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

361–370 of 400 posts

Re: It's Different for Girls

#361

Post by sp332 »

PeterisP wrote: post #352
sp332 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's OK to ignore due process. The NSA records lots of things on a daily basis but that doesn't mean it's all valid in a court of law.

I think if a person made a complaint to law enforcement, they could get a waiver - or maybe even a court order - to record a specific person for a specific time for a specific reason. Maybe that should be easier, but I don't think the process should be any less regulated.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#362

Post by Dewie »

wpietri wrote: post #131
chez17 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those don't matter and what you are doing is generalizing lots of groups of people which is something I assume you would be against. What matters is individuals. Some gay people don't mind jokes about being gay, some do. Some women don't mind jokes about gender, some do. If you are a in a professional setting you NEVER lead with a joke about something personal or potentially controversial if you are not among very ve…

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…

> 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

Consider Louis' example (paraphrasing): "'cracker' [...] bringing me back to owning land and people".

If we're to discuss this as something that might be offensive rather than just a joke (which we obviously are at this point), this could easily offend someone. Is it inoffensive to refer to people as slave owners, really? Or to refer to white people as guilty of that kind of thing by association (assuming that they're ancestors owned slaves; but it still isn't okay to project these "sins of the father")?

Re: It's Different for Girls

#363

Post by mdorazio »

tptacek wrote: post #323
mdorazio wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I misread your response since the parent comment seemed to be in reference specifically to the article.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#364

Post by teacup50 »

eli wrote: post #265
teacup50 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an individual! When you equate power and privilege with my appearance and gender, not only do you dehumanize me and treat me like a caricature, but you seem to assume that I hold some sort of power that makes me immune to your hate -- or you just don't care. Well, I'm not immune, and I'm sick of it, and if anything, I'd like you and people like you to take your message of prejudice somewhere else. I never gradua…

Do you really think I "hate" you or are being hyperbolic to make a point? If so I think it was lost on me. Anyway, your appearance has power and privileges whether you (or I) choose to acknowledge it or not.

> Do you really think I "hate" you or are being hyperbolic to make a point? If so I think it was lost on me.

Yes, I think your position is essentially rooted in hate.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#365

Post by teacup50 »

skywhopper wrote: post #259
teacup50 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an individual! When you equate power and privilege with my appearance and gender, not only do you dehumanize me and treat me like a caricature, but you seem to assume that I hold some sort of power that makes me immune to your hate -- or you just don't care. Well, I'm not immune, and I'm sick of it, and if anything, I'd like you and people like you to take your message of prejudice somewhere else. I never gradua…

I agree that we should be judged as individuals, but if you are white and male, then you should also be aware that you are perceived differently and generally more positively in many situations than minorities and women. If you apply for a job or a loan, you have an advantage. Even without a Stanford MBA, you would have an easier time getting VC funding than more qualified women and minorities.

Let me apply the necessary nuance to your argument to strip away the racism and sexism:

"I agree that we should be judged as individuals, but if you are white and male, then you should also be aware that you are perceived differently and generally more positively in many situations than minorities and women. If you apply for a job or a loan, you [MAY] have an advantage. Even without a Stanford MBA, you [MIGHT] have an easier time getting VC funding than [MANY SIMILARLY QUALIFIED] women and minorities."

In your statement, you ascribed stereotyped attributes to me, and to every situation I might find myself. In doing so, you ask me to accept the core premise that I always have an advantage over others, in every situation, because of my appearance and gender.

Yet, Heidi Roizen, in many ways (but clearly not all ways, as evidenced by her experiences) started from a position of much greater privilege than me. I hope you can see how these things are nuanced, and that sexist/racist stereotypes are convenient but inaccurate, and in aggregate, those stereotypes become very wearing on those of us who, as is often stated by those with your point of view, "do not inhabit positions of power" relative to you.

The "white man" stereotype used to roll off me, because I only saw it on the fringes of impolite society. Now, I see it said regularly and publicly, in popular if not polite company, often in contexts where I don't have "power" and I do find it both demeaning and threatening.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#366

Post by forgottenpass »

wpietri wrote: post #330
forgottenpass wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lawsuits suck, I'm sure sexual ones are the worst.

But if some sleazy fucker knows that the worst consequence of harassment is social disapproval it drastically lowers the stakes for him. You have to count on the harassed person to want to make the harassment very, very public so that the people outside his close also-sleazy social group find out, remember, and hold him accountable.

Beyond losing friends and contacts, any retribution would have to happen in the business world; how do you hold someone accountable inside a system were sociopathical ignorance of the social consequences of your actions (and the actions of other) is rewarded. My entire life has been a series of events crushing the pleasing ideals I was taught as a child regarding morals, they just don't matter in business. Some businesses have them, and it costs them money to exercise them.

Legal recourse is how society turns externalities into internalites.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#367

Post by wpietri »

mkempe wrote: post #356
wpietri wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In which case, you'll need to write your point better. People can't react to what's in your head, just what's on the page.

What I said is a pretty common response to your point, and often comes from people who have been through the wringer: not just the initial harassment, but also the enormous difficulty of speaking up. Read more on the topic and you'll see what I mean.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#368

Post by javert »

wpietri wrote: post #343
javert wrote: post #311

If you compare an "ideal" man with an "ideal" woman, being a woman is, arguably, a disadvantage. But the vast majority of real men and women are not "ideal." For instance, what if you are a black man? What if you are short? What if you don't have the right "swagger"? What if you visit the VC when he happens to be having a bad day? What if you have a different accent? This is why feminism is ridiculously unfair to all…

I have heard a lot of ridiculous arguments about feminism, but this one at least has the virtue of being novel. It's still not very interesting, though. If you were to read as much as a book on feminism, you'd know that there are reasonable answers to these questions.

Can you give me an example of a reasonable answer to this?

And if my argument is novel, I'm not sure how a book on feminism could have already answered it.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#369

Post by wpietri »

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #347
wpietri wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we raised money, nobody asked my male cofounder if he was going to be distracted by his young children. Why? Because they knew it would make them look like assholes. That they don't treat women the same way is a hint.

They should have asked.

No, they shouldn't have. Because a), the conversational presumption in business contexts is that people are not total idiots, and will have thought about blatantly obvious things, and b) it's a useless question: you're always going to get the "yes, I'm dedicated" answer. Oh, and c) it's rude, and being unnecessarily rude is not a good way to build a business relationship.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#370

Post by wpietri »

forgottenpass wrote: post #366
wpietri wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Lawsuits suck, I'm sure sexual ones are the worst. But if some sleazy fucker knows that the worst consequence of harassment is social disapproval it drastically lowers the stakes for him. You have to count on the harassed person to want to make the harassment very, very public so that the people outside his close also-sleazy social group find out, remember, and hold him accountable. Beyond losing friends and contacts…

If the recourse is the lawsuit, then you have to count on the harassed person to a) want to make the harassment very, very public, b) figure out a way to pay for a very expensive lawyer, and c) be willing to spend years in a very stressful proceeding. For criminal law, substitute for b) a willingness to deal with an often-hostile legal system.

It's great when that happens. But take a look at what happens to people who report rapes, a crime for which their is often physical evidence. E.g.: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/04/15/woman-pays-for-reporti... or http://www.xojane.com/it-happened-to-me/it-happened-to-me-i-... http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/38671/test-case-...

And I can't quickly find the links that were the stories I found most compelling, the ones with the enormous social consequences. The questioning of what "really" happened. Getting smeared as crazy, a bitch, manipulative, etc, etc.

It's great when people who are already traumatized willingly go through that. But it's a great deal to ask of someone in that state.

Post reply on HN