Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What? • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by squarefoot » Sun, Jul 29, 2018, 10:02 PM UTC

cycrutchfield wrote: post #45

squarefoot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)." That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.

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

Be damned the language barrier, I was writing the exact opposite: we live in a society in which we spend the most part of time either working/driving to work or sleeping. When so much time is devoted to an activity with implied social relations as it's the case of any office, finding someone of interest there can be normal. I'm not advocating that as I have been bitten in the past for that exact reason, I'm just stating that we spend too much time at workplace to ignore relations that could start there.

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

#132

Post by repolfx » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 2:14 AM UTC

apersona wrote: post #126

rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

I don't think putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is the right way. The root of the problem is the fear of losing one's job. I think what should happen is that anyone can say "no" to an advance without fear of repercussions, not forming moral laws for where you can/can't form romantic relationships.

Right ... that seems to be the obvious answer so I don't get why nobody is discussing it? Firing should be a structured process, it shouldn't be possible for a manager to fire a subordinate simply because he/she wouldn't sleep with them. Certainly in every case I've fired someone I had to build a written case and collect evidence justifying it.

Is this "I worried I might get fired if I didn't sleep with my boss" thing really a serious concern at most well run companies these days?

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

#133

Post by skookumchuck » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 2:32 AM UTC

yontherubicon wrote: post #124

skookumchuck wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.

This is oddly enough, a lie. Read Sexual Sabotage by Judith Reissmann. It's a reframing of Kinseyism and the Sexual Revolution, showing that the sexual statistics on Adultry, Pre-Marital Sex, and Homosexuality which precipitated the Sexual Revolution, were colored by massive selection bias, and motivated by Kinsey's own rather perverse proclivities. EDIT: I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that the societal…

> I'm just saying that the societal narrative that any of the things that you're suggesting were always prevalent is not so.

I read a lot of history books. A lot of these behaviors are mentioned in passing. For example, in "D Day Through German Eyes" by Eckhertz, fraternization with french women was forbidden by army regulations. That seems to have stopped nobody, as it was rampant so much that orphanages were set up to care for the resulting kids.

Of course, that isn't statistics, and it would be pretty much impossible to turn that into statistics, but to say it is a lie is not warranted.

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

#134

Post by skookumchuck » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 2:34 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #129

skookumchuck wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. March 2018, Lewinsky: There are even some people who feel my White House experiences don’t have a place in this [MeToo] movement, as what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault, although we now recognize that it constituted a gross abuse of power.

> No

The quotes I provided a link for. They happened.

> not sexual assault

And she repeats that it was consensual.

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

#135

Post by tptacek » Mon, Jul 30, 2018, 3:18 AM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #134

tptacek wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. March 2018, Lewinsky: There are even some people who feel my White House experiences don’t have a place in this [MeToo] movement, as what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault, although we now recognize that it constituted a gross abuse of power.

> No The quotes I provided a link for. They happened. > not sexual assault And she repeats that it was consensual.

I didn't say it was sexual assault either. Sexual assault and sexual harassment are two different things. On this thread, we are talking about the latter.