> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.
Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.
Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.
It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point.
Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.
And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.
If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem.
For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them.
Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?