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

Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 692 posts

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#191

Post by whichdan »

edblarney wrote: post #181

"there was no harassment according to legal definition. " He's extremely lucky. In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. It's a deep breach of our fundamental rights, in that crimes should be determined objectively, and not subject to the whims and feelings of a victim. Obviously, this is…

For someone trying to define how harassment should be dealt with, you're certainly keen on dismissively calling women "girls".

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#192

Post by indifferentalex »

tps5 wrote: post #148

I think commenters who are reacting negatively to this story are reacting to the vocabulary rather than the story. Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them. At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xen…

Great point about recounting instead of describing, it's really important to stay objective in such cases, especially as both sides (there are more than two however) continue to get more aggressive and vocal, each, maybe unconsciously, trying to push an agenda. This means like you said avoiding using ambiguous descriptors that can mean one thing for someone and something different for someone else. I would at this point add that through personal experience I'm led to believe the author entirely in the objective part of her description, one day we'll be able to partially criticise what people do or say without having to also point out to others that we agree with them, just not yet.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#193

Post by smsowmya »

tyingq wrote: post #129
foldr wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point of the article. She's helping us out by giving us a heads up about a problem in the industry. If you choose to disbelieve her, that's your prerogative. It's pointless to make a pretence of scrutinising the article when it's obviously impossible for her to prove beyond all doubt that her recollection of events is accurate. Just believe it or don't. Don't go asking "where's the proof??"…

Not looking for her to "prove beyond all doubt". But, there's several stories in there where a direct quote of what was said to her would be more enlightening than her interpretation as to the motive behind what was said. Or failing a direct quote...how about just the basis of his "defense" of her. Did he call out the high quality of her work (seems fine), or did he say to lay off because she was fragile (seems not f…

There was no quote because it was him being nicer to me than to the other men thought he should have been - it was actually him not treating me like a second class citizen. It was this "equal" status that made the others feel that I got better treatment. I made no remark about anything else because I do not wish to speculate about anyone else's intentions or motivations - and that is not relevant to the point of this article at all.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#194

Post by easuter »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #179
easuter wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's milking that victim card for all it's worth.

Why is this the victim card? It's an anecdote that one persons grad class is a certain way. How does this reflect on the demographics of the industry? I've been to many companies that are majority white male.

Opening the article with "as a woman and minority" in tech is exactly playing the victim card right up front. It has no weight on whether the supposed actions of her managers and colleagues were wrong, because they'd be wrong no matter who they did this to.

And by your standards even the OP is "just an anecdote". We have no proof whatsoever that she was in fact mistreated.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#195

Post by PuerkitoBio »

edblarney wrote: post #181

"there was no harassment according to legal definition. " He's extremely lucky. In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. It's a deep breach of our fundamental rights, in that crimes should be determined objectively, and not subject to the whims and feelings of a victim. Obviously, this is…

> In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was.

Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, Marcel Aubut and the First Nations women v. the police in Val d'Or for recent examples.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#197

Post by edblarney »

e40 wrote: post #165

However, a group of other male coworkers who resented the attention I received started directing inappropriate and misogynistic remarks towards me. That statement totally reminds me of accounts I've read of conservatives and how they feel about minorities get special treatment. I just find it really interesting that groups in power react this way while they are still in power. It's a very, very foreign thing to me an…

It would not be foreign to you if it happened to you directly. It's not entirely unreasonable that a loser manager fawns over a hot girl on the team, and gets special favours. It happens all the time with gender removed - i.e. the 'suck up' gets the treats.

And more perniciously - it's entirely possible the guys may have a legit point (I'm not implying they do, but indicating that it's a possibility), though obviously not expressed well. People are crazy.

My ex girlfriend got a job working in Montreal, for a 'vaping' company, working in the back. She's drop dead hot. I told her - there is absolutely no way they are going to keep her in the office, she'll be promoted to sales instantly. She did not believe me, but I was right. Within a a few weeks she was outside-sales. The management there is kind of greasy, like guidos at a sweaty gym. They fawned over her, and she definitely had very special status. Favours. The other staff were super jealous. Understandably so.

Anyhow, it never came to lawsuits, but the second I knew she was going to work with those greaseballs, I knew there would be trouble. It's human nature. When gender/race gets involved, we start to apply different words.

I just think people should grow the f* up and just behave responsibly, but also to be a little bit tolerant of weird behaviour now and then.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#198

Post by DanBC »

module0000 wrote: post #133

> I also eventually received an apology from the company and got time off to deal with my stress. I'm not sure how I feel(as an AAPL shareholder) about this. I invest in the company, and they are spending(albeit a tiny portion in the grand scheme of things) my money to pay you...so you can deal with your stress? Really? I understand bereavement leave, sick leave, and FMLA....but stress? What happened to businesses ex…

Companies have a duty. Of care to protect their employees from harm in the workforce.

As a shareholder you should be pleased that Apple is taking action, because the legal costs plus compensation is more expensive.

Plus, you don't want to be the kind of cunt who says stupid shit like "stress isn't real" - only a fucking idiot would say something like that.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#199

Post by Jtsummers »

edblarney wrote: post #181

"there was no harassment according to legal definition. " He's extremely lucky. In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. It's a deep breach of our fundamental rights, in that crimes should be determined objectively, and not subject to the whims and feelings of a victim. Obviously, this is…

A note: Constantly referring to women as girls is a part of the problem. There are certainly women that I know and would use that term to refer to them, for various reason. Familiarity, primarily, as in: "Hey, what are the girls doing tonight?" as a question posed to a female friend about our common group of female friends. But you use girl not just for the specific person (Julie Horvath) but for all women ("If a girl feels harassed..."), and not in a case of familiarity. It's removing them from the category of peers (as adult persons) and putting them into a subordinate group (child persons). And it presents the possibility of dismissing the claim because they're not mature and don't really understand the difference between harassment and ribbing.

Language matters.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#200

Post by edblarney »

PuerkitoBio wrote: post #195
edblarney wrote: post #181

"there was no harassment according to legal definition. " He's extremely lucky. In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. It's a deep breach of our fundamental rights, in that crimes should be determined objectively, and not subject to the whims and feelings of a victim. Obviously, this is…

> In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, Marcel Aubut and the First Nations women v. the police in Val d'Or for recent examples.

"Nonsense, it's still an uphill battle for victims to get their harasser convicted in Canada. See Jian Ghomeshi, "

A) I don't doubt it can be difficult for women - but my statement holds true.

B) Referencing 'Giah Gomeshi' entirely validates my point. He was put on trial by a woman who was blatantly and vindictively proven to be lying through her teeth.

Gian Gomeshi's trial was a farce - he should have never been prosecuted.

As for his terrible behaviour at the CBC - that's another thing entirely, he should have been dropped years before. It seems his office behaviour was no appropriate - but his trial was not for that.

His trial was a witch hunt. He's a weirdo, not a criminal.

That trial also demonstrated how far some women are willing to lie, to the courts, to the public - for whatever reason (retribution?).

Lucy De Coutere was asked by the Prosecution if she had ever had contact with Gian in the years after the fact, she responded 'no of course not' because of course she hated the man for what he did, why would she communicate with him? As it turns out - she had 5000 emails worth of correspondence that she magically 'forgot' about. 5000 emails. And all of it fawning, appreciative, and most of it about her trying to elicit his attention, to get him to visit, to go out with her - over many years. And so she tells the court that none of this happened? She should be jailed.

Anyhow - the Gomeshi is another very terrible example for women, it it's not going to help those women in actual need, it will only add a layer of cynicism.

Post reply on HN