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

Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 359 posts

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#101

Post by lucideer »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #72
InclinedPlane wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…

Three arguments that it's a negative are 1. A power imbalance(market inefficiency?) 2. It makes people uncomfortable(happiness/utility?) and 3. Accepting such an advance could be a form of prostitution. I wonder if people who believe that prostitution should be legalized consider sexual harassment in the workplace to be a lesser problem, since one of the arguments is struck from the table. #2 doesn't seem to be a maj…

> I wonder if people who believe that prostitution should be legalized consider sexual harassment in the workplace to be a lesser problem, since one of the arguments is struck from the table.

I don't think so, and I don't believe the 3rd argument is struck at all. There's a gaping difference between accepting an advance fully willingly (whether the motivations behind acceptance are romantic, sexual or economic) and feeling pressured into accepting the advance (regardless of whether such pressure is intended or accidental). A happily employed prostitute in a perfect well-regulated industry will still never feel that they can't turn down a prospective client, no matter how well they're paying. In any workplace, if accepting an advance is necessary to succeed professionally, that's a systemic problem.

> If exploiting a power imbalance is wrong, I wonder if employing a homeless person is wrong because you profit off of the labor of the helpless.

Again, this comes down to pressure. A homeless person might be under disproportionate economic pressure to take a job they would otherwise decline, so I'd say that from a purely moral standpoint this needs to be taken into account and if you're not ensuring the job is taken willingly, then yes, it is wrong to profit from that labour.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#102

Post by prawn »

marchenko wrote: post #89
Dude2018 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about using lipstick to emulate sexual arousal? Why did they use make up doing business?

Perhaps these lipstick-wearing women were raised in a social environment where a previously supernormal stimulus (heightened lip pigmentation/smoothed glossy lip surface) is now expected as a normal aspect of professional presentation in many contexts, and they do not wish to be asked "are you feeling well?" on a regular basis.

"are you feeling well?"

I've witnessed this:

  (concerned) Is x OK?
  Huh?
  Is she upset? She looks like she's been crying.
  (realising) No, she's just not wearing any makeup. You normally see her with makeup on.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#103

Post by maruhan2 »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #74
maruhan2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexit…

Still wrong. The onus is on the person with more authority, power, or privilege. There is a responsibility to educate yourself if you are in such a position (and most men are, in some way or another, in the tech industry). It's 2017, there's no excuse for being ignorant any more. If you're a "flirty" person, for example, that's fine, but you need to go the extra mile to make people feel safe. Be on the lookout for no…

I don't agree with the sentiment that a privileged person has to do more and not equally. Yes, a privileged person has a easier job making changes, but I don't think that means a privileged person "has" to be doing more than others. It's a good deed, but not a theoretical necessity.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#104

Post by pryce »

microcolonel wrote: post #28
mbesto wrote: post #16

That's right, no one would ever abuse an online system for blacklisting VCs accused of sexual harassment...smh https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14773434

Yeah, they're basically industrial-scale defamation without recourse, trial, or evidence. From a game-theoretic perspective, you would be wrong not to take advantage of it to burn your competitors. If it hasn't dawned on you, this is a political strategy, not a tool for the downtrodden. I have quite literally heard people talking about these things as "the way we'll close the gender participation gap", as in, they'll…

> have quite literally heard people talking about these things as "the way we'll close the gender participation gap", as in, they'll burn men's careers until things equal out.

How does your quote imply your interpretation of malicious intent at all? If someone believes (rightly or wrongly) that the gap in participation in certain industries is because women feel unsafe participating in those industries from harassment etc, reducing harassment and providing avenues for those women to address that problem would naturally act to "close the gender participation gap".

I wouldn't care to speculate what proportion of the gender participation gap is in fact due to women's experiences of harassment and/or anxieties about such -as I simply don't know, and would prefer to defer to women and the people who research these things-, but there is a pretty obvious and quite benign interpretation to your quote that you are choosing to ignore.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#105

Post by Rjevski »

Kenji wrote: post #60

I would simply put a law in place that if it can be proven that the sexual harassment accusation is completely fabricated, then the accuser must serve the exact jail time that a person would serve who acted out all the accusations. That would stop all the shenanigans instantly.

This should be extended to all crimes and not only sexual harassment.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#106

Post by rimliu »

freshhawk wrote: post #94
arkh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people need to understand the rules. 1. Be attractive. 2. Don't be unattractive. Two simple rules to not commit sexual harassment.

While the construction of this old joke is admittedly good, using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people. It is complaining that they have a say in who they enter into relationships with. Or it's complaining about the fact that humans are more attracted to attractive people, which is how we define the word "attractive" in the first place. I'd avoid it generally, as y…

It is complaining about double standards, that's it.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#107

Post by jacalata »

wisty wrote: post #63
InclinedPlane wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…

> People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship. Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a guy asks an acquaintance…

Do you have a source for the claim that the majority of post college relationships are between colleagues?

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#108

Post by pron »

wand3r wrote: post #36

This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…

> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this.

Yes, but the two sides aren't equal. If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon, that we can both hurt each other does not mean that there is a balance, or that both sides need equal protection. Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false. So there may be two problems, both sad, but one is orders of magnitude bigger than the other.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#109

Post by [deleted] »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #74
maruhan2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexit…

Still wrong. The onus is on the person with more authority, power, or privilege. There is a responsibility to educate yourself if you are in such a position (and most men are, in some way or another, in the tech industry). It's 2017, there's no excuse for being ignorant any more. If you're a "flirty" person, for example, that's fine, but you need to go the extra mile to make people feel safe. Be on the lookout for no…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN