[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).

[naasking]

> His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness".

Except you read it that way because you're biased to see bad faith and sexism everywhere. And look what happened: you uncharitably condemned and berated a fellow human being for literally no reason. And you're not even remotely apologetic for it. This pattern is sadly not at all exclusive to you, or uncommon.

As others have pointed out that this thread has gotten off-topic, I'll not be replying further. I'll merely suggest you learn from this mistake.