It's Different for Girls • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Different for Girls

#321

Post by mdorazio » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:57 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #231

frozenport wrote: post #184

>>My partners are concerned that when you have this baby you are going to lose interest in the company and not be a good CEO As a practical matter this is a legitimate question. For example, "why are you taking this job when you plan to be busy for the next 6 months?" (or even longer).

No, it isn't a legitimate question. In fact, in an employment setting, it's an unlawful question. It presumes that the interviewer can extrapolate from the probably irrelevant detail of someone's pregnancy status to their ability to perform after the birth; refuting that bogus extrapolation requires the candidate to explain and defend their child care arrangements and home life. As a practical matter, if someone in m…

How is this an unlawful question? As far as I know, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only applies to employees and those seeking employment. In the setting of an individual seeking funding for their business, the law doesn't apply.

Furthermore, from an objective point of view how can you argue that pregnancy doesn't affect an individual's expected ability to perform as an entrepreneur after the birth? In my opinion this is a valid question to ask both expecting parents. One of my male coworkers recently had a child and his work performance in the month since then has been noticeably worse than it was prior to the birth. Babies take a lot of work, a lot of time, and a lot of lost sleep no matter help much help you have. We're not talking about hiring someone - we're talking about investing in the business they are running. Any major pending commitments, pregnancy included, seem fair to ask about.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#322

Post by sliverstorm » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:58 AM UTC

dethstar wrote: post #307

sliverstorm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, or they just feel that they will be much less successful hitting on a girl who is accompanied by a guy, platonic or otherwise.

Contrary to the success always obtained by catcalling?

I just skip catcalling, because I don't understand it.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#323

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:01 AM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #321

tptacek wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't a legitimate question. In fact, in an employment setting, it's an unlawful question. It presumes that the interviewer can extrapolate from the probably irrelevant detail of someone's pregnancy status to their ability to perform after the birth; refuting that bogus extrapolation requires the candidate to explain and defend their child care arrangements and home life. As a practical matter, if someone in m…

How is this an unlawful question? As far as I know, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act only applies to employees and those seeking employment. In the setting of an individual seeking funding for their business, the law doesn't apply. Furthermore, from an objective point of view how can you argue that pregnancy doesn't affect an individual's expected ability to perform as an entrepreneur after the birth? In my opinion t…

I just said: it's unlawful in an employment context.

It's an interesting question as to what, if any, discrimination laws actually apply in practice with investors.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#324

Post by obstacle1 » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:03 AM UTC

beaner wrote: post #147

enraged_camel wrote: post #117

I have an ex-coworker who is a really attractive girl, and she used to tell me lots of stories like this about places she had worked at previously. Vice presidents calling her to their room and offering her promotions if only she would give them weekly blowjobs, prospective customers turning away from million-dollar deals at the last minute after she refused to sleep with them, etc. The really sad thing about is that…

Don't understand why we don't start naming and shaming. It's a lot easier to not see as a real problem when it's always stories of nameless men in unspecified locations and situations. And the kinds people who are prone to this behavior are being given a free pass, only to do it again later.

Because what if the namer/shamer gets it wrong? Have you ever heard of the Salem Witch Trials? Or even Donglegate, for that matter?

It's the whole reason presumed innocence is a cornerstone of every modern justice system.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#325

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:24 AM UTC

kaitai wrote: post #293

__david__ wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, good intentions don't lessen impact on victims. I fundamentally disagree with you on this, but I've noticed that people seem very divided on this issue. Personally, if I'm offended by something and I learn that it was a fundamental misunderstanding and no harm was intended, then the anger/hurt/whatever emotion just goes away naturally, without me having to even consciously think about it or calm myself d…

On a personal and emotional level, I agree with you: once I learn it's a misunderstanding and no harm was intended, I often stop feeling angry. Even if I'm no longer angry per se some hard feelings may remain. I have dealt with men & women from very conservative backgrounds who honestly and with great love believe I should not do what I do for a living, because it involves public speaking and evaluation of some men,…

