This makes it seem like Wall Street was some kind of paragon for mentorship before. (It never was)
i believe it's exactly because of their past and established attitudes that they feel they need to be extremely precautionary
Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
131–140 of 245 posts
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict. When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not. Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essen…
Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act). But maybe there are such places.
Evidence is evidence. Witness testimony is evidence, photographs are evidence, video is evidence, dna is evidence. All evidence has credibility, which can be challenged.
Every case is different: witness testimony can be far more credible than photo evidence, dna evidence can be less credible than video evidence.
There is — as far as I know — no legal system in the world that measures the validity of a case based on the amount or type of evidence. You can absolutely be convicted on witness testimony alone in the US. That’s very unlikely but entirely possible under the law.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict. When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not. Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essen…
Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act). But maybe there are such places.
This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him.
Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a victim's testimony alone. It just doesn't happen often because usually there is some sort of corroborating evidence of a crime, and because it's hard to eliminate all reasonable doubt without any.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#134> to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness -- or to simply do the right thing.
I wish the author spent some time on elaborating what the right thing is. The right thing might be too obvious for me to realize what it is.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#135I'd say there are other factors. One big one for me is confounding: "Sex predator/Abuser" will be the label placed on a guy who violently rapes a woman, just as it will be applied to the guy who said something PERCEIVED to be inappropriate (or who might have had consenting sex with a employee) My sister the other day refereed to a guy who cat called her as "Violating her integrity". When there is little distinction i…
They’re all interlinked behaviours. For people who are constantly at risk of being sexually assaulted, being harassed by someone is a major indicator of that someone posing physical danger. Although the verbal harasser may never escalate to physical assault, their harassment is a part of the environment that creates risk to potential victims and contributes to their fear. As men it’s easy to think of harassment as is…
So... you think it is fair to the woman in example 1 to have the same term applied to example 2?
1- The first woman's gang rape where she spent months in the hospital recuperating. 2- An upper middle class woman getting told in a loud manner "uuuuhhh girl, you're looking finnnnneeee today"
Really? You can't see the difference between 1 and 2? You can't see the need for different terminology?
That's on you. I find it silly, and I find the confounding hurts everyone involved. Including girl #2, who has a legitimate complaint, but seems ridiculous using the terminology that is used for #1.
It also creates an environment of emotions and hysteria instead of reason and logic applied to resolving problems.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#136> Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.” That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.” Tell that to Neil Degrass Tyson! Would you ever consider him an asshole? And yet, here he is getting lambasted for pointing out a tattoo on a woman's arm and telling people he doesn't do hugs. You literally can b…
> Tell that to Neil Degrass Tyson! Would you ever consider him an asshole? And yet, here he is getting lambasted for pointing out a tattoo on a woman's arm and telling people he doesn't do hugs. I thought he was being accused of physically touching a clothed area of the woman's arm without being granted consent, not merely "pointing out". The words "pointing out" imply a gesture, which can be done at a distance, not…
And herein lies the problem with #MeToo. NDT thought he was being curious and pointing something out, the woman thought she was being sexually harassed. This is the problem, that any action can be construed as sexual harassment.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear, you know he almost certainly did it right? Dr. Ford came forward before he was nominated. Also he has full time security guards now and gets welcomed with standing ovations, whereas Dr. Ford keeps having to move because of all the death threats and hasn't been able to go back to her job.
If you were in Kavanaugh’s position, and you didn’t do it, how would you go about clearing your name?
Well to start I wouldn't have gone up and said a bunch of easily verifiable lies where I claiming boofing meant farting and that I threw up a lot during beach week because I have a sensitive stomach. I wouldn't have had a temper tantrum where I complain about how the Clinton's were somehow behind it. I would have encouraged an FBI investigation into things and encouraged them to speak to the only other witness, Mark Judge.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a lawyer and not playing one here. In any case, it is my understanding that 'innocent until proven guilty' is part of criminal law. In other kinds of law the burden of proof is lower. Of course these claims have to be investigated carefully. But I think it is wrong to try to copy elements of criminal procedures to civil matters. It is important to strike a sensible balance. We cannot have a situation where wo…
"...would always lose" Really? I think the reasons for the requirements of evidence are justified in civil matters just as they are in criminal. We cannot have a situation where men always have no defence because of a lack of requirement of evidence.
At least where I live (The Netherlands) for civil matters it is, as far as I know, about which story the judge finds most plausible.
In a criminal case, if the defendant remains silent then it is up to the prosecution to present enough evidence.
In a civil case, any argument made by the plaintiff that is not rejected or corrected can be accepted as true.
Of course, legal systems vary, but in general there is no right to remain silent during a civil case.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tell that to Neil Degrass Tyson! Would you ever consider him an asshole? And yet, here he is getting lambasted for pointing out a tattoo on a woman's arm and telling people he doesn't do hugs. I thought he was being accused of physically touching a clothed area of the woman's arm without being granted consent, not merely "pointing out". The words "pointing out" imply a gesture, which can be done at a distance, not…
And herein lies the problem with #MeToo. NDT thought he was being curious and pointing something out, the woman thought she was being sexually harassed. This is the problem, that any action can be construed as sexual harassment.
> NDT thought he was being curious and pointing something out, the woman thought she was being sexually harassed.
If he did in fact physically touch her, then this isn't an ambiguous "he said/she said" problem, this is a violation of her personal boundaries.
Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost
#140This sort of fear-based hypercorrection, a misguided but not necessarily ineffective form of risk avoidance, happens in many walks of life. The same calculus is at the root of non-lower-class whites (as well as nearly everyone of high status) in the US avoiding neighborhoods with blacks and latinos. To them, the visible race serves as a proxy to all sorts of unpleasantness they wish to avoid, purely on correlation, a…
>False accusations of sexual assault, by all indications, are rare, Personally I've seen just about as many false accusations as true ones. It's not always the woman that makes the accusation, some men use it to hurt other men they don't like.
How many false and true accusations have you seen? I'm close to 50, and I've personally never seen either.