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

131–140 of 359 posts

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

#131

Post by vertex-four »

Dude2018 wrote: post #84
thereare5lights wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh stop spewing bs about sexual harassment as "hitting on" people. The accusations against the VCs McClure and Pollock involved groping or worse.

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

Mostly because women often get pulled into meetings with their bosses/HR and told to wear makeup if they don't. Seriously. Even if they don't, they get accused by work colleagues of not looking good enough, and clients comment on it. This isn't something women do to be manipulative - it's something that's enforced as part of a woman's dress code by the company.

Or, in other words, if you think makeup is intended to replicate visual signs of arousal... then this is the culture you work in forcing women to appear sexually aroused in workplace environments. Which is, of course, also something that feminists have talked about for decades.

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

#132

Post by [deleted] »

Klockan wrote: post #124
pron wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 perso…

> 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. I don't understand the logic here, are you saying that men gain more from sexually harassing women than women gain from falsely accusing men? I think you would have a hard time finding a man…

[deleted]

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

#133

Post by jlebrech »

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…

clearly sexual harassment is continued advances, one rejected advance shouldn't be considered harassment, but it would make a working relationship awkward. so it's best to not do it anyway.

but also if merely (awkwardly trying) being nice is considered harassment bosses will be less willing to hire (attractive) women.

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

#134

Post by whiskyant »

irb wrote: post #128
mcappleton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

A false accusation is different from an accusation that wasn't provable. There have been many cases of false accusations in which it was proven that the accuser was intentionally lying in order to get revenge or reap some reward. There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits to having lied, but with zero legal consequences.

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

#135

Post by imartin2k »

jacalata wrote: post #118
imartin2k wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to be a substantial number at least. http://www.siop.org/Media/News/office_romance.aspx

Mm, that doesn't look terribly convincing compared to a real study like this one from Stanford which shows a much lower figure: (link in the article to the full study if you can access it) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/08/how-m...

Thanks, I was doing a quick search but you found a better looking one, I agree.

Nevertheless, even this shows that the work place is a significant factor to meet a partner - even if it has lost relevancy. Which leads to the question why. Is it because the other places somehow got more effective for that purpose, or is it fear of being perceived as crossing boundaries which makes people hesitant to try. Both (or other) explanations seem imaginable to me.

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

#136

Post by jlebrech »

irb wrote: post #128
mcappleton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

i'm sure you can acquit someone based on insufficient evidence and not lock up the accuser.

but in some cases when evidence was manufactured the defence can come up with something that implicates the accuser.

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

#137

Post by hdhdbebbbdhdvd »

irb wrote: post #128
mcappleton wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.

> then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted

That's not how criminal justice works. That's not even how torts work.

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

#138

Post by peteretep »

mcappleton wrote: post #115
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…

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

This has the side-effect that real victims are put off from filing charges, which is generally thought to be not a good thing.

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

#139

Post by jlebrech »

prawn wrote: post #102
marchenko wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's where not giving a shit comes into play. you don't accidentally sexism.

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

#140

Post by peoplewindow »

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…

> using it as an argument advertises the fact that you view women as prizes rather than as people

How? There's no connection between what was said and the conclusion you drew from it.

arkh's post observes that women often apply different standards to men's behaviour based on whether they find them attractive or not. That's not really in dispute, it's the origin of the "hot women being attracted to asshole boyfriends" cultural cliche.

Post reply on HN