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

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#51

Post by interpol_p »

meric wrote: post #50
interpol_p wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one is suggesting to "lock them up." They just don't get sympathy from me in cases like this, especially when they want to speak at a conference and interact with other professionals.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#52

Post by Mz »

meric wrote: post #50
interpol_p wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with your remark is the implicit way that you want to make sure no men get left out. De facto alienating women is fine. It sounds like "girls" aren't really people in your eyes.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#53

Post by meric »

Mz wrote: post #52
meric wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem with your remark is the implicit way that you want to make sure no men get left out. De facto alienating women is fine. It sounds like "girls" aren't really people in your eyes.

If you're suggesting I should refer to girls I've interacted with when I was 9 years old as women, then I disagree with your suggestion.

You have no solution besides shaming and locking up men who are harassing women. Is it working? Women are getting harassed and men are getting shamed. If that's your ideal of male-female relations then I suggest it is you who has a problem with not wanting to find out the root cause of societal issues, and enjoying the shaming and denigrating socially inept men as a hobby at the cost of other women who are getting harassed. Revenge is fun, I get it, and helping other women who are harassed can feel good too, yes. That doesn't mean solutions to reduce the propensity for men to harass women shouldn't be explored.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#54

Post by Nadya »

interpol_p wrote: post #46
Nadya wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 gr…

You're right about harassment/explicit sexual messaging, but I wasn't speaking about that case. I was speaking about a lack of response in general. Some people, regardless of gender, simply don't get the message. For example, this ex-coworker of mine: http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png (history goes back to 2013 without a single response).

People get all up in arms about bullying and namecalling or racism against strangers - but psychological abuse is perfectly acceptable.

I feel bad for not responding - but she knew me before my transition and I don't feel comfortable telling a coworker who was romantically interested in me (and made it known to me) that I've transitioned. Especially since I'm still stealth and especially because they know other people I'm still in contact with.

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

Being ignored is not being turned down.

>nor should it be a "social requirement" for people to have to turn down unwanted advances explicitly (that's ridiculous).

Until people have telepathy and can tell when an advance is unwanted without cue, I disagree. Implicitly to you doesn't mean implicitly to everyone. What you might think is giving off one message could be picked up as an entirely different message by someone else. Non-direct communication has the whole problem of not being direct. Here, have an example:

A girl I knew in high school used to avoid me in the halls going between classes. I've made some attempts at speaking to her, but she's never responded and always ran off. Knowing only this implicit information, which of the following is true:

a) she was afraid of me and trying to avoid me

b) she had a crush on me and got embarrassed when I was around

With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B" as her implicit message. What if she actually felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her?

What if my advances were unwanted attention and were making her feel more uncomfortable? I'd have no way of knowing. (And you'd think of me as some pushy asshole for it, thanks.)

Thinking she has a crush on me, I might be a bit more pushy and outgoing with my advances because I think she likes me. Which would make her feel even more uncomfortable.

If I was interpreting her "A" message as a "B" message, she's making things much harder on herself than if she was explicit about her "A" feelings.

If I picked up on "B" messages but she meant "A" that makes me an asshole in your book.

If she meant "B", and my actions would have been the same if she meant "A" due to the implicit message, I should still be considered an asshole. Since my actions were the same!

Finally, if I assume "A" even though it's "B" would I be an insensitive asshole?

I don't see any way in that scenario where I wouldn't be an asshole. I have to take a chance and hope she means "B" like I think she does for a "mutually beneficial result" to happen (though I'm still an asshole).

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#55

Post by interpol_p »

Nadya wrote: post #54
interpol_p wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gr…

You're right about harassment/explicit sexual messaging, but I wasn't speaking about that case . I was speaking about a lack of response in general. Some people, regardless of gender, simply don't get the message . For example, this ex-coworker of mine: http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png (history goes back to 2013 without a single response). People get all up in arms about bullying and namecalling or racism against stran…

> With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B". But what if she felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her?

This entirely depends on what you mean by "keep bothering her." If you mean, to reference the article, asking to see her naked? Then you shouldn't do it.

If you mean trying to be friendly and spend time with her, then what's the problem?

