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

America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

tabletmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 387 posts

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#191

Post by ars »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #186
lisper wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been on the LB for months and it hasn't resulted in any contacts at all. In fact, AFAICT being on the HNLB is a complete no-op. And I'm a white male.

It's not uncommon for someone like you to make a statement like this when I make such comments. I imagine I would be downvoted to hell and possibly crabbed at by the mods if I began researching members of the leader board to prove my case or even just began ticking off what I happen to know off the top of my head. I'm not at my best at the moment. Suffice it to say this kind of statement is part of the problem in my…

You have cause and effect backwards. Those people you are thinking of are well known for what they do outside of HN, and then they attract a following on HN.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#192

Post by benj111 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #183
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…

but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades Online dating has proven to help gays with successfully finding relationships. Gays can be openly gay online while protecting their privacy. This has helped give people some exposure to gays and their problems who wouldn't otherwise have similar exposure in meat space. I also think the trend to identify as asexual where such people wer…

Do you think? The 'trend' for asexuality is very recent, (or if it's not, I haven't noticed, which still kind of undermines your point) not enough time to make much of an impact.

I would turn it around and say that the acceptance of homosexuality has created the space for a spectrum of sexuality.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#193

Post by DoreenMichele »

ars wrote: post #191
DoreenMichele wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon for someone like you to make a statement like this when I make such comments. I imagine I would be downvoted to hell and possibly crabbed at by the mods if I began researching members of the leader board to prove my case or even just began ticking off what I happen to know off the top of my head. I'm not at my best at the moment. Suffice it to say this kind of statement is part of the problem in my…

You have cause and effect backwards. Those people you are thinking of are well known for what they do outside of HN, and then they attract a following on HN.

I have reason to believe that is not universally true. Again, I'm not interested in naming names. I don't believe that goes good places.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#194

Post by kerkeslager »

danharaj wrote: post #73
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…

> A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay This is becoming increasingly less true because it is becoming safer and more respectable to be out. This creates a tight feedback loop of acceptance which makes people feel safer coming out.

This didn't happen by accident, either: If you read i.e. Harvey Milk's "you must come out" speech, you'll see that the explicit intention of campaigns to get gay people to come out was to educate the public that they do in fact know people who are gay.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#195

Post by rayiner »

mirimir wrote: post #166
rayiner wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacKinnon's quote is not referring to an after-the-fact change of mind. Her point is that women may, under coercive circumstances, consent but nonetheless still feel violated. She posits that women may revoke consent after the fact, but the basis for that revocation is coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act . This is less far-fetched than it may seem at first. Many people on HN would agree with th…

OK. But TFA does push the interpretation that it's about retroactive change of mind. I get what you say about "coercive circumstances that existed at the time of the act." However, the following paragraph isn't at all reassuring. I mean, there may well be circumstances that pressure someone into having sex. But if their sexual partner isn't personally responsible for those circumstances, why should they suffer?

That may be, but the article is characterizing McKinnon’s view, not quoting it.

As to “responsibility” it’s not an easy concept either. People who don’t create the coercive circumstances often knowingly take advantage of them. I’d point out that when McKinnon wrote the quote, it was still legally impossible in some states to rape your wife. (Marriage was essentially considered irrevocable consent.) Even today, social dynamics are geared toward what male expectations—sex on demand with no strings attached. Any given man many not create this framework, but they live within it and take advantage of it. (Although that’s slowly changing. They did an investigation at my kid’s school into widespread sex between male teachers and high school students in the 1970s and 1980s. At the time it was “bad” but tolerated. Today we would call it rape. The liberalism of the sexual revolution, which as Dworkin points out accrued largely to the benefit of men, is being recalibrated and that’s a good thing.)

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#196

Post by kerkeslager »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #133
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…

Universities are not businesses. If they're being run like businesses...they're not serving a function as University any longer.

Universities should not be run like businesses, but that doesn't mean they aren't.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#197

Post by thrower123 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #155
dgzl wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

The only thing lamer than internet points is bragging about how many you have.

Honestly, being on the HN leaderboard is not a particularly healthy indicator in the grander scheme of things...

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#198

Post by DoreenMichele »

thrower123 wrote: post #197
DoreenMichele wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The only thing lamer than internet points is bragging about how many you have. Honestly, being on the HN leaderboard is not a particularly healthy indicator in the grander scheme of things...

That's not the point. It's a proxy for "Women generally don't participate much here compared to men. I participate regularly and I'm accepted to some degree."

But, of course, it doesn't matter how I say it. The point gets attacked and dismissed.

Because no one here wants to admit sexism genuinely is a problem, especially not if it implicates them to any degree.

Somehow, it's always everyone else who's guilty, not the people nitpicking and dismissing my comments.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#199

Post by Udik »

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…

> A civil court would not typically rule that a defendant ... should be expelled from their academic program

True, but nothing prevents an internal committee from simply acquiring the results of the court and applying sanctions on that base. In fact you don't even need an internal committee, you just need a general rule that applies automatically.

Re: America’s New Sex Bureaucracy

#200

Post by [deleted] »

shawndrost wrote: post #52
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.

I don't want to wade into the specifics of campus tribunals, but the broad mechanism here is very commonplace and uncontroversial, no? Eg if I work for an NSF grant recipient and I spit on my boss, and I get fired with no court ruling, would you find it confusing/objectionable?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN