[sverige]

I said my defensive stance on this "probably" hindered the careers of "some" of them.

I never said I intentionally hindered the careers of any of them. When facing a choice of going above and beyond to help develop a female employee's career and risking my own career (and my family's well-being) by exposing myself to the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment, I have chosen selfishly. (Here is where you tell us all how you would choose to risk your career to advance your female employee "because it's the right thing to do.")

It's exactly this sort of rhetoric that makes it difficult to have any rational discussion about how best to develop talent (whether men or women) in the current climate. The thesis that MeToo is more harmful than helpful is unpopular, I know, but thankfully no one has to defend its helpfulness because discussion of the realities involved is forbidden.

[tptacek]

You were right the first time. You discriminated your behavior based on the gender of your reports, knowing that doing so harmed the careers of the women who reported to you. It's a little weird that you think you can somehow rationalize your way out of that. It's even weirder that you think that your own perceived self-interest somehow immunizes you. You said it yourself! Own it!

And then stop doing it!

[sverige]

I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally.

It's a little weird that you think you have all the information you need to pass judgment on my career from a few short comments on an internet forum. It's even weirder that you haven't made any substantive comment or query on how that policy played out in real life, but rather resorted instantly to shrill pronouncements on my character.

If you can't look back over your career and see where some things you did might have been harmful to some of your employees, you either lack self-awareness or you never had any employees. I'm guessing it's the latter. You have way too many internet points for someone with real responsibility for other people's well-being at work.

Finally, I no longer manage people, so I have stopped doing it. I hope you can sleep now.

[tedunangst]

> I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally.

Did you also refuse to meet with men privately?

[sverige]

Yes I did. Everyone got the same treatment. Anything "private," such as disciplinary action that needed to be delivered, was always done with a witness, whether the employee was a man or a woman. Everything else was done in groups or in the open. It's not that hard, but suddenly I'm Mike Pence for suggesting it's a sound strategy to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Edit: No, I don't socialize with the people at work. I have friends for that.

[naasking]

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same.

I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more risk averse. Sad that such measures are necessary, but we all decide our acceptable level of risk.

[tptacek]

Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do.

(Advising people not to meet with anyone without a witness is not good management advice, for obvious reasons, but at least it's not unlawful).

[alexforster]

> the very real and well-known risk of being accused of sexual harassment

Right there - that's the sexist part. Do you believe there's an epidemic of vengeful women running around falsely accusing men of sexual harassment?

Because there isn't - but I'd love to hear your stories.

[dang]

Please don't take a bad thread further into flamewar.

[sverige]

Accusations of sexual harassment are commonplace at many work places. False accusations are disturbingly common. Don't ask me if you don't believe me -- it's obvious already that you don't anyway.

Rather, go make friends with someone who works in HR at a large company that employs lots of men and women. For this experiment, best not to try to befriend someone at your workplace. They may be hesitant to speak freely, since it could come back on them. HR people are nothing if not close-mouthed. At least the ones who last long enough to have good stories.

But lest you accuse me of dodging the question, I'll say that my personal favorite story is the woman who accused me of sexual harassment because I refused to remove a bad quality score from her record. (This was a call center, quality scores were only removed in very narrow circumstances.) She was three levels below me on the org chart.

I spoke to her exactly twice, in public, with several witnesses. She asked me to remove the score. I went back to my office, reviewed the call, and went back to let her know the score would not be removed. I was the final authority in any appeal of quality scores.

A week later I was informed by HR that she had accused me of sexual harassment. It turns out that she also contacted the FBI about me. Not even kidding.

But you might think that was a good idea. Hell, I might be a Russian bot sowing discord to affect the midterm elections and hasten the decline of America. I mean, I don't meet alone with women! Clearly that's un-American!

[harryh]

If you are intentionally treating men and women differently in a way that "probably hindered the careers of some of the women who were my direct and indirect reports" then it's not only un-American but it's also illegal discrimination.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[dang]

Please don't perpetuate flamewars.

