That's a whole other topic. My point is the arguments that pursuing work relationships are -EV are valid but pretty universal to most relationships. I mean there is plenty of conventional wisdom against marrying as young as dvaut did also, with loads of cautionary tales to back it up.

But it's exactly the same because starting a long term relationship is a huge risk but necessary if you want one.
I agree it is a problem for statistics, but it is only an issue of definition for useful data to me. I don't think it's stupid to include it in the conversation. I'd argue that being permissive of hostile work environment type behavior does at least as much to create a culture that encourages quid pro quo or other aggressive sexual misconduct as being permissive of romantic relationships within standard hr policy.

Yes, but putting up artificial barriers to exit (i.e. getting married and financially intertwined) is not necessary to have a long term relationship. I mean, getting financially intertwined to some degree is probably necessary, but not to the extent that it becomes a huge risk.

So forget about the institutions, or the derail of whether there is a valid reason to want it or not. I doubt I disagree with you.

Buying a house together. Moving in as a committed couple and getting furniture together. Sharing bank accounts, credit etc. Splitting up earning duties or supporting each other through education. All recipes for terrible endings when they end and they mostly do.

Agreed.

I don't understand how permitting consensual romantic relationships encourages quid pro quo sexual harassment, full stop. I really don't care about Kelly Smith being mad that Barbara Jones always sides with her husband at meetings. This is not a large social problem.

Again, sexual harassment by nature involves the idea that the conduct is unwanted. It's not "literally never shalt a man ask a woman out to lunch;" it's Gary from marketing telling you you have a hot ass after you've declined his previous 3 awkward invitations to drinks. It's him sending you sexually suggestive emails after you've communicated that you're not interested in him that way, thanks. I honestly think those of you who want to interpret social rules around workplace behavior so inflexibly that even the suggestion of sexuality offends you should think more deeply about whether you're being rational or realistic.

It is akin to the anti-free speech argument that those who's speech I don't agree with should be forced to shut up because it offends me. How rational and realistic is this position, yet it is proffered everyday by the political leftists in the other political threads.

Whose argument is akin to that?

Agree with your main points but the bolded is an issue. Those behaviors are not ever okay for many women even if some don't mind it, and the onus should not be placed on them to deal with refusing something that is disrespectful even once while they are in a workplace. They have a contract for employment so they can't just leave, or just ignore it. They also may not be bold enough to be direct and that is not their obligation just because they exist and someone is attracted to them.

I don't agree that work relationships always lead down a bad path, but I highly doubt many were sparked by a relentless hot ass comment after being shut down numerous times. That's not even flirting.

That's all true, but we need rules for deciding what constitutes harassment and a single isolated incident of someone saying "nice ass" doesn't seem to rise to the level, even if it's rude or inappropriate. But if someone at work is genuinely attracted to you and tries to communicate that they'd like to go out with you in a non-threatening way, I don't think it's imposing too much suggest that you might say "no, thanks" or indicate that you're not interested in some way, even if that's just through avoidance and not replying.

There are rules laid out by the courts in the sexual harassment litigation, which was the point of my initial request to Lycosid for her research materials. Instead of using the court's definition and guidelines, the lefties like to use sexual harassment in the broadest sense possible (anything that offends the victim). By their definition, inappropriate jokes, touching and rape are all equivalent and all need to be extinguished from societal interactions between the sexes.

I agree. The issue is people's ignorance of boundaries or awkwardness, which as pointed out when coupled with a lack of other attractive traits creates problems. I get where that leads to the argument of don't ever do it, but how about always be respectful as a rule instead? There are a ton of ways people succeed at acting on mutual interest that don't entail inappropriate behavior. The idea that it occurs the same way people are picked up in bars is too simple. Usually develops over time.

So, to re-iterate, we're discussing whether the workplace should be regarded as a magical zone where we must pretend to be robots because of working mothers(??) or whether that's actually a dumb idea and we shouldn't do that at all because every reason I've heard why we should applies equally well to like 95% of social situations.

Anyone else who clearly hasn't been following the convo want to jump on with a question?

I admit I am pretty well baffled myself. If it helps, my point was that most forms of socialising exclude working mothers, and if that's not 'problematic', you have work to do establishing it's an issue in the workplace.

.

No they aren't equivalent. Yes they have no place in most workplaces and should be eradicated.

I mean this is simple stuff. I will never understand why this is so hard for you guys.

Maybe the confusion here is that I'm talking about work-derivative forms of socialization (which have work ramifications in terms of mentoring, promotions, etc.), while you're possibly interpreting me as saying that all forms of social life need to be equally accessible to all. I think it's problematic if work social life systemically excludes some people, but not if non-work social life works the same way.

