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

271–280 of 692 posts

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#271

Post by joyeuse6701 »

mikestew wrote: post #206
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. Ya know, coming from a person who feels it appropriate to refer to adult professional women as "girls", imma need a citation on that.

I'd agree with you, I think calling women 'girls' as a man sounds strange / has some diminutive aspect in the same way a woman calling men boys, 'boys will be boys' etc may have a dismissive, hierarchical nature to it with an added sexist overtone. Ladies would be more appropriate.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#272

Post by PuerkitoBio »

edblarney wrote: post #200
PuerkitoBio wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pro…

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

That doesn't make any sense? You said:

> If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty.

Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted. In all those 3 cases I mentioned (including Ghomeshi), there were many victims that felt harassed. Yet no one in any of those cases was convicted. How does that make your statement true?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#273

Post by zepto »

edblarney wrote: post #252
geoka9 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

"Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" --> "I don't think there is one." No - the feminine of 'guy' is 'girl'. Point blank. "The guys/girls are in town this week" "Those guys/girls are from Facebook" This is very common and normal language.

They are not equivalent because they have different connotations. These aren't values in an enum, they are socially constructed symbols.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#274

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

edblarney wrote: post #240
edblarney wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'. Sam…

"Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics. " Are you sure that I'm a guy? Or even white? Your comment is simply bigoted.

>Are you sure that I'm a guy? Or even white?

Yes. Yes.

Next question, boy?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#275

Post by Jtsummers »

edblarney wrote: post #252
geoka9 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

"Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" --> "I don't think there is one." No - the feminine of 'guy' is 'girl'. Point blank. "The guys/girls are in town this week" "Those guys/girls are from Facebook" This is very common and normal language.

Girl is a diminutive. Guy is not. When you're familiar with someone it's probably fine to use girl with them. But when you aren't familiar, or are speaking about them to others in a professional sense, it's probably bad form.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#276

Post by lostboys67 »

edblarney wrote: post #214
Jtsummers wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cite - yes I know in some countrys "guys" is used in non gendered way now. But I have Never heard that Girl is the Feminine of Guy

(hint English does not have gendered words like say French does)

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#277

Post by zepto »

edblarney wrote: post #250
edblarney wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"This is an indicator of the bubble you're living in. It may be common vernacular amongst all or nearly all of the people you interact with, but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful. It might be worth taking a step back and asking yourself what other things you consider normal might actually be disrespect" You might want to consider that you live in a bubble - and that your finger wagging is condescending. 'Girl…

Could it be that you are both living in a bubble and both being condescending?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#278

Post by edblarney »

edblarney wrote: post #236
wpietri wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No. Wrong. 'Girl' is the feminine of 'Boy'. But it is also the feminine of 'Guy'. Examples: + "Hey guys, there's a problem, let's huddle on this" + "Me and the guys are going out for lunch, you in?" + "That guy is loco!" You would never say: + "Hey men, there's a problem, let's huddle" etc.. And neither: + "Hey women, there's an issue, let's huddle" + "Me and the women are going out for lunch" No. You would reasonabl…

" It's belittling and disrespectful."

Completely false.

'Lady' is the feminine of 'Gentlemen'.

I could, but would not usually say:

"Gentlemen, let's go out for lunch"

So I could, but would not likely say:

"Ladies, let's go out for lunch"

I would normally say:

"Guys, let's go out for lunch"

Or:

"Girls, let's go out for lunch"

'Girls' is fully appropriate in every one of those situations.

You are seeing sexism wherein there absolutely is none and this is a problem.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#279

Post by sanderjd »

edblarney wrote: post #252
geoka9 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

"Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" --> "I don't think there is one." No - the feminine of 'guy' is 'girl'. Point blank. "The guys/girls are in town this week" "Those guys/girls are from Facebook" This is very common and normal language.

I see now that you're from Canada. Maybe what you are saying is true there. In the US, it is not true. Women don't like to be called girls, just like men don't like to be called boys. That our forebears didn't deign to create a feminine version of "guy" is no excuse.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#280

Post by concinds »

karlmdavis wrote: post #108
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…

Because of the power differential? In the same way that it's different for a short man dealing with harassment from a tall man, or an average man dealing with harassment from a gymbro.

There are always power dynamics in corporations. It's called office politics. They'll always exist because that's how human relationships work.

Some people are better than others at relationships. Your prejudice for so-called "gymbros" aside, most employees have underwhelming relationship skills, and anyone can learn to play the politics game well enough to have a good career. Blaming being "short" is just excuse-making.

Ironically, someone trying to arouse a mob mentality by making such an issue public is playing office politics just as much as anyone else is, only in a more underhanded way, since instead of advocating for themselves within the workplace, they cast themselves as victims and invite others to "rescue" them. Isn't that a dysfunctional relationship dynamic? At least as dysfunctional as the dynamic it alleges to opposes?

This whole debate seems more temperamental in nature. The idea that her being defended by her boss was "sexist" (akin to tumblr feminists' whining about door-holding as a sign of sexism) just strikes me as offense-taking for the sake of it. And the tech industry's dominant temperament (they aren't known for being particularly masculine, though I assume most of them will be offended by this description; this isn't meant as an insult BTW, to each their own) is likely to be much more receptive to damsel-in-distress-type narratives as to the exact same relationship dynamics happening between men of higher social stature and men of lower stature.

Post reply on HN