Sharing office as a NYC associate - always same gender? Forum

[jbagelboy]

I disagree with you on this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm going to attack your character so as to shield myself from the possibility that a reasonable person may have a different opinion than me. The response you've generated is characteristic of the social orthodoxy being pushed by sjw's, ostracization under the guise of inclusion.

Who attacked the poster's character? And how was anyone prevented from expressing an opinion? Also, what is the "social orthodoxy" being pushed here?

You know when those pesky gays want to enjoy private intimate relationships and have access to basic civil rights, how that's imposing a liberal "social orthodoxy" on all those good folks who just want to be left alone but still prevent others from their pursuit of happiness? I think that's the gist of it.

[Desert Fox]

[A. Nony Mouse]

The SJW snark is just a red herring, though, to dismiss the opinion.

[ForgotMyPassword]

I disagree with you on this issue, but that doesn't mean I'm going to attack your character so as to shield myself from the possibility that a reasonable person may have a different opinion than me. The response you've generated is characteristic of the social orthodoxy being pushed by sjw's, ostracization under the guise of inclusion.

Who attacked the poster's character? And how was anyone prevented from expressing an opinion? Also, what is the "social orthodoxy" being pushed here?

You directly analogized op's question on sharing a private office with being racist and not wanting to work with non-white attorneys, while also stating opinions like his are the basis for workplace discrimination. Chimp faulted the poster for choosing to be with his wife, and multiple folks called him aspie / socially awkward.

While I was writing this, jbagel proved my point by essentially calling me homophobic simply for stating that while I disagree with OP, I don't think he should be impugned for even thinking about this issue. The social orthodoxy is clear - agree with the 'prevailing' world view of what is and is not an acceptable thought to have or be branded a racist/sexist/nonbeliever.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Except how are you supposed to react when you see someone relying on assumptions that do seem sexist?

[rpupkin]

The social orthodoxy is clear - agree with the 'prevailing' world view of what is and is not an acceptable thought to have or be branded a racist/sexist/nonbeliever.

But that's just another way of stating what the word "orthodoxy" means. What, specifically, is the orthodoxy being pushed here? (I'm not asking sarcastically or rhetorically.)

[Desert Fox]

[ForgotMyPassword]

Except how are you supposed to react when you see someone relying on assumptions that do seem sexist?

If you disagree, as do I, how about simply pointing out that you don't think it should matter, if his wife thinks it matters to look at any potential underlying issues (Which, to be fair, you did nony), and then as some did actually answering the question.

Instead, in this thread the poster was called aspie/as bad as a racist, as well as anyone who didn't immediately hurl invective or mockery his way. This is an incredibly minor social issue, where OP quite literally wanted to know the likelihood of a mixed gender shared office pairing because he thought it may help his relationship fare better in the rocky first years of biglaw. The outrage at his query was absurd.

What, specifically, is the orthodoxy being pushed here? (I'm not asking sarcastically or rhetorically.)

In this instance, that asking a question that involves gender in the workplace in any fashion automatically makes you a sexist.

[hdunlop]

How else to construct the new Soviet man?

[kcdc1]

Except how are you supposed to react when you see someone relying on assumptions that do seem sexist?

Which assumption here is sexist? The notion that a person might be unfaithful with a person they spend a lot of time with doesn't seem to have an gender bias. Also, the proposed solution (single-sex offices) doesn't strike me as facially biased either. Men share offices, women share offices.

Not saying that there's no sexist assumption involved here -- just think it needs to be fleshed out more expressly, if only to allow a more coherent response.

[rpupkin]

What, specifically, is the orthodoxy being pushed here? (I'm not asking sarcastically or rhetorically.)

In this instance, that asking a question that involves gender in the workplace in any fashion automatically makes you a sexist.

I don't think asking a question that involves gender in the workplace makes one a sexist. And, for the record, I don't think that the anon poster or his wife is being consciously sexist.

But there is an underlying assumption here, and that assumption is that women in the workplace are objects of sexual desire and that, therefore, they are a threat to the marriages of the men who work near them. That assumption strikes me as harmful to professional women. I think it's fair to point that out. In any case, I don't see how any of this constitutes an "orthodoxy." If you disagree with my characterization of the underlying assumption, or if you disagree that the assumption is harmful to professional women, no one is stopping you (or anyone else) from saying so.

[dixiecupdrinking]

The notion that you can't have your desk next to a woman's desk without being tempted to fuck her is straight up ridiculous, toxic, sexist, and incompatible with most modern workplaces. That's not a "SJW" (lol at this neckbeard dog whistle) opinion, it's a "sack up and deal with it" opinion.

