Conflict with same-year colleague

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby elendinel » Tue May 02, 2017 6:21 pm

dixiecupdrinking wrote:Don't sweat it too much. It's not a great move to let your colleague bear the brunt of the work on a project, but it's also on them to speak up if they're not happy with the arrangement. A simple "hey I'm really busy this week, can you handle this" would have don't the trick. Sounds like a lack of communication all around.


Agreed; it was on the colleague to reach out and communicate if they were really this pissed about how things were going. You did all you can do OP, so I wouldn't feel guilty about it anymore.

But congrats on your first lesson on Passive Aggression in Biglaw OP!

Also just generally, literally the worst thing you can do with a person who's already angry with you is to start making assumptions about what will pacify them based on their gender/age/race/class/etc. Don't "bro it up" with a male colleague who hates you, don't "get ghetto" with a black colleague or a colleague from the projects, etc. Besides the fact that it's racist/sexist/classist/etc. to make assumptions about people and what they like/don't like based on stereotypes, if your stereotypes don't match up to the person you are guaranteed to tank your reputation almost instantly.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue May 02, 2017 8:14 pm

bruinfan10 wrote:I mean, these people are poking fun at you, right Nony? There's no way they actually believe that the appropriate strategy for workplace conflict resolution depends on the gender of the angry coworker. This is trolling.

Oh, I'm a couple are just poking the bear, but I think some are serious.

B90

Silver
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby B90 » Tue May 02, 2017 9:33 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
kellyfrost wrote:
jrf12886 wrote:
grand inquisitor wrote:kellyfrost et al's questions are substantially related to an important interest (i.e. helping o.p.). as such, it is appropriate to allow them to consider gender in rendering their advice. pls desist from pillorying them for being helpful. thanks.


Disagree. Would it be ok to ask if the other associate is gay, black, or of a certain religion? It's all predicated on the assumption that OP should treat the associate differently based on a characteristic that is unrelated to work.


Please refer to the prior posts and note that no one asking about the things you have listed.

You need to stop being purposely obtuse.

:mrgreen:
Excellent use of "purposefully." :wink:

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7649
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lavarman84 » Tue May 02, 2017 9:40 pm

bruinfan10 wrote:I mean, these people are poking fun at you, right Nony? There's no way they actually believe that the appropriate strategy for workplace conflict resolution depends on the gender of the angry coworker. This is trolling.


Yes.
*Awaits banhammer*

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Tue May 02, 2017 9:48 pm

lawman84 wrote:
bruinfan10 wrote:I mean, these people are poking fun at you, right Nony? There's no way they actually believe that the appropriate strategy for workplace conflict resolution depends on the gender of the angry coworker. This is trolling.


Yes.
*Awaits banhammer*

Yeah, you were one of the people I figured was trolling. Still shitty.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 02, 2017 9:57 pm

Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy. And you probably shouldn't tell a women to take outside if she doesn't stop yelling.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Tue May 02, 2017 10:07 pm

Desert Fox wrote:Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy.

LOL @ this. As if gunner male associates can't be petty, oversensitive backstabbers. Maybe it's different among you patent-lit aspies, but there are plenty of male associates in general lit that you have to tip-toe around if you don't want drama.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 02, 2017 10:09 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy.

LOL @ this. As if gunner male associates can't be petty, oversensitive backstabbers. Maybe it's different among you patent-lit aspies, but there are plenty of male associates in general lit that you have to tip-toe around if you don't want drama.


I didn't mean to imply this couldn't be a man (and still don't see how I did). If anything I think it's more likely male than female.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Tue May 02, 2017 10:13 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy.

LOL @ this. As if gunner male associates can't be petty, oversensitive backstabbers. Maybe it's different among you patent-lit aspies, but there are plenty of male associates in general lit that you have to tip-toe around if you don't want drama.


I didn't mean to imply this couldn't be a man (and still don't see how I did). If anything I think it's more likely male than female.

You suggested that OP OP can straight up tell a guy to fuck off, whereas one has to be more careful and/or less direct with a woman. Weren't you saying that gender matters because you can't be as direct with a woman? Isn't that what "you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties" was about?

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18302
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Desert Fox » Tue May 02, 2017 10:15 pm

rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy.

LOL @ this. As if gunner male associates can't be petty, oversensitive backstabbers. Maybe it's different among you patent-lit aspies, but there are plenty of male associates in general lit that you have to tip-toe around if you don't want drama.