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#56

Post by Nadya »

interpol_p wrote: post #55
Nadya wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right about harassment/explicit sexual messaging, but I wasn't speaking about that case . I was speaking about a lack of response in general. Some people, regardless of gender, simply don't get the message . For example, this ex-coworker of mine: http://i.imgur.com/udbGjWI.png (history goes back to 2013 without a single response). People get all up in arms about bullying and namecalling or racism against stran…

> With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B". But what if she felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her? This entirely depends on what you mean by "keep bothering her." If you mean, to reference the articl…

>A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested.

I've only ever responded to and explicitly contested this point out of context of whatever the article is about.

A person does have to say something in many scenarios. Like the one I gave. Or the result can be very wrong.

>If you mean trying to be friendly and spend time with her, then what's the problem?

If I was making her very uncomfortable and she felt unsafe around me because she was afraid of me if it was "A" and not "B" - regardless if I was acting friendly and trying to spend time with her - I could see a lot of problems with that for her. Of course, I'd be blissfully unaware of them because she wasn't explicit that she wasn't interested.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#57

Post by interpol_p »

Nadya wrote: post #56
interpol_p wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the information I've given you - it could be either one. Couldn't it? I'll give you the answer though: it was B and we later ended up dating. But it was only because I made the effort to "keep bothering her" because I was picking up "B". But what if she felt like "A"? How different would that have been for her? This entirely depends on what you mean by "keep bothering her." If you mean, to reference the articl…

>A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested. I've only ever responded to and explicitly contested this point out of context of whatever the article is about. A person does have to say something in many scenarios. Like the one I gave. Or the result can be very wrong. >If you mean trying to be friendly and spend time with her, then what's the problem? If I was making her very uncomfortable and s…

> A person does have to say something in many scenarios. Like the one I gave. Or the result can be very wrong.

Rejecting unwanted advances can take the form of silence. Especially over text message. It's a pretty common way to reject someone without creating an awkward situation. If one party can't take the hint then they are more likely being wilfully ignorant (don't want to accept rejection). And even if they aren't, it's not an excuse to harass.

> If I was making her very uncomfortable and she felt unsafe around me because she was afraid of me [...]

Women do not make a binary choice between either "being afraid of you" or "being attracted to you." If you are a friendly and reasonable person then you shouldn't have a problem.

If you ask someone out and they say "I'm busy" a few too many times, maybe you just take the hint and move on, no?

The argument that "I'm too ignorant to know when women don't want my attention" is nonsense.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#58

Post by meric »

interpol_p wrote: post #51
meric wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No one is suggesting to "lock them up." They just don't get sympathy from me in cases like this, especially when they want to speak at a conference and interact with other professionals.

No, they don't deserve sympathy.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#59

Post by throwaway583283 »

interpol_p wrote: post #46
Nadya wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 gr…

I agree with you completely that increasingly sexual messages were completely inappropriate. (I didn't read the whole article though, I'm going on your summary.)

That said, it sounds like she her options open with him. Does it quote any of her "rejections" at all? It sounds like she remained warm and friendly with him.

Re: We Still Let Harassers Participate in Our Community

#60

Post by throwaway583283 »

interpol_p wrote: post #57
Nadya wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A person doesn't "have" to say anything if they are not interested. I've only ever responded to and explicitly contested this point out of context of whatever the article is about. A person does have to say something in many scenarios. Like the one I gave. Or the result can be very wrong. >If you mean trying to be friendly and spend time with her, then what's the problem? If I was making her very uncomfortable and s…

> A person does have to say something in many scenarios. Like the one I gave. Or the result can be very wrong. Rejecting unwanted advances can take the form of silence. Especially over text message. It's a pretty common way to reject someone without creating an awkward situation. If one party can't take the hint then they are more likely being wilfully ignorant (don't want to accept rejection). And even if they aren'…

Like Nadya, I also only ever responded to and contested that single part of the article.

You write "Rejecting unwanted advances can take the form of silence." I think we're all agreed that "Being extremely happy about and welcoming advances can take the form of silence." as well. Do you disagree with this?

Post reply on HN