Determine If Your Coworker Is Totally Cheating by Using the Stunned and Confused Law
The hits keep coming: Yesterday, Laura McGann, who wrote for Vox , published a report on allegations of sexual harassment against New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush. Fifty-year-old Thrush, a well-known reputable journalist who reportedly made passes with young female colleagues, passes ranged “from unwanted touching and kissing to wet kisses from nowhere and vague sexual encounters played out under the influence of alcohol.” All three women interviewed at that time were about 20 years old.
Writer Amanda Mull tweeted:
Is this universally true? Probably no. I’m sure there are a lot of really great romances from May to December or even, well, well, June to October. I am sure there are many senior colleagues who are sincere and persistent in the careers of their young colleagues.
Dazed and bewildered by the law
But let’s consider, as a general rule, that men who regularly take the time to hang out with women who are much younger than them, especially if these men are in power, should not be trusted. I considered another famous algebraic dating law – asking people half their age plus 7 and older – and came up with this new formula as a decent rule of thumb:
Suppose that for women in the early stages of their careers – from twenty to thirty years – if a man is older, say, twice the woman’s age, minus 15 , she should at least think about the fact that he may have ulterior motives, especially if he invites to meet in a state of alcoholic intoxication, late at night or in any overly intimate places, such as hotel rooms.
So, if the woman’s age is x, and the man’s age is y,
If y> 2x-15, then the dude may well be a bastard.
So for a 26-year-old woman recently hired into the newsroom, a 38-year-old colleague who regularly tries to communicate with her should be alarming. Now, are we talking about “socializing,” meaning to go out for a drink as a team or even one-on-one? No. We’re talking overly personal conversations about your romantic life, touching someone’s knee or hip, or offering unwanted shoulder massage (Charlie Rose’s signature crunchy paw ). The formula is just an initial validation algorithm that will warn the young woman that something might be turned off.
It should also be a red flag for colleagues and superiors of a potential persecutor – does this guy only chat with young women at work events? Does he regularly get sloppy at office cocktails and gets too close to new hires? This should be your sign that your work environment is causing some problems for women.
I call it the Law of the Dazed and Confused , after Matthew McConaughey’s famous line: “This is what I love about high school girls – I get older and they stay the same age.” Which, when you think about it, no longer seems terribly funny. (Also note that you can still be a scumbag even if y is no more than 2x-15. There are no loopholes here.)
For those of you about to go berserk and @ me: “Oh, now I can’t ask my colleague in his thirties to talk about the TPS reports?” I say, of course you can. But are you only asking pretty women? Pretty young women? Are you so friendly with people of all ranks in your field? If the answer is no, you might want to chat a little more in groups so the whole office can enjoy your firm paw.