I didn't mean to imply this couldn't be a man (and still don't see how I did). If anything I think it's more likely male than female.

You suggested that OP OP can straight up tell a guy to fuck off, whereas one has to be more careful and/or less direct with a woman. Weren't you saying that gender matters because you can't be as direct with a woman? Isn't that what "you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties" was about?


Ok I see the confusion.

I'm just saying you can't use a gendered insult if it was woman. you can and should still tell her to fuck off in some other way.

Didn't mean to imply it had to a woman. I bet it's not.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Tue May 02, 2017 10:19 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:Never apologize for slacking on pro bono work. Tell this guy to fuck off.

The only reason gender should matter is that you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties, like you should tell this guy.

LOL @ this. As if gunner male associates can't be petty, oversensitive backstabbers. Maybe it's different among you patent-lit aspies, but there are plenty of male associates in general lit that you have to tip-toe around if you don't want drama.


I didn't mean to imply this couldn't be a man (and still don't see how I did). If anything I think it's more likely male than female.

You suggested that OP OP can straight up tell a guy to fuck off, whereas one has to be more careful and/or less direct with a woman. Weren't you saying that gender matters because you can't be as direct with a woman? Isn't that what "you can't tell a woman to unbunch her panties" was about?


Ok I see the confusion.

I'm just saying you can't use a gendered insult if it was woman. you can and should still tell her to fuck off in some other way.

Ah, got it. You meant that one can't use the specific "don't get your panties in a bunch" insult if it's a woman.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 12:27 am

So I was one of the (few) people who agreed with Kelly and Ball early in this thread. Seeing as how the thread has since blown up, I feel like I should add a few more thoughts. I'm sure I will change exactly zero people's minds and most likely get shat on, but oh well I am done working for the night.

This thread is a pretty good example of why I think I would proceed with extra caution in a workplace altercation concerning a woman (I am a man) versus with another man. It's pretty obvious that the female/male dynamic carries a ton of baggage and tension with it. I think the fact that this thread could blow up into such a shit shows the potential perils for men in the workplace when dealing with women. Do I think men are being oppressed? No. It is actually pretty similar to the white/black dichotomy in our society. The fact that whites and men have held the "power" throughout history means that their actions can be scrutinized in ways that minorities simply aren't. Note that I am not complaining about this, but simply acknowledging the reality. I realize that there are also ways that white men get away with stuff that others don't.

I think that women and men are equally competent in the field of law. Everyone should be treated with respect. But if I were in this situation with a man I would be much less worried about being accused of harassment or having this turn into an HR disaster than with a woman. Sorry, but that's just reality. My whole point is not that I would treat a woman differently because I think less or her in any way (I don't), but simply out of an abundance of CAUTION to avoid a bad situation turning worse.

One last thing, while women and men are inherently equal and deserving of equal respect and dignity, can we stop with this PC bullshit that they are exactly the same in every single way? I think we all know that men and women have physical differences, so isn't it possible that there may in fact be other generalizable differences between men and women? Here's a quote from a study I just looked at about how men and women react differently to negative emotions: "A stronger connection between the amygdala and the dmPFC in men suggests they have a more analytical than emotional approach when dealing with negative emotions." Link:https://www.google.com/amp/www.medicaldaily.com/study-womens-brains-are-more-sensitive-negative-emotions-react-differently-mens-354226%3Famp%3D1. I'm a lawyer not a scientist, but that gibberish seems to suggest that there might be scientific reasons for handling a workplace confrontation (with the resulting negative emotions) differently based on the other person's gender. So not only might it not be sexist/"absolutely wrong", but it might be the logical approach! Just because someone acknowledges that there may be differences between men and women doesn't make that person evil or bad or sexist.

Anyways that's all I have. I look forward to your ad hominem attacks and being labeled a sexist!

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Wed May 03, 2017 12:37 am

FedFan123 wrote:One last thing, while women and men are inherently equal and deserving of equal respect and dignity, can we stop with this PC bullshit that they are exactly the same in every single way?

No one is saying that men and women are exactly the same in every way. People are saying only that applying gender stereotypes in the workplace is harmful. If you had taken a moment to understand what people were actually saying, you could have spared us your tedious exercise in railing against a strawman.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 12:54 am

rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:One last thing, while women and men are inherently equal and deserving of equal respect and dignity, can we stop with this PC bullshit that they are exactly the same in every single way?