I think the relevant difference here is "intended meaning" vs. "intended/assumed values". Understanding the other's intentions resolves the problem when you interpreted what they said differently than what they intended you to understand - it's essentially a communication failure. Understanding that someone considers chopping your limbs off a kind thing to do, though, does not change anything about the fact that you would probably consider that to be more at the evil end of the spectrum--all it might do would be to shift your anger from their specific action to their general stupidity for not recognizing that people obviously do express that they do feel hurt when you chop their limbs off.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#326

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:29 AM UTC

stormbrew wrote: post #171

wpietri wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Street harassment is another thing like that. E.g., I naively assumed that my girlfriend's experience going out and running alone was exactly like my experience when I was with her. Until she started telling me about the frequent whistles, comments, and sexual propositions she would receive. It just didn't happen when I'm around, because people who are jerks and abusers are, unsurprisingly, very crafty in doing…

I think it's even worse than being 'crafty', they're actually trying to show you respect under the idea that because you're with her you have a claim on her and they're deferring to that. Which is incredibly creepy and offensive.

I'm sure that's an element. But there are other people in front of whom street harassers will quiet down, too, so I don't think that's the only explanation.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#327

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:31 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #218

Mz wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men are dramatically less likely to hit on me when I am with either or both of my adult sons. Many people realize they are relatives (though some think they are my brothers, not my sons) so, no, they don't think I am the sexual property of these two males. I have only been bothered by a guy when my sons are around when the guy was drinking alcohol. So I think the parent comment is more accurate than your assumption,…

I'm not so sure the men doing this are thinking consciously about property rights. They're probably going around motivated at the primate level. This doesn't excuse what they're doing, but it makes me suspect that they will continue to emulate the behavior of the other men they observe in their environment and will only change when they see others around them change their behavior. This is what people are like: only…

Territory is a deeply animal behavior, as is alpha male claiming of mates. So I think that property rights are an elaboration of primate instincts.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#328

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:32 AM UTC

refurb wrote: post #196

wpietri wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those do indeed matter. As Louis CK artfully explains, as a white male, you can't even hurt my feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY It's almost impossible for me, as person advantaged by society, to fathom the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts feeling that people who are less advantaged experience. I've tried a lot, for years, and I regularly fail. Just today, I read a great piece titled, "Calling the Whi…

Are you saying if you're a heterosexual white male you have no concept of exclusion or discrimination? People are more than just their race and sex and sexual orientation. People can be discriminated against due to their disability (mental and physical), weight, appearance, intelligence, background, etc., etc., etc.

Protip: if you read somebody as saying something obviously idiotic, try assuming that they are smarter than that and work out their meaning from there.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#329

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:36 AM UTC

sunir wrote: post #149

wpietri wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one good takeaway. But there's one that is more important to me: no matter how good my intent is, it's easy for me to accidentally make people suspect I'm just like some total asshole they've dealt with before. So I'm going to try harder to avoid triggering those associations. And when I do, I'm going to try to be bolder in apologizing for it and learning from it. My good intentions may explain a fuckup, but t…

Are you sure this is the right take away? It seems extreme to expect you to take full responsibility for some other total asshole. And also kind of immoral to live in a world like this. I think the expectation of a moral adult is to seek mutual understanding to continually improve yourself to be a positive and constructive element in others' lives. If you unintentionally offended someone, it's an opportunity to learn…

We are made out of meat. We're half-evolved chimps living in a world with a 10,000-year history of war. We start life naked, screaming, and covered in blood, knowing so little that it takes years just to learn how to eat food. At the end, we all die, and then our bodies rot.

It's a ridiculous world, and it's nobody's fault. But somebody has to take responsibility for making it better. I'm going to try. You can help if you want.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#330

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 5:46 AM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #247

beaner wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't understand why we don't start naming and shaming. It's a lot easier to not see as a real problem when it's always stories of nameless men in unspecified locations and situations. And the kinds people who are prone to this behavior are being given a free pass, only to do it again later.

Why shaming? Isn't this shit outright illegal? There is time to worry about shaming after the lawsuits.

Win or lose, lawsuits are an enormous time and money sink. That's for any lawsuit. Sexually harassment ones are worse. Asking somebody who has been harassed to go public or file a lawsuit is putting an enormous burden on them, one that they don't deserve.

In my view, the problem is the behavior of some guys, enabled by a much larger number of guys who are ignorant or indifferent. I think the solution mainly lies with waking up that latter group.