• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's your opinion on non-fraternization of women?

SCitizen said:
Definitely they can be dangerous -- they can falsely claim sexual harassment. You should consult a lawyer.

PS. Many Queens will attack you, and many Knights will join the attack to secure Favors from Queens.
Click to expand...

I will explain a little fact of life to you. The vast majority of native English-speaking women DEMAND way more social compliance than anyone on the Autistic spectrum could ever deliver. The smart move is to not even try. Not achieving that social compliance somehow makes it OK to blame you for breaking things that you didn't break and to treat you like a leper. No one anticipates how diligent I am with documenting things. It may surprise you that in complaints with women, it was *I* that initiated the EEOC discrimination complaint. The hens like to gather in a little flock and say "careful what you say to him, he might sue you."
 
SDET said:
I will explain a little fact of life to you. The vast majority of native English-speaking women DEMAND way more social compliance than anyone on the Autistic spectrum could ever deliver. The smart move is to not even try. Not achieving that social compliance somehow makes it OK to blame you for breaking things that you didn't break and to treat you like a leper. No one anticipates how diligent I am with documenting things. It may surprise you that in complaints with women, it was *I* that initiated the EEOC discrimination complaint. The hens like to gather in a little flock and say "careful what you say to him, he might sue you."
Click to expand...

Not to be harsh but you are setting of vibes of someone who should be steered clear of in the workplace (ie treat you like a leper).
 
Winchester said:
Not to be harsh but you are setting of vibes of someone who should be steered clear of in the workplace (ie treat you like a leper).
Click to expand...

That's not a problem. Those who make my life easy get my undivided attention and solutions to their software/data problems. Those who operate on perception and cliques don't need my help anyway. I can't help with Powerpoint presentations.
Those who focus on functioning deliverables generally appreciate my help.
 
Meh. Just call them fun terms like "sweet cheeks" and "hot lips" and stuff like that. They really appreciate it. If that doesn't fly, say things like, "Gee. I really love how you fill out that potato sack." That'll get 'em. They'll be serving you tea and subpeonas in no time.
 
Okay, I feel like we all fell for a massive troll. This can't be real.
 
TheGoverness said:
Just because you (general you) had bad experiences with women in the workplace, doesn't somehow make avoiding all contact with women entirely even a little bit reasonable.
Click to expand...

Really?

Let me put this to you, if I, as a guy, ask another guy I'm working with to go grab a beer after work nobody bats an eye. If I ask a woman it raises all kinds of issues. The end result? The woman doesn't get the same treatment as the guy does. It's not her fault and it's not my fault and, most importantly, it's not misogyny.

Here's another one: Bob's car breaks down and he needs a ride to work. He calls me and I pick him up on my way. We show up at the office at the same time and the scuttlebut is that....Bob's car broke down. Carol's car breaks down and she needs a ride so she calls me and I pick her up on the way in. We show up at the office at the same time and the scuttlebut is....god only knows what and whatever Carol or I say it's going to be scuttlebut all day long. Again, not Carol's fault, not my fault and not misogyny.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What's it like? To live a life in abject fear of women?
Click to expand...

I do not live a life in abject fear of women. I simply recognize that there is massive discrimination against men. For example a women who tweets #killallmen many times and makes male bashing comments and generalizations every day will almost certainly keep her job. A man who makes even a slightly offensive comment or generalization like "women talk too much" will likely lose his job. That is tyranny.

More then 75% of women are not abusers -- they are good human beings. Unfortunately it takes only one abuser to destroy a man's career.
 
Last edited:
SCitizen said:
I do not live a life in abject fear of women. I simply recognize that there is massive discrimination against men. For example a women who tweets #killallmen many times and makes male bashing comments and generalizations every day will almost certainly keep her job. A man who makes even a slightly offensive comment or generalization like "women talk too much" will likely lose his job. That is tyranny.

More then 75% of women are not abusers -- they are good human beings. Unfortunately it takes only one abuser to destroy a man's career.
Click to expand...


So, IOW, you live in pathological fear of women, you harbor bizarre fantasies about tyranny that doesn't exist and fool yourself that 'massive discrimination against men' actually exists.

Why even bother?
 
joG said:
That sounds a derogatorily false résumé.
I understood him to have said that he had had bad experiences with women and therefore distrusted them.
Click to expand...

