We need more people like you who don't know what they are talking about chiming into this conversation.

So building a companies culture around after hour drinking is alright with you? You can't see any way that could cause problems for people with families or other responsibilities? Maybe the only obvious thing about it is it's a bad idea?

So is it pronounced hair-ASS-mint or HARRAS-mint?

I got laid in my office once. At after work drinks a coworker bet me I wouldn't run around the office buck naked. I did and she didn't have any cash on her.

I can guess at maybe some cultural difference here. But for sure if an Irish woman told me the bolded, I'd wonder if she might consider switching jobs, because those sound like some ****ty colleagues.

And I dunno about the participation rates, either. It's true that the bulk of habitual participants are childless or have relatively old children, but I'm not aware of a significant gender divide.

It's like you want me to accept this polarised range of women who either really want to participate, but can't, and those who don't want to participate at all, and both cases mean everyone should just not? IME the former wouldn't want people to stop just because they can't join in, and frankly it's a pity about the dry ****es who just aren't interested.

And I hope it's clear we're still talking about ~peers going out, here. It's honestly a pain whenever the boss tags along, you can never wait for them to leave so you can get to griping about whatever dumbass thing they've been saying or doing this week. Obviously some David Brent type cajoling subordinates down to the boozer, almost unavoidably with the implication that those who come along will be in a better position for advancement/whatever, is very bad and should be strongly discouraged.

I avoid arguing with MRAs even more than I avoid racists, but since I slipped up a while back and then got an angry PM from jj demanding an apology(?) yesterday I'll give you one article on early gender socialization to get you started with your googling. I don't know really where these things are supposed to go, everyone agrees that men and women are raised differently (MRAs just get really sad whenever they see evidence this might be changing) and its widely acknowledged that sociologists consider gender to be closely linked with interpersonal communication skills (cue: SJWs are infecting our universities!). The biology vs gender socialization debate is more open, but if the conclusion I'm supposed to reach is that men are just biologically deficient at dealing with other people, then I guess we just need to ban all men until we figure out what's going on.

Anyway, here you go, jj

http://www.stjohns-chs.org/history/a...enderroles.pdf

tl;dr we teach boys to be obstinate and insensitive, relative to the socialization of girls, and then wonder why all these dudes keep obliviously harassing women.

I've only seen suzzer say that ITT, and I'm pretty sure he was half-joking. I've mostly been concerned with defending all manner of behaviours that stop short of overt sexual/romantic overture, because a lot of people seem convinced they all have to be eliminated root and branch, it's the only way to be sure.

Really I'm just wondering how much we want to mutilate ourselves in the service of capital. Clearer and stronger company policies, easier, perhaps anonymised internal reporting facilities, strong independent bodies with investigatory powers, harsher punishments for transgessors (and maybe especially severely increased company liability), these all seem like achievable things that don't require us to check our innate gregariousness at the door. And down the line, focusing on educating men about appropriate and inappropriate interactions, the loathsomeness of sexual entitlement and adjacent attitudes, etc, seems like it will not only solve this problem, but a host of societal problems occuring outside the workplace as well.

Co-sign.

Your first paragraph is pretty striking when you think about it. Do you think that your current workplace has zero people who act inappropriately? If so, must be nice, would love to know how that workplace avoided this systemic societal problem. If not, why is it unreasonable for women to want to avoid situations with alcohol and at least one creep? As for the suggestion that a woman in that a workplace that has creeps in it should look for a new job, I would encourage you to mull that one over a bit. A lot of women are economically dependent on their current jobs and don’t have the luxury of finding a new one just to avoid a creep at work.

I’m really not trying to tell you that going out for drinks is evil or means you are a bad person. All I’m saying is that it introduces lots of gendered problems and isn’t necessary. You can be sociable with your colleagues without drinking with them or dating them. You can get laid without dating coworkers. To the extent people are serious about solving sexual harassment and discrimination, you ought to consider whether there are solutions that involve you personally doing something different than what you prefer. It’s easy to endorse harsher punishments on harassers and company liability for incidents. That’s all somebody else’s responsibility. What ought to at least be considered is whether there’s more to be done by the non-creeps.

