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

Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 135 posts

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#111

Post by dang »

tptacek wrote: post #97
dang wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't perpetuate flamewars.

I get that we're smushed pretty far into the right margin on this thread (I didn't realize that before, since I got here by following Rayiner comments), and I get that there's a distinction between "you should be ashamed of yourself" and "here's what's problematic about what you said", but this is not a random pointless thread; I can give you links to multiple other times people on HN have implied that men shouldn't…

It's true; I've seen those threads as well. And I don't disagree on the fundamentals. But people can and need to respond to problematic comments without getting aggressive—for the sake of the community, if not for the person being attacked. Otherwise we end up with a cage match. I know you know this, but perhaps the explanation is helpful to others.

Fortunately most of the responses did just that (i.e. responded cogently without being aggressive) and were the more effective for it.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#112

Post by naasking »

sverige wrote: post #86
tedunangst wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I treated the men on my teams exactly the same way. There was no discrimination. They were all treated equally. Did you also refuse to meet with men privately?

Yes I did. Everyone got the same treatment. Anything "private," such as disciplinary action that needed to be delivered, was always done with a witness, whether the employee was a man or a woman. Everything else was done in groups or in the open. It's not that hard, but suddenly I'm Mike Pence for suggesting it's a sound strategy to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Edit: No, I don't socialize with the people at w…

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same.

I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more risk averse. Sad that such measures are necessary, but we all decide our acceptable level of risk.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#113

Post by tedunangst »

skookumchuck wrote: post #110
tedunangst wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we should consider it's no longer 1988. All manner of bad practices resulted in at least some good outcomes, but we nevertheless stopped.

If you believe that the bad results overwhelmed the good results. Are you sure that is true? Consider that 40% of marriages are between people who met at work. That's a lot of good outcomes. Most of my socializing and friends come from work. What a sad world it would be if work was strictly for work.

I think that's the wrong stat. Do 40% of men hitting on women in the office result in happy marriages?

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#114

Post by tptacek »

naasking wrote: post #112
sverige wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did. Everyone got the same treatment. Anything "private," such as disciplinary action that needed to be delivered, was always done with a witness, whether the employee was a man or a woman. Everything else was done in groups or in the open. It's not that hard, but suddenly I'm Mike Pence for suggesting it's a sound strategy to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Edit: No, I don't socialize with the people at w…

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same. I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more…

Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do.

(Advising people not to meet with anyone without a witness is not good management advice, for obvious reasons, but at least it's not unlawful).

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#115

Post by tptacek »

skookumchuck wrote: post #106
tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I would discipline a subordinate who was the subject of complaints about hitting on coworkers, and fire a subordinate who hit on one of their own subordinates.

Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion…

Roger Sterling married his secretary on Mad Men. The point of that show, and that story arc, was not that things were excellent in the workplace in 1963.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#116

Post by skookumchuck »

tptacek wrote: post #115
skookumchuck wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in the day, Microsoft female employees were known to wear t-shirts with "Marry Me Bill" written on them. As we all know, Bill did marry one of his subordinates, and it is apparently a happy relationship. I know another Microsoft employee who is now happily married to his assistant. Office romances are very commonplace, I recall reading somewhere that 40% of married couples met at work. Interested in your opinion…

Roger Sterling married his secretary on Mad Men. The point of that show, and that story arc, was not that things were excellent in the workplace in 1963.

The point of the show is social commentary on today via an imaginary view of the 1960s. Just like Battlestar Galactica was thinly disguised commentary on the Iraq war.

I'd be careful taking it as an accurate picture of the 1960s. Hollywood pieces, even period pieces (and most especially period pieces) are creatures of the time in which they were filmed, not when they are set.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#117

Post by tptacek »

skookumchuck wrote: post #116
tptacek wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roger Sterling married his secretary on Mad Men. The point of that show, and that story arc, was not that things were excellent in the workplace in 1963.

The point of the show is social commentary on today via an imaginary view of the 1960s. Just like Battlestar Galactica was thinly disguised commentary on the Iraq war. I'd be careful taking it as an accurate picture of the 1960s. Hollywood pieces, even period pieces (and most especially period pieces) are creatures of the time in which they were filmed, not when they are set.

I think you've missed my point.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#118

Post by tptacek »

skookumchuck wrote: post #103
tptacek wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm quoting her directly, and you're using a poor definition of "corroborate."

My quotes are direct from her, per the cited article. > poor definition What's your definition?

Your quote doesn't contradict mine. Lewinsky does not think that what happened with her and WJC was OK, and she doesn't think that just because of how the press reacted.

Regarding the word "corroborate": "to strengthen by evidence" would do nicely.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#119

Post by cycrutchfield »

lovich wrote: post #80
cycrutchfield wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Work-life balance is a choice. I'm not sure why you feel the need to apparently spend 16 hours a day at work, but: - You don't need to be doing that - You probably are not very productive working that many hours per day

Work life balance isn't a choice for people who get lower salaries in America. The choice is do what the boss says or go hungry/homeless

For the type of users that browse HN, it is largely a personal choice.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#120

Post by skookumchuck »

tptacek wrote: post #118
skookumchuck wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My quotes are direct from her, per the cited article. > poor definition What's your definition?

Your quote doesn't contradict mine. Lewinsky does not think that what happened with her and WJC was OK, and she doesn't think that just because of how the press reacted. Regarding the word "corroborate": "to strengthen by evidence" would do nicely.

The quotes I presented amply support the idea she did not see it as abuse of her by Clinton, now or then.

> "to strengthen by evidence"

The Lewinsky case offers nothing to support other claims against Clinton. For one thing, Lewinsky never accused Clinton of anything. For another, she has no personal knowledge of the other alleged incidents.

Post reply on HN