How have you come to that conclusion from what he wrote?
I understand you to be injecting your own preconceptions, rather then simply reading what he actually wrote:

"From the very beginning of my career, I have steered clear of women in the workplace. "

Sounds like this is an attitude problem to me.
 
Lutherf said:
Really?

Let me put this to you, if I, as a guy, ask another guy I'm working with to go grab a beer after work nobody bats an eye. If I ask a woman it raises all kinds of issues. The end result? The woman doesn't get the same treatment as the guy does. It's not her fault and it's not my fault and, most importantly, it's not misogyny.

Here's another one: Bob's car breaks down and he needs a ride to work. He calls me and I pick him up on my way. We show up at the office at the same time and the scuttlebut is that....Bob's car broke down. Carol's car breaks down and she needs a ride so she calls me and I pick her up on the way in. We show up at the office at the same time and the scuttlebut is....god only knows what and whatever Carol or I say it's going to be scuttlebut all day long. Again, not Carol's fault, not my fault and not misogyny.
Click to expand...

Why are you so concerned with workplace gossip?
 
I have worked in the Navy, Tech, Healthcare and now back to navy contractor. Every boss, peer, coworker, subordinate may be capable of throwing you under the bus for some really screwed up reasons. I have had men that I didn't trust and I've had women I didn't trust. I don't work for them but there are two male dept heads and one woman where I work that will stab you in a heart beat for next to no reason.
But, I have had some really great working relationships with women at work that are different than the ones with men. (NOT THAT WAY). But if you go through working life and only care what just the women may do to you, you will definitely get hosed. It's like driving. You have to be defensive, but you don't have to drive like everyone else is trying to kill you.
 
Lutherf said:
Because it can easily turn into something much more problematic. It also tends to create cliques instead of teams.
Click to expand...

Life's too short to live in fear of what other people might be saying when you aren't there.
And there isn't anything you can do to stop it anyway.
 
Carjosse said:
From the sounds of it he avoids working with women period because of it. Which is both a gross generalization and is quite blatant refusal to work with coworkers which would normally be grounds for termination, man or woman.
Click to expand...

They have to be able to prove he's avoiding the women because they are women.

What's so totally awesome, is my industry is like 92% male, so I don't really need to purposefully avoid women, statistically I don't have to deal with them.

I've been in a position where I've trained drivers for employers I've worked for, and can you see why I might be uncomfortable with the idea of having to go in a vehicle, equipped with a sleeping bunk no less, alone with a woman for several hours, that is way outside my comfort level. I would outright refuse unless the company agreed at their cost to install a driver facing always recording camera in the truck. I don't believe that is objectively unreasonable. the last thing I want is he said/she said allegations.

it shouldn't be grounds for termination, you can't put up these zero tolerance sexual harassment policies and then give men with no interest in sexually harassing women no tools to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety. And nobody seriously believes that any less then 99.99% of women in the workplace just want to work, but it only takes one allegation to destroy careers, marriages, etc. And rumors can be very costly to the company as well as involved employees. so is OP evil for not wanting a piece of that problem? I don't think so.

and not only that, but the fact he has to secretly avoid these projects and can't just bring this issue to his supervisor is a good reason something is wrong, because a company should be willing to work with him in making sure there is adequate protection for both employees to prevent problems, like making a project involve three people instead of two, or require the project be done in the conference room instead of an office or what have you.

Think about it, a police officer who arrests a female suspect has to radio in his mileage and starting point and check back out when she's been dropped off at jail, is to create a record so that the timing can show nothing happened.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
They have to be able to prove he's avoiding the women because they are women.

What's so totally awesome, is my industry is like 92% male, so I don't really need to purposefully avoid women, statistically I don't have to deal with them.

I've been in a position where I've trained drivers for employers I've worked for, and can you see why I might be uncomfortable with the idea of having to go in a vehicle, equipped with a sleeping bunk no less, alone with a woman for several hours, that is way outside my comfort level. I would outright refuse unless the company agreed at their cost to install a driver facing always recording camera in the truck. I don't believe that is objectively unreasonable. the last thing I want is he said/she said allegations.

it shouldn't be grounds for termination, you can't put up these zero tolerance sexual harassment policies and then give men with no interest in sexually harassing women no tools to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Think about it, a police officer who arrests a female suspect has to radio in his mileage and starting point and check back out when she's been dropped off at jail, is to create a record so that the timing can show nothing happened.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between that situation where there is a reasonable understanding that it may be uncomfortable or cause issues, in this case he is avoiding doing work because it was assigned by a woman.
 