I said ban employment a few hundred posts ago.

But, yeah, employers aren't your parents or owners and let's not make the notion of wage slavery sound reasonable. If a company signed an agreement with two people as independent contractors and they flirted with each other, would you think the company should be able to stop them? I'm a very small time employer myself and while I might have to deal with it if there were a problem between employees, I'd sure feel like a dick if I prescribed their acceptable behavior with each other to this degree.

Fair enough. I will be more careful in my responses. Is it possible in return that you refrain from things like the "lol, don't put your flirting..." translations? It is pretty difficult to not make it about me when you are using extrapolations to attack my character. It gets me kind of hot, and it certainly doesn't add to the discussion. There is no reason to assign motives or explain to people what they are "really" saying unless you want them to defend themselves.

That would be stunning if anyone said that. But really nobody said only, or hot babes.

Obv that isn't happening directly, but people are going to be talking shop, networking, bonding, and other things that will add value to what goes on in the workplace, and it's problematic if some people are excluded. I get that there's also a huge upside to having an afterwork get-together, but surely there's a grey area here.

But the point is right that there's a huge downside to banning it, namely totalitarianism. The company has no right to tell people they can't drink together after work. There's a hard and fast period after that. I don't care if the consequence is an asteroid smashing into the Earth.

What would you all do with married couples? Where i work there are at least three i know of and probably more that i dont since my workplace is large.

The rule here is they just cant supervise each other. But under some strict no dating rule how would that work out? Do they got to go or would they be grandfathered in?

I wasn't really serious, but I do think if you're worried about going drinking with co-workers because they're a bunch of skeeves, you probably have bigger issues with your workplace than not wanting to go drinking with them.

I work in a fairly small office with ~25 employees, and I doubt there's any inappropriate behaviour (by which I mean, behaviour regarded as inappropriate by its subject). My office is about 60/40 women:men, that might explain some of it.

To the bolded, well, IIRC it introduces two problems, one of which ("I don't wanna!") I frankly don't care about, the other I see as part of the general malaise of patriarchy, something that is better tackled through wholesale adjustment of male attitudes and behaviours than annihilating whole chunks of normal and almost entirely healthy human interaction and collective catharsis.

And I really meant it when I said that working mothers who want to go out but can't are unlikely to thank you for like, removing the temptation. "Hey Alice, we know you'd love to come out with us for a few to gripe about that last meeting, but we've decided that we'll forego that pleasure, just for you, so, y'know, you're welcome." I know I'd feel like handmade **** if I were Alice in that spot.

A large part of the reason harassment conversation revolves around work is not because it is the most common place for it to occur but because it's a legal risk that has a financial motivation to mitigate. The hr rules that have grown from it track with the no contact being discussed here, but likely have been stopped by a point of diminishing returns.

Example, supervisors not being able to have reports they are involved with. Married couples not working in the same dept or locations. Training managers not being allowed to socialize after hours with new hires in their evaluation period. None of this combats bad behavior, it mitigates the risk of lawsuit, and if even more drastic rules did that better they would be leveled.

The answer "go get laid at the bar!!" is unfair and does not address the problem of how women are treated or assaulted. More women were hit on awkwardly, followed, bothered, harassed, assaulted from verbally to groped and all the way to raped in bars and clubs last night than at work yesterday. That should be their best option to meet people? Or tinder. Or forcing themselves into social settings they may not want to be involved in. All of those options exist, already, but work isn't allowed because some men are pigs and we have to use aggressive chemo to kill the cancer cells. I don't buy it and it's not because I want to have a ton of fun sending emails or making sex jokes at the water cooler.