I was absolutely not referencing her typos or even her lack of citations(though Jesus Christ lady you're writing a ****ing book her, Wikipedia has citations). What I was referencing was her slack jawed and earnest acceptance of the alt-right's transparent bull****.

It's sort of tricky to really know if your advances are wanted or not until you shoot your shot. Just seems like there's a very slippery slope between problematic behavior and non-problematic behavior, especially when people have different standards for what's acceptable. Plus it gives cover to the creep who will insist that he is just engaging in innocent flirtations when he tell the HR chick she has a nice ass. Seems like you want to tell the guys "happy hunting, but don't cross the line or you'll get a harassment lawsuit." Seems easier to just tell people to knock it off when they're on the clock.

*shrug* I just don't see how that isn't problematic.

I get that there will always be flirting at work and people will tell off-color jokes and commit minor transgressions. I don't think that's a reason we shouldn't have norms in place that discourage that kind of thing. OK, sure, things could be taken to an inflexible extreme where no hint of sexuality is allowable at work, but all these harassment stories that are breaking makes think that we aren't there yet.

Sure, but then we're back to the hierarchical thing. Don't Booze Down, works for me. Still see no problem at all in workmates of roughly equal standing hitting the bar for a few after work to gripe about their ******* manager.

Like a lot of reactionaries she deprives one side of all agency. She went on Chapo so she inexplicably has leftist credibility but all of her writing on trigger warnings is indistinguishable from Rubin and the like.

And post-book, her twitter presence... she melted down over Freddie DeBoer getting mean things said about him because he was slandering people. He was one of her friends. That **** is telling. Everything I've heard from her makes it seem like she thinks the 2015 or so alt-right was the beginning of the internet, she evinces almost no familiarity with it.


She's one of those anti-PC people who inexplicably cast themselves as being from the left but whose writing about all these subjects betrays a lot more sympathy with the right than I think they believe comes across.

I'm stealing this **** from a twitter comment in the thread, but her respectful "look at these Nazis, what could've made them that way" writing is absolutely the sort of **** leftists freak out when it's in mainstream papers. Being a ****ing Nazi made them that way.

Ban employment.

So much agree, which is why it's so frustrating when people try to convince you that "53%" of women have been sexually harassed at work. I mean, come on now.

Nah, we've gone off the deep end here. "You can't go out for drinks after work because it systematically oppresses working mothers" reads like a strawman liberal position a deplorable would make up.

Like DVaut I love repeating myself, so I'll say again that consent seems like a pretty bright line to me, and none of this slippery slope business seems to really be addressing that. Susan and Danielle don't have to have the exact same standards for what's acceptable to them for Johnny to know when he's been told no, asked to stop, met with disinterest or disapproval, etc.

So, yes, if you decide to say something sexually suggestive toward a coworker--at work or outside of work--you are taking a social risk, but as All In Flynn pointed out, that's true across a wide variety of social contexts. Should I not ask Jenny to the Magic Under the Sea Dance because what if she says no and what if we then have to see each other in chemistry class? Yeah, that's awkward, sorry, bro, rejection sucks, but that doesn't make asking Jenny to the dance harassment. Politely asking someone for a date doesn't violate their boundaries, their consent, their will. Repeatedly persisting in asking them on a date after they've said no is different.

I agree harassment is a major problem and that there are institutional power structures that shelter it. I'm just responding to what's been proposed by some ITT to address it, namely a general prohibition on workplace romance and flirting.

I suppose that could work. OTOH, there are still plenty of reasons it's a bad idea to introduce romantic drama into the workplace.

All-In's idea that the workplace should have the same rules as other social settings is easily the worst take in this thread. Should Jenny at the dance be able to sue me if I tell her she has a nice ass and keep asking her out?

I dunno if you're just bad at reading or you're doing it on purpose, but either way you can just go ahead and stop replying/referring to me and stuff I've said ITT, you have literally not once engaged with a single point I've made.

These are good points, but I still thought her account of the 4chan culture was pretty accurate. Basically I think the book was really sloppy and suffers a lot from Nagle's TERF alliances, but it was still noteworthy because it offered a compelling account of how modern neo-Nazism operates in 2017. Something that your average Boomer could pick up and somewhat understand. I mean honestly any book claiming to be a comprehensive history of the alt-right on the internet is bound to be incomplete, but has anyone done a better job getting all the relevant information in one place? Because I will buy and read that book, like, now.