Office temperature.

MODS: I placed this here as it is, to me, a rant over stupidity. Feel free to move it to a political section if need be.

The newest gubernatorial debate in NY isn't something important like laws, economy, taxes, etc.

IT'S ABOUT THE INHERENT SEXISM OF THE AMBIENT TEMPERATURE OF THE WORKPLACE.

Story Here

A HEATED DEBATE
Air conditioning is sexist—and a debate between New York’s gubernatorial candidates shows it
By Annalisa MerelliAugust 29, 2018
New York State governor, democrat Andrew Cuomo, and his progressive challenger, Cynthia Nixon, are scheduled to have their first (and likely only) debate tonight (Aug. 29). A lot will be on the plate: Cuomo will face his opponent shortly after it was made public that he received money from Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer during the same month in which he suspended an investigation on sexual assault charges against the producer.

But that’s not the issue that is drawing most attention in the hours ahead of the encounter. Instead, the conversation has been monopolized by another pre-debate debate, one over the quintessential office battle of the sexes—room temperature.

Cuomo is known for wanting freezing temperatures during big events: A 2011 article describing one of his State of the State speeches involves parka-wearing frozen guests; a state senator describing her feet like “two blocks of ice;” and an assemblyman calling the room “a meat locker.”

So a strategist for Nixon sent an email to WCBS-TV, which will be hosting the debate, asking for the temperature to be set instead to a more comfortable 76° F (or about 24° C).

The request should not be that big of a deal—after all, it’s a temperature above what energy-conscious countries set as the minimum limit for air-conditioned environments. But WCBS-TV, which has satisfied all of Cuomo’s requests for the debate for fear he would otherwise not show up, has not yet replied to the request, which was accompanied by a note that working environments are “notoriously sexist when it comes to room temperature,” according to the New York Times.

Women—they’re difficult, aren’t they?
What Nixon’s aide says is correct: There is ample evidence—scientific, as well as that based on the history of work environments—showing that the standard thermostat is set to satisfy a men’s ideal temperatures, which tend to be higher than women’s because of their metabolisms. The standard office temperature, one study found, is set to the liking of a 40-year-old man who weights 154 pounds (70 kilos).

This evidence is likely not needed by the many women who have to carry extra layers—sweaters, shawls, socks, even gloves—to wear in their offices, especially in summer, and have had their male colleagues suggest that they “wear an extra layer,” “go for a walk to warm up,” or “put on weight” (the author of this piece, an Italian who will never get used to America’s love of freezing fake air, has been given all of these answers in various offices). The suggested solution is, as always, for women to adjust.

Work environments may have become better for women—not fair, but better—yet office temperatures stand as a bastion of sexism. Complaining that the office is too cold can be a daily chore for the women who choose to pick that fight.

Nothing is as manly as comfort
What is telling about Nixon’s request that the room in which she debates have a bearable temperature isn’t just the way it’s been handled—or hasn’t. It is also the way it’s been reported. Most headlines open with variations of the question “Can air conditioning be sexist?” (Yes. Yes it can—it mostly is.). A New York Times headline reads “Can an office temperature be ‘sexist’? Women, and science, say so.” As if there were still a debate, nevermind science siding with women.

Some have argued that temperatures should be kept low until men are allowed to wear shorts in the office. It’s a fair point—it’s not fun to be uncomfortable at work. But for every poor man who is a little warm after being forced to wear trousers in summer, there is a woman who has to wear some combination of heels, padded bras, shape wear, pencil skirts, ill-fitting pants, and make up. On a good day, being a woman in the workplace feels like being a guy wearing long pants in summer.

But of course, comfort is a male privilege—and the way this temperature debate evolved shows it.

Predictably, Cuomo has dismissed the request. “Unlike Cynthia Nixon, the Governor has more important things to focus on than the temperature of a room,” said the Cuomo campaign in a statement.

Nixon and her staff have shown openness to negotiate. A strategist for the candidate suggested 76 degrees was an opening offer—and just a way for Nixon to avoid paralyzing discomfort. Which is still, even in a progressive campaign, as good as it gets for most women.

What about the woman who works in a refrigerated food plant? Or the man who works in a foundry making car parts?
Are they being discriminated against?
No. Yet another example of stupidity.

You would think, at 52 years of age, that nothing would surprise me for its' dumbassery. Yet again, I'm proved wrong.

a reply to: Brywilson2

This story was even sexist! They downplayed what women have to go through by simply saying that they have to carry extra layers.

They're sweaters of oppression and we all effing know it.

We need to demand ballsweat of equality from men, only then will they know the struggles.

a reply to: Brywilson2

Ive been shaking my head over this since I 1st caught wind of it yesterday.

I dont have too many rules at my home, but 1 ironclad law: Sex in the City is not allowed in any way on any television.

The colder the better. And thin cotton shirts should be the mandatory work uniform.

a reply to: Brywilson2

Predictably, Cuomo has dismissed the request. “Unlike Cynthia Nixon, the Governor has more important things to focus on than the temperature of a room,” said the Cuomo campaign in a statement.

LOL! Says the guy who --

...is known for wanting freezing temperatures during big events: A 2011 article describing one of his State of the State speeches involves parka-wearing frozen guests; a state senator describing her feet like “two blocks of ice;” and an assemblyman calling the room “a meat locker.”

If it's no big deal, Cuomo would let his opponent have the temperature she wants, rather than dismissing the request. Especially knowing how uncomfortable his preferred temp would make her. But I actually think that is exactly his purpose.

For me, cold literally hurts me. I can handle heat, but cold is painful to me. So I empathize!

The fair thing to do is split the difference, or find a median temp between what is comfortable for men and what is comfortable for women.

