Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#111

Post by anon127 » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

fatdog wrote: post #98

How is women dealing with harassment different than men dealing with other men who are just assholes? I've been in a number of companies where I've had to call out the behavior of a colleague with a manager because the alternative would have been knocking the guys teeth out. Nothing changes, except maybe a "talking to" by a manager or HR, and said asshole just presses against a different boundary. I have also found t…

It is actually very different. I did not believe this either. About a decade ago I was a one man startup and needed to create the illusion there were more employees. I decided that one of them should create a fake female name. Now keep in mind I did not even work with these people.

I could not believe the number of crude and rude things said to this fake woman. It was disgusting. I could not imagine the night and day treatment just because I looked like a woman. Sometimes saying sexual stuff. Sometimes asking for a man since as a woman I did not know computers that well. It really changed me around.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#112

Post by ambicapter » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

cdubzzz wrote: post #55

pmlnr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

human language 101: statement != question

To clarify - your statement is, "this [talking to one's harassers] should always be the first step". It is an extremely broad statement and I am curious how you defend it.

One man's harassment is another man's ribbing. It is important to clearly define boundaries between two parties before one party decides a boundary has been crossed (n.b. I haven't read the article yet but stand behind my statement in the general case).

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#113

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

ashark wrote: post #97

yummyfajitas wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization is not banned in any state. Your link does not agree with your dishonest comment. Right to work laws simply prohibit collusion between unions and employers to prevent non-union workers from working. They are no different than other worker protection laws, e.g. the laws prohibiting Apple and Microsoft from forming an anti-poaching agreement.

Well, effective unions–those capable of overcoming the free rider problem–are banned, then. It's like banning all sports equipment but saying Baseball isn't banned, in that you can still get together and say you're playing baseball and go through some of the motions, kind-of, and perhaps even play some cup-ball and call it baseball.

I don't know what you mean by "free rider problem". Rather than buying negotiation services from a union, I simply negotiated my own employment agreement. Who am I "free riding" on?

If I hack together my own IDE in emacs, am I somehow "free riding" on the people who sell commercial IDEs?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#114

Post by foldr » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:28 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #76

There's a curious lack of detail in this story. No direct quotes, or even reasonable level of detail to the accusations. For example: "One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism." I'm sure there's a way that a supervisor jumping to your defense could be sexist, but this isn't showing that, at all. "At a lunch with several other coworkers, one of these men orde…

>There's a curious lack of detail in this story.

It's not curious at all. She's being careful not to identify specific individuals.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#115

Post by BEEdwards » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #88

c0nfused wrote: post #74

Its not a bad idea, but it flirts with unionization which is actively banned in many US states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

Unionization is not banned in any state. Your link does not agree with your dishonest comment. Right to work laws simply prohibit collusion between unions and employers to prevent non-union workers from working. They are no different than other worker protection laws, e.g. the laws prohibiting Apple and Microsoft from forming an anti-poaching agreement.

Except that this law makes the union pointless.

Laws like that are a prime reason unions are dying.

Why pay union dues when you get all the benefits for free?

Oh sure, the union shrivels and dies and the benefits leave with it, but fuck it you saved $25 off a few paychecks.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#116

Post by ashark » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:29 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #113

ashark wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, effective unions–those capable of overcoming the free rider problem–are banned, then. It's like banning all sports equipment but saying Baseball isn't banned, in that you can still get together and say you're playing baseball and go through some of the motions, kind-of, and perhaps even play some cup-ball and call it baseball.

I don't know what you mean by "free rider problem". Rather than buying negotiation services from a union, I simply negotiated my own employment agreement. Who am I "free riding" on? If I hack together my own IDE in emacs, am I somehow "free riding" on the people who sell commercial IDEs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

(EDIT: to expand, this is the problem with voluntary associations when it comes to acting effectively toward their goals, and if you follow this general rabbit hole far enough, basically why government is a thing)

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#117

Post by rm_dash_rf » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

Thank you for sharing your story. Sounds like a very toxic environment.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#118

Post by diyorgasms » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #95

diyorgasms wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that the witch trials, which were effectively a small genocide against women, are a particularly effective metaphor for refuting manifestations of sexism.

I suppose that would be true if you think arguments are soldiers in favor of women or against them. You think I believe I raised a +1 for men, while you think I raised a +1 for women by mentioning a time they were victims. In fact, I believe arguments are attempts to converge to truth. The fact that women were victims in 1631 has no bearing on this discussion. RoderickDay made an argument that happened to be flawed (…

I think what you were trying to say in your original comment was that "positive" sexism doesn't exist. That the author was being unreasonable when she interpreted her co-worker standing up for her as sexism.

I will assert that such "positive" acts can be and often are sexist. Negative actions can also be sexist. It is possible to take a sexist action while you think you're being helpful. Not all sexism is manifested in malice.

Consider similar racial stereotypes like "Asians are good at math" or "black people are good at sports." You might think that someone is positive, but those beliefs are deeply rooted in racism and racial stereotypes.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#119

Post by RodericDay » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

tyingq wrote: post #107

RodericDay wrote: post #58

> I can't help but notice the contradiction. A man jumped to her defense, which was sexism, and then her co-workers got resentful, which she wanted to be defended from but wasn't, and that was sexism too. Somehow, we all need to display more empathy for her situation. There's no contradiction. Sexism can express itself both in putting women down and in putting women in a pedestal. The rest of your comment is trash.

>There's no contradiction. Sexism can express itself both in putting women down and in putting women in a pedestal. Since she didn't include a direct quote, or more detail, it's really difficult to say much about the supervisor jumping to her defense. It's clear that, in hindsight, she viewed it as sexist. However, a little more detail on what was said, or the nature of the situation would be helpful to understand it…

it's not automatically sexist, but there's ample ample room for it not to be a contradiction either

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#120

Post by jerf » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

vezycash wrote: post #27

I wonder why she didn't record everything - especially since both managers and HR were trying to gaslight her - making her doubt her sanity. If she'd gone to HR with recordings and they brushed aside her concerns then she'd have a much stronger case. Well as she said, a distressed mind doesn't think properly.

You must be careful about recording things, because there are a lot of laws around that, and you can end up in more trouble yourself, as in, Federal law violation and go-to-jail trouble. See for instance: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-co... Though I would never recommend making decisions about that based on one web page.

For the sake of argument, assuming that this took place in California, that's a "two-party" consent state for recordings, which at least means you don't have a unilateral right to record anything you want. Exactly how that would interact with taking place on corporate property in a corporate setting is something you'd have to ask a lawyer about.