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

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#41

Post by interpol_p »

Asbostos wrote: post #30
butthackerz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because it's pretty damn obvious when someone doesn't like you versus when they are being playfully coy. If you can't tell then just back off and assume they are not interested. Because if you can't tell then they are probably not interested.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#42

Post by Nadya »

interpol_p wrote: post #39
throwaway583283 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Ignoring is an answer." - Except for when it isn't. Which is more often than not.

Was the message missed? Or possibly they were busy at the time and forgot to respond later?

If the few people I keep in contact with didn't try multiple times to reach me - I'd never talk to anyone. I'm hard to reach because the few methods of contact I have, I largely ignore.

I have a phone in my pocket that, without looking at it, I am willing to bet has 3+ missed calls and at least 4 people waiting over a week for a response to a text message and a sister who probably thinks I am dead because the last time I replied to one of her messages was over a year ago.

The fact that people like me exist runs entirely contrary to your claim and is why an explicit response should be socially necessary. If someone interested in dating me didn't try repeatedly, even if I was "ignoring them", they'd never get anywhere. Because chances are I saw their message, cleared the notification, and forgot to respond.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#43

Post by throwaway583283 »

interpol_p wrote: post #39
throwaway583283 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, out of curiosity into whether you have any personal insight into the matter at all, whatsoever, may I ask whether you're a woman? (I will proceed with the assumption that you are.)

So, you are literally taking my right away to be busy. I can literally "lead someone on", as in, express interest - then if I ignore their 8 texts, you are saying that I have expressed a lack of interest? Even though I have explicitly stated that I'm interested?

Or does what you write only apply to women - I, as a man, am allowed to be busy and productive and once every two weeks say to a woman, "I'm just crazy busy" and in the mean time if she doesn't want to take the initiative she has to just stand by. But she, as a woman, doesn't have the same right to be busy: after I send two texts, she will never hear from me again, as she has to choose either to be warm and responsive or focus on everything else going on in her life? She can't have her cake and eat it too - but I can? I can ask a woman out whenever I want, once, and in the mean time arrange my time however I want - but she has to immediately warmly accept or lose me forever?

So, you're saying I, the man, get to run the show, get to decide whether I'm interested in someone or interested but too busy to respond, but women do not have the same luxury? Got it.

At the top of this post, the reason I asked whether you're a woman is that dating isn't some small, incidental part of culture: it is huge. I don't set the rules. You're saying that the rules "ought" to be that if someone ignores two messages, they have expressed explicit uninterest, whereas I say the rules are that it can be only an indication.

your view is I would say the more misogynistic one: it would apply to mentally handicapped people, or children, who are unable to form opinions of consent or non-consent.

Any adult or legal person can easily say "no thanks, I'm not interested in you romantically".

seriously, how hard is that?

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#44

Post by meric »

interpol_p wrote: post #40
meric wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no formal education for basic communication skills. We rely on informal methods such as talking to friends and family, but there will always be people who miss out on practicing on one or more aspects of socialising with women. And they will be the harassers. I don't think shaming them and locking them up straight away is the way to go.

I have had crushes on various females since primary and secondary school. The first one or two instances you could almost say I too had harassed someone. It wasn't until I had more experience "advancing" I finally got when girls want you to continue and when they don't. Not everyone is lucky they pick this skill up early, even as I wish I got the hang of it earlier than I did.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#45

Post by interpol_p »

meric wrote: post #44
interpol_p wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no formal education for basic communication skills. We rely on informal methods such as talking to friends and family, but there will always be people who miss out on practicing on one or more aspects of socialising with women. And they will be the harassers. I don't think shaming them and locking them up straight away is the way to go. I have had crushes on various females since primary and secondary school.…

Sure, everyone has had embarrassing social experiences. But we are discussing grown professionals who are speaking at conferences. Not children in school.

And this isn't a case of not knowing how to act socially, it's actual aggression and harassing behaviour when he doesn't get what he wants.

On a side note, there are formal communication skills courses in education. My university had a course called "Communication Skills for Engineering" or something like that. It was a mandatory short course for anyone in engineering, maths and computer science.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#46

Post by interpol_p »

Nadya wrote: post #42
interpol_p wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Ignoring is an answer." - Except for when it isn't. Which is more often than not. Was the message missed? Or possibly they were busy at the time and forgot to respond later? If the few people I keep in contact with didn't try multiple times to reach me - I'd never talk to anyone. I'm hard to reach because the few methods of contact I have, I largely ignore. I have a phone in my pocket that, without looking at it, I…

So what if someone doesn't reply? It's not the end of the world. And it certainly does not give you the right to harass them with increasingly sexual explicit messaging (what happened in this case).

