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

What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

gadgette.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–279 of 279 posts

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#271

Post by dogma1138 »

Joeboy wrote: post #195
wavefunction wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this was in the US, where people do not kiss colleagues on the cheek. I know your intentions are fair in mentioning this cultural practice but that sort of justification also presents a fair amount of minimization of obvious harassment. I mean, do you kiss everyone on the cheek in Spanish-speaking countries or just very close friends?

I live in multicultural London, and have no idea how to conduct myself in public.

Simple don't make eye contact with anyone who you weren't officially introduced too and only talk about the weather unless it's rugby season.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#272

Post by mercer »

zupreme wrote: post #153

I'm not so sure about this one. I think sexual harassment and direct flirtation can become confused depending on the perspective of the recipient. Men have been making advances toward women throughout history and, perhaps to a lesser extent, women do the same toward men. Far more workplace flings happen than any company (and even many employees) will admit and it often starts with one party or the other making their…

Your view is not entirely unreasonable in my mind, insofar that we don't know the actual details of what happened. For all we know the guy thought she was flirting back at him and feels terribly guilty about misreading the situation (although I personally doubt it). I've seen (and experienced, but thankfully not like this) countless men and women make these types of mistakes. Communication is difficult, and flirting all the more.

However, and in my opinion it's a very important however, I see two reasons why despite our distance to the situation, we can solidly agree that the manager was out of line:

1. He's a manager. Power is a tricky thing. If you're in a position of power, you need to wield it with responsibility. If it means never having romantic/sexual/flirty interactions with a subordinate, so be it. It's just too risky. My father is a church leader and he never meets women one-on-one, both for his and her 'protection', so to speak.

2. It's a man's world. Whether we like it or not, we live in a society where the power dynamics favor men. That also requires some responsibility, as even just superior physical strength unbalances things by default. When I'm walking down a street, I often try to be aware of not 'following' a women if we happen to be going in the same direction (especially if it's a darker or less safe area of town). I do this not because I have to do so, but because I know how unsettling (or scary and threatening) it can to feel like someone is following you, both from stories of my female friends, and from my own (undoubtedly less-scary) experience as a, uh, 'small, skinny boy'.

Now there are not always rules or laws that demand all this of a person, but it strikes me as basic decency to regularly reflect on what 'power' you might have, overt or otherwise, and how this might affect others.

And if someone who is clearly a subordinate feels threatened, then that makes perfect sense. Part of your job as the one in power is to wield it responsibly. That includes the responsibility to make sure there are no 'misunderstandings'.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#273

Post by voidr »

bobwaycott wrote: post #255
voidr wrote: post #247

> In hindsight and with more experience, I now can say, “Yes, I shouldn’t have tolerated even a little bit of misogyny or mistreatment. I should’ve immediately given him feedback that it made me feel extremely uncomfortable.” But regardless of my own reactions, the fact remains that sexual harassment should never have happened in the first place. Women don't(in some cases: don't want) to realise that they can send ou…

> Women don't(in some cases: don't want) to realise that they can send out misleading signals, which itself would not be an issue if they would clarify their limits when a man does something inappropriate. Sigh. This is nonsense. Men don't, or don't want to, realize they frequently misinterpret so-called "signals", or don't pay attention to them at all. There's a sad truth that women actually send signals men complet…

> Men don't, or don't want to, realize they frequently misinterpret so-called "signals", or don't pay attention to them at all. There's a sad truth that women actually send signals men completely miss,

The sad truth, is that (some) men are bad at receiving signals and (some) women are bad at sending them.

> while men actually pick up signals that were never sent.

Some women(and men) subconsciously send out signals that can be interpreted as an invitation, especially if we are talking about people from different cultures.

> After almost 35 years of life as a heterosexual man who doesn't have much trouble with women, here are a few general rules and suggestions on how to handle interactions with women to ensure you don't ever "misread" signals. I'll give them in a half-assed order of importance.

