My grandmother (RIP) held various roles at Gulf and Shell throughout the 60's through the early 90's. She used to tell me about how she had tried to retire, but due to the lack of experienced, skilled Fortran programmers at the time she was called back to work. In her time working she used to tell me stories about "3 martini" lunches and regular cocktail events where she would use the same tactic -- usually some club soda with a lemon or a ginger-ale to make as if she were drinking with "the boys". Of course, the oil industry in those days was party-heavy because they were really rolling in it and their PR owned public opinion.

Though, I don't think she was in IT or working with other tech-minded types. She was usually in systems/analysis and spent a lot of time with sales, I think.

Not sure if this contributes much, but it's not a new trick. I can see why it was necessary in those days. I find it a little funny because I work with a number of very talented, educated women who are professionally respected and well-liked and they love their drink (maybe more than I profess I do!) and don't hide it.

Maybe it's only in certain circumstances, or with certain groups that kind of measured restraint is necessary.

---

That said, I'm not overly clear on what the post is proposing. Is it leaning toward temperance as a preventative measure? That's kind of what I'm gleaning at surface-level.

I do agree that it would be an improvement to adjust our collective behaviour to avoid or mitigate social and psychological damage -- however, I don't think temperance is the way. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here.

So that I hope my perspective is understood, I've worked in environments that were (blue collar and) rampant with racism and sexism, and now work in a far more enlightened company that still has some way to go, but generally gets it.

I'd like to give an example and be as brief as possible: in generally recent history there was a large, public scandal where I work where members of senior staff gained some notoriety for some less-than-well-thought-out tweets. It ran all through the media, social media, and nearly prompted public resignations. Immediately there were forums held with each department and then the entire business unit as a whole where any employee who wanted to speak their mind or ask questions was given the stage -- and speak their mind they did! The senior staff has been undergoing adjustments to the company and their behaviour since then. Many people are not completely satisfied with the result, but I think the understanding is there was no satisfying result to come out of it. At least they had used it to prompt for change in a positive direction as it aired some dirty laundry. I don't want to mention further details for concern of making it explicit where this happened. (I'm trying to keep my account relatively vague)

I guess I'm trying to illustrate a middle road possibility. One where we don't hang the fools for the benefit of the other potential fools. Also one where we don't restrict ourselves so far as to remove things we enjoy for the risk they might or might not introduce. Rather one that makes it a default behaviour to seek to adjust wrong behaviour (barring no hard lines have been crossed), and gather more perspective into what's considered right.

I do feel the need to add that I still see many holes in what I'm saying, and there's not likely a way this could be applied universally.