There are polite ways to see whether someone got your message (e.g. a simple "did you get my message?") when you see them in person.

I don't think your example really accounts for the myriad of ways this man could have gracefully handled being turned down.

Doesn't really matter whether some people are bad at responding to messages. It's not an excuse for this behaviour nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous).

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#47

Post by interpol_p »

throwaway583283 wrote: post #43
interpol_p wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

First of all, out of curiosity into whether you have any personal insight into the matter at all, whatsoever, may I ask whether you're a woman? (I will proceed with the assumption that you are.) So, you are literally taking my right away to be busy. I can literally "lead someone on", as in, express interest - then if I ignore their 8 texts, you are saying that I have expressed a lack of interest? Even though I have e…

I'm a man. Gender is irrelevant and you are way too focused on it.

You know what you don't do? Send someone you are interested in 8 texts if they are not responding. You let it go and get on with your life.

Both women and men have harassed their romantic interests. This is not something only one gender is guilty of. Stalking is a thing that happens when one person can't accept the idea that they've been rejected.

That's what happened here. We don't blame the victim in this case just because she happens to be a woman. We don't blame her because she politely rejected this man and he couldn't accept it. That would be disgusting.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#48

Post by meric »

interpol_p wrote: post #45
meric wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no formal education for basic communication skills. We rely on informal methods such as talking to friends and family, but there will always be people who miss out on practicing on one or more aspects of socialising with women. And they will be the harassers. I don't think shaming them and locking them up straight away is the way to go. I have had crushes on various females since primary and secondary school.…

Sure, everyone has had embarrassing social experiences. But we are discussing grown professionals who are speaking at conferences. Not children in school. And this isn't a case of not knowing how to act socially, it's actual aggression and harassing behaviour when he doesn't get what he wants. On a side note, there are formal communication skills courses in education. My university had a course called "Communication…

The only place where you can 'formally' learn a 'Sorry I'm really busy, maybe some other time? :)' is a straight out rejection, and that you should stop pursuing this woman, is in a PUA school. The other way you can learn it is receiving enough of these rejections to finally figure out what they mean. Not everyone had enough contact with women to learn this by the time you're grown professional. I'd say at least 20% of HN readers wouldn't know it either.

You don't learn that in engineering communication courses.

The way the man acted is like a child throwing a temper tantrum, because that is exactly where his skill level in managing his emotions is when dealing with women!

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#49

Post by interpol_p »

meric wrote: post #48
interpol_p wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, everyone has had embarrassing social experiences. But we are discussing grown professionals who are speaking at conferences. Not children in school. And this isn't a case of not knowing how to act socially, it's actual aggression and harassing behaviour when he doesn't get what he wants. On a side note, there are formal communication skills courses in education. My university had a course called "Communication…

The only place where you can 'formally' learn a 'Sorry I'm really busy, maybe some other time? :)' is a straight out rejection, and that you should stop pursuing this woman, is in a PUA school. The other way you can learn it is receiving enough of these rejections to finally figure out what they mean. Not everyone had enough contact with women to learn this by the time you're grown professional. I'd say at least 20%…

Right, but we expect professional engineers to learn difficult things. Having an expectation of them to also learn how to behave like adults seems like a reasonable one. Doesn't matter that it's "hard because they were scared of girls."

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#50

Post by meric »

interpol_p wrote: post #49
meric wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only place where you can 'formally' learn a 'Sorry I'm really busy, maybe some other time? :)' is a straight out rejection, and that you should stop pursuing this woman, is in a PUA school. The other way you can learn it is receiving enough of these rejections to finally figure out what they mean. Not everyone had enough contact with women to learn this by the time you're grown professional. I'd say at least 20%…

Right, but we expect professional engineers to learn difficult things. Having an expectation of them to also learn how to behave like adults seems like a reasonable one. Doesn't matter that it's "hard because they were scared of girls."

It's also reasonable to expect them to pass their engineering subjects, yet at the same time, we know in universities, the pass rate of some subjects can be as low as 60%, and usually around 80-90%. There will always be people who didn't make it through with all the knowledge pieces in the head intact and we need a system of making sure no one is left out. No one wants to lock up the 20% of engineers who aren't good with girls and have exhibited behaviour that constitutes harassment or being "creepy".
Post reply on HN