Carjosse said:
There is a difference between that situation where there is a reasonable understanding that it may be uncomfortable or cause issues, in this case he is avoiding doing work because it was assigned by a woman.
Click to expand...

so he did, somehow on first reading I thought he said he avoided working a project wth a woman, not a project from one. my bad.
 
Your Star said:
Okay, I feel like we all fell for a massive troll. This can't be real.
Click to expand...

I would, except for the stereotype of 'conservative, Texas, male'. I have observed attitude fits all to many conservative Texas males. They have issues with independent women for one.
 
TheGoverness said:
Just because you (general you) had bad experiences with women in the workplace, doesn't somehow make avoiding all contact with women entirely even a little bit reasonable.
Click to expand...

I don't know. If the frequency of severe pain is great enough, then it is a very good reason to be careful within reason. It doesn't identify the reason. It only indicates a problem.
 
Your Star said:
Avoiding working with a woman, simply because she is a woman, is unbelievably sexist.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A lot depends on the underlying reason. If he has seen too many frivolous sexual harassment complaints filed against the men in his workplace, then he is avoiding placing himself in any situation where it could even be suspected.
 
Your Star said:
Okay, I feel like we all fell for a massive troll. This can't be real.
Click to expand...

In life, you would be amazed at how often, the absurd answer is the correct answer.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
They have to be able to prove he's avoiding the women because they are women.

What's so totally awesome, is my industry is like 92% male, so I don't really need to purposefully avoid women, statistically I don't have to deal with them.

I've been in a position where I've trained drivers for employers I've worked for, and can you see why I might be uncomfortable with the idea of having to go in a vehicle, equipped with a sleeping bunk no less, alone with a woman for several hours, that is way outside my comfort level. I would outright refuse unless the company agreed at their cost to install a driver facing always recording camera in the truck. I don't believe that is objectively unreasonable. the last thing I want is he said/she said allegations.

it shouldn't be grounds for termination, you can't put up these zero tolerance sexual harassment policies and then give men with no interest in sexually harassing women no tools to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety. And nobody seriously believes that any less then 99.99% of women in the workplace just want to work, but it only takes one allegation to destroy careers, marriages, etc. And rumors can be very costly to the company as well as involved employees. so is OP evil for not wanting a piece of that problem? I don't think so.

and not only that, but the fact he has to secretly avoid these projects and can't just bring this issue to his supervisor is a good reason something is wrong, because a company should be willing to work with him in making sure there is adequate protection for both employees to prevent problems, like making a project involve three people instead of two, or require the project be done in the conference room instead of an office or what have you.

Think about it, a police officer who arrests a female suspect has to radio in his mileage and starting point and check back out when she's been dropped off at jail, is to create a record so that the timing can show nothing happened.
Click to expand...

In my profession, it's often possible to do projects with no human contact whatsoever. It's actually not the harassment risk that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It's what I call the "biatch factor". I have had enough being yelled at for social demands that are WAAAAYYYY beyond my ability. "Liberated women" are the worst abusers. Abusing the disabled is a violation of Federal mandates.
 
SDET said:
In my profession, it's often possible to do projects with no human contact whatsoever. It's actually not the harassment risk that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It's what I call the "biatch factor". I have had enough being yelled at for social demands that are WAAAAYYYY beyond my ability. "Liberated women" are the worst abusers. Abusing the disabled is a violation of Federal mandates.
Click to expand...

"Biatch factor"?

Now you're in the troll zone.
 
SDET said:
From the very beginning of my career, I have steered clear of women in the workplace. If I get a project from one, I try to finesse it off to someone else. They are just too much of a minefield. At what point does this become a problem? Do you suppose there will be action taken from men that are female avoidant? If that does become a thing on day, how do you think that it will play out? Imagine being sued by a woman because you avoid her.
Click to expand...

It must suck to go through life so frightened and afraid.

Who is actually the weaker sex here?
I think we all see it plain and clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom