My issue with asking out/being asked out by coworkers is that it puts the person being asked out into an awkward situation, and that isn't fair to inflict on a person in a workplace.
The person being asked out now has to spend time thinking about something they may not have been thinking about before, they may be stressed out about how a rejection might be handled by the other party, they may be worried about how accepting will make them look to other co-workers, and a whole host of other concerns.
Over the course of my career, I've been asked out by co-workers a number of times. My standard response is a polite but firm no, along the lines of "thanks, but I don't mix work and dating." 90% of the time, they accept the no and everything is cool, maybe some bruised feelings but nothing major. 10% of the time it has made things toxic due to them behaving poorly (spreading rumors, insulting or attacking me/my ideas far more aggressively than is merited, in one case the person literally turned around and went to our manager and demanded that I be moved to another team because they found me unbearable to work with (no joke, like, literally 2 minutes after asking me out they contacted our manager and, despite how absurd it was, it wound up becoming a whole "thing").
As a result of that 10%, if I get asked out by a co-worker, I now worry about whether or not the rejected party will be an adult about it, which causes stress, and was not stress I had to worry about until they decided to share with me their interest. I do not want to inflict that kind of stress on another person, so I don't ask my co-workers out while I'm still their co-worker.
Evolution says that when I see you have more things than I have, I should smash your skull and take what you have. Yet we expect people to resist it.
If you aren't capable of reining in your urges, then you are the problem. If you can rein it in, and behave appropriately for the workplace, then no problem.
If nobody knows that you're thinking of fucking your coworker, it isn't a problem. If somebody knows, then the problem is that you aren't keeping your shit under control.
It's not that difficult a concept, but so many people here don't seem to get it.
Dude, there's literally nothing right or correct in what you posted.
People who harass other people are the ones at fault, full-stop, period. I don't care how the people they were harassing were dressed, the instant one party decided to impose themselves on the other party, they were in the wrong.
You are trying to tell people how to dress and groom themselves. You think, somehow, that your opinion on what they should wear should be important to them.
There is no compromise. If you can't restrain yourself from behaving inappropriately in a given situation when it comes to respecting another person's bodily autonomy or commenting inappropriately on their appearance, the problem is YOU, not them, period.
Once the reusable parts that will stay in orbit get into orbit and are reused, they don't have to be launched again with each and every mission. That, along with not having to build new ones for each mission is where the dramatic savings comes into play.
Most everything would be reusable - that's a decent chunk of change, and I disagree that it wouldn't make things dramatically cheaper.
I also think you're underestimating the cost of crew rating everything for an all-in-one launch vs having a dedicated crew-only launch + multiple supply launches (some of those supply launches, because they are redundant, would get to be reused by later missions)
And yes, the initial costs would be higher - this would be establishing a supply chain so that we could do regular trips with substantially greater capabilities, not just a bunch of one-off missions with limited capability. There would be costs associated with doing that, but eventually, the cost per trip would wind up being less expensive and more productive in terms of exploration than a number of novelty trips.
That would be the wrong way to do it, if you wanted to do it as anything other than a novelty (ex: Apollo).
It's expensive but relatively straightforward (as in, not THAT complicated, but not easy) to develop a supply chain that would be capable of getting humans to the moon and back on a regular basis, where over time the cost per trip would drop dramatically. Establishing the supply chain is expensive, but once established it would be, comparatively, inexpensive to get people from the Earth to the moon and back on a regular basis:
Multiple small launches of supplies etc. that would land on the moon as well as multiple launches of supplies and also landers to get into lunar orbit. Build the craft that would go from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and back in Earth orbit by sending up multiple modules and constructing them in space, ala the ISS. You would still need a lot of fuel, but launching fuel into space in the same craft as people is a bit less efficient as launching the fuel into space in a less expensive craft.
Other than for science and engineering purposes, I don't know that there would be a good argument that there is much value in regular back and forth to the moon, or having a constant human presence there (not a colony, but maybe an outpost kind of like the ISS, except, you know, on the moon), but it's certainly doable, probably for less than what the US spent invading Iraq.
This isn't to say we should do this, just that as far as space travel goes, it is possible to build a supply chain that would eventually yield some efficiencies, if we found a reason to invest the money into it.
