys. So when a guy does it, well, it's so odd it's automatically suspect. It's got nothing to do with PC. It's just weird, and everybody knows it.
Also, since when is fostering a work environment where women can feel comfortable something bad? I'm reminded of that Niel Gaiman quote (you can google it). If you want to talk exceptions, please stop bringing up the feminazi that gave you a D in your community college English course that one summer. She doesn't represent the American left any more than the KKK do the right. You've got your nut jobs, we've got ours. Difference is we largely marginalize ours. You just elected one president.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
No self-respecting woman would be caught dead with her hair like that.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Most of us don't really have any problems in that department, skippy. It's just you and the other losers who even have to think about things like that. The rest of us have wives, girlfriends, or significant others. When you aren't an anti-social wreck of a human being, getting laid is simple and easy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I've seen other categories of people disparaged with the same freedom. Muslims, fat people, poor people, Native Americans, to name a few. Some people will object to it, but then some people will object to disparaging white men. It may be that you notice disparagement against white men more than disparagement against other groups.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm glad that it worked out. Sometimes it doesn't, and the consequences can be pretty bad.
Were you able to treat her the same as your other subordinates? Did that interfere with your dating life? (There's often boss-subordinate friction.) Did your other subordinates think you were fair? Did she ever feel that, if she ended the relationship, she'd be treated differently as an employee?
You could have destroyed your effectiveness with your other subordinates. You could have been sued successfully for sexual harassment, if you implied that the continuing romantic relationship was significant in any workplace decisions. You could have been in trouble for promoting your lady love or giving her a raise. Your company does not have any direct interest in your sex life. They do have a direct interest in your performance as a manager, ability to stay out of sticky personnel relationships that require company attention, and ability to stay out of lawsuits.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You seem to want to imply that these are different things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're going beyond the evidence there, pardner. Bill Clinton was clearly a big jerk, but he rarely if ever went over the legal line.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I know of as situation where a CEO had an affair with his married secretary. To top that her husband worked in the same company and after the relationship became public decided to stay married and kept working for the same boss.
No, I have no idea why and I do not want to know.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.