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

251–260 of 416 posts

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

#251

Post by jhanschoo »

jacquesm wrote: post #79
Gargoyle wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.

I was wondering how true this was. It's here:

>With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christine Tsai to begin a formal interview process with 500, where Christine and others on the team met with her. Ultimately, 500 decided not to offer Sarah a job. Again my apologies to Sarah for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not. It was my fault and I take full responsibility. She was correct in calling me out.

https://500hats.com/im-a-creep-i-m-sorry-d2c13e996ea0

The NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre...) did not go into these specifics.

Below is all it discusses about her:

>In 2014, Sarah Kunst, 31, an entrepreneur, said she discussed a potential job at 500 Startups, a start-up incubator in San Francisco. During the recruiting process, Mr. McClure, a founder of 500 Startups and an investor, sent her a Facebook message that read in part, “I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you.”

>Ms. Kunst, who now runs a fitness start-up, said she declined Mr. McClure’s advance. When she later discussed the message with one of Mr. McClure’s colleagues, she said 500 Startups ended its conversations with her.

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

#252

Post by pvg »

gexla wrote: post #167

One of the most eye opening experiences I have ever had in the workplace was in a sexual harassment class which was required for a big corp. The instructor laid out the rules, but people in the class had a hard time grasping the logical structure. Two different scenarios which clearly had the same structure would trip people up by swapping out variables. I was never good with math, but I picked up on these structures…

'Don't try to sexually force yourself on someone who just asked you to leave their residence' is not a complex issue limited by inadequate HR training. It's basic sane social behaviour. McClure didn't do this because he was unaware of the intricacies of workspace laws and regulations. He did it because he thought he could and would get away with it.

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

#253

Post by nikcub »

dang wrote: post #145
al_chemist wrote: post #141

This thread look heavily censored. That doesn't encourage to speak up.

'Censorship' has become more pejorative than informative, but you're right that users are downvoting and flagging comments; I think pretty fairly. Wherever moderators have intervened (in any way that affects comment visibility), we've posted comments saying so. That goes for the previous threads too. Not every kind of comment is welcome here. HN is trying for higher-quality discussion. (Trying and failing, of course.…

edit: nevermind, its back on the frontpage

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

#254

Post by orthoganol »

ctvo wrote: post #250
orthoganol wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but the rules aren't black and white like that, "Too much eye contact" "Your vibe get flirty" (or conversely "Your vibe gets weird") gets thrown in; it's anxiety inducing when you have to worry about anything that's natural or involuntary when in the presence of someone you're attracted to being policed as causing discomfort to someone. Hence enshrining detailed coordinates means you don't have to worry about t…

Where do they get thrown in? Outside of internet forums where men come up with absurd situations to justify their feelings of prosecution, who is exactly reporting co-workers in the Valley for too much eye contact? You're in a comment thread about sexual assault for reference.

Oh c'mon, it's a thread about solutions too, which was the focus of my original comment; I intended it to be "Thanks for a solution that is helpful to guys anxious about all of this," not a detailed discussion about the validity of those feelings or anxiety. If you insist on the latter,

This has nothing to do with "men forums," thanks. People I know working in tech actually think holding eye contact is harassment. I had a female coworker complain about the vibe of another coworker who was clearly attracted to her; just the vibe, imagine how that affected other coworkers when that got around? You're free to dismiss this sentiment, but it's still something on the mind of a large group of well meaning guys.

Again, enumerating detailed descriptions feels like a good solution for everyone.

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

#255

Post by avenoir »

We have half of the comments here trying to figure out what "sexual harassment" actually entails which makes a pretty darn good point in my opinion - people get triggered in different ways. This could be anything from an actual sexual advance to a poorly placed bad joke or a simple misunderstanding due to inability to read social cues. Some employers, usually large corps, blur the lines even more by allowing and even encouraging dating co-workers which presents a whole different perspective on this issue. Bottom line is it's a grey area and I don't really see how we fight this by improving incident reporting. I think if anything it would just make interacting with female co-workers terrifying (it already is to some extent if you're a male). I think this is a social issue and there has to be a mind shift of some sort in order to combat this. Maybe even taking this to schools and teaching kids workplace etiquette.