- they are 100% free to the voter, which also means that none of the dependencies may cost money either - they are available in a way that doesn't require taking time off of work or time away from family or require traveling anywhere - there are people provided who will help individuals who don't understand how or want assistance in obtaining the ID obtain the ID - they do not require a fixed address so that the homeless are not disenfranchised
Not everyone is able to take time off of work or travel easily, nor can everyone afford even a nominal amount to pay for the necessary documentation, nor do they understand how to work through a potentially confusing bureaucracy, nor do they have an address, etc. Those people still deserve to have their vote counted.
Anyone who thinks we MUST have voter ID but isn't in favor of doing everything we can to ensure that NO ONE who is eligible to vote is unable to is just a supporter of voter suppression.
I worked for a start up that handed all new developers the keys to the kingdom on day 1, regardless of experience level.
On day 1 you were expected to deploy code changes to production (minor stuff - usually adding yourself to the about our team page) AND republish the production DB w/backup.
It was every bit as stupid as it sounded, and yes, in the very short time I was there before I got the hell out of dodge, at least 2 or 3 times the site was taken down completely by a day 1 newbie fucking this process up. At least they had backups, though.
If my next-door neighbor kills her husband because he cheated on her, that's bad.
If my next-door neighbor kills someone because they are foreign born, and makes it clear that she did it because they are foreign born, that's bad, but it also is trying to send a message to other foreign born people that they are at risk of random attacks despite doing nothing wrong. It's literally terrorism.
I know someone who accidentally killed someone with their car - they were stone sober, but got distracted by their kid screaming in the back seat, turned around to see what happened and boom, hit someone. Do you think that person deserves the same penalty as someone who got shitfaced and ran someone over with their car?
If people wanted to take down aircraft, they would be able to take down aircraft. They don't want to take down aircraft - they want to terrify the easily frightened so that the easily frightened will overreact and do insane stupid shit like we have in the US.
If the shoe bomber or the underpants bomber or any other kind of person they sent had been ACTUALLY tasked with taking down a plane rather than sowing fear and absurd responses, guess what? They would have set the fucking things off in the bathroom, not tried to do so while sitting in their fucking seat where people could see them. They sent morons to do something moronical, and the morons in charge ate that shit up.
If they actually wanted to kill people, they would have suicide bombers go and wait for security screening lines to inevitably get backed up. They'd kill way more people that way and they wouldn't have to go through the security theater at the airports that weeds out the dimmest bulbs in the bunch.
What they're doing now - attacking soft targets by ramming into crowds with trucks and shit - can only be meant to do one thing: terrify morons and get them to overreact, just like the morons are doing.
Fucking cowards. By that I mean the "terrorists" and the pants-pissing weaklings who vote the "leaders" into office who try this shit. Literally anyone who is legitimately afraid of being killed by a terrorist and doesn't live in a literal war zone is a fucking moron.
Know what killed and injured more people than the attack on London Bridge last week? FUCKING EVERYTHING. More people - by a fucking MILE - get killed every day from drunk driving in the US. More people get killed - by 10 fucking miles - by tobacco use in the US, every day. Domestic violence kills more people than terrorists do. Fuck, having to DRIVE instead of FLY because the airports are so fucking toxic kills more people, I'm sure.
If it weren't for having to interact with white men, I'd agree - being a white woman is pretty fucking fantastic. Actually, it's pretty fucking fantastic despite white men, but it would absolutely be better if there were fewer of them in positions of power and making decisions about things like my body.
It's not so much that it's a "profoundly important" event but rather that doing so can have an impact on the working relationship - and the context here is work/projects together, so that's relevant.
I work and have worked with mostly guys throughout my career. I have been asked out by guys I've worked with maybe a dozen time over the course of my career, while I was working with them. In 4-5 cases I've been asked out by guys I had worked with, but after I stopped working with them.
In the case of being asked out by someone I was working with AT THE TIME they asked, yes, it had an impact because I was put into the position of rejecting an advance from someone that I had to continue working with.
When I was early in my career, the men who asked me out were younger and as a consequence handled rejection less well than they might have if they were older - when I say "less well" I mean gossiping about me, trash talking me to other people, and in one case, trying to get me fired because he couldn't handle being in the same room with me.
Later in my career, when I was asked out, even if the men wouldn't have reacted badly to rejection, I tended to take it as significant because of my previous experiences when I had said no. At best it merely stressed me out - was this going to be a guy who acted out when rejected? At worst it got me to seriously consider leaving the company because the person who asked me out was wildly inappropriate (senior to me, worked directly with me) and I felt that my long-term viability at the organization would be threatened by saying no (and I still said no.)
The men who asked me out when I no longer worked with them? It wasn't a profoundly important event at all when they did. In a couple of cases I said yes, but in no way did I feel like "oh shit, my job is now in danger" if they reacted poorly to a rejection.
Also, on the notion of "moving slowly" - again, the context here is work/projects. This isn't a bar where people are going to be social; getting to know someone before asking them out makes sense in a work place. In fact, I would say that "someone not understanding that a work place is different than a bar" is probably one of the top reasons to reject someone out of hand.
Yeah, there's a difference between "moving slowly" and being a creeper.
Creepers are - wait for it - creepy. They behave creepily. Hanging around for no reason at all and being creepy is being a creeper. Taking the time to get to know someone in appropriate ways when you work with them is not being creepy in and of itself.
That you seem to struggle with this concept indicates to me that you probably - unintentionally, I'm sure - come off as creepy. People who don't "get" social interaction protocols usually do come off as creepy; usually it indicates they were poorly socialized or have something else going on that prevents them from grasping the basics of social interaction.
To your point of Bob and Yan, you do know that some people - shocker! - like to get to know someone a little bit better before they are interested in going on a date with them, right? In fact, I've even been in a long term relationship with someone who, had they asked me out on day one, I would have given a hard no to (and probably vice versa).
Yeah, you're completely ignoring the fact that men are overwhelmingly the initiators of violence against women, and often initiate such violence because their egos got dinged.
When a guy turns down an advance from a woman, he's probably not thinking "oh shit, I hope she doesn't physically attack me for saying no" but I guarantee you that most any woman is thinking that.
When I say "no" I do it in a polite way that is intended to minimize harm to the existing relationship (if there i one) and to minimize the potential for a guy to react violently to being rejected. I *should* just be able to say "no, sorry, not interested" and that would be that. Unfortunately, when I do say something like that, usually the response is anger, insults, and in a couple of cases, threats of violence. When it isn't hostile, it's often wheedling - as you say, negotiation, but the fact is, I was unambiguous, and they're just hoping I can be persuaded.
Most reasonable people will take being asked out by someone appropriate (ex: not their boss, not someone they work directly with) but are not interested in by saying no and leave it at that.
If a person isn't appropriate, then they may feel coerced or as if now things have been made weird, and that can trip it over into "unsolicited" and problematic.
If a person says no and, even if it were appropriate to ask in the first place keeps getting asked, that's unsolicited.
It's not that hard. The problem - in tech especially - is that people who aren't very good with people will often fuck up either the "appropriate" part or the "don't be a creepy asshole about it" part.
I have a friend who worked in a software shop a few years back. His boss was a psycho, and would shit all over people, and specifically would shit all over my friend because my friend was - I am not kidding - red-headed. Seriously, his boss would make fun of him for being a ginger. His boss would encourage the other people on the team to fuck with him as well.
My friend complained about it and was told to toughen up, they were just fucking around, and can't he take a joke?
My friend quit that job.
And you know what? In every fucking job interview he had after that, you better believe he made sure to check to see if they had a welcoming environment and people were expected to behave decently.
Now, imagine if you will, that you run into that situation fairly regularly, and perhaps you will understand why some people might have different priorities.
Look at this article and the number of absolute fucking morons who are posting in this thread about how women are this and women are that and women aren't suited for this work and blah-de-fucking-blah and ask yourself: Gee, do you think maybe there's a reason that has nothing to do with women in and of themselves that might just might be making them prioritize things a little differently when trying to get into a project?
I think you fail to understand just how much gender coded context there is even in those impersonal communications settings. People use pronouns to refer to another person quite regularly, and people grate when the wrong pronouns are used.
You're also doing the ridiculous thing of saying "people can't behave well, but it's just too difficult to get them to stop being assholes, so even though you did nothing wrong, you've got to change yours."
If it will only cause misfortune to come out as *gasp* female in this environment, then guess what, chuckles? The environment is FUCKED.
"Look, we can't get the guys to stop behaving like absolute fuckheads, so, even though you didn't do anything wrong, you're the one who is going to have to change."
It isn't like gayness was decriminalized and suddenly everyone in the US was like "oh, it's cool that people are gay even though previously I hated them and think they are abominations in the eyes of god and would fucking kill my kid if he was to come out as a fag".
