First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Office Air Conditioning is Apparently a Sexist Conspiracy
8830 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/15
This is turning into a rather heated debate, it would seem.



... *is dragged out of the thread*

Okay, okay. I promise I will not make such lame puns anymore...
Posted 7/28/15

a nonstory needs no reaction
Sogno- 
45742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/15

Voc666IV wrote:

Congratulations, on being the stupidest thing I have read all day.


On a side note who finds an office at 20 Celsius (68F) too cold, are you some type of reptile in hiding?


that's freezing to me

to the argument of u can always put more clothes on: ok sure but now i look like this

and i can't move

i hate the cold

i hate going into places where the a/c is below like 74F

but i just carry a jacket around everywhere and well i'm always still cold but it helps lol i understand i'm in the minority of ppl who get cold

and honestly i know more hot natured women than i do men but i think this is supposed to be a joke or something at least i hope so lol
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 7/28/15


Canadians, Am I Right?
20695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / Kansas
Offline
Posted 7/28/15 , edited 8/10/15
The article presents an interesting theory. While many factors affect a person's perception of heat, including weight and age, I certainly think gender is a major factor. I have noticed females seemingly being more sensitive to cold myself, and heard a few say as much.
That said, this conclusion can hardly be considered conclusive. I saw no mention of the number of people asked, nor of any percentages of results.
However, regardless of all that, I think it's absolutely ludicrous that offices are setting their AC down to 68°F.
I work in a manly blue collar environment with lots of physical labour (which raises body temperature), and we only set our AC to 70°F.
For a less physically strenuous office environment, I think 72°F should be fine. (The proposed 77°F from the article is unreasonably high IMHO).
If 68°F is indeed "the norm" for office buildings, something definitely needs to change soon! In this day and age, with the population becoming increasingly aware of environmental issues, I personally find it shocking that this could still stand.
And if businesses truly care about the "bottom line", the (possibly) increased productivity in female workers, combined with the substantial savings (electricity costs money), it seems like raising the temperature a few degrees should be a no-brainer.
613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Jabberwock Island
Offline
Posted 7/28/15
I'm all for equality between men and women, but this is just scraping the bottom of the barrel. They should focus on more pressing matters rather than this.
39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 7/28/15
Usually it's a question of poorly engineered systems and faulty controls that end up making some offices into walk in fridges. On the up side you can keep milk on your desk for a month.
11046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/15 , edited 8/10/15

quikbeam wrote:


As far as I can tell, we basically agree. You say "not a sexist issue" where I say "no man has the intention to be sexist", but we both agree on the facts of the matter:

(1) The person in charge of the office temperature sets it to what that person (regardless of gender) is comfortable with, with no sexist or otherwise gender-based intent but probably a lot of selfishness and without paying attention to other people's wishes, or assuming implicitly that other people have the same desires/temperature preferences.

(2) As a fact of the world we live in, the person setting the temperature in (1) is more likely to be a man than a woman. (Patriarchy theorists would say that this is because previous generations did have explicitly sexist policies, and due to a combination of simply not enough time to re-equilibrate and this sort of unconscious bias effect, the distribution of people in power still favors men. I tend to think this is plausible, but I don't know what you think about it. Regardless, we don't need to agree on the cause of the unevenness to observe that it is fact.)

(3) As a logical consequence of (1) and (2), if there is a gender difference in desired temperatures in the first place, then the temperature that the office ends up at will more often favor men than women. (I'm not going to immediately believe in such a gender difference just because one article says so, but it's plausible, and I'm willing to assume so for the purposes of the conversation.)

Now in US case law as I understand it (not sure how much you know), there's the concept of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact]disparate impact, which basically says, if a policy doesn't look sexist, and isn't intended to be sexist, but its effect in practice is unequal treatment of the sexes, then it's illegal discrimination (and same for racial discrimination, and all the other protected classes). Unless, that is, the policy is based on an inherent requirement of the job, in which case it's unfortunate for the women (or whoever is being discriminated against), but it's not the employer's fault. (Occasionally, US law is actually sane.) A classic example of the "business necessity" exemption is if a fire department requires potential firefighters to carry a 100-lb bag up three flights of stairs to get or keep the job. On the one hand, statistically, more men than women are capable of doing so; but on the other hand, firefighters routinely have to carry over 100-lb people up and down stairs in the process of rescuing said people, and not making sure that firefighters can do the job they'll have to do would not be sane, so that sort of test is perfectly legal. On the other hand, if some law firm or something required its potential employees to carry a 100-lb bag up three flights of stairs as a test, on the grounds that "physical strength promotes mental strength" or some philosophical idea like that, it would be illegal sex discrimination, even though the intent was not discriminatory. As a consequentialist, my moral principles basically match up with the legal principles here - I don't care what your intent was, I care what the result in reality is. If your intent was just to put the thermostat at your comfortable temperature, but the result is to annoy the women in the office much more than the men, then I'm not going to go around calling you a sexist pig since that would be factually incorrect, but I am going to insist you turn the thermostat up.

... end rant.
Posted 7/29/15 , edited 7/29/15

Lowlights wrote:


anzn wrote:

I saw this on 4chan


congrats pal

thanks pal
Posted 8/10/15 , edited 8/10/15
It's ridiculous! Of course office temperatures are regulated to "a man's temperature" because usually, more men than women are in offices. If your office is dominated by men, put on a jumper if you're cold. You don't hear men complaining about this crud, because (usually) they're not pathetic. Feminists like these need to stop playing the victim card.
22663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 8/10/15
Whoa thread resurrection.


mersiere wrote:

It's ridiculous! Of course office temperatures are regulated to "a man's temperature" because usually, more men than women are in offices. If your office is dominated by men, put on a jumper if you're cold. You don't hear men complaining about this crud, because (usually) they're not pathetic. Feminists like these need to stop playing the victim card.


Right?

There's a backlash for it though, from both men and women. About damn time too.
5729 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Palatine, Illinois
Offline
Posted 8/10/15
;_; people have way too much time on their hands...
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 8/10/15
I got the cold thanks for revival of the snow storm
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/10/15 , edited 8/10/15

bobland wrote:

The original article on The Washington Post wants me to face into my desk.

You can always put more clothes on, but you can only take so much off.


The Washington Post ran another full page article today.

And yes, most of the guys in my office, including me, run fans. Most of the women keep a sweater at their desk.

1580 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / Shit Orb #3
Offline
Posted 8/10/15
this concept is stupid, but I also feel like a lot of people dig these things up to discredit people with real complaints.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.