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

#256

Post by siliconc0w »

Not defending McClure but it's worth noting sexual assault and 'unwanted touching' are different problems that require different solutions. Any classification system used here should probably differentiate the two. When you combine them you suggest they're the same which does a disservice to those who have been sexually assaulted (defined as assault with/on a sexual organ). The low-fidelity of language here confuses people which then confuses statistics which leads to ineffective policy.

I do think there is a possible SAAS app here for employees to report these incidents in a confidential way and to help shape the culture by providing an immediate notification to the McClure-types that their behavior is both being tracked and isn't going to be tolerated. This would promote immediate action on the part of the company instead of needing a dozen or so claims, a viral blog post, and or a nytimes article before action is taken.

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

#257

Post by monfrere »

pvg wrote: post #244
monfrere wrote: post #239

I have experienced similarly persistent (or arguably even more persistent) unwanted sexual advances from other men, but I certainly didn't feel "assaulted". As a socially clueless gay man, I was hoping someone could help elucidate the most problematic parts of McClure's behavior here. The two factors that stand out for me are 1) McClure controlled the funding of the agency Yeoh was heading, so he was in a position of…

Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? No, it would not be, at all. "At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me,"

I don't know if anyone will believe me that I'm asking in good faith. But I still think that sentence, as written, could describe a wide range of situations. If it went like:

    A: Firmly: "You need to leave. Now."
    B: Shoves A's body multiple times until she is in the opposite corner of the room. Presses his lips to her face without hesitation.
I would be mad as A. But if the scenario went more like:

    A: "I'm tired and it's late. You really gotta go, sorry."
    (A and B walk to the door. There is a sofa by the door.)
    B: Leans body toward A's.
    A: Takes a step back. Is now up against the sofa and the wall.
    B: Puts hand on A's shoulder and leans in slowly for a kiss.
    A: Refuses kiss.
Here as person A I would simply brush B off as an aggressive suitor, unless the two aggravating circumstances I mentioned above were in play. Please tell me if that is unfair.

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

#258

Post by whiddershins »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #237
hyperdunc wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every flagged comment has been flagged undeservedly, but some of them have. I agree that there is a trend on HN where comments that go against the "moral convictions" or politics of the majority are flagged. It's disappointing to see this happening. Flagging a poorly worded or clearly incendiary comment is fair. That's not what has happened to some of the comments for this article. I hesitate to call it censorshi…

Would you mind listing some examples of flagged comments that you feel don't break the guidelines?

I feel that my two comments, although tone deaf, possibly misguided, and certainly not well worded, were good faith comments that did not overtly violate guidelines.

I've never had my comments on hn flagged before and can't help but think I wandered into a minefield. Nearly half of the top level comments on this thread are flagged. If you include the ones that are downvoted into oblivion it is fully half at the time of this writing.

Is that because this article is beset by trolls, or because the conversation is being stifled?

Hard to say. But I know my intention was good faith.

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

#259

Post by dang »

beedogs wrote: post #211

You're offended that someone said you can't just go grabbing people you want to have sex with at work? Good. Continue being offended.

There's legitimate criticism to be made of that comment but taking the worst part of it, exaggerating that uncharitably, then doubling that and flinging it in outrage is the kind of cheap trick users need to avoid here, regardless of how righteous their cause. The blood sport of the internet is not welcome on HN; there are other places to play it.

You have a long history of posting abrasively and indeed abusively to Hacker News. Even though we've cut you a ton of slack and given you more warnings than most, that path leads to getting banned, so please stop.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14693232 and marked it off-topic.

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

#260

Post by [deleted] »

monfrere wrote: post #257
pvg wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be correct to say that these two factors are what make McClure's behavior inappropriate? No, it would not be, at all. "At this point, I led him to the door and told him he needs to leave. On the way out, he pushed himself onto me to the point where I was backed into a corner, made contact to kiss me,"

I don't know if anyone will believe me that I'm asking in good faith. But I still think that sentence, as written, could describe a wide range of situations. If it went like: A: Firmly: "You need to leave. Now." B: Shoves A's body multiple times until she is in the opposite corner of the room. Presses his lips to her face without hesitation. I would be mad as A. But if the scenario went more like: A: "I'm tired and i…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN