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

361–370 of 416 posts

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

#361

Post by [deleted] »

tnone wrote: post #358
tnone wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On this topic, it absolutely is. Whenever these threads happen, they go one way or the other. If the all-genders-equal, non-feminist side swings the discussion, the entire thread disappears off the front page, inexplicably sitting at position 500+ with no flagged indicator. The lambdaconf debacle comes to mind, but it's hardly the only example. If the feminist, women-are-victims-side swings the discussion, the thread…

Here, let me tell you a story. It's past 3am in the big city, I'm returning from a night out. While riding up the elevator, i can't help but notice the guy I'm sharing it with is a sobbing mess. I've never seen him before, but he gets out on my floor and heads in the opposite direction. I go inside, but as I get ready for bed, someone bangs loudly and repeatedly on my door. It's the guy. I hesitate opening. He knocks…

[deleted]

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

#362

Post by StevePerkins »

Mz wrote: post #355
StevePerkins wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good point, but a grossly over-generalized one. Men "not taking no for an answer" after rejection is the exception, not the general norm, even if it's over represented in the VC scandal. That's why it's a scandal.

I think you are misunderstanding my remarks in some way. Nowhere did I use the phrase "not taking no for an answer." I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear, unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zon... And I am saying we nee…

I paraphrase, only because the exact quote was pretty long:

In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get."

Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after rejection, just because the female doesn't cut them out of their lives altogether.

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

#363

Post by specialist »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #179
otterley wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's more to it than that. When peers proposition each other or express desire to have more than a professional working relationship (and a polite rejection ends the discussion), that's one thing. But a person in a superior position has a different and greater duty, as rejection can have a negative consequence for the other more vulnerable party. That's why many companies' ethics rules forbid, for example,…

I completely agree it would be inappropriate to seek a romantic or sexual relationship with someone who you report too, or who reports to you. Generally though, when going through the various 'keeping it legal', 'managing within the law', etc type classes that managers often have to take a large corporation as part of their training, the reasoning behind forbidding relationships between employees in a reporting hiera…

"...presented as being there to prevent the appearance of favoritism..."

FWIW, I've been through sexual harassment awareness training 4 times at 3 companies. Part of settlement agreements when some yahoo screwed up (again).

My legal takeaway was the liability, to the company and to the harasser.

My personal takeaway is "Just don't."

I like clear boundaries, so that life is (more) predictable. There's some quote about "The mere appearance of conflict of interest is a conflict of interest." If there's the smallest doubt, anything less than a "Yes!", then the answer is a "No." Sure, I probably missed opportunities. But I'd rather be a dim bulb than a creepy stalker.

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

#364

Post by specialist »

enriquto wrote: post #292
ChuckMcM wrote: post #94

As the father of three daughters I always cringe a bit when I read things like this. Thanks Cheryl for sharing your story, and men please remember it isn't how you feel about whether or not an action was appropriate or inappropriate, it is how they feel about it.

As a father of a daughter and a son, I disagree strongly with what you say. Feelings are completely irrelevant here. Asking to sleep with someone and trying to kiss her, and then leaving when being told "no", is not sexual assault; regardless of how either person felt about that. You can consider it awkward, ridiculous, or just normal human sexual behaviour. But it is not by any means assault.

She said no. He persisted. That's assault.

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

#365

Post by Chris2048 »

TuringTest wrote: post #345
Chris2048 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Role models are probably a bad idea I tried suggesting exactly this - not only down-voted, but then flagged!: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14668197 Seems whatever use "role models" have, they certainly have ideological buy-in..

>> Role models are probably a bad idea >I tried suggesting exactly this - not only down-voted, but then flagged! I think that's because your post is of less quality than the one you're responding to, not because of the merits of the idea itself. pjc50 said "probably" instead of asserting an absolute, and provided a reason why that might be the case, instead of dismissing the concept with a snarky remark. In other wor…

"quality" is subjective.

Why should I "support the idea" of role models when I see no value in it? Isn't the burden of proof on the user? Where is the "argument" that role models are a valid thing worthy of authority?