It was decriminalized, and some protections were put in place, but there are still people who HATE gay folk (many of them in politics, at least one of them is the Vice Fucking President).
Gee, do you think that even though it isn't criminal some people might still have a problem being openly gay? It's not exactly hard to understand, unless one is - like you - an absolute and utter fucking moron.
It's not politically incorrect, it's just fucking moronical in the extreme.
Let's think, hm, I wonder why it is that now that it is no longer criminal to be gay and there are legal protections in place to protect people who are known to be gay from discrimination in some places, that more people would identify as gay.
I'll say it again without the sarcasm because you are obviously too fucking stupid to understand:
The number of people *openly* identifying as gay (or transgendered too) has been growing steadily BECAUSE IT ISN'T FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE GAY ANYMORE and because there are laws (in some jurisdictions) preventing discrimination by fucking morons like you against people who are gay.
Because there are efforts to get more men into nursing and more men into early childhood adjacent roles (pre-k and elementary teaching) positions.
Why does some stupid motherfucker always say that no one is concerned about those roles when it is trivial to google and discover that, indeed, people are concerned about not enough men being in those roles.
Why, it's almost as if those stupid motherfuckers are trying to push an agenda or something.
Zestimates are pointless because everyone except for absolute newbies to the real estate market knows they are completely wrong. Newbies will rapidly become educated - no, sorry, that ramshackle house your mom willed to you in the wilds of some depressed former coal mining region isn't worth $750,000 when literally every other home being sold near there is going for 1/10th that.
Further, Zillow re-writes history when Zestimates change - there's an historical graph they have that doesn't remotely match what their Zestimate is - anyone who has tracked a place over time knows this.
They hurt Zillow because there is literally no reason to go to Zillow over any other real estate site - if you can't trust their numbers and see that they are willing to lie to try and cover up just how bad their numbers are, why not use someone else who at least doesn't do that?
Slashdot Mirror
My issue with asking out/being asked out by coworkers is that it puts the person being asked out into an awkward situation, and that isn't fair to inflict on a person in a workplace.
The person being asked out now has to spend time thinking about something they may not have been thinking about before, they may be stressed out about how a rejection might be handled by the other party, they may be worried about how accepting will make them look to other co-workers, and a whole host of other concerns.
Over the course of my career, I've been asked out by co-workers a number of times. My standard response is a polite but firm no, along the lines of "thanks, but I don't mix work and dating." 90% of the time, they accept the no and everything is cool, maybe some bruised feelings but nothing major. 10% of the time it has made things toxic due to them behaving poorly (spreading rumors, insulting or attacking me/my ideas far more aggressively than is merited, in one case the person literally turned around and went to our manager and demanded that I be moved to another team because they found me unbearable to work with (no joke, like, literally 2 minutes after asking me out they contacted our manager and, despite how absurd it was, it wound up becoming a whole "thing").
As a result of that 10%, if I get asked out by a co-worker, I now worry about whether or not the rejected party will be an adult about it, which causes stress, and was not stress I had to worry about until they decided to share with me their interest. I do not want to inflict that kind of stress on another person, so I don't ask my co-workers out while I'm still their co-worker.
Evolution says that when I see you have more things than I have, I should smash your skull and take what you have. Yet we expect people to resist it.
If you aren't capable of reining in your urges, then you are the problem. If you can rein it in, and behave appropriately for the workplace, then no problem.
If nobody knows that you're thinking of fucking your coworker, it isn't a problem. If somebody knows, then the problem is that you aren't keeping your shit under control.
It's not that difficult a concept, but so many people here don't seem to get it.
Dude, there's literally nothing right or correct in what you posted.
People who harass other people are the ones at fault, full-stop, period. I don't care how the people they were harassing were dressed, the instant one party decided to impose themselves on the other party, they were in the wrong.
You are trying to tell people how to dress and groom themselves. You think, somehow, that your opinion on what they should wear should be important to them.
There is no compromise. If you can't restrain yourself from behaving inappropriately in a given situation when it comes to respecting another person's bodily autonomy or commenting inappropriately on their appearance, the problem is YOU, not them, period.
Realized I left out one part on the reusability:
Once the reusable parts that will stay in orbit get into orbit and are reused, they don't have to be launched again with each and every mission. That, along with not having to build new ones for each mission is where the dramatic savings comes into play.
