The description of Vic Gundotra, if true, is disappointing. One would think that someone so polished and smart would have the sense to realize that such behavior is over the line.
> After hours, having drinks with Vic and the gang. Vic talking about how G+ was promoting Sasha Grey. Starts talking about how hot she is.
I may be entirely clueless, but is this not considered an acceptable topic for after hours drinks?
-
Edit: I found another Vic tweet that you were more likely referring to:
> "You look amazing in that bathing suit, like a rock star." -Vic Gundotra, to me, when I was a junior engineer at Google. In Maui.
In any case https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok/status/574268362051584001 makes it clear that there was more to it:
> "You look amazing in that bathing suit, like a rock star." -Vic Gundotra, to me, when I was a junior engineer at Google. In Maui.
> Vic G to Matt S within earshot of me, on a boat in Maui: "doesn't Kelly look amazing heh heh"
… and it's looking like this wasn't just an isolated misunderstanding:
> anyone who has worked with Vic knows he constantly makes comments about women's appearances.
1. "Outside the office," is irrelevant (it's ALWAYS wrong to make inappropriate remarks about a colleague or—worse—subordinate), and since the remarks were made at a company offsite they can be considered in a "work environment."
2. You're way off base. Commenting on a colleague's personal appearance to other colleagues is totally inappropriate. Commenting on a colleague's appearance in a bathing suit is totally inappropriate.
> By vilifying innocent remarks, you're only further making men not want to work with women
I hope men like you feel uncomfortable enough to get the fuck out of this industry. I don't want to work with you, and I'm male! Get lost!
> while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness
The problem is that the offenders in these situations aren't AT ALL sensitive to the feelings of others. There are a plethora of examples of men alienating women with their shitty and insensitive comment and attitudes. Reactions to this are not about "oversensitivity" but rather a plea for ANY KIND OF SENSITIVITY AT ALL PLEASE.
> Who wants to work in an environment where they can't make a simple compliment without being publicly ousted as a mysogynist offender?
If you think these remarks are appropriate and non-sexual then you should probably just keep your mouth shut.
I think it is quite likely that Gundotra is a sleazy slimeball and Google has covered its ass by trying its best to ignore the complaint. He should probably be fired and Google should never be allowed to pretend it doesn't have a sexist culture.
However: I do not think that things are as simple as declaring the rules of a "work environment" and enforcing them.
After-hours events or company vacations can be considered work environments, but they're also deliberate attempts to escape the work environment. If you extend the logic of standardizing all work environments, what you might find is that it's simply inappropriate to be around coworkers in sexualized situations. (And if you don't think bathing suits are designed to sexualize bodies, I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.)
Edit: Perhaps I should make it clear that I find nothing inconsistent in demanding that work events be completely professional, that all corporate interaction be sterile, and that's basically what I expect from my employer. No booze cruises. No getaways to beach locations. No employee dating whatsoever, not even a hint of acceptability for that kind of relationship.
I just don't know that this is a realistic expectation, and I don't trust anyone that is certain of a solution. Sometimes problems cannot be solved and we can only punish who we can punish and move on.
Gundotra left Google many months ago.
In or out of the office doesn't matter if it's a work event – and off-site retreats, conferences, etc. certainly qualify. Even if it's not, a manager still has to be responsible for what they say to a subordinate and make it clear that this is unofficial and not connected to their job.
> By vilifying innocent remarks, you're only further making men not want to work with women, while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness. Who wants to work in an environment where they can't make a simple compliment without being publicly ousted as a mysogynist offender? I sure as hell don't.
I'm a man and I don't have a problem working with women. The difference is that I know my job isn't a singles bar and in no case would I want someone to think that there would be professional consequences for not reacting favorably to something they didn't like. That doesn't mean that you can't be friendly with people you work with, only that you have to pay more attention to what you say than you might with a group of close friends, because your friends have already given you more of an idea for what's okay or not and, critically, if it ceases to be fun they can leave with no professional or financial consequences.
Finally, you're very quick to use loaded language which implies knowledge that Vic's actual intention was completely innocent. Using terms like “simple compliment”, “innocent remarks” says that you know more about what he meant than someone who was actually there or the coworkers who've voiced support for her interpretation. Given that the most common reaction seems to be “That sounds bad – Google better do something” and not “Off with his head”, I'm not sure you should be criticizing anyone for oversensitivity.
Don't read that as saying harassment is okay. Harassment is not okay. However, talking about sexual topics bringing them up, etc., is not sexual harassment, prima facie. But this is where we are, unlike Europe. I dare say in Europe there is less sexual harassment in the workplace, but simultaneously there is more open talk about sex at the workplace; people don't have a puritanical knee-jerk reaction to sex. Talking about sex and complimenting people in the workplace is not some weird taboo. They understand people are sexual creatures and don't try to pretend they are not.
Again, it's reprehensible and bad to sexually harass people. I think any normal person would agree --but I would have to disagree with saying that to combat sexual harassment it's necessary to extirpate sex from people's conversations at work. It's unnatural. What's next, sing a contract explicitly allowing consensual sexual talk at work to ensure correctness?
To put this another way, women also like to talk about sex in the workplace. What they don't like is talking about sex turning into an invitation to sex. It's not. Sometimes people just want to talk. And it's not as if women are sexless beings without impulse. As men, women too have sexual thoughts about people at work but they don't typically act on them in a repulsive way, where as men don't control their impulses as well (plus tend to have the power imbalance in their favor).
People aren't sure any more if a compliment is going to be interpreted as harassment. Harassment meanwhile goes unabated, and as you conclude, may be getting worse.
If someone hurts you, whether or not you will experience the offense as a dangerous threat depends very much on whether the offender makes the offense knowing they enjoy the protection of power, which allows them to harm people who don't.
Just don't sexually harass people who work under you as subordinates; that's abusing your position.
The proximity to the office is irrelevant according to NY and CA law.
> you're only further making men not want to work with women
I hadn't realized this sentiment existed.
> while promoting a culture of oversensitivity and political correctness
There is a big difference between oversensitivity and a reasonable response to being treated differently because of one's looks/gender. Imagine if you walked into work every day and an executive said "Nice legs" or "nice blouse" to you. By your definition that is harmless.
EDIT: then again circle jerks are more common in some places than others.
Rap music is a genre. If you said "rap music that talks about running around murdering police officers", despite the fact that no police officers were murdered in the making of that song, it would probably also be offensive.
Do you mean ever, or do you just mean to you (or in a group conversation in which you are taking part)? Because the latter would be absolutely fine. You don't want to talk about that, no worries. I won't bring it up. What's the problem with that?
Being a creepy greaseball is not illegal, we have social ways of dealing with that. But this wasn't that situation, it was a more serious one, because these were subordinates he had control over; in that position it's just not ethical to push people to talk about porn and to accept your announcement that you want to grope them. And it's bad business when we are talking about people who were not hired as prostitutes but as long-term assets for the company.
The thing here is understanding context and the way other people's feelings need to be respected.