I've worked in offices and factory floors for nearly 30 years and one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. Women are impossible to make and or keep happy.
Never, ever allow a women to control the thermostat. They will wear the dial out turning it up and down ten times a day.

The one other thing I am sure of is that it's much easier to warm up than cool down. Keep the temp on the low side.

a reply to: Boadicea

I propose a vote by the genders to see what they both think is ideal.

One hour of ideal temperature for women, next hour ideal temperature for men. They alternate each hour on the hour.

This is also a great technique for rooting out those who are susceptibile to pneumonia. Survival of the fittest in the workplace.

a reply to: Boadicea

The fair thing to do is split the difference, or find a median temp between what is comfortable for men and what is comfortable for women.

Wouldnt that make too much sense?
But, my point is, why are they wasting time on this instead of things like jobs, economy, etc.?

I have to go, I'm ''triggered'' by this, and its making me warm. Im gonna turn the house temp down to 65 to cool off.

a reply to: Brywilson2

Hmm...

Now, as some of you may know, I detest, I LOATHE warm weather. In my opinion, if the temperature is above 18 degrees C (you know, the proper measure of temperature), then I will almost certainly be having a bad time. There are few things as aggravating as being stood, sat or laying totally still, and sweating anyway, and that is the situation in which I find myself when the temperature is too high. But I can suffer it rising up to the high twenties, before I start thinking of ending it all by going to sleep in the freezer. When we get to above thirty two, thats the point at which I can no longer do any work, because it would raise my core temperature so high that I would pass out anyway. I was built for snow covered mountains, rain soaked valleys, and little to no direct exposure to sunlight.

But again, there is a happy medium where I can at least partially function, and not require everyone else to be frozen solid.

I know that most females cannot operate in the temperature ranges I prefer. This is why, in winter, when my mother turns the heating up to "Laying down directly on the surface of the sun", I just retreat to my room and put the cooler on, stick my head out of the window and chomp at passing snowflakes as they fall. Why? Because the cold can cause arthritic conditions in people not built for it, whereas the worst that having the heating on will do, is dehydrate me a little and make me fall asleep.

There is no excuse for a person to make a working environment impossible for an entire demographic, regardless of what the working environment is, or who controls it. If members of your workforce literally cannot operate effectively because being that cold makes them sick, puts them at risk of arthritic complaints, or requires them to encumber themselves in a manner unhelpful to their business, no matter what it might be, then something has gone seriously wrong.

Cuomo could easily fix this situation, and ought to, given that this is a matter not of his own working environment as a top man in a campaign or organisation, but a matter of ensuring that the space in which a debate is to take place, does not favour or disadvantage any one party more than another, and as such, the temperature in the room should have nothing to do with him, or indeed the other party, but should be decided upon by whomever the debate space belongs to, with the express understanding that the temperature be set to be between the most comfortable for both parties, a happy medium (and no, I do not mean a stoned clairvoyant).

There can be no argument against this simple compromise, that does not revolve around one persons wish to have an advantage in debate, over the person with whom they will be debating.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

I've worked in offices and factory floors for nearly 30 years and one thing I can tell you with absolute certainty. Women are impossible to make and or keep happy.

Women in the work place, too funny. The only workplace they should be in is the sandwich making one in their homes.

Next thing you know they'll want to vote and drive, maybe even want to wear pants and stuff.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
...if the temperature is above 18 degrees C (you know...

No, I don't know. What is that in normal person temperature?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wow, you are old school...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You mean "What is that in ridiculous, exceptionalist prattle?" surely?



I neither know, nor care. None of my science teachers gave much of a fig for fahrenheit, and neither do I. Its a non metric piece of nonsense, and as with all things that cannot be broken down into sensible units of ten, should jump into the ocean and never surface again!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Next thing you know they'll want to vote and drive, maybe even want to wear pants and stuff.

Pants? Are you talking about portable leg heaters? Maybe we should encourage this practice.

I myself would love to wear tank tops (advanced armpit respirators) and a skirt (futuristic nether region ventilation device). However, that is against dress code.

The work around is rather appealing though I must say, I could identify as a women, which would come with several perks. The main one being able to use the women's facilities. The men's room could be described as a war zone, constantly under barrage from b-52 bombers, where as the women's room is more like a light proxy war, occasionally receiving some mortar rounds.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

20 C is considered room temperature, 26 C is the temperature that clothing needs to be shed or shortened and 37.4 C is the internal temperature of humans. 100 C is when water boils.

Jesus Christ!!!! Are non of you married? Just wait for your wives to go "through the change". It can be minus 10 yet still they will be too hot. Throw the quilts off the bed etc. Wait till you wake up halfway through the night freezing your goolies off, throw the quilt back over you and accidently cover her with a little corner of it. Be prepared for WW3.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Its a non metric piece of nonsense, and as with all things that cannot be broken down into sensible units of ten, should jump into the ocean and never surface again!

The only thing separating the animals from the humans is the Atlantic. Until we are done civilizing the Middle East, we wont be able to come liberate you from science and "perfect systems". Humans thrive on chaos, which is why America does so well with our measurement systems.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
The work around is rather appealing though I must say, I could identify as a women, which would come with several perks. The main one being able to use the women's facilities.

I haven't been doing that for years and don't have the arrest record to prove it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

HAHAHAHA!

You know, you are right in a way. The thing that separates humans from animals, is very likely the Atlantic, but you may well be on the wrong side of that particular divide

I jest of course. The point I was trying to make, before being banjaxed by AugustusMasonicus, was that there are answers to the Cuomo problem, but they won't be any use if he refuses to accept them, and that would be an ungentlemanly thing to do, certainly not very sporting.