America’s New Sex Bureaucracy • Hacker News Board

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#151

Post by dgzl » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #147

I don't know how we get there. I'm incredibly frustrated at how much doors remain shut in my face and I can't get traction, real respect and the money that goes with it. But after a lifetime of sorting my baggage in the aftermath of sexual abuse and rape, I'm clear that one thing that must happen is women need public lives on par with what men have and women need career options and earned income on par with men. A wh…

>A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there.

Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#152

Post by mirimir » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:16 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #110

mirimir wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any direct (or indirect) experience. So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. And I don't think the standards will become gender-neutral any faster than they'll become just. I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. And if there's any way to protect oneself against future rape accusations. Perhap…

> I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. This seems to be part of the point of these efforts, and also socially desirable. Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later. Those are all good things to tell young men.

Yes, of course. I do get that rape used to be almost accepted. Or getting women intoxicated enough, voluntarily, that they'd want to have sex. Or at least, wouldn't remember that they didn't want to have sex.

Or just plain seduction. Getting women excited enough that they'd want to have sex. I recall an intimate conversation with a female friend, who shared that she'd never let a guy touch her breasts, unless she wanted to have sex. Because once she did, and he did, she would.

Even that could be borderline, if there's a premeditated intent to seduce. Yet seduction is often a consensual process. But maybe not consensually with the goal of sex. And there's where it gets crazy.

Anyway, I was thinking more about being cautious regarding sexual politics. As in researching the potential partner's social media history. Or just introducing the issue in a casual way, and seeing what they say.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#153

Post by Lazare » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #108

Lazare wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I run a startup, and one of my employees is making other employees uncomfortable, and he keeps getting accused of harassing other employees, and is generally just making some of my best engineers unhappy, hurting productivity, and ruining our carefully constructed culture... ...I can fire him. I mean, obviously I need to go through the proper HR procedures, follow local employment law, respect the terms of his con…

Most Universities are non-profit, and almost all of them take Federal money. Classifying them as a business isn't accurate.

> Most Universities are non-profit,

You're still a business if you're a non-profit.

> Almost all of them take Federal money

You're still a business if you accept government contracts.

> Classifying them as a business isn't accurate.

I mean, they act like businesses, and in most cases they very explicitly legally are businesses. They accept money in exchange for services. If not a business, what would you classify them as?

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#154

Post by Fellshard » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

rubbingalcohol wrote: post #96

Fellshard wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reasoning being, 'if we let the external systems deal with it, they would not judge rightly by our standards.' If they believed it would judge rightly, they would have no reason to institute their own.

I don't think that follows. A civil court would not typically rule that a defendant who was found liable by a preponderance of evidence should be expelled from their academic programs. A criminal court less so. These systems are not equipped to handle the specific remedies that an academic disciplinary program should be designed around providing. Zooming out a bit, I don't think the civil/criminal courts failure to b…

I believe they would make that claim, again based on their own reasoning.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#155

Post by DoreenMichele » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

dgzl wrote: post #151

DoreenMichele wrote: post #147

I don't know how we get there. I'm incredibly frustrated at how much doors remain shut in my face and I can't get traction, real respect and the money that goes with it. But after a lifetime of sorting my baggage in the aftermath of sexual abuse and rape, I'm clear that one thing that must happen is women need public lives on par with what men have and women need career options and earned income on par with men. A wh…

>A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there. Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor.

I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board.

It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men.

I was homeless for nearly six years. I continue to struggle to make ends meet. I'm currently broke.

This is an ongoing issue for me. And it is shocking and appalling to me that I still get told after all this time that my gender isn't the issue and I'm imagining things. I guess just to add insult to injury while I literally starve. Again.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#156

Post by seppin » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:22 AM UTC

alexithym wrote: post #55

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #32

Flagged as irrelevant to Hacker News' core purpose, and somewhat inflammatory to boot for those not marinating in campus culture wars all the time.

