[zozbot234]

Mike Pence rule. Don't ever be alone with a vulnerable person without a neutral third party being present, it wreaks havoc on the threat-detection instinct. As the saying goes, "you're not paranoid if someone really is out to get you."

[Mezzie]

He asked how to make things easier for his vulnerable coworkers, not how to cover his ass.

Honestly, my suggestion would be to be open about your own experiences and the impact they've had on you. (Not necessarily abuse, but just offhand comments like 'oh, it's silly but I can't stand yelling because my dad yelled a lot' or 'I don't drink because my family's had issues with it', etc.) Be open and clear that a.) you don't judge people for being 'weird' and b.) you accept things other people need even if you don't need them.

Don't be overly emotional about it. Just accept their human needs in the same way you would if a coworker had a disability. Oh, that person needs more space between us? Alright. Not any different than a hard of hearing coworker who needs me to speak up a bit, or a visually impaired coworker who uses zoom on their computer.

My saying, "Hey, I have a bit of anxiety so I'm going to gather myself for a moment; do you think you could step back and give me some space and we could try to pitch this conversation a bit quieter?" shouldn't be much different than my needing a stepstool. I'm short. It happens.

If you treat the people around you as individuals, then people understand they can ask you for what they need.

[zozbot234]

> Honestly, my suggestion would be to be open about your own experiences and the impact they've had on you.

I'd imagine that many people would disagree with this. Dwelling on people's supposed 'weirdness' is not a healthy attitude (least of all when the 'weirdness' is our own) and would not be seen as "open" or "accepting" by many, but more of a signal of entitlement. If you think that the other person would benefit from something, just behave accordingly without dwelling on it, and people will hopefully realize that they can ask you for these things with no fuss.

[Syonyk]

Billy Graham was the originator of the concept in his ministry [0].

Not only does it help prevent things from happening that could be a problem later, it helps prevent even accusations of such, if it's well known that the person involved holds to this rule and expects others to hold them to it as well. Say what you will about Pence, love him or hate him, nobody is accusing him of sexual misconduct - and that's the point of the rule.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham_rule

[ars]

It's much much much older than that, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yichud

It doesn't prevent abuse by a close family member though.

[Syonyk]

Interesting, I'd assumed there was history before Graham (it's an obvious enough thing), but wasn't aware of the details. Thanks!

[sp332]

This can disadvantage those people in other ways though. Just trying to get work done, it helps to be able to drop into someone's office without arranging for a chaperone. Or stopping by somewhere without checking the number and gender of people who will be there ahead of time.

[ars]

> it helps to be able to drop into someone's office without arranging for a chaperone.

You can leave the door to the office open at all times. Or use a glass wall or door so people can see in, but maybe not overhear.

[bzbarsky]

One principled solution would be to apply the rule to everyone you interact with.

In practice that's likely quite difficult.

[deanCommie]

Shocking that this is getting upvotes.

The only way to treat this as gospel is to never be present with another woman alone.

That the tech industry is so inept with opposite gender interactions that they have adopted tactics from religious zealot evangelicals is APALLING.

Treat people as humans. Regardless of gender or sexuality.

[tomp]

The whole premise of the workplace is to not treat people as humans, but as coworkers.

Sex is one of the most essentially human things. "Professional" behaviour excludes sex.

So "treat people as humans" is decisively not clear advice for cases like this.

[tremon]

That's a very dehumanizing statement to me. I would never want to work at a place that doesn't treat its employees as humans. That doesn't mean I condone sex at the workplace, but I would not accept to be treated as less than a full human being.

Humans are not automata, and I don't aspire to be one, not even for "just" 8 hours a day.

[deanCommie]

The way you are expected to interact with humans in the VAST MAJORITY of situations is closer to how you are expected to interact with coworkers in a professional setting, than to a speed dating event or a crowded bar after midnight.

We're not having orgies in the street. In modern society you are expected to treat humans in the vast majority of situations without "sex" being relevant to the topic of discussion, whether it's on the street, in the grocery store, on the tram, or in the library.

Acting like this is not clear feels like an exercise in pedantic loophole seeking to justify sexual harassment. ("How are people even supposed to meet each other if I'm not allowed to <blank> to women in <blank>?")

[tomp]

False dichotomies galore.

First of all, the "VAST MAJORITY" of human interactions are irrelevant (cashier, bank clerk, passing people on the street). Given how much time you spend with coworkers, they'd qualify as friends, or acquaintances at least.

Also, there's a large gap between "professional behaviour" and "orgies in the street" or "sexual harassment". For example, I don't mind talking about menstruation or condoms with friends (who I'm not having sex with, nor have/would I ever try) but I don't think those would be appropriate topics for most workplace situations.

[vorpalhex]

Your life must be quite different from mine. My casual conversations with my friend group - who are 20s and 30s liberals, mixed gender - are not office appropriate. I would certainly not bring any of the regular political debates into work either.

The amount of sex related conversation in my friend group is, from my perspective, normal but entirely inappropriate for work. Even my female barber talks about her sex life during haircuts.

At work I keep my sarcasm set to near zero, avoid politics, religion, and sex, and generally keep a narrow focus. Work is an artificial environment, but my coworkers don't get to choose me. It is on me to behave in a way that is beyond reproach.

[deanCommie]

Remember the context: OP literally advocated for never being alone with a woman without a third party present.

Yes, I have conversation with friends that are not work-appropriate.

And I also have conversations with coworkers that are casual and work-appropriate. Yet they can be friendly and reference current events (which are inherently political), religion (e.g. acknowledging ramadan fasting), sexuality (gender of partner), or the existence of sex (parenting). OK that last one is a stretch.

But still, you can do all this without needing to firewall your entire personality.

[lotsofpulp]

Ironically, the tech industry has provided an alternative solution - cameras recording everything everywhere. Dash cams to provide proof of what happened in collisions, workplace cameras to reduce liability for employers and also helps protect employees, home cameras also for liability reduction as well as protection against police lying about what happened…etc.

[jhgb]

Costs vs. benefits and all. It's hardly unreasonable if you're risk-averse.

[tasha0663]

As much as it sounds like an overreacting CYA tactic, it does at least have the side effect of creating safe spaces.

I might find the intentions dubious, but I can't argue with the results.