[smoyer]

"Sure, if a man makes 2 offers for a "drinks after work?" and the woman refuses"

Turn that around ... if the woman is making the offer and the man refuses, he's likely to still feel flattered but the woman is likely to get the signal and move on.

But ... many men are absolutely clueless and will never get that signal. On the other hand, if the man asks every day but goes no further, is that really sexual harassment or is it just an expression of interest? I can't speak as a woman, but I'd imagine she's thinking "this guy is truly clueless". Does she also get irritated by it over time? Probably?

So I think part of this discussion needs to acknowledge that you can't write HR policy that will satisfy everyone. What you can do is put absolute limits in place, and provide a way for positive feedback - my favorite part of the story is that the woman and man eventually rebuilt trust and had a good working relationship. In my experience, this will never work with some people - it becomes an obsession for them and policy is irrelevant.

[mjolk]

> if the woman is making the offer and the man refuses, he's likely to still feel flattered but the woman is likely to get the signal and move on.

I've had the opposite experience. I didn't feel flattered and she didn't get the hint.

>But ... many men are absolutely clueless and will never get that signal.

Weasel words. We're in Anecdote City right now.

>So I think part of this discussion needs to acknowledge that you can't write HR policy that will satisfy everyone.

The HR policies exist to prevent sexual harassment and to optimize for "safe against lawsuits." They're not supposed to make people satisfied or happy, they're there to protect the company.

[smoyer]

"Weasel words"? - I don't agree. My observations are based on 35 years in the workforce and I've seen all sorts of weird male-female interaction.

"Broad generalizations"? - Certainly. I'm not surprised at all that you've experienced exactly the opposite interaction (and I've seen extreme cases of that twice). But I also worded my post carefully to convey really loose values - "the woman is likely" and "many men are".

I haven't collected statistics, my experience is that men are more attuned to what's appropriate than "in my distant path" and that women are less tolerant of it (both good things IMHO). So you can disregard my opinions, but if we're going to require double-blind studies to post in HN comments, this place is going to get very quiet.

I do agree with your paragraph about HR policies and lawsuits. Isn't it nice on those occasions when HR is better than that?

[dragonwriter]

> But ... many men are absolutely clueless and will never get that signal.

Which is irrelevant to the existence of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, or the employer's tort liability for failing to address those things, and so not particularly relevant to what the employer rationally should do in the situation.

> So I think part of this discussion needs to acknowledge that you can't write HR policy that will satisfy everyone.

HR policy isn't intended to satisfy everyone, its intended to maximize benefits and minimize costs to the employer of its relation with its (current, past, and potential future) employees, and an important area of cost minimization it deals with is costs of litigation and ensuing legal liabilities.