@mahryekuh So is just about everyone here. Both the two persons involved and the other men, one of them replied-all in the email chain about this with the following:
"We FINALLY managed to hire and retain a woman for this work and now you're starting with this shit? In the future can you please leave your woman-belong-in-the-kitchen ideas at home?"
This did not help to calm down the conversation btw..
@Pepijn Was this one of the guys who did get pockets? If so, he was exactly the right person to make these comments. (Men listen to men). 🙌🏻
@mahryekuh Yes. Actually the most senior old guy we have! I was very surprised to see this comment coming from him as he's normally a typical quiet conservative guy.
Apparently before writing this he messaged the two people who didn't get pockets to let him handle it. Pretty good.
>men listen to men
"unfortunately" the person ordering the clothes is also a woman.😐
@Pepijn Ugh. I am so disappointed by the woman who ordered these clothes (assuming she had agency over the decision).
@mahryekuh She had full agency. Not anymore though as we crafted a quick procedure to follow in the future (min. three people will test any new work clothes, if it comes in different sub-models those will be tested by actual wearers, all have veto-rights before final orders)
@Pepijn Pocket-annoyance aside, I love how quickly this incident got turned into a better policy after someone spoke up. 🙌🏻
@mahryekuh Yeah agreed. I think the speed of this "improvement" is that almost everyone probably assumed this policy was the utter baseline common sense anyway.