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

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

cherylyeoh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 416 posts

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#221

Post by x0x0 »

Gargoyle wrote: post #19
akanet wrote: post #3

Thanks for sharing this. Reading Dave's post the first time, all I could think was "this seems like the most bland, cop-out, vague apology I've ever seen." He didn't list the specifics of what he felt bad about, and the whole thing read like a PR release to get ahead of any potential fallout. Reading the "kudos" from men who thought he was a great guy for coming forward only after years of harassment came to a head w…

Not in any way to defend Dave, but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But I strongly support them coming forward and telling their own stories. That has value and gives the accusations their proper perspective and gravity. It truly is different to be confronted with the details.

He wouldn't have had to name names. His "apology" went along these lines:

> I made advances towards multiple women in work-related situations, where it was clearly inappropriate [...] I put people in compromising and inappropriate situations, and I selfishly took advantage of those situations where I should have known better. My behavior was inexcusable and wrong.

Dave made it sound like he'd hit on women in the context of offering them a job or investment. His one example re: Sarah Kunst specifically mentions he hit on her in a group.

All of the above -- while clearly unethical -- are a world away from getting drunk with an investee / business partner in her apartment, waiting until everyone else had left, and making aggressive physical advances towards her, including having to be told no multiple times.

Dave's message underplayed his behavior and, I think, really reinforces that he doesn't understand that what he did was wrong. He could have apologized for all of the above and only Dave, Cheryl, and the handful of people Cheryl told would have any idea he was referring to Cheryl.

I frankly think Dave was still hoping to underplay his behavior to keep his job. Also, the fact that 500 let Dave represent them in Australia with no warning to their Australian partners makes Christine Tsai seem complicit [1].

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/02/500-startups-admits-it-kep...

edit: fixed Christine's name

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#223

Post by emmab »

throwaway055 wrote: post #200
emmab wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"

> Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?" Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way. Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships, about how all of our families and parents m…

> Sorry but this is just absurd. Courtship doesn't (and will never) work that way.

Im a woman and it works well for me. Do you have a specific technical reason for thinking it wont work?

> Proposing that standard for human contact implies a lot of negative things about how all of us have conducted our relationships

Saying explicit communication is useful and best-practice is not saying that everyone who doesn't do it is evil or every time it wasn't used someone was hurt. It's just a useful method for avoiding hurting people.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#224

Post by [deleted] »

whiddershins wrote: post #219
panic wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

[deleted]

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#225

Post by EdSharkey »

mc32 wrote: post #199
EdSharkey wrote: post #196

Don't date women from work. Don't dip your pen in the company ink, guys. Just from a power perspective, there's no way to get it right, even if you think she's your peer.

That's good advice for people _already_ in a relationship. I don't think that's good advice for singles. Outside of school (writ large) work is one of the places people get to know each other, socialize and mingle. It would be sad to see one of the main places people get to meet to be set "off-limits". There is nothing mysterious. Just don't be crude. Don't buck convention. Know accepted social norms.

Oh goodness, why take that risk? Why would a single guy aching for sex start their hunt in the workplace? Your concept of what the workplace is for is really screwed up. Unwise. Foolish danger.

I have been told stories of companies with no-dating rules where inevitable attraction and secret love affair between coworkers led them to both quit in order to go public with their romance.

That's not what I'm talking about. Obviously, nature is powerful, and attraction between coworkers can just simply happen. I'm not talking about accidents, which are hopefully few and far between. I'm talking about conscious choices that men make.

It's not like there aren't equally convenient ways to meet women to those at work. If you want a (chaotic) hookup, get on Tinder or Craig's List or the local club. If you want the thrill of the meat market, try Match. If you'd like to get married, goto eharmony.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#226

Post by emmab »

throwaway1572 wrote: post #212
codezero wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm convinced the whole "kills the mood" line is coming from folks where the mood never existed but they thought it did. It's basically victim blaming :/ Your example is spot on.