Some people actually do have a problem with reading other people. There are a lot of them in tech.

> I seriously cannot believe we're still having this conversation in 2016.

Society is moving constantly and there are problems that will just never go away, because it's just hardwired to our monkey brain.

I am in no way excusing sexism and harassment, however I see that reality is more complicated than "men evil, women good".

If we go down the path of stigmatizing men and come up with more severe laws to punish them, the divide that caused this mess will only get bigger.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#274

Post by moomin »

lagadu wrote: post #256
moomin wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Ashe Dryden's pretty much debunked this whole line of reasoning better than I ever can. So I'll point you at that https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/dissent-unheard-of If you're still unconvinced, you might want to start examining your own sample bias.

Having read the article, nothing there explains why you feel that using a sub-group that self-selected for a particular characteristic we're examining is a better sample of a population than a randomly selected one. As I re-read the paragraph I just wrote above, I can't feel but be amused by your suggestion that I should examine my own sample bias despite your blind defense of your own; in other words: your presumpti…

You've already got the randomly selected sample, it's linked to in the original article. The figure was 60%. You've got the article explaining why there's a discrepancy between the number of public leavers and the numbers in the study. This isn't some matter of moral equivalence or even intellectual debate, no matter how much you would like it to be.

But I can see we're unlikely to make much progress on this front.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#275

Post by qb45 »

bitL wrote: post #268
qb45 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if I wrote a blog about my experiences I'd become a laughing stock of the Internet So write a blog post on what lead you to such abundance :)

Win everything you can as a kid whether it is sports or scientific competitions, then decide it's not worth it (winner is the lonely one), grow in an environment where girls are looking like supermodels so you aren't intimidated by their looks and can talk to them normally and just don't care that much about them, learn as many arts as you can, like playing an instrument, how to use chiaroscuro, how to make pro photo…

  > if I wrote a blog about my experiences I'd become a laughing stock of the Internet

  So write a blog post on what lead you to such abundance :)
OK, so I officially admit to being a naive fool, as apparently somebody downvoted even that.

> go deep into conversations with girls then eject to avoid boredom on both sides

That's a big mindfuck for attractive girls used to needy guys like this Google manager desperately hitting on them whether it's fun or not. You may want to cut them some slack if they go crazy after that :) Generally, I think I found Strauss' The Game quite enlightening in this regard. It shows kinds of bullshit and drama I'd never realized that women are going through.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#276

Post by dawnbreez »

unprepare wrote: post #244
dawnbreez wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Parent comment's dismissal is based upon details revealed in the article, or rather details that weren't revealed. He suspects that, since the victim escalated immediately, the victim may not have wanted a peaceful resolution. We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it. 2. Yes, I expect you to say that you're upset by the situation. I cannot read your mind; mo…

> We don't have the full picture, but what we have suggests that there were other ways to handle it. So it's safest to assume that the victim of sexual harassment is at fault, of course. > because otherwise they may assume nothing is wrong. So in this scenario, you're taking the stance that the Manager at Google has no concept that asking an inferior employee to sit on his lap could be unacceptable workplace behavior…

I am taking this stance because you, in your infinite wisdom, have assumed there are no possibilities other than the manager being the literal Devil. To compensate, I am taking the opposing position, so at least both ends of the spectrum of possible arguments are heard.

That having been said, talking about your problems is a basic communication skill that everyone who's graduated high school really should have, since it helps ensure that everyone learns from their mistakes and nobody has to be fired. Something I've noticed often in thses sorts of conversations is that people assume their point got across even if the other person acts like they aren't reading the subtle social cues.