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

#366

Post by Mz »

StevePerkins wrote: post #362
Mz wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are misunderstanding my remarks in some way. Nowhere did I use the phrase "not taking no for an answer." I am not talking about normal situations where it is possible for clear, unambiguous communication to take place. I am talking about a gray zone that makes it inherently challenging. I have written about this before: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-gray-zon... And I am saying we nee…

I paraphrase, only because the exact quote was pretty long: In situations where men make initial inquiries and the woman turns it down, but does not cut all contact with him forevermore, men seem to pretty consistently interpret this as "she actually likes me and is playing hard to get." Perhaps your intent was more nuanced than your literal text. Either way, men in general do not "consistently" keep pursuing after r…

I chose the phrase "make initial inquiries" very carefully. It is not intended to describe a situation where men are openly and unambiguously hitting on a woman. In my experience, in delicate situations, there is a feeling out process. It isn't a bald question.

If you go back and read the article under discussion, he repeatedly asked her to have wine with him. Sometimes she said no. Other times, she said yes and it went fine. She herself was confused as to whether or not he was hitting on her. It wasn't clear to her until it crossed some incredibly unambiguous line.

If they were not working together, a woman sometimes saying yes to wine and sometimes saying no but remaining on warm friendly terms could be called dating. Studies show that it takes women longer to warm up to sex than it does men. Most men are used to having to work at getting to yes romantically. And the usual way you get there is by repeatedly pursuing social interaction. If the social interaction goes well, your hopes that it might lead to sex are not dead yet.

Given that fact, it isn't crazy for a man to interpret these situations as a potential budding romance -- unless you posit that she was ONLY there to do business and needed contact with him because of his position of power.

I am generally pretty sympathetic to the man's side here, so it aggravates me when I so consistently get accused of BS like this. Because when I try too hard to make it clear I am not accusing men of anything, then I get called a rape apologist.

I keep waiting for my long track record of even-handed remarks on the topic to pay off and get me interpreted as not a man-hating bitch. I am beginning to think that is expecting too much of the world.

I feel strongly this is very much a situational problem. But no one seems to want to hear that. People are too busy lining up on the side of the accusers and planning witch hunts or on the side of the defenders and excusing the behavior. And then everything I say gets interpreted through a lens of "which side of this war are you on?" The answer is "Neither. I would like to broker a peace deal." And that message goes unheard by people whose minds are made up, and don't confuse them with the facts.

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

#367

Post by qubex »

> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise.

No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me down or shut me up.

”I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.” — Richard Feynman

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

#368

Post by qubex »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #357
gizmo wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because drinking a bit too much during a party is no big deal. Remember the part where she was surprised to find herself alone with Dave? That's when she suddenly realized what was going on. (By the way: any analysis on how the victim of abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim blaming, even if you add a disclaimer stating otherwise.)

> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim blaming, even if you add a disclaimer stating otherwise. If I leave my car running with the keys in it in a bad part of town, and my car gets stolen, the thief is still totally to blame, but don't you think there are better precautions I could have taken? Is there a way to discuss that without immediately shutting it d…

I'm sorry they voted you down. I absolutely agree with you.

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

#369

Post by TuringTest »

Chris2048 wrote: post #365
TuringTest wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Role models are probably a bad idea >I tried suggesting exactly this - not only down-voted, but then flagged! I think that's because your post is of less quality than the one you're responding to, not because of the merits of the idea itself. pjc50 said "probably" instead of asserting an absolute, and provided a reason why that might be the case, instead of dismissing the concept with a snarky remark. In other wor…

"quality" is subjective. Why should I "support the idea" of role models when I see no value in it? Isn't the burden of proof on the user? Where is the "argument" that role models are a valid thing worthy of authority?

I didn't say that you should support the idea of role models. I said that the argument provided in pjc50's post supported the idea that "role models are probably a bad idea".

Your comment only included a sentiment, not a rational reason to support the idea you tried to express.

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

#370

Post by gizmo »

qubex wrote: post #367

> By the way: any analysis on how the victim of the abuse made sub-optimal decisions is _always_ victim-blaming, even if you add a disclaimer claiming otherwise. No, no, a thousand times no! You make state these opinions with an absolute tone but that does not necessarily make them absolute truths. I can raise any issue I wish, provided I do so with the necessary respect, and nobody else has any right to shout me dow…

Wait, so you have the right to raise every issue you wish but I don't have the right voice my disapproval or attach a negative label to what you say? The hypocrisy should make your head spin.

Besides, this isn't about your _right_ to say something inappropriate, but to point out that something _is_ inappropriate. Depending on context some subjects are just off limits. Some type of comments are inappropriate in a thread about sexual harassment, just like some comments are inappropriate at a funeral.

Post reply on HN