[dixiecupdrinking]

What, specifically, is the orthodoxy being pushed here? (I'm not asking sarcastically or rhetorically.)

In this instance, that asking a question that involves gender in the workplace in any fashion automatically makes you a sexist.

I don't think asking a question that involves gender in the workplace makes one a sexist. And, for the record, I don't think that the anon poster or his wife is being consciously sexist.

But there is an underlying assumption here, and that assumption is that women in the workplace are objects of sexual desire and that, therefore, they are a threat to the marriages of the men who work near them. That assumption strikes me as harmful to professional women. I think it's fair to point that out. In any case, I don't see how any of this constitutes an "orthodoxy." If you disagree with my characterization of the underlying assumption, or if you disagree that the assumption is harmful to professional women, no one is stopping you (or anyone else) from saying so.

^ this

[hdunlop]

would it be ok if you're a cuck worried about your strumpet wife cheating on you with her work spouse? how do we categorize that problematic line of thinking?

did we just dismiss it because biglaw dweebs are pasty? what if the strumpet is into pasty dweebs?

[dixiecupdrinking]

would it be ok if you're a cuck worried about your strumpet wife cheating on you with her work spouse? how do we categorize that problematic line of thinking?

did we just dismiss it because biglaw dweebs are pasty? what if the strumpet is into pasty dweebs?

Same response. But frankly, anyone whose wife works in the law is gonna have to get used to her working around men, and especially working for men. If that's a problem for your relationship, you're really in for a rough ride.

[hdunlop]

It's still sexist because in this one you're assigning women promiscuous traits or something?

Joking aside, I think we all agree that you're in for a rough ride if you can't trust your spouse (no shit).

[dixiecupdrinking]

It's still sexist because in this one you're assigning women promiscuous traits or something?

Joking aside, I think we all agree that you're in for a rough ride if you can't trust your spouse (no shit).

I mean, it's sexist because given the realities of big law demographics, saying your wife shouldn't spend a lot of time with men at work is basically equivalent to saying she shouldn't be in big law.

[hdunlop]

What if she's saying she's rather share her office with a woman due to her own concerns?

[dixiecupdrinking]

Good question but taking gender into account in making these sorts of decisions is bad policy for the reasons stated. So I guess the response is still "deal with it." Obviously if she's getting harassed by her office mate or something that's a whole other, actionable issue.

[hdunlop]

I agree deal with it. Just thought the racism analogy ludicrous, think it's more complex and this gets at why. Certainly there's a sexist legacy that could lead to this line of thinking but it's not the only way to get there.

[Anonymous User]

OP, my firm does not do this. But, they do let you request an officemate. So if it's a big deal for you and your SO and your firm allows the same, a solution might be to make friends with someone of the same gender and request them as your officemate.

[star fox]

Not matching genders is weird.

why?

Cuz why wouldn't you unless you don't have an option?

[kcdc1]

But there is an underlying assumption here, and that assumption is that women in the workplace are objects of sexual desire and that, therefore, they are a threat to the marriages of the men who work near them. That assumption strikes me as harmful to professional women.

Doesn't the act in question also involve a man being an object of sexual desire? The assumption could be: people of opposite sexes are attracted to each other at higher frequency than people of the same sex, even in the workplace, and people who are attracted to each other might have sex if they spend a lot of time together.

Is that assumption sexist? It seems to apply equally to both genders. Is the argument that most law firms are male-dominated, so policies that reduce male-female interaction will hinder women's advancement more than men's? If a particular law firm had more female partners and associates, would the same policy be sexist against men?

[Instinctive]

So what if I'm worried about the damage it will do to my career when my office-mate inevitably comes on to me and I have to turn him/her down? No matter how well one handles that, it seems as though you run the risk of burning a bridge with someone who was super into you and you had to try and let down easily.

Of course, this is only a concern because of the incredible awesomeness I project, and my stunning good looks. I'm just worried that I will be sexually objectified by anyone except a straight member of the same sex.





/sarcasm

[graphia]

So what if I'm worried about the damage it will do to my career when my office-mate inevitably comes on to me and I have to turn him/her down? No matter how well one handles that, it seems as though you run the risk of burning a bridge with someone who was super into you and you had to try and let down easily.

Of course, this is only a concern because of the incredible awesomeness I project, and my stunning good looks. I'm just worried that I will be sexually objectified by anyone except a straight member of the same sex.





/sarcasm

Thank you for making me aware of my privilege. My rapidly-trending-towards-DadBod physique and abrasive personality have lead to my profound ignorance that others must face these challenges.

Brother/Sister, you have my support.