TL;DR: I'm arguing with you because you're not thinking about both ends, and someone's gotta think of the other possibilities if we're to be sure that we're right; further, you shouldn't rely on subtlety to work with someone who can't handle subtlety. That's like expecting Java to be weakly typed. You gotta rule out the possibility that they're just stupid before you assume they're a dick.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#277

Post by facepalm »

moomin wrote: post #274
lagadu wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read the article, nothing there explains why you feel that using a sub-group that self-selected for a particular characteristic we're examining is a better sample of a population than a randomly selected one. As I re-read the paragraph I just wrote above, I can't feel but be amused by your suggestion that I should examine my own sample bias despite your blind defense of your own; in other words: your presumpti…

You've already got the randomly selected sample, it's linked to in the original article. The figure was 60%. You've got the article explaining why there's a discrepancy between the number of public leavers and the numbers in the study. This isn't some matter of moral equivalence or even intellectual debate, no matter how much you would like it to be. But I can see we're unlikely to make much progress on this front.

Actually those 60% were not from a random sample.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#278

Post by hluska »

tomp wrote: post #265
hluska wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. Sexual harassment laws are somewhat tipped in the victim's favour, but only because law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour. This is not about laws favouring women, it is just about how the law works. Simply, the victim's feelings matter. There is a difference between a wink and a wink after something sexually suggestive. If you can't understand that difference then yeah, there's nothi…

> law in general is tipped slightly in the victim's favour Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty). > Simply, the victim's feelings matter. So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed? Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.

> Not really, at least in the US it's tipped in the innocent person's favor (i.e. innocent until proven guilty).

That is only in the criminal system. And, that truism has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Even in the criminal system, if you yell, "I'm going to kill you" and run at me with a knife, you may feel that you are joking. But, if I feel fear for my physical safety, my feeling of fear overwhelms your feeling that it was a joke.

You're also not thinking through the entire system. You seem to be under the belief that criminal/tort law requires an actual physical injury. That is simply not the case.

> So, if I'm hurt by how stupid what you wrote is, should you be lose your job or be jailed?

> Basing laws on feelings is the most stupid and abuse-prone idea I've ever heard.

And, that is why we have lawyers and judges.

Consider laws about assault. Assault does not require actual physical harm in order to be a criminal or tortious act. It only requires two elements:

- the assaulter needs to demonstrate intent. This requires more than words.

- the victim needs to feel fear for his/her safety.

Or, let's consider laws about sexual harassment. In the United States, simple teasing is not illegal, but it can become illegal if it creates an offensive or hostile work environment. The feeling has to be justified (hence the role of judges and lawyers), but it is still all about feelings and reactions.

You should read the US civil rights act. It's well written and quite interesting.

I think it's obvious but I'm neither American not a lawyer.

Re: What I learnt from being sexually harassed at Google

#279

Post by tomp »

hluska wrote: post #267
tomp wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love and get married? Fire the manager? If not, then it's hard to say "it is always 100% wrong".

Decisions like that cannot happen in a vacuum so I would have to collect more information. For example, did the manager disclose the relationship to his/her direct manager before the wedding? If so, were there any controls put in place to make sure that the report was treated fairly? And then, what about the rest of the team? How do they feel about the relationship? Does it hurt their ability to do their jobs? Do the…

Hm... you wrote your whole post assuming that the manager did something wrong after initiating the relationship (e.g. didn't report the relationship, didn't make sure the team was OK with it, didn't take care of any potential conflicts of interest, ...). My point in mentioning marriage was just that clearly, the subordinate was OK with the whole relationship thing. So, after the fact, the flirting was clearly not wrong/immoral/inappropriate.

So, assuming everything was done correctly ("by the book") after the relationship had begun, would you still consider flirting inappropriate in all circumstances?

> 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.

In an ideal world, this would be awesome. In the real world, people fall in love unexpectedly (even if they don't want to). What do you want them to do in that case? Repress their feelings, hide and lie about their relationship, quit their jobs hoping that it was worth it? I firmly believe that reasonable, emotionally mature people are able to handle relationships (and breakups) in a normal, not psychopathic or disturbing way.

Post reply on HN