No one is saying that men and women are exactly the same in every way. People are saying only that applying gender stereotypes in the workplace is harmful. If you had taken a moment to understand what people were actually saying, you could have spared us your tedious exercise in railing against a strawman.


I guess I have to give you props for quoting one sentence out of an admittedly long post to try to make a point that obviously isn't true when you read my post in its entirety. But like I said at the beginning, I knew I was going to change exactly zero minds, so I guess being called tedious was the best I could hope for :D

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5658
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Wed May 03, 2017 1:03 am

FedFan123 wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:One last thing, while women and men are inherently equal and deserving of equal respect and dignity, can we stop with this PC bullshit that they are exactly the same in every single way?

No one is saying that men and women are exactly the same in every way. People are saying only that applying gender stereotypes in the workplace is harmful. If you had taken a moment to understand what people were actually saying, you could have spared us your tedious exercise in railing against a strawman.

I guess I have to give you props for quoting one sentence out of an admittedly long post to try to make a point that obviously isn't true when you read my post in its entirety.

I read your entire post, and the sentence I quoted seems to animate your entire tome. I'll quote another sentence, from your second paragraph: "I think the fact that this thread could blow up into such a shit shows the potential perils for men in the workplace when dealing with women." The "shit show" took the form of some posters contending that it's appropriate to apply gender stereotypes in the workplace, with other posters contending that it's not appropriate to do so. That's all this is.

Lexigator

New
Posts: 98
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:19 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Lexigator » Wed May 03, 2017 1:07 am

So... how did you handle the situation with the coworker?

Anonymous User
Posts: 314105
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Anonymous User » Wed May 03, 2017 1:25 am

Not sure anyone is saying that WOMYN AND MEN ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AND HANDLE ALL SITUATIONS THE SAME!! The point is that deciding how to handle a confrontation with a work colleague based on gender stereotypes is a shitty thing to do. Even if those stereotypes are based in some sort of reality.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 1:35 am

My point has nothing to do with relying on gender stereotypes or furthering some sort of bias against women. I guess I didn't make this clear, but my point was basically that it it is fine to look at the situation differently out of an abundance of caution when considering the climate/tension concerning these issues in our society currently.

User avatar
jess

Diamond
Posts: 18149
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby jess » Wed May 03, 2017 2:51 am

.
Last edited by jess on Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby elendinel » Wed May 03, 2017 3:18 am

FedFan123 wrote:The fact that whites and men have held the "power" throughout history means that their actions can be scrutinized in ways that minorities simply aren't. Note that I am not complaining about this, but simply acknowledging the reality. I realize that there are also ways that white men get away with stuff that others don't.


I get what you're trying to say, I think (that there is more scrutiny these days as to what people in the majority do as their privileges start to erode), but I hope you realize that this is a really strange way to say it. And if that's not what you're trying to say and you actually meant what you said, I hope you read that again and understand why it reads somewhat poorly.

I think we all know that men and women have physical differences, so isn't it possible that there may in fact be other generalizable differences between men and women?


The point everyone in this thread has made (as far as I saw) concerning not stereotyping is not that you can't make stereotypes, but that using stereotypes as a basis to deal with one particular and real person is just asking for trouble. The fact that 53% of women may prefer being thin doesn't mean you ought to go up to a random woman and tell her how thin she looks; similarly, the fact that some women may be more likely to react in ___ way to a situation does not mean you should actually approach random women as if they are going to react that way. The same being true of men, or of any demographic.

The point of scientific studies is not to make it easier for people to rely on stereotypes; you still have to look at people as people, who may, as complex individuals, be more similar to you than they are to "their kind" when all is said and done. To think stereotypes are actually broadly applicable to any random person of that demographic that you meet is a bit prejudiced (maybe not in the klan rally sense, but in the "I don't value people like you enough to approach each of you as a unique person, and would rather just assume all ___ people are alike for purposes of simplicity" sense).

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 3:56 am

elendinel wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:The fact that whites and men have held the "power" throughout history means that their actions can be scrutinized in ways that minorities simply aren't. Note that I am not complaining about this, but simply acknowledging the reality. I realize that there are also ways that white men get away with stuff that others don't.


I get what you're trying to say, I think (that there is more scrutiny these days as to what people in the majority do as their privileges start to erode), but I hope you realize that this is a really strange way to say it. And if that's not what you're trying to say and you actually meant what you said, I hope you read that again and understand why it reads somewhat poorly.

I think we all know that men and women have physical differences, so isn't it possible that there may in fact be other generalizable differences between men and women?


The point everyone in this thread has made (as far as I saw) concerning not stereotyping is not that you can't make stereotypes, but that using stereotypes as a basis to deal with one particular and real person is just asking for trouble. The fact that 53% of women may prefer being thin doesn't mean you ought to go up to a random woman and tell her how thin she looks; similarly, the fact that some women may be more likely to react in ___ way to a situation does not mean you should actually approach random women as if they are going to react that way. The same being true of men, or of any demographic.

The point of scientific studies is not to make it easier for people to rely on stereotypes; you still have to look at people as people, who may, as complex individuals, be more similar to you than they are to "their kind" when all is said and done. To think stereotypes are actually broadly applicable to any random person of that demographic that you meet is a bit prejudiced (maybe not in the klan rally sense, but in the "I don't value people like you enough to approach each of you as a unique person, and would rather just assume all ___ people are alike for purposes of simplicity" sense).


Thanks for the reasonable response, and I actually agree with what you said. As to your first point, yes I did struggle with how to phrase that to get the point across without making it sound bad, but you got the message I was going for. As to the second point, I agree with what you said, but I was speaking broadly about how I would hypothetically approach this situation. I certainly agree that the individual at issue can (and most likely will) affect the outcome of how you should approach. I think everyone here knows that there are chill women and emotional/crazy men and vice versa. My point was more that I would generally approach the situation with caution for all of the reasons I've stated, but an individual situation could certainly be different. I understand your overall point though!

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29317
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 03, 2017 5:41 am

The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.

User avatar
grand inquisitor

Gold
Posts: 3768
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:21 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby grand inquisitor » Wed May 03, 2017 8:08 am

jess wrote:Maybe you guys should request not to be staffed on cases with women so that you don't have to deal with the inevitable reality of having to delicately and gently tiptoe around her hysteria

this was one of my conditions when i accepted my offer

User avatar
grand inquisitor

Gold
Posts: 3768
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:21 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby grand inquisitor » Wed May 03, 2017 8:09 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid

tell this to poor bill o'reilly

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby elendinel » Wed May 03, 2017 8:17 am

FedFan123 wrote:Thanks for the reasonable response, and I actually agree with what you said. As to your first point, yes I did struggle with how to phrase that to get the point across without making it sound bad, but you got the message I was going for. As to the second point, I agree with what you said, but I was speaking broadly about how I would hypothetically approach this situation. I certainly agree that the individual at issue can (and most likely will) affect the outcome of how you should approach. I think everyone here knows that there are chill women and emotional/crazy men and vice versa. My point was more that I would generally approach the situation with caution for all of the reasons I've stated, but an individual situation could certainly be different. I understand your overall point though!


I don't think you stated what you think you stated, is perhaps the problem.

You start out with "well people have to be cautious because people interpret things the wrong way" but then diverge into "But hey can't we just admit that men and women are different, too?" And then you start talking about how these differences mean it's not crazy to treat people differently. Which doesn't sound like you're saying "Be cautious about X if you're from a protected class because it'll come off the wrong way if you're not"; it sounds like you're saying "Can we stop pretending men and women are the same and admit that it's okay to assume you should treat them differently based on inherent scientific differences I found on Google?"

If I had to guess, I would guess the issue here isn't that you need to be cautious about saying what you want to say because people are going to get touchy about it, so much as your fear that people are going to get touchy about what you want to say is making it difficult to actually express what you want to express, which (ironically) makes your comments sound more offensive and defensive than I think you intend. If you just came out and said what you actually want to say, it may actually sound a lot less controversial than what you're posting so far.

Which applies equally to the notion that you should be cautious as a man around women in the workforce/as a white person around black people in the workforce/etc.; you will inevitably set yourself up for failure if you assume you have to be cautious around them, because you're inevitably going to start muddying your intent and you will be coming at them from a defensive posture. Treat people like people. If you are truly doing that, you're not going to be frequently running into situations where you have to be cautious.



Return to “Legal Employment�

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.