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

Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 245 posts

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#201

Post by lovich »

closeparen wrote: post #120
falcolas wrote: post #2

Personal opinion - the lack of a "innocent until proven guilty" judicial system when it comes to sexual harassment claims is what has caused much of the fear of women. Colleges, businesses, and online communities almost always simply believe the victim, and even if a trial should occur and the accused is vindicated, the accused has already been fired, expelled, or crucified by public opinion. The records of the accus…

An employer does not need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you missed your target, mouthed off to your boss, or any number of firing offenses. Association is voluntary, on both sides. Unions sometimes win a quasi-judicial system for firing, which this forum usually bemoans as making it too hard to eliminate low performers. With a judicial procedure only for sexual harassment, companies could always fire you “f…

If male/female relationships in companies devolve to the same level of gaming, backstabbing, and insanity that happens around KPIs, then we might end up with a literal gender war. I think the point of the article is that regular relationships between people turning into this sort of Machiavellian game is a bad thing

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#202

Post by towelr34dy »

threevodka wrote: post #196
towelr34dy wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"physical assault can be far less violating than ... verbal harassment." ... You are the reason for the article above. Congrats. Now celebrate your victory.

My statement is absolutely true and the fact that you see harassment and assault as such black and white things makes your ignorance clear — the fact that you had to edit my single sentence to try and make your point should have been a pretty clear sign of that. There are physical assaults that are far less consequential than verbal assaults, that’s an indisputable fact. Anyone who has experience with victims, has be…

I don't see them as black and white. I said there was an issue and gave examples. I asked a question based on such examples.

Stop moving the goal posts. Stop your whataboutisms. My original post comparing #1 to #2 stands. You confound such situations. This hurts everyone.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#203

Post by loxs »

dandare wrote: post #87

This man-women discussion is incredibly confused - for many reasons including emotions and malevolence - and it took me quite long until I could say I have formed my opinion. If you are interested: 1/ In modern societies women are often wronged, in the form of discrimination, harassment, abuse, and violence. 2/ Some of the policies designed to help women are hurting man by default, for instance, positive discriminati…

It's much worse...

2/ Most of the policies designed to help women actually hurt them. Positive discrimination usually ends up being much worse than doing nothing.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#204

Post by mikelyons »

interesthrow2 wrote: post #168
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #51

This 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…

> 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. You know what I'm black, my spouse is white, and what do I tell her? "better safe than sorry". Sure if my spouse acted that way, we would have never met. I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe we have a responsibility to display an image other…

Those who are against racial interbreeding will be huge #meToo proponents simply because it will obviously have this effect of drastically increasing the risk of interracial relations, it'll become more like it used to be, the threat of legal violence will re-justify the male fear of approaching a woman he's attracted to. Only the violence wont be another man with a club like it once was, but the state being wielded as a cudgel by women and racists in influential cultural positions.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#205

Post by mikelyons »

swiley wrote: post #94
temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #51

This 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.

I've been falsely accused, as have the half the men I've ever heard this topic from, people I know personally. I'm in one of the big 3 tech cities.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#207

Post by mikelyons »

dragonwriter wrote: post #187
mikelyons wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also isn't it the assholes getting all the consentual sex? It's the niceguys getting the rape accusations. Women are telling us in the media and also in person how they always regret sex with niceguys.

> Also isn't it the assholes getting all the consentual sex? No. > It's the niceguys getting the rape accusations. Also, very much no. > Women are telling us in the media and also in person how they always regret sex with niceguys. Never heard that. Heard a lot of women say they regret involvement, physical and otherwise, with assholes, though.

I would argue that what you're seeing is a pattern of women continually becoming involved with assholes, cause they're not complaining about the niceguys. Anyway, the original post was a sarcastic extrapolation of what we see in the media and comments, I didn't exaggerate it enough but I agree with your 1 words answers, thanks for chiming in.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#208

Post by xiphias2 »

ryandrake wrote: post #194
TomVDB wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, I don't think the percentage of cases really matter: we have a tendency to have an irrational fear of things that have a very low probability. (Like child abduction etc.) I don't think this is any different. The chance of being falsely accused is probably very small, but I know I'd absolutely crushed, both mentally and physically (lack of sleep for months in a row) if it happened to me. Even if, a year or…

This is risk impact 101. Risk = probability x impact. Even when the probability is small (false accusations), the huge potential impact can result in large overall risk.

The damage is not simply probability x impact, as it's also important to limit the potential downside. When a person or company pays for insurance, it increases the average damage in return for decreasing the variance.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#209

Post by sk4rekr0w »

neaden wrote: post #199
repolfx wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I thought her claims were investigated in detail and found to be clearly false, with witnesses she said were there saying they had no clue what she was talking about and remembered no such party, her own testimony contradicted itself, etc. And then the fact that she waited decades to do anything about it. The last I heard about Kavanaugh he'd been totally exonerated. There's no reason to believe he did…

No, that is not what happened. Her claims were briefly investigated, there was only one other witness, Mike Judge, and he was not questioned. No one else remembers that specific party but they all agreed that it was the kind of thing get together they would have gone too, her testimony was consistent, and lots of assault victims wait a long time before coming forward. So you managed to be wrong about everything.

This is an entirely unfair representation of what happened.

First, his name was Mark Judge not "Mike" Judge - so get off the high horse about being factually correct when you can't even get one name right.

Zero corroborating eyewitnesses, zero recollection of the location of the "party" from 35 years ago.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#210

Post by xiphias2 »

buboard wrote: post #130
asianthrowaway wrote: post #68

I always wondered, why don't women get very harsh sentences if they get caught making up false rape allegations? I think that would discourage that sort of behavior and sort of balance things out.

it would be more effective if there was a wide-ranging public campaign in support of men who have been wronged, like a #NotMeToo . Escalating a war of the sexes is madness

It's called #himtoo, and it was started by the mother of a false accusation victim a few months ago.
Post reply on HN