This is much less irrelevant to HN's core purpose than the plethora of other random articles that can be found at any given time. Personally, I fail to see how the article was inflammatory. The author clearly took pains to avoid demonizing either side of the discussion that was being highlighted, something which is markedly rarer in the current day and age.

> HN's core purpose

You can only read about new backend frameworks so often, this is interesting..

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#157

Post by seppin » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:23 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #38

Meh. This is the second sexual revolution. The first go around resulted in rules and around causal sex in college that favor men and encode male expectations. Women are making clear that those rules don’t work for them and are demanding a change. If you don’t push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

> > If you don't push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

Hell of a gamble to take with your life and freedom

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#158

Post by analog31 » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:28 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #60

mieseratte wrote: post #4

For the life of me I don’t understand why government funded institutions run their own tribunals. Send it through the proper court system, if the accused is guilty you can expel them cleanly.

If I run a startup, and one of my employees is making other employees uncomfortable, and he keeps getting accused of harassing other employees, and is generally just making some of my best engineers unhappy, hurting productivity, and ruining our carefully constructed culture... ...I can fire him. I mean, obviously I need to go through the proper HR procedures, follow local employment law, respect the terms of his con…

>>> A university is a business

Most universities and businesses (corporations) are government chartered and entitled enterprises.

And students can already be expelled without being convicted of a crime, e.g., if they get bad grades.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#159

Post by awb » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:32 AM UTC

blotter_paper wrote: post #99

tzs wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would bias toward gay people fit in with that? A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay, but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades. There was a recent episode of "Hidden Brain" on NPR that talked about this [1]. This part is particularly interesting: > In a thought experiment, Mahzarin and her colleagues have extended the trend lines…

>Most families include the elderly and the overweight, so the idea that familiarity breeds acceptance would predict that those biases should be going away quicker than biases against gays. What I'm about to say is not meant to provide a justification for discriminatory behavior, it's just an armchair-anthropologist's attempt at explaining this discrepancy. We might have a very deep bias against old people; if a group…

The bias against overweight people is probably less about them hoarding and more about them being unhealthy.

We probably have a bias against unhealthy people because they'd drain the time and resources of a tribe. And they'd be less likely to help with physical activities like hunting, gathering and war.

Obesity is a very new phenomenon but not wanting to include or associate with people who seem sick or unhealthy is probably pretty old.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#160

Post by oijqoiwejoiqwj » Wed, Sep 25, 2019, 4:33 AM UTC

Unfortunately, I do not believe these ridiculous university tribunals will come to an end anytime soon. In fact, I think the problem will get much, much worse before it gets better. They are a symptom of a much larger problem.

Without distracting with any specific cases, it's very clear that the modern world is shifting away from the presumption of innocence. This, combined with an internet that remembers forever and a total disregard for free speech, will have predictably disastrous results. The set of punishable behavior is growing wider every day, whilst the standards of evidence are becoming shallower and shallower.

It's infuriating that every major US news site is being flooded with stories about increasing loneliness, plummetting sexual activity, increasing suicides, etc., but seem more than happy to contribute to the new character assassination of the day. Has it clicked for anyone yet that maybe today's youth are becoming shut-in's because they have a brain, and they know one mistake can ruin their entire life?

The commonly repeated reasons for this status-quo are pitiful.

Journalists aren't part of the judicial system, so it's alright if they pick a side without physical evidence --- as if that somehow makes their claims more likely to be true. Does not caring about science make a person's scientific claims more valid? Why even care about the news if the news doesn't care about the facts?

The 1st amendment applies only to the government, not private institutions --- so what? Is having a closed mind now a desirable personality trait? I'd hope that private individuals are working to preserve free speech as well, even if they aren't forced to do so. Besides that, many of the private institutions that this argument is applied to are in fact receiving special government funding / support (universities are a prime example, large payment processors are another). Can the government freely disregard your constitutional rights as long as it uses a private-sector middle-man?

/rant