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

Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 216 posts

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#191

Post by [deleted] »

Traster wrote: post #149
itsmhuang wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's the case, who do you report sexual harassment to?

Well, its difficult- and it's important to realise that there's not going to be some perfect resolution. A lot of people simply decide fighting isn't worth it and move on to other companies. If it's very serious, you can obviously contact the police. In my opinion if you consider your position and you do want to pursue complaining about harassment the first thing to do is contact a third party for advice. In the UK y…

[deleted]

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#192

Post by magduf »

itsmhuang wrote: post #81
Traster wrote: post #6

>“I felt a wave of relief wash over me when I remembered that I worked at a large company, one with a sizable human resources department,” I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. They aren't there as some moral arbiter. If you reported sexual harassment to HR you are going to be part of an equation - is it better for the business…

If that's the case, who do you report sexual harassment to?

If the harassment has moved beyond the workplace, and someone is stalking you at home or wherever, then call the police. As long as it's still at work, the easiest thing, and probably best choice for your career, is to find a new employer ASAP. We're talking about software engineers/devs here: this field is hot, and there's lots of demand. GTFO and find a better place to work. Just look at the women who's the subject of this article: she blew the whistle publicly and now doesn't even work in the field. This, unfortunately, is generally what happens to whistleblowers; I've seen it before with someone close. She saved lives, but now can't work in that field any more.

After you've found greener grass, if the company is large enough, write an anonymous review on Glassdoor.com calling them out for their toxic environment, so others will know to avoid that cesspool.

It's really a shame that our society shits on whistleblowers so badly.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#193

Post by magduf »

scott_s wrote: post #143
magduf wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual harassment? Sure. Sexist? Sorry, no, that's just silly. By your logic, if a male manager only propositions female subordinates, it's sexist, because he isn't also propositioning male subordinates. That's not sexist, that's a side effect of the male manager being heterosexual. By your logic, every person that only dates people of a particular sex is "sexist", which is completely ridiculous.

You're thinking that I label the behavior sexist because the manager propositions only women and not men. I am not. I am labeling the behavior sexist because it contributes to both a work culture, and the wider culture, which excludes women from status and power.

I don't know about this; it isn't completely unheard of for female managers to proposition male subordinates, it just doesn't happen as often obviously. I think it's wrong and abusive, no matter which sex does it (and to whom; (gay) men propositioning other men happens too), but I have a hard time seeing how this is "sexist" or only harmful to women, though obviously, due to inertia I think (more men being in positions of power), it negatively affects women more. I will grant you, however, that it can be argued that it contributes to keeping the gender-unequal status quo.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#194

Post by downerending »

komali2 wrote: post #184
downerending wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When discussing universal statements, counterexamples are arguably useful. More importantly, though, I think we're all dealt a huge hand of cards--many at birth, some later--some beneficial, some deleterious. In a form of social bikeshedding, we tend to concentrate on things like race and gender because they're obvious. It's far from clear, though, that they constitute more than a tiny fraction of the cards that matt…

> It's far from clear, though, that they constitute more than a tiny fraction of the cards that matter. This isn't true. Take any intersection and add minority status and you'll see increased poverty, reduced college attendance, increased arrest rate etc. There may be other cards but none so universally an issue as the continued disadvantages faced by POC in the USA. Sure other issues exist, but saying that while peo…

This data appears to refute that assertion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

I have little doubt that being poor leads to lots of other problems. (Source: was poor growing up, relative to most here) It's a far greater leap to say that being (for example) black is hugely more important than being poor, being ugly, being short, being aspy, being disabled, having mental health issues or parents with mental health issues, etc.

Beyond that, even to the degree that one is a minority, it's not clear that the well-intended actions taken on their behalf are actually even helpful. If you haven't read Sowell's book Cosmic Justice, it's well worth a look on this topic.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#195

Post by wpietri »

charliesharding wrote: post #186
komali2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated before, pointing out and having a clear and honest dialog about racism isn't in itself racism. That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism. Also, "wide sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain rac…

> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism. That is some insane mental gymnastics... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.

Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists. And the dictionary gives definitions for things like astrological signs, too.

The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition. If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from.

And if you haven't read any, I'd suggest you start by reading DiAngelo's, which is material to your behavior here. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07638ZFN1/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#196

Post by wpietri »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #168
wpietri wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not in fact mansplaining. Which you would know if you had spent more time studying what sexism actually is. For a good explanation, I recommend Kim Goodwin's flowchart: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180727-mansplaining-e...

I think you missed the smiley...

Or perhaps I actually saw the entirety of his one-line post and thought it was a disingenuous use of a smiley.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#197

Post by dragonwriter »

wpietri wrote: post #195
charliesharding wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism. That is some insane mental gymnastics... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism. Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists…

> The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition.

It's an activist propaganda definition created specifically to excuse black (specifically black, though of course it incidentally has since been used for other groups) bigotry against whites (again, specifically, though it incidentally can excuse bigotry by blacks and others against other targets, as well).

It's perverse in practice and intent, because the mere acceptance of the definition as correct and it's narrowed concept of “racism” as meaningful creates exactly the kind of social privilege for those perceived as being disadvantaged that makes it possible for them to be racist by that narrowed definition, and that's the whole propaganda purpose of activists promoting the definition.

It's much better to use the standard definition of racism while understanding that the positions of power (both relative and absolute) of the racist(s) are impact multipliers (as positions of power are for anything, racism is hardly unique).

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#198

Post by wpietri »

dragonwriter wrote: post #197
wpietri wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism. Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists…

> The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition. It's an activist propaganda definition created specifically to excuse black (specifically black, though of course it incidentally has since been used for other groups) bigotry against whites (again, specifically, though it incidentally can excuse bigotry by blacks and others against other targets, as well). It's perverse in practice an…

[citation needed]

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#199

Post by charliesharding »

wpietri wrote: post #195
charliesharding wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism. That is some insane mental gymnastics... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism. Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists…

> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.

I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people?

> If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from

I understand that the consequences of racism have been messy, but the definition is not. The definition is simple and plain and I gave you my source but I'll repeat it: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".

I'm curious why you believe that white people can't experience racism, William. From the definition it would imply that you think no other race could claim "inherent superior[ity]". I see why you would reject this definition that the majority of society has agreed on because it would make you a dictionary racist.

Re: Why Susan Fowler blew the whistle on sexism at Uber

#200

Post by wpietri »

charliesharding wrote: post #199
wpietri wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism. Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists…

> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism. I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people? > If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting you…

If you can't tell the difference between a generalization and a universal claim, that could be your problem right there.

Also, a dictionary is not a book on racism. It's a book collating common usage of words. I suspect you don't name a book by actual experts because you've never read one. Maybe you should try that before trying to discuss the topic further.

That would also explain why you're doing the a classic white-fragility routine here, arguing over trivia and playing word games rather than actually grappling with the ongoing harm.

Post reply on HN