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

It's Different for Girls

heidiroizen.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#351

Post by facepalm »

It sounds as if it sucks to be attractive.

I am not convinced that it doesn't still suck more to be unattractive (as in male).

There are no interesting stories to be told. You don't rant about the awful party - you weren't invited to the party to begin with.

Those experiences she describes sure sound awful, but they are the extreme end. In between there are probably lots of encounters that she get because non-creepy people were attracted to her. Maybe people even rationalize they like her startups because they like her.

Men also get rejected from VC companies all the time. Also if I would witness men doing awful stuff to women, I wouldn't want to work with them either.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#352

Post by PeterisP »

sp332 wrote: post #244
monochr wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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," When you can use your mobile as a universal recording device and you carry it everywhere I f…

That's not legal as evidence in many states. Both people must be aware that they are being recorded or the recording is illegal.

Perhaps it's a sign that it should be changed.

Historically, recording/taping conversations was a "spec-ops" act against someone, which could be only used by those in power to abuse/blackmail people, and it made sense to restrict it.

Nowadays, recording devices are ubiquitous, and easily available even to, say, poor disadvantaged teenagers, and the majority of their use actually seems to be for the "little guy" to protect against abuse by obtaining evidence of it. IMHO we should consider a way (details, conditions, restrictions, etc) to make it generally legal to make recordings of things that are said to you or done to you.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#353

Post by arrrg »

ElComradio wrote: post #113
jawns wrote: post #6

I think the big takeaway here, not just for women but for anyone in the workplace who feels uncomfortable with or offended by something someone else has said, is to consider the intent. Sometimes somebody says something offensive, and they don't even know they're being offensive. And in those cases, you can take them aside, explain to them why it's offended you, and hopefully they'll say, "Oh, dreadfully sorry, I did…

Where is it writ that a person's right to not endure offensive speech trumps another person's right to express themselves? Of course I would opine that a person being needlessly offensive is a jerk but where would I get off insisting she has to change her behavior to suit my tastes?

Because that would be a polite thing to do?

This is mostly not about rights. It’s also about proper and polite behaviour.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#354

Post by [deleted] »

thenmar wrote: post #39
britta wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can educate yourself and others! There are lots of resources for learning how to do more, including speaking up to other men and putting some money toward supporting people who are making a difference. Here's an article with a bunch of options ("What Can Men Do? Men working with other men against patriarchy in technology"): https://medium.com/tech-culture-briefs/a1e93d985af0 - and here's an allies training worksh…

I'm curious about how controversial this post seems. It has been bouncing back and forth from light gray to black. Is it that people disagree with educating others? That they have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "patriarchy" and dismiss anyone who uses it? That they idea of "allies training" is somehow repulsive and unfair?

[deleted]

Re: It's Different for Girls

#355

Post by PeterisP »

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…

It's an illegal question because we as the society have chosen to value family interests above the employer interests and made specific laws to prohibit it.

It is a legitimate question because from a purely practical employer's point of view it IS important. As opposed to irrelevant questions such as ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation which don't affect performance, having a baby does require taking some time off, and does have an impact on performance, sleep, ability to work 100hour weeks, etc - a number of medical conditions fall into this category as well; you can't require a candidate to disclose that they have cancer and have planned chemotherapy, but if you could, then it would make sense to do so.

Knowing the answer is an advantage to the employer and disadvantage to some employees; therefore, if it wasn't legally prohibited, 100% of HR handbooks would actually mandate to always ask such questions - as far as I know, before those laws were implemented, it was the recommended practice to do so. And since the particular scenario of the original post isn't an employment scenario and it's not prohibited - it's likely in the investor's best interests to ask that question; the only downside is a possible PR impact.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#356

Post by mkempe »

wpietri wrote: post #344
mkempe wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To those who downvoted my comment without argument: what I said is outrageous? unacceptable? men who physically assault women or treat them as purely sexual objects should be tolerated? am I missing something?

It's certainly not very thoughtful or empathetic. It's easy for you to say what other people should do. But if somebody has been harassed or sexually assaulted, reporting it or suing has to be up to them. There are enormous personal consequences to doing so. Blaming people who decide not to do that is putting an additional unfair burden on somebody who has already been victimized.

You assume and assert so wrongly that I have not put much thought in what I said, and that I don't have empathy for the victims. I've witnessed and been subjected to harassment. These stories, and now your comment, make me viscerally sick.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#357

Post by RDeckard »

JackC wrote: post #295
Castlereagh wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a counter-point to this that is likely to be unpopular, but it's deeply rooted in human biology and isn't going to go away any time soon. Attractive young women may have difficulty getting people to take them seriously, and have to deal with things like frequent unwanted sexual advances, but they have no trouble getting laid . Attractive young women have easy, practically unlimited access to sex (if they so d…

Unsurprisingly, this comes at a cost. Seriously, no. Don't do this. Don't do "being attractive to men unsurprising comes at the cost of sexual assault." Don't do "not having sex when you want to is as bad as being forced to have sex when you don't want to." Don't do "attractive young women are the only women worth having sex with." Don't go for the mathematical impossibility that women get to have more sex than men.…

Let the man speak his point.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#359

Post by coderbroder »

Castlereagh wrote: post #257
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…

There's a counter-point to this that is likely to be unpopular, but it's deeply rooted in human biology and isn't going to go away any time soon. Attractive young women may have difficulty getting people to take them seriously, and have to deal with things like frequent unwanted sexual advances, but they have no trouble getting laid . Attractive young women have easy, practically unlimited access to sex (if they so d…

Want to know what's really intriguing? When a white male complains about his perceived problems regarding inappropriate social behavior, no one takes him seriously, because he's a white male, therefore he "has it better". When an attractive woman, who also "has it better", complains about her problems regarding inappropriate social behavior, people take her seriously, because she's a woman and everybody knows that women are worldwide institutionally discriminated against.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#360

Post by Intermernet »

tptacek wrote: post #261
gfodor wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of by not addressing my points. The specific calls to action she makes for the most part seem reasonable. But they are hung not just on a poor tone but a general worldview that in my view alienates both genders from one another and in general would cause more friction and emotional hurt in day to day life if it were adopted by all. Hence the reason I called ou…

You understand that Britta wasn't saying "tell all your male friends to follow everything that Shanley says", right? She was saying, "this Shanley post has good suggestions in it". It turns out you agree. If you'd like the "tone police" card to get played less often, stop burying the lede that you agree with all the substantive points of this-or-that feminist blog post under a mountain of concern trolling about tone.…

Sorry to slightly derail the point here, but "tone policing" seems to be all we get from most media, most government, and unfortunately most business leaders. It's not surprising that we see it all the time in online discussions,as it's become the new way of being "reasonable".

In Australia we are having a debate about immigration. The actual debate is over the treatment of refugees (or "Illegal Immigrants" as the government calls them) that arrive by boat. The refugees (sorry "Illegal Immigrants") who arrive by boat are treated very differently from those that arrive by plane. In the last few decades, the refugees who arrive by boat aren't even just "Illegal Immigrants" anymore, they're "Boat People". And we need to "Stop The Boats".

So, in less than 20 years, we've reduced the words "Boat" and "People" into snarling invective that the masses can spit at each other in self justifying jingoism.

I agree that the "substantive points" in any statement are the ones that need to be considered, but if the majority of a country can be persuaded to be in fear of "People" who arrive on "Boats", then we need to recognise that the delivery is just as important as the substance.

When we live in a society where "tone" itself can cause offense, then "tone policing" is probably, although unfortunately, justified.

Post reply on HN