Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#361

Post by st3v3r » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:46 PM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #269

Bartweiss wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I think many of the dismissive reactions to these things have a similar basis. It can look like people excusing this behavior, but I think in many cases they've just never seen this behavior. If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting. If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes.…

I think part of the problem is that it's hard (or impossible) to tell how much someone is exaggerating on the internet. Sometimes the answer really is "toughen up" because what they're experiencing is really nothing. Other times, it really is a horrible situation and people should be fired for it.

That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#362

Post by heisenbit » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

There are many articles describing bullying and harassment. This is one worth reading as it

- does not put blame for handling it on any single person or function.

- illustrates systemic dysfunction. Normal incentives work against handling the abuse claim - HR tries to protect company, managers caught in conflict of interest

- points out the result of management not acting clearly. The person bullied feels taking on more responsibility of navigating the mess. As the person has no effective control this add more distress.

- shows the manager dilemma when supporting minority (in whatever sense) in a naive way. The person standing out stands out even more. Dammed if you do and probably dammed if you don't.

- even in an environment where the bullied person is receiving widespread support from others at times (scene at the table where other were speaking up) long running and extreme stress does damage.

- few understand that the problems often only show up months later as it is typical for PTSD

It is very difficult to say what can be done to prevent this. It is obvious that management is making the wrong decisions but why? I believe the author is on something with the conflict of interest. I would add avoidance of conflict - they are empowered to handle it but shy away. Then there is inability to handle bullies by a lot of them - trying to be even handed since this is the normal mode when one side is obviously overstepping (similar to press-Trump relationship).

What could be done by companies? Specialized people/services dealing with that sort of behavior may be one. Making sure management is well grounded in values and knows how to decide in these conflict of interest cases may help a little too.

What can one do to be prepared? Not being weak is probably the best preparation. Ability to fight and win or to pack and run is key to be able to force a resolution.

What to do when caught in it? These days I think getting external help early. Covering two sides: The psychological one (therapist with first hand experience of psychopathic people and stress management, possibly PTSD) and legal advice.

Full disclosure: Could tell a similar sad tale.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#363

Post by warcher » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

I tell a lot of younger developers this, because it's an important truth that will never, ever be spoken aloud.

The sole role of Human Resources is to protect the company from liability, either through lawsuits or labor law compliance. Occasionally managers will abdicate their duty and delegate parts of hiring authority to a section of the company with no understanding of what they do and no accountability for getting it wrong, but that's not as common as you think. Most hiring just gets rubber stamped by HR, not driven by them.

That's all. They're a cost center with no authority beyond saying "this kid is gonna cost us a lot of money if we don't get rid of them"-- either by being a harasser or by being the litigious type (to HR, they're actually the same thing).

If you're expecting them to intercede on your behalf with your manager without something being obviously out of control, ie lawsuit-worthy, you're gonna have a hard time.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#364

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

PuerkitoBio wrote: post #272

edblarney wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Yet you go on and acknowledge that it may be hard to get their harasser convicted

The structure of western government and judicial systems is set-up to make it hard for the individual to get convicted. This is why there is a 5th amendment. This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is a part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Supported by Eleanor Roosevelt.)

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

It's about protecting the individual against the group, even if the group is operating under the auspices of the state. If such principles are abrogated to convict a guilty man, then the state can start to abuse its authority to start convicting innocent men. Precisely such actions are what spurred the creation of the Magna Carta.

Just because someone advocates free speech for a White Supremacist, doesn't make them a White Supremacist. Just because someone advocates the 5th amendment for a an organized crime chief doesn't make them a mob supporter. Just because someone advocates for due process and innocent until proven guilty for an accused harasser doesn't make them an advocate of harassment.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#365

Post by monksy » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #275

edblarney wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

On that same note. Girl may be "diminutive" (I don't agree with that), it's not derogatory. (Unless you say a teenage girl for someone who is an adult) Even if used intentionally to putdown your subject, it's not effective. ("You're a girl" .. well yes, the meaning of the word is incredibly flexible and doesn't indicate maturity or explicitly state negative qualities)

I don't think women have the equivalent to "boy." Boy is used by women to adult men to degrade the subject.

Even though we have two similar words which may belittle the person, we have another case where the womens' version is watered down to belittle less.

-----

That being said "dude" is a pretty weird neutral term is odd in use, and formality.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#366

Post by monksy » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:50 PM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #263

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)?

Not the op, but female as well. Guy is a general term most times, but I've known a few women that get offended by it because they aren't male. Dude is also used for both, but a lot of folks don't want to use that in the office. Alternatively, just use person and be safe.

> women that get offended by it because they aren't male.

There are a few people who get upset over it or intentionally make a vocial issue out of something that isn't. ("Guys" is generally a genderless term ["You guys, take a look at this!"]

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#367

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #223

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…

> and avoid getting into culture wars Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics. Your post here is a shot fired in a culture war. You can't do that and complain about culture wars. The phenomenon you're exploiting here is that the status quo is seen as the default state of the system. When women talk about bias, it's easy to say, "Why are women always talking about bias? Why are…

Complaining about identity politics is how white men practice identity politics

That's either illogical or racist. It could only be logical if you have as an axiom that white men can't possibly have a legitimate reason to complain about identity politics, which is itself a racist axiom.

Are you claiming that every non-white who practices identity politics is perfect and correct?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#368

Post by jdmichal » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:51 PM UTC

PerilousD wrote: post #100

HR works for the company. When you consider your moves keep in mind HR works for the company. You are not paying HR salaries. Get outside legal help and advice.

Yes. It is also perfectly reasonable for them to offer something, and then send out minutes that detail you rejecting it. This is simple legal CYA; it's not an attempt to be hostile.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#369

Post by monksy » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #358

joyeuse6701 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of examples of OK usage, like calling your daughters 'the girls' or your buddies 'the guys'. but calling a grown woman a girl if you're in a position of power (as a man you may always be perceived as such) can be problematic. In your case, since addressing someone you don't like as a girl (julie horvath) comes off in more a negative light than say your sympathetic tone toward the article's subject ('…

Son and boy also have racial implications in the US, particularly the South. It'd be bad form for me to speak to a male, black colleague (given an age difference with me being older) and call him "son". If he were white (as I'm also white) it might be seen as slightly dismissive, but it would hardly be offensive. In the same sense that we have to be aware of the implications of language and race, we have to do the sa…

Well bless your heart. (Sorry, NC Native coming out in me. :P )

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#370

Post by Jtsummers » Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

kefka wrote: post #305

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…

And this is a great example of derailing a conversation by attacking the specific language used. This tactic is used to great effect by SJW's. I only need look down the thread to see how much you caused. Many a times, this type of harassment is mainly what women claim against men. But what exactly is harassment? Well, there's no real good definition. There's a point where any sane individual would agree... But I've a…

Not sure I derailed anything. Tallied the comments. Mine and the responses to it are about 43 in total. But there are 353 (at the time of writing this) comments on this post. So 310 comments unrelated to my comment. I suspect, then, that no derailment actually occurred. Rather, a bunch of discussions are happening simultaneously, and language and its implications are one of those conversations.

Also, I'm not a TLA, I'm a human benig.