Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

kovalc.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 67 posts

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#21

Post by coldtea »

Frondo wrote: post #8
sunir wrote: post #4

What is the right protocol? As a conference organizer I would like advice. Getting past he said she said is a delicate problem.

I have no problem with he said/she said, because I am willing to take a woman at her word when she says "he harassed me". On the extremely rare occasions I've heard of men complaining of being raped by women, I don't think I've ever heard anyone dismissing his complaint as she said/he said.

>I have no problem with he said/she said, because I am willing to take a woman at her word when she says "he harassed me".

Yeah, let's do away with the burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and all those antiquated things.

>On the extremely rare occasions I've heard of men complaining of being raped by women, I don't think I've ever heard anyone dismissing his complaint as she said/he said.

Even if that's was the case (that nobody dismissed his complaint as she said/he said), that's still no argument. They should have dismissed it in both cases, unless proper proof was given.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/12/student-wrongfully-expelle...

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#22

Post by coldtea »

Frondo wrote: post #9
LeHatBad wrote: post #7

So: In the writer's own words, she did not respond honestly to his advances as she hoped to advance her career through his acquaintance: > While I tried to politely decline his advances, he was in a position of power over me in this industry. He said he knew my bosses, he knew where I worked, and he promised he’d help advance my career. I felt it best to stay in his “good graces” and not be flat out rude. She did fin…

She turned him down, and you're saying she didn't turn him down firmly enough, and did so to string him along? Why does that sound like a variation on "she was asking for it, she didn't fight back hard enough" or any other kind of victim-blaming?

If people stopped pursuing people who "turned them down" at first, then half of the world's children would be unborn, and half of the marriages/relationships would have never happened.

Literally. Ask how many people's husbands or wives turned each other down a first, and din't have to ask a few times, and even do some stupid things (down to a serenade on a case I know, but there are far more involved cases), to earn each other's love. Or read 100 or 1000 biographies and note down how often this happens.

It might sound difficult for litigation and PC-heavy us protestants to hear, where everyone is a victim, everything should be regulated and people should only approach each other with laywers or gloves and full body armors, but it's the way of the world.

Except if you think that every relationship starts as "love at first sight".

Now, if she had turned him down "firmly" that's another thing. But a simple turndown that might sound like it might be overcome might not be enough.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#23

Post by bro-stick »

mkaziz wrote: post #2

Reading this made me really sad. The organization's response was straight up unjust. They should've ejected the male speaker and prevented him from attending the conference at all.

More often than not, organizers don't care enough about doing right and instead do what is expedient because "they don't have the time to investigate or take sides." It's real evil and wrong, but it's fairly common.

If organizers don't step up, crucifying them and perps in the media is another way to go. IANAL but in this instance, the victim may persue criminal sexual harassment charges if statue of limitations have not all expired and a permanent restraining order should be sought to end unwanted attention.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#24

Post by bro-stick »

Mz wrote: post #16
sunir wrote: post #4

What is the right protocol? As a conference organizer I would like advice. Getting past he said she said is a delicate problem.

It sounds like, in this case, she provided good evidence and they were convinced he really harrassed her. Then they handled it really poorly, including notifying him she had talked to them. So, for starters, err on the side of protecting her and develop good protocols for not disclosing. Reading up on how HIPAA gets handled may help. Second, when thinking about how to handle it, start with the assumption that bad peo…

If they're tattling on her to him and haven't done anything to hold him accountable, they're not going to make it right except as a token PR play under pressure later. She's got to engage a lawyer and the legal system to protect her.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#25

Post by bro-stick »

Frondo wrote: post #8
sunir wrote: post #4

What is the right protocol? As a conference organizer I would like advice. Getting past he said she said is a delicate problem.

I have no problem with he said/she said, because I am willing to take a woman at her word when she says "he harassed me". On the extremely rare occasions I've heard of men complaining of being raped by women, I don't think I've ever heard anyone dismissing his complaint as she said/he said.

Men and women both make up crazy stories all the time to attack other people. It's incontraverible evidence that makes it clear one side isn't lying. It seems like she has good evidence so it's not s/he said situation anyhow.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#26

Post by bro-stick »

sunir wrote: post #6
prolways wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like in this case there is relatively objective evidence. I agree this is super tricky, but I don't think it has much to do with "he said she said". I believe the core issue here is that the bad actor has so much clout he cannot be held accountable by anyone involved. I would expect the problem to generalize to way more than just conferences.

This case seems very clear but what is the more general protocol?

Organizers that aren't money-hungry, amoral/weak/lazy aholes. They don't care about protocol.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#27

Post by hoopd »

bro-stick wrote: post #23
mkaziz wrote: post #2

Reading this made me really sad. The organization's response was straight up unjust. They should've ejected the male speaker and prevented him from attending the conference at all.

More often than not, organizers don't care enough about doing right and instead do what is expedient because "they don't have the time to investigate or take sides." It's real evil and wrong, but it's fairly common. If organizers don't step up, crucifying them and perps in the media is another way to go. IANAL but in this instance, the victim may persue criminal sexual harassment charges if statue of limitations have…

You're bieng more of a bully than the author's harasser.

Look at your language, you want to crucify people because they didn't destroy somebody's reputation and possibly their entire career when a member of your group asked them to? That's scary.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#28

Post by Asbostos »

hoopd wrote: post #27
bro-stick wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often than not, organizers don't care enough about doing right and instead do what is expedient because "they don't have the time to investigate or take sides." It's real evil and wrong, but it's fairly common. If organizers don't step up, crucifying them and perps in the media is another way to go. IANAL but in this instance, the victim may persue criminal sexual harassment charges if statue of limitations have…

You're bieng more of a bully than the author's harasser. Look at your language, you want to crucify people because they didn't destroy somebody's reputation and possibly their entire career when a member of your group asked them to? That's scary.

Are you saying that people whose career or reputation depends on not harassing women should be allowed to get away with harassing women more than others?

A great example of the right way to do things is how the BBC kicked out their biggest star, Jeremy Clarkson, due to a single case of assault when the victim didn't even make a complaint. It shows that they don't give license to abuse people to the more valuable employees.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#29

Post by Asbostos »

Frondo wrote: post #8
sunir wrote: post #4

What is the right protocol? As a conference organizer I would like advice. Getting past he said she said is a delicate problem.

I have no problem with he said/she said, because I am willing to take a woman at her word when she says "he harassed me". On the extremely rare occasions I've heard of men complaining of being raped by women, I don't think I've ever heard anyone dismissing his complaint as she said/he said.

Is this like the Muslim method of a woman's word being worth a fraction of a man's? Perhaps if 4 men disagree with one woman, then you'll accept that the men are right because their word is worth less? That's grossly unjust.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#30

Post by Asbostos »

butthackerz wrote: post #20
LeHatBad wrote: post #7

So: In the writer's own words, she did not respond honestly to his advances as she hoped to advance her career through his acquaintance: > While I tried to politely decline his advances, he was in a position of power over me in this industry. He said he knew my bosses, he knew where I worked, and he promised he’d help advance my career. I felt it best to stay in his “good graces” and not be flat out rude. She did fin…

> she strung him along for what she could get out of him. If by "stringing him along" you mean declined every single advance made by him. "No thanks" should be more than enough.

The difficulty is that a woman who really is interested in the guy would also often politely decline all his advances, knowing that she's egging in on in some other way. It's how people flirt.

If a woman says no, how can you distinguish "really no" from "I like being chased, more please"? PC people will claim it's always the former, but actual couples often got together in the latter way.

Post reply on HN