[tptacek]

I get that we're smushed pretty far into the right margin on this thread (I didn't realize that before, since I got here by following Rayiner comments), and I get that there's a distinction between "you should be ashamed of yourself" and "here's what's problematic about what you said", but this is not a random pointless thread; I can give you links to multiple other times people on HN have implied that men shouldn't meet privately with women, or even that they should avoid hiring them because they won't be able to meet privately with them, and the people saying that should be ashamed of themselves (and should also probably talk to an employment lawyer).

I'll back off just like everyone else will now that you've stepped in, but there aren't really two sides to this issue; someone said something problematic, and other people responded, perhaps heatedly but not unexpectedly or gratuitously so.

[dang]

It's true; I've seen those threads as well. And I don't disagree on the fundamentals. But people can and need to respond to problematic comments without getting aggressive—for the sake of the community, if not for the person being attacked. Otherwise we end up with a cage match. I know you know this, but perhaps the explanation is helpful to others.

Fortunately most of the responses did just that (i.e. responded cogently without being aggressive) and were the more effective for it.

[sverige]

I treated the men exactly the same way. It's not illegal discrimination to manage people without having 1:1s with them. It's not illegal discrimination to manage people in such a way as to eliminate any suggestion that you might have sexually harassed them. And it is not illegal discrimination if managing that way has a side effect of possibly not providing every opportunity to develop an individual.

That is what I was hoping to discuss: how some of the side effects of MeToo might actually be detrimental to actual working women, and what strategies might be used to change that outcome.

Instead, that comment only opened the door for a bunch of posturing and virtue signaling so that the wider audience knows without a doubt that those who reply are nothing at all like this sexist commenter.

I've explained further what I meant in another comment in this thread and it would be very tiresome to repeat it.

It is worth repeating, however, that your default response is to attempt to shame me, like other commenters here. Why can none of you provide a substantive response to my original comment? Do you really think all women are virtuous all the time, and all men are weak slaves to their sexual impulses so it must be true if they're accused?

Nowhere have I defended anyone who sexually harasses employees. (We haven't even touched the possibility that men can be victims of sexual harassment, but I don't have any faith that would be productive in this forum.)

No, I merely shared a strategy that was successful and legal, but I have been treated as if I were hitting on the women who worked for me and using them for my personal pleasure. I'm embarrassed for you, but I need to point out that that is the exact opposite of what I have done at work for the past thirty years. I have almost certainly furthered the careers of more women than all my detractors in this thread combined. Yet I stand accused, and that is enough to convict.

So which is it? Are all managers legally obligated to do everything in their power to ensure that women receive not just the same exact management that the men on the team receive, but also additional coaching that could be interpreted by certain unthinking people as sexual harassment if a woman makes an accusation? Because men have all the power and deserve to be brought down a peg or two, evidence and due process be damned? And besides no woman would ever ever ever make a false accusations, because they're not even able to do so if they wanted to, which they never would because they're all pure as the driven snow and anyway none of them would ever do such a thing, why are you blaming the victim anyway, you probably harass them all day and all of the night, you sexist pig?

Or could it be that I'm not the only one who has devised a strategy to avoid being torpedoed by a sexual harassment claim, but in the only one foolish enough to talk about it? Ah well, better to sweep any discussion like that under the rug, everyone else is at least as virtuous as the other loud public proclaimers of the correct philosophy. Move along, nothing to see here, sure hope China catches up to us in this category of virtuous living, hope this guys company fails, he's obviously a creep, I would never do anything like that nor do I know anyone who would, can't believe this guy discriminates, hope he gets sued and dies penniless, glad I'm not him.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for lacking the ability to reason without resorting to emotional name-calling and useless shaming tactics.

[dang]

This discussion stopped being viable a long time ago and you've done the most to drag the thread down. Please stop now.