Can we not conflate sexual harassment with inappropriate relationships at work? Schmidt and Brinn both have their demons, but their personal lives aren't at issue here, particularly when they don't involve violating the law. That is not the same thing as sexual harassment.
Brinn was well known for having sex with female employees, seems like a thin line when there's such a power disparity. Based on insiders it seems like having sex with Sergey was a pretty sure way to get a promotion
https://qz.com/work/1326942/sergey-brin-started-google-with-...
This line of reasoning is pretty poor. You don't need to be someone's boss in order to have a huge ability to harm someone's life. All of us are capable of doing great harm to others - we just choose not to.
Saying "she can't consent because he could harm her" is like saying I can't deny giving my neighbor some milk because if I upset him he has the power to break all of the windows on my house. Since when do we focus on these hypotheticals? Since when do we always assume malice? We trust that people are good, prosecute the bad ones (both breaking windows and firing over sexual denial are illegal), and allow neighbors to ask for milk because 99% of the time no windows get broken in the event we say no.
Sure, the analogy might be a bit contrived. But I think it still does a good job of demonstrating how ridiculous this line of reasoning when applied outside of the sexual harassment thought bubble.
The harm doesn't have to amount to firing; showing disfavor (even unconsciously so) is a harm. We routinely bind peoples' hands in situations like this that involve conflicts of interest and power dynamics. We don't "trust" lawyers and doctors to appropriately handle sexual relationships with clients and patients, for example.
You didn't limit your point to what is and is not illegal under sexual harassment law. You said the whole "line of reasoning is pretty poor." A lawyer dating a client or a doctor dating a patient is not illegal either. But we apply that "line of reasoning" to make it a violation of professional ethics rules.
Likewise, it doesn't matter if dating a subordinate is illegal. It's wrong and should be against corporate policy. Corporate policies allow us to address lots of antisocial behavior that doesn't rise to the level of illegality.
What about people who the boss isn't sexually interested in? What sort of work environment and career can they look forward to, potentially? There is a reason many societies and companies discourage or prohibit relations between employees and tortured allegories about neighbors borrowing milk won't change that.
Its the first analogy I came up with. There are undoubtedly better ones. I imagine they will all seem a bit crazy - the reasoning behind it is as well.
Your next question is a separate issue and one that does not deal with harassment. It deals with favoritism in general. Whether it's favoritism for sexual reasons or because you and your boss both play on the same proam bowling league doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
Sure it's relevant. You can always join your boss's bowling league. You can't hop into bed with him. It's about making a social determination about what kinds of incentive structures we want to permit.
The obligations and interdependence of pair bonding partners, and the complications that result, are usually more consequential than those of bowling mates (or any other relationship short of parenthood).
Sexual assault ("Grabbing by the pussy") and attempted rape (the other guy) are crimes.
Inappropriate relationships with subordinates are, well, "inappropriate", and can be sexual harassment when they are persistent and unwanted, or involve any sort of quid-pro-quo. That, however is not a crime, but only a violation of (civil) employment law.
Wow what a smoking gun. A chef and HR head from circa 2000 claim the dude screwed a bunch of employees so why not just make the enormous leap that it IS true, so you can start attacking the power disparity straw man.
And that doesn't change the fact that obvious nonconsensual sexual advances are not the same thing as dating at work in a relationship with a superior. Inappropriate as it may be, it certainly isn't illegal, now is it?
That's a stupid template. Any interaction is indistinguishable from sexual harassment if sexual harassment is a component. Inappropriate relationships at work are just that, unless they involve sexual harassment, which isn't an inappropriate relationship, it's sexual harassment.
No, but when the relationship has enough inappropriateness added to it (e.g. adding dating to where there's a power differential, or adding lewdness when there is isn't), it becomes sexual harassment.
Indeed. I really don't think there's an acceptable way to permit this. If you are so high up in the chain that any possible date works for you, you should really think about dating outside of the office. There's just no responsible way to handle a sexual relationship between an employee and their supervisor.
I don't think you can get rid of their bro culture without getting rid of the top bro. Of course, it's unlikely Sergey Brin could ever be ousted, I was reading an article about how little power anyone besides him and Larry have: https://www.recode.net/2017/6/13/15788892/alphabet-sharehold...
It is, however, functional distinguishable from rape and sexual assault, which are the more appropriate terms for these politicians' actions alluded to.
By that logic, seducing someone that you have the power to beat up is not functionally distinguishable from sexual harassment to any outside observer.
Hyperbolic? Yep. But it's silly to think that there's no manner in which consenting adults can have a relationship in which one has power over the other.