Most everything would be reusable - that's a decent chunk of change, and I disagree that it wouldn't make things dramatically cheaper.
I also think you're underestimating the cost of crew rating everything for an all-in-one launch vs having a dedicated crew-only launch + multiple supply launches (some of those supply launches, because they are redundant, would get to be reused by later missions)
And yes, the initial costs would be higher - this would be establishing a supply chain so that we could do regular trips with substantially greater capabilities, not just a bunch of one-off missions with limited capability. There would be costs associated with doing that, but eventually, the cost per trip would wind up being less expensive and more productive in terms of exploration than a number of novelty trips.
That would be the wrong way to do it, if you wanted to do it as anything other than a novelty (ex: Apollo).
It's expensive but relatively straightforward (as in, not THAT complicated, but not easy) to develop a supply chain that would be capable of getting humans to the moon and back on a regular basis, where over time the cost per trip would drop dramatically. Establishing the supply chain is expensive, but once established it would be, comparatively, inexpensive to get people from the Earth to the moon and back on a regular basis:
Multiple small launches of supplies etc. that would land on the moon as well as multiple launches of supplies and also landers to get into lunar orbit. Build the craft that would go from Earth orbit to lunar orbit and back in Earth orbit by sending up multiple modules and constructing them in space, ala the ISS. You would still need a lot of fuel, but launching fuel into space in the same craft as people is a bit less efficient as launching the fuel into space in a less expensive craft.
Other than for science and engineering purposes, I don't know that there would be a good argument that there is much value in regular back and forth to the moon, or having a constant human presence there (not a colony, but maybe an outpost kind of like the ISS, except, you know, on the moon), but it's certainly doable, probably for less than what the US spent invading Iraq.
This isn't to say we should do this, just that as far as space travel goes, it is possible to build a supply chain that would eventually yield some efficiencies, if we found a reason to invest the money into it.
I'm all for voter IDs, assuming the following:
- they are 100% free to the voter, which also means that none of the dependencies may cost money either
- they are available in a way that doesn't require taking time off of work or time away from family or require traveling anywhere
- there are people provided who will help individuals who don't understand how or want assistance in obtaining the ID obtain the ID
- they do not require a fixed address so that the homeless are not disenfranchised
Not everyone is able to take time off of work or travel easily, nor can everyone afford even a nominal amount to pay for the necessary documentation, nor do they understand how to work through a potentially confusing bureaucracy, nor do they have an address, etc. Those people still deserve to have their vote counted.
Anyone who thinks we MUST have voter ID but isn't in favor of doing everything we can to ensure that NO ONE who is eligible to vote is unable to is just a supporter of voter suppression.
I worked for a start up that handed all new developers the keys to the kingdom on day 1, regardless of experience level.
On day 1 you were expected to deploy code changes to production (minor stuff - usually adding yourself to the about our team page) AND republish the production DB w/backup.
It was every bit as stupid as it sounded, and yes, in the very short time I was there before I got the hell out of dodge, at least 2 or 3 times the site was taken down completely by a day 1 newbie fucking this process up. At least they had backups, though.
Except the why matters.
If my next-door neighbor kills her husband because he cheated on her, that's bad.
If my next-door neighbor kills someone because they are foreign born, and makes it clear that she did it because they are foreign born, that's bad, but it also is trying to send a message to other foreign born people that they are at risk of random attacks despite doing nothing wrong. It's literally terrorism.
I know someone who accidentally killed someone with their car - they were stone sober, but got distracted by their kid screaming in the back seat, turned around to see what happened and boom, hit someone. Do you think that person deserves the same penalty as someone who got shitfaced and ran someone over with their car?
Why matters.
If people wanted to take down aircraft, they would be able to take down aircraft. They don't want to take down aircraft - they want to terrify the easily frightened so that the easily frightened will overreact and do insane stupid shit like we have in the US.
If the shoe bomber or the underpants bomber or any other kind of person they sent had been ACTUALLY tasked with taking down a plane rather than sowing fear and absurd responses, guess what? They would have set the fucking things off in the bathroom, not tried to do so while sitting in their fucking seat where people could see them. They sent morons to do something moronical, and the morons in charge ate that shit up.
If they actually wanted to kill people, they would have suicide bombers go and wait for security screening lines to inevitably get backed up. They'd kill way more people that way and they wouldn't have to go through the security theater at the airports that weeds out the dimmest bulbs in the bunch.
What they're doing now - attacking soft targets by ramming into crowds with trucks and shit - can only be meant to do one thing: terrify morons and get them to overreact, just like the morons are doing.
Fucking cowards. By that I mean the "terrorists" and the pants-pissing weaklings who vote the "leaders" into office who try this shit. Literally anyone who is legitimately afraid of being killed by a terrorist and doesn't live in a literal war zone is a fucking moron.
Know what killed and injured more people than the attack on London Bridge last week? FUCKING EVERYTHING. More people - by a fucking MILE - get killed every day from drunk driving in the US. More people get killed - by 10 fucking miles - by tobacco use in the US, every day. Domestic violence kills more people than terrorists do. Fuck, having to DRIVE instead of FLY because the airports are so fucking toxic kills more people, I'm sure.
Ah, so you're a troll then - please, do go on about your sad little existence.
If it weren't for having to interact with white men, I'd agree - being a white woman is pretty fucking fantastic. Actually, it's pretty fucking fantastic despite white men, but it would absolutely be better if there were fewer of them in positions of power and making decisions about things like my body.
If members of a project aren't already naturally abiding by any reasonable Code of Conduct, I don't want to be part of that project.
It's not so much that it's a "profoundly important" event but rather that doing so can have an impact on the working relationship - and the context here is work/projects together, so that's relevant.
I work and have worked with mostly guys throughout my career. I have been asked out by guys I've worked with maybe a dozen time over the course of my career, while I was working with them. In 4-5 cases I've been asked out by guys I had worked with, but after I stopped working with them.
In the case of being asked out by someone I was working with AT THE TIME they asked, yes, it had an impact because I was put into the position of rejecting an advance from someone that I had to continue working with.
When I was early in my career, the men who asked me out were younger and as a consequence handled rejection less well than they might have if they were older - when I say "less well" I mean gossiping about me, trash talking me to other people, and in one case, trying to get me fired because he couldn't handle being in the same room with me.
Later in my career, when I was asked out, even if the men wouldn't have reacted badly to rejection, I tended to take it as significant because of my previous experiences when I had said no. At best it merely stressed me out - was this going to be a guy who acted out when rejected? At worst it got me to seriously consider leaving the company because the person who asked me out was wildly inappropriate (senior to me, worked directly with me) and I felt that my long-term viability at the organization would be threatened by saying no (and I still said no.)
The men who asked me out when I no longer worked with them? It wasn't a profoundly important event at all when they did. In a couple of cases I said yes, but in no way did I feel like "oh shit, my job is now in danger" if they reacted poorly to a rejection.
Also, on the notion of "moving slowly" - again, the context here is work/projects. This isn't a bar where people are going to be social; getting to know someone before asking them out makes sense in a work place. In fact, I would say that "someone not understanding that a work place is different than a bar" is probably one of the top reasons to reject someone out of hand.
Yeah, there's a difference between "moving slowly" and being a creeper.
Creepers are - wait for it - creepy. They behave creepily. Hanging around for no reason at all and being creepy is being a creeper. Taking the time to get to know someone in appropriate ways when you work with them is not being creepy in and of itself.
That you seem to struggle with this concept indicates to me that you probably - unintentionally, I'm sure - come off as creepy. People who don't "get" social interaction protocols usually do come off as creepy; usually it indicates they were poorly socialized or have something else going on that prevents them from grasping the basics of social interaction.
To your point of Bob and Yan, you do know that some people - shocker! - like to get to know someone a little bit better before they are interested in going on a date with them, right? In fact, I've even been in a long term relationship with someone who, had they asked me out on day one, I would have given a hard no to (and probably vice versa).
Yeah, you're completely ignoring the fact that men are overwhelmingly the initiators of violence against women, and often initiate such violence because their egos got dinged.
When a guy turns down an advance from a woman, he's probably not thinking "oh shit, I hope she doesn't physically attack me for saying no" but I guarantee you that most any woman is thinking that.
When I say "no" I do it in a polite way that is intended to minimize harm to the existing relationship (if there i one) and to minimize the potential for a guy to react violently to being rejected. I *should* just be able to say "no, sorry, not interested" and that would be that. Unfortunately, when I do say something like that, usually the response is anger, insults, and in a couple of cases, threats of violence. When it isn't hostile, it's often wheedling - as you say, negotiation, but the fact is, I was unambiguous, and they're just hoping I can be persuaded.