If the Starbucks example is an exaggeration to get people to think about the fundamental issue, lol that the thread wasn't already on that track, and okay....now what?

We definitely can't think about all of the proposals you guys are making that would address the problem by imposing additional liability on corporations because my wife is still mad that there's a creep at the after-work drinks, and what are you "good guys" doing to address that? Nothing, that's what. Probably a bunch of Starbucks pervs if you ask me.

Here is you initial vapid post that i was responding to. As expected, the research you provided does not give any support for your "We don't teach men basic social skills, never drill out the toddler era narcissism, and end up with millions of dudes just barreling through life without even the slimmest realization that other people exist" conclusion. Nothing, nada, zilch. It discusses social inereactions of children and how the genders differ in determining popularity, valuing different traits and behavior. No mention of toddler era narcisim or the lack of social skils in men (or boys). Not one word comports with your beliefs.

We get it: you are a woman, men are at fault for your victim status in life and it angers you. You are single, under or unemployed, don't have any significant relationships with men (except your dad who is a beneficary of the patriarch society and pays for your subsistence) and want society to completely change so that you can succeed.

I find it funny that you think i am angry simply because i sent you a pm. Perhaps you should self reflect on your own anger issues.

I believe you can provide "scholarly" writngs that support your opinions, but those works, like your views, don't receive any criticial acceptance from society or their peers. Please keep trying. Or just continue to lurk after "sharing" or slink away entirely.

Obviously no one is suggesting banning after-work get-togethers*; I didn't know that was even on the table. Just pointing out that there are tradeoffs involved.

* Maybe Johnny T is, I have no clue WTF he's even saying.

Yeah there are a lot of clearly stated and undertood points being offered all around itt. I get it. I went at the king and missed. Throw the tomatoes, but at least put some substance in there.

Like, why don't you clarify what is being suggested regarding afterwork get togethers since it's so obvious what is not?

And if you are not sure my position on banning after work get togethers---no.

Hard to tell. At any rate, being over specific with rules is wrong, punishes harmless behavior, and a long list of rules is not more often followed than something simple like "don't be an ahole" or even "be kind". But, if the thread is a psa for "check to see if your social event scheduling is excluding people at work" then for the price of a kilobyte or two of 2p2 hard drive space, it's fine.

The official position of a company though should be to respect that the employees are 100% in charge of what they do off the clock.

LOL no you don't, it makes you even angrier. You're bad at hiding stuff.

It's been a good illustration of how these issues are not going to be resolved without fully empowering women. It may all have been well meaning but seriously?

It can't be though. If you are a manager you are in that capacity legally, at least in California, 24/7 when it comes to sexual harassment. If I am at a party and one of my reports confides in me that someone groped her, or even less egregious assault, I am legally "on notice" and required by law to escalate it. If I fail to do so in a timely manner, not only is the company liable in the case of a lawsuit, I am personally, even if she wants it to be "off the record" at the time. If I observe something that happens outside of work hours it also counts.

For the record, I am explaining this not because I believe that the legal protection motives of hr are the motives we should use as human beings when discussing this issue. I don't. I'm not confident this explanation will resonate with or satisfy the gotcha crowd.

What I am saying, Trolly and others, is that this is a topic of keen interest to corporations for financial reasons. They absolutely are trying to mitigate the incidents at work to limit liability and place whatever rules they think they can enforce well. They give advice to managers like is being floated here--"never put yourself in a situation where you might get sued or witness something you don't want to" not because they want to stop the behavior, they want to reduce their liability. The tricky Starbucks emailers still do it anyway cuz they are personally flawed.

I, and I assume dvaut, act in the exact way he is asking to be legislated (though lol at not having coffee with a female coworker, attractive or otherwise) because we are faithful, married men who along with other reasons are not compelled to pursue anyone at work regardless of how hot they are. It isn't hard at all. For married men who cheat with their coworkers, they are not going to be slowed down by hr vs setting fire to their supposed vows.