Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#211

Post by edblarney » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

whichdan wrote: post #191

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".

I'm not sure I agree.

I often call people quite my junior 'boys' and 'girls'. I work with a startup of dudes under 24. I call them 'lads'. I could technically be their father. Is that wrong? No.

Neither is using the term Mrs. Ms. or Miss.. In far-left socialist Montreal, where women are not even allowed by law to take their husband's name - people use the French equivalent everywhere: 'Madame' and 'Mademoiselle'. Same in Germany. Is that harassment now?

I think this kind of comment is not helping the situation - you want to find prejudice wherever you can, even when there is none there.

Let's work on getting the actual harassment stuff fixed - and avoid getting into culture wars.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#212

Post by ad-hominem » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

dominotw wrote: post #147

lostboys67 wrote: post #6

The "No Meaningful Process" is shocking in a company of Apples size - in the UK they would get the book thrown at them at a tribunal for that. Sounds like Her boss and Hr failed I wonder if things Like brexit and Trump have made closet racists fell they can be more open

is there anything that not Trump's fault these days.

No, Trump is literally ruining apple. He convinced steve that fruit cures cancer.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#213

Post by wpietri » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:54 PM UTC

verroq wrote: post #203

whichdan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Women, girls and ladies are used interchangeably to refer to females. Grown women will also refer each other girls. To read such a common usage as misogyny is idiotic.

Hello! Guy here.

One, those terms are not interchangeable. Words have meanings.

Two, people will refer to themselves or people in their in-group by names that people in the outgroup should not call them. E.g., my friend runs a get-together called "nerd beers". I don't mind, because he is a fellow lover of technology. Other people do not get to call me a nerd. Many groups have similar patterns, including black and gay people: just because they call themselves a word does not mean that you can.

Three, guys aren't very good at noticing misogyny. Other people noticing something you don't could be idiotic. But it could also be you just missing something that they've had more time and reason to think about.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#214

Post by edblarney » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #199

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 gir…

I agree that language matters but I don't agree with your assertion.

'Girl' is the feminine of 'Boy' but it is ALSO the feminine of 'guy'.

As in: "the guys and I are going for lunch, are you in?"

There is no condescension or diminution.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#215

Post by mikestew » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:56 PM UTC

verroq wrote: post #203

whichdan wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Women, girls and ladies are used interchangeably to refer to females. Grown women will also refer each other girls. To read such a common usage as misogyny is idiotic.

Grown women will also refer each other girls.

I've heard a similar argument before, in reference to race. The logic is equally weak when crusty old white bigots use it.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#216

Post by verroq » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #213

verroq wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women, girls and ladies are used interchangeably to refer to females. Grown women will also refer each other girls. To read such a common usage as misogyny is idiotic.

Hello! Guy here. One, those terms are not interchangeable. Words have meanings. Two, people will refer to themselves or people in their in-group by names that people in the outgroup should not call them. E.g., my friend runs a get-together called "nerd beers". I don't mind, because he is a fellow lover of technology. Other people do not get to call me a nerd. Many groups have similar patterns, including black and gay…

When people call females girls they are not infantalising them. Nor do people use this word in this manner.

If you have a problem with the word girl in reference to a young woman then your quarrel is with the dictionary.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#217

Post by gcp » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

Chestofdraw wrote: post #146

donatj wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my mothers similar experiences followed by her unions absolute refusal to help, in a word, no. They exist to parasitically take your money, forcibly take others who don't want to give and really offer very little in return other than more bureaucracy. Your much better off paying a lawyer than a union.

> They exist to parasitically take your money, forcibly take others who don't want to give and really offer very little in return other than more bureaucracy. If we look at historical facts rather than your mothers anecdotes this is incredibly far from the truth.

If we look at historical facts

Past Performance Is No Guarantee Of Future Results. These aren't the 1900's.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#218

Post by edblarney » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

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…

I should add: I don't want to take away from the seriousness of the issue ... but it's really nuanced, and people get emotional and really quite biased about it. I think we need to be a little more dispassionate and objective.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#219

Post by geoka9 » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 4:01 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #199

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 gir…

Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" in your opinion when referring to a female in a professional environment (assuming that referring to males as "guys" is acceptable)?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#220

Post by verroq » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 4:04 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #215

verroq wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women, girls and ladies are used interchangeably to refer to females. Grown women will also refer each other girls. To read such a common usage as misogyny is idiotic.

Grown women will also refer each other girls. I've heard a similar argument before, in reference to race. The logic is equally weak when crusty old white bigots use it.

Ah a term used mostly as a racist perjorative is comparable to the word "girl" with has no negative qualities when used in reference to a young women. Take your strawman home with you.