You do get that "unsolicited" in this context usually means "inappropriate and/or coming after a previous advance was spurned" right?
Unsolicited in this case usually means unwanted.
Most reasonable people will take being asked out by someone appropriate (ex: not their boss, not someone they work directly with) but are not interested in by saying no and leave it at that.
If a person isn't appropriate, then they may feel coerced or as if now things have been made weird, and that can trip it over into "unsolicited" and problematic.
If a person says no and, even if it were appropriate to ask in the first place keeps getting asked, that's unsolicited.
It's not that hard. The problem - in tech especially - is that people who aren't very good with people will often fuck up either the "appropriate" part or the "don't be a creepy asshole about it" part.
Let me explain this in a simple way:
I have a friend who worked in a software shop a few years back. His boss was a psycho, and would shit all over people, and specifically would shit all over my friend because my friend was - I am not kidding - red-headed. Seriously, his boss would make fun of him for being a ginger. His boss would encourage the other people on the team to fuck with him as well.
My friend complained about it and was told to toughen up, they were just fucking around, and can't he take a joke?
My friend quit that job.
And you know what? In every fucking job interview he had after that, you better believe he made sure to check to see if they had a welcoming environment and people were expected to behave decently.
Now, imagine if you will, that you run into that situation fairly regularly, and perhaps you will understand why some people might have different priorities.
Look at this article and the number of absolute fucking morons who are posting in this thread about how women are this and women are that and women aren't suited for this work and blah-de-fucking-blah and ask yourself: Gee, do you think maybe there's a reason that has nothing to do with women in and of themselves that might just might be making them prioritize things a little differently when trying to get into a project?
I think you fail to understand just how much gender coded context there is even in those impersonal communications settings. People use pronouns to refer to another person quite regularly, and people grate when the wrong pronouns are used.
You're also doing the ridiculous thing of saying "people can't behave well, but it's just too difficult to get them to stop being assholes, so even though you did nothing wrong, you've got to change yours."
If it will only cause misfortune to come out as *gasp* female in this environment, then guess what, chuckles? The environment is FUCKED.
"Look, we can't get the guys to stop behaving like absolute fuckheads, so, even though you didn't do anything wrong, you're the one who is going to have to change."
Are you seriously this fucking stupid?
It isn't like gayness was decriminalized and suddenly everyone in the US was like "oh, it's cool that people are gay even though previously I hated them and think they are abominations in the eyes of god and would fucking kill my kid if he was to come out as a fag".
It was decriminalized, and some protections were put in place, but there are still people who HATE gay folk (many of them in politics, at least one of them is the Vice Fucking President).
Gee, do you think that even though it isn't criminal some people might still have a problem being openly gay? It's not exactly hard to understand, unless one is - like you - an absolute and utter fucking moron.
It's not politically incorrect, it's just fucking moronical in the extreme.
Let's think, hm, I wonder why it is that now that it is no longer criminal to be gay and there are legal protections in place to protect people who are known to be gay from discrimination in some places, that more people would identify as gay.
I'll say it again without the sarcasm because you are obviously too fucking stupid to understand:
The number of people *openly* identifying as gay (or transgendered too) has been growing steadily BECAUSE IT ISN'T FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE GAY ANYMORE and because there are laws (in some jurisdictions) preventing discrimination by fucking morons like you against people who are gay.
Know how I know you are ignorant?
Because there are efforts to get more men into nursing and more men into early childhood adjacent roles (pre-k and elementary teaching) positions.
Why does some stupid motherfucker always say that no one is concerned about those roles when it is trivial to google and discover that, indeed, people are concerned about not enough men being in those roles.
Why, it's almost as if those stupid motherfuckers are trying to push an agenda or something.
Zestimates are pointless because everyone except for absolute newbies to the real estate market knows they are completely wrong. Newbies will rapidly become educated - no, sorry, that ramshackle house your mom willed to you in the wilds of some depressed former coal mining region isn't worth $750,000 when literally every other home being sold near there is going for 1/10th that.
Further, Zillow re-writes history when Zestimates change - there's an historical graph they have that doesn't remotely match what their Zestimate is - anyone who has tracked a place over time knows this.
They hurt Zillow because there is literally no reason to go to Zillow over any other real estate site - if you can't trust their numbers and see that they are willing to lie to try and cover up just how bad their numbers are, why not use someone else who at least doesn't do that?