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

Let's get a little louder

juliaelman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 149 posts

Re: Let's get a little louder

#11

Post by sigwhite »

stdbrouw wrote: post #2

That really sucks, and maybe the conference organizers could have been better at coming up with a way to deal with this, but I don't know what a sexual harrassment policy would solve. Sexual harrassment is immoral and depending on the nature punishable by law. Spelling that out would be like spelling out that you'd prefer people not to defecate in the hallways. We need to find solutions, not add organizational scar t…

I can sympathize with your argument, but your comparison is a strawman, really. We don't have a defecation problem. We do have a harrassment problem.

There'd be no point in creating a code of conduct that explicitly bans defecating in the hallways because it's simply not an everyday problem. How women are treated in tech, however, is.

I'm saying this as a guy who is a strong believer in egalitarianism but highly sceptical of feminism, mind you.

If we had a defecation problem, yes, we should have a binding code of conduct for that. And as soon as the problem is gone, we should re-evaluate it, too.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#12

Post by yock »

supernooneo wrote: post #4

Careful that she is making an accusation here, but it is not proven, and prior bad behaviour (that's also an unproven accusation) is not an indicator of present guilt. I don't think we should ban people from conferences based on unproven accusations.

Not sure why you're being downvoted for this, it's spot-on. Accusations, no matter how credible, do not indicate guilt.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#13

Post by jamesaguilar »

bnegreve wrote: post #8

Honestly, I don't think the conference should be in charge of this (specially when it doesn't happen where the conference takes place). This is a very general problem and should be handled by state/federal laws rather than arbitrary decisions taken by conference organizer.

Surely it doesn't hurt to have the conference take a stand?

Re: Let's get a little louder

#14

Post by xutopia »

I've gotten into a bar fight to protect a woman I did not know. I almost got into a fight in the subway for the same reason, twice. However I can't stand these kinds of stories. All I hear is one socially awkward guy trying really hard in the worst possible way.

I'm conflicted because on the other hand the guy seemed like an asshole but I have only one side of the story and feel like it would be jumping to conclusions to judge this guy just from this.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#15

Post by JackC »

stdbrouw wrote: post #2

That really sucks, and maybe the conference organizers could have been better at coming up with a way to deal with this, but I don't know what a sexual harrassment policy would solve. Sexual harrassment is immoral and depending on the nature punishable by law. Spelling that out would be like spelling out that you'd prefer people not to defecate in the hallways. We need to find solutions, not add organizational scar t…

Spelling that out would be like spelling out that you'd prefer people not to defecate in the hallways.

This is a little different because: (1) it's probably a common occurrence (based on the general incidence of sexual harassment & assault -- I don't know about coding conferences in particular); (2) it's something that is often tolerated -- it doesn't actually go without saying that the conference will think it's their problem or do anything about it; and (3) it's an assault by one of your guests on another of your guests, so it reflects on the experience you provide.

So to go with your analogy, suppose it was common in the industry that a few people at any given conference would try to poop on other people, and the conference organizers wouldn't know what to do about it. Then yeah, unless you were trying to cater only to a small subset of programmers with unusual tastes, it would be pretty important to come up with some sort of explicit policy and plan to deal with conference-poopers. Or coming back to reality, if you run a conference, you do have to make it clear to your guests that you will actively try to stop sexual harassment/assault. Then second of all, you have to follow through.

"Having a policy" just means (1) letting people know that sexual harassment won't be tolerated at your conference; and (2) having a plan you can execute when it happens anyway. It's pretty much steps one and two of "finding solutions."

Re: Let's get a little louder

#16

Post by pinko »

stdbrouw wrote: post #2

That really sucks, and maybe the conference organizers could have been better at coming up with a way to deal with this, but I don't know what a sexual harrassment policy would solve. Sexual harrassment is immoral and depending on the nature punishable by law. Spelling that out would be like spelling out that you'd prefer people not to defecate in the hallways. We need to find solutions, not add organizational scar t…

The difference is that defecating in the hallways isn't a routine practice in our industry, but sexual harassment of the sort she describes is. There's a need for more awareness and action within the community -- and a hands-off "let the law take care of it" attitude ignores that a lot of this happens out of the public eye, and can only be stopped when people close to it take a more public stand against it.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#17

Post by Avenger42 »

supernooneo wrote: post #4

Careful that she is making an accusation here, but it is not proven, and prior bad behaviour (that's also an unproven accusation) is not an indicator of present guilt. I don't think we should ban people from conferences based on unproven accusations.

This isn't the stock market. Past behavior is an indicator of present/future behavior. It's not the only indicator, certainly, but when a large number of people are telling you the same thing, then you have a responsibility to discover why that is.

The organizer's reaction made it sound like he had reservations about inviting this person, due to older reports similar to the author's.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#18

Post by exit »

SeanOC wrote: post #5
stdbrouw wrote: post #2

That really sucks, and maybe the conference organizers could have been better at coming up with a way to deal with this, but I don't know what a sexual harrassment policy would solve. Sexual harrassment is immoral and depending on the nature punishable by law. Spelling that out would be like spelling out that you'd prefer people not to defecate in the hallways. We need to find solutions, not add organizational scar t…

While I agree that this problem could have been handled better in absence of a sexual harassment policy, there's a lot to be gained by having such a policy. In this situation I don't agree that conferences having sexual harassment policies are "scar tissue". First and foremost, the scare tissue complaint largely relies on a policy being applied to an extremely rare event. Unfortunately this kind of thing is almost ce…

> and as far as I am concerned, having a sexual harassment policy for conferences is an easy win for everybody involved.

frankly i don't entirely trust women with the ability to cry sexual harassment and have men ejected from situations

having personally witnessed this twice in bars, and once by way of a female relative coming clean about abusing her privilege

note that i am not saying actual sexual harassment should not be called out.

just in response to your unconditionally endorsing such policies; there have to be damn good mechanism in place to prevent abuse.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#19

Post by davidw »

yock wrote: post #12
supernooneo wrote: post #4

Careful that she is making an accusation here, but it is not proven, and prior bad behaviour (that's also an unproven accusation) is not an indicator of present guilt. I don't think we should ban people from conferences based on unproven accusations.

Not sure why you're being downvoted for this, it's spot-on. Accusations, no matter how credible, do not indicate guilt.

All the more reason to have a well thought-out policy in place for how to deal with a potentially explosive situation.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#20

Post by supernooneo »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #13
bnegreve wrote: post #8

Honestly, I don't think the conference should be in charge of this (specially when it doesn't happen where the conference takes place). This is a very general problem and should be handled by state/federal laws rather than arbitrary decisions taken by conference organizer.

Surely it doesn't hurt to have the conference take a stand?

Take a stand against what? Unproven claims?
Post reply on HN