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

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#31

Post by tomlock »

coldtea wrote: post #22
Frondo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>He started to get angry with me and reply with things like “fuck you” and sometimes up to 8 texts in a row when I wouldn’t reply or would decline.

Given the above section, does this situation sound "PC-heavy" to you? The guy literally texted abuse at a person because they didn't respond to his advances. The fact that this person was scared or didn't want to cut professional ties is evidence that something is wrong here with the situation, and not the person themselves. How do we live in a society where people fear saying no to a harasser, and people still seem to come in to bat for those harassers?

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#32

Post by lazzlazzlazz »

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…

I'm stunned you described their choice as "real evil and wrong". You don't understand the meaning of that phrase.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#34

Post by Frondo »

bro-stick wrote: post #25
Frondo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the US, we have a long history of dismissing women's complaints about harassment or sexual assault with "she asked for it" or "she didn't fight back hard enough" or "she's making it up".

I'm simply taking the radical step of actually taking women at their word when they say these things, instead of carrying on with the tradition of assuming the woman's lying or embellishing a story.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#35

Post by throwaway583283 »

coldtea wrote: post #22
Frondo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's something missing from this screenshot!

https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/630751505117659136

What's missing is her response stating, "I'm not interested in you that way, please don't text me anything romantic. See you at the conference!"

Oh, what's that? Did she decide not to do that?

Women, if you want the right to say, literally this - I am not making it up:

http://imgur.com/oW4sGMY

Then you have to say, "I'm not interested in you, please don't ask me again."

The people who express this sentiment in the current thread are completely correct, and if she didn't reply that way then that women is in the wrong.

Ladies, you LITERALLY cannot have it both ways. You CANNOT say you want a guy to text you, you want a guy to ask you out, if you are not willing to say no to them.

Where's that part of the screenshot?

Oh, that's right: nowhere. She expressed the same level of interest in him as I do in all the women I'd be interested in dating if I were a little less busy in life. It takes exceptional bravery and flaunting of gender roles for any of them to ask me out though - the ball is literally completely in my court. Why? Because "I want a guy to ask me out."

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#36

Post by coldtea »

tomlock wrote: post #31
coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>He started to get angry with me and reply with things like “fuck you” and sometimes up to 8 texts in a row when I wouldn’t reply or would decline. Given the above section, does this situation sound "PC-heavy" to you? The guy literally texted abuse at a person because they didn't respond to his advances. The fact that this person was scared or didn't want to cut professional ties is evidence that something is wrong…

>Given the above section, does this situation sound "PC-heavy" to you?

No, such strong language + repeatedly declining to answer I think carries the message perfectly accurately. He should have got it.

P.S. Although, I can see how "fuck you" can be seen as a double-message by the guy (only joking).

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#37

Post by throwaway583283 »

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.

For the right protocol see my other comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10055042

The protocol is for the screenshots to show the woman saying, "I'm not interested in you romantically, sorry! See you at the conference :)".

It's not hard.

Getting 8 facebook message in a row that I didn't answer, is something that I've certainly done with girls I was highly interested in. It's just not a big deal. At all.

Granted the case may be different for women than it is for me, I don't know, I don't have their perspective. But I do know I'm expected to contact them. This is true even when they're VERY interested in me!

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#38

Post by interpol_p »

coldtea wrote: post #36
tomlock wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>He started to get angry with me and reply with things like “fuck you” and sometimes up to 8 texts in a row when I wouldn’t reply or would decline. Given the above section, does this situation sound "PC-heavy" to you? The guy literally texted abuse at a person because they didn't respond to his advances. The fact that this person was scared or didn't want to cut professional ties is evidence that something is wrong…

> Given the above section, does this situation sound "PC-heavy" to you? No, such strong language + repeatedly declining to answer I think carries the message perfectly accurately. He should have got it. P.S. Although, I can see how "fuck you" can be seen as a double-message by the guy (only joking).

It was the guy who texted "fuck you" when she didn't reply to his horrible comments.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#39

Post by interpol_p »

throwaway583283 wrote: post #35
coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's something missing from this screenshot! https://twitter.com/katiekovalcin/status/630751505117659136 What's missing is her response stating, "I'm not interested in you that way, please don't text me anything romantic. See you at the conference!" Oh, what's that? Did she decide not to do that? Women, if you want the right to say, literally this - I am not making it up: http://imgur.com/oW4sGMY Then you have to…

Your mindset about this is shocking and scarily misogynistic.

A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested. That's pretty much a great way to show you are not interested: don't respond. Ignore the text. It lets both parties move on without some explicit and awkward rejection.

You are blaming all women for the fact that some men can't take a hint.

And that screenshot of Google search predictions (seriously, what the hell). Why would you think that has any bearing on how anyone should think and act? Why would you think that defines all women? Do you hold your own self to the standard of what a Google search prediction tells you to do?

I sincerely hope you are just an angry teenager who has time to grow up and not a professional man working with others.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#40

Post by interpol_p »

meric wrote: post #14
Frondo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Putting aside everything else on the blog post, because the conference organisers seem inept - As long there are "wanted advances" in workplaces, there will be "unwanted advances" also. To eliminate "unwanted advances", you must eliminate "advances" in general. For example: if she found him hot, we wouldn't be reading this post. As long as "advances" are still permitted in the workplace, there needs to be social educ…

I don't think "advances" are bad. This woman experienced continuous harassment after politely declining an "advance." That's where things should have ended, but didn't.

The fact that we need to suggest social education to educate professionals in the workplace about when a person is not interested in them is kind of shocking. It should be considered basic communication skills.

Post reply on HN