As a person who asks, I can tell you that you're wrong. My spouse confided in me (years after it happened) that when I asked to kiss them the very first time, they thought it was kind of a turn-off and wished I had just done it. (But they said "yes", so there's that.)

As a woman who is submissive sometimes, I totally want certain people to do things to me without asking, but there are other people I don't want to do these things.

Explicit communication is not a barrier for me experiencing submissiveness because the fact I consented years ago to my partner doing such things to me does not make it any less fun.

I'm definitely willing to forgoe some fun on the first date to avoid having it done to me by someone I'm not into or don't feel safe around (separate variables!).

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#227

Post by [deleted] »

gizmo686 wrote: post #106
_wmd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm by no means a burly red-blooded gentleman, but I can't think of any example from my previous relationships that did not start with either myself or the other making a move which could later have been construed as assault. Of course adding context to all those situations, it's easy to see that I or the recipient would in all probability welcome the advance, and so it is not assault, however the fine line between "…

You seem to be identify a valid problem of defining "assault". This is a real problem, and something that policy makers will need to tackle at all levels, but it is not what is being discussed. After someone responds to your request to sleep with them by asking you to leave, you have left the realm of ambiguity. If you are hanging out with a friend and start getting a bit handsy, then I could see the grey area. But i…

[deleted]

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#228

Post by rectang »

whiddershins wrote: post #219
panic wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, let me just say I don't think your comment reflects poorly on you as a person. Your perspective is very common, and it's easy to accept it uncritically. It's interesting that you mention khazhoux's comment, because I think they come from largely the same place, and I flagged both of them for similar reasons. I flagged these comments because, though you probably don't realize you're doing this, you're pr…

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

> If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment.

That's exactly what `panic` did -- and put considerable effort into the reply. HN users don't have the ability to "flag" comments distinct from downvoting -- comments instead acquire the "flagged" state through an accumulation of downvotes from multiple users.

I hope you will reconsider and read all the way through `panic`'s comment.

EDIT: I was mistaken about flagging vs. downvoting, per detaro's reply.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#229

Post by dsacco »

novia wrote: post #195
emmab wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"

Often the counter-argument to this is that it feels artificial, unnatural, and it will definitely kill the mood. So I want to preemptively address it. When a guy asks before touching me, and of course I'm already interested, it makes me melt. It is so sexy and it definitely improves the mood. I just want to point to myself as one data-point. If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model wal…

> If you're having trouble believing it, imagine that a hot swimsuit model walks up to you and asks if she can rub your shoulders. Would you be like, "Uh, no, by communicating with me you have completely killed my interest"?

I hate to be this person, but yes that would kill my interest. I'd be put off by her asking to touch me without any attempt at building a rapport first - that's sort of weird, just like it'd be weird if you switched the gender roles. And if she established a rapport, I'd very slightly lean towards wishing she hadn't asked. All things being equal, yes, I'd prefer she just initiated without asking (after establishing a rapport).

I don't mean to invalidate your point, but I have this feeling you thought that example would sort of just "make it click", and it didn't (at least not for me). It seems like this is probably a preference thing.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#230

Post by detaro »

rectang wrote: post #228
whiddershins wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I started reading your response, got about halfway through, then realized: you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. If you flag, you are ending the discussion. You are indicating a comment is egregious, as per HN guidelines, and categorizing it as not worthy of debate. I'm fine with being told I'm wrong. I also think I might have a useful point hidden somewhe…

> If you want a reasonable discussion, downvote and comment. That's exactly what `panic` did -- and put considerable effort into the reply. HN users don't have the ability to "flag" comments distinct from downvoting -- comments instead acquire the "flagged" state through an accumulation of downvotes from multiple users. I hope you will reconsider and read all the way through `panic`'s comment. EDIT: I was mistaken ab…

yes, you can flag comments. go to the comment page (click on the timestamp) and click flag.
Post reply on HN