It's Different for Girls • Hacker News Board

Re: It's Different for Girls

#371

Post by wpietri » Sat, May 03, 2014, 3:25 PM UTC

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.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#372

Post by mkempe » Sat, May 03, 2014, 3:53 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #367

mkempe wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're so smug and condescending, repeatedly ascribing thoughts, knowledge, or lack thereof -- without evidence.

In Sweden women, and men, don't tolerate any of this kind of behaviour, and are certainly not taught to keep quiet. Since you position yourself as knowing everything and dispensing lessons, you surely already knew all about how women are treated and expect to be treated in different cultures. Or maybe you think it's really wrong that in Sweden we teach girls that none of this sexual harassment or obscene language is tolerable and none should be treated with silence.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#373

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:02 PM UTC

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #348

tptacek wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just explained why it wasn't. You didn't even acknowledge my comment, let alone rebut it.

You explained why it's illegal, but I don't agree with the reasoning. I don't believe the government should be interfering in this kind of thing at all to begin with, but this is a particularly stupid example where something that is clearly highly relevant is somehow off limits due to political correctness.

My comment is right there for people to read, and your comments are as well, and it's plainly obvious that you're unable to actually respond to the substance of what I said.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#374

Post by tptacek » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:03 PM UTC

ShardPhoenix wrote: post #346

kaitai wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a bunch of discussion of good intentions above. You're one of those people who may or may not have good intentions, but as a woman who might someday have a kid, you make me angry. People like you make me REALLY angry. It's reasonable to doubt my interest in my own f(&ing company, it's reasonable to think I'll suddenly get stupid for hormonal reasons and won't be able to deal with business, it's reasonable..…

>People like you make me REALLY angry. Same to you buddy. Guess we'll have to fight it out in the political arena like anything else people can't agree on. PS I didn't even say the things I believe that would really make you angry, like "pregnant women and women with young children probably shouldn't be working at all, and definitely not running a startup". PPS That's a hell of a lot of wild assumptions about what "p…

This was already fought in the "political arena", and your side lost, because your side is dumb. But you keep flying your freak flag proudly, anonymous retrograde goofball. We'll all just take turns pointing out how stupid your arguments are.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#375

Post by revdinosaur » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:10 PM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #214

jordo37 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) that joke was sexist, and Brad Feld's follow up after she called him out was more sexist. She may have a relationship with Brad which supersedes the joke itself and that makes it okay in the narrow context of their relationship, but that was a sexist joke. 2) I don't view men as oppressors, but I do think we as men have privilege and that is why we need to work with each other on the issue of sexism. I do not find…

Why do you get to define if a comment is sexist, and not the people who made and, more importantly heard, said comment? Herein lies the problem, people are all too willing to label language they dislike as 'sexist', regardless of the intent behind it or even the reaction to it by those who it was intended for. Language is a communication tool and a means to an end, not an end in itself, and to try to pin labels on it…

I find your frequent use of "tumblr-isation" as a negative to be alarmingly anti-intellectual for this site. Do you realize that the terms you pick out, "privilege" and "patriarchy" are of academic origin from Gender Studies and that they have been co-opted by Tumblr? It seems that your entire case against Shanley is that they write in the convention of their academic peers.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#376

Post by PeterisP » Sat, May 03, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #361

PeterisP wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Due process is for government and law enforcement; However, gathering evidence in advance to protect yourself should be [made] legal. An abused teenager should be able to record evidence and have it be valid in a court of law, to prevent it being dismissed as he-said/she-said without evidence. If you feel threatened by someone, you should be allowed to record your interactions without their permission (and likely knowledge), so that if violence occurs, the perpetrator gets punished - again, unlike a majority of such cases where nothing happens due to lack of evidence. In places where local police is corrupt or prejudiced, recording your interactions (again, without giving them ability to prevent it) is the best way to fix the problem. The same goes for sexual harassment and discrimination cases.

The whole point is that you should be able to record now, and handle any permission/admissability later; and you shouldn't require cooperation of government beforehand - it's likely for police or court to say that your case is not important enough for them; but it's not a valid reason to restrict your ability to protect yourself.

What you intentionally say to me isn't your private secret anymore - if I had the right to hear it, then I have the right to remember it and to repeat that to any court; and I should have the right to remember it perfectly&permanently on a durable medium, and hand at to any court as valid evidence. In short, it makes sense to require permission of a participant in recorded conversation, but not all participants.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#377

Post by Mz » Sat, May 03, 2014, 6:23 PM 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…

I didn't say they were thinking consciously of property rights. I have been in discussions with women who were trying to find a way to signal to their boss or someone else who was potential trouble that "No, I am not up for a romantic relationship with you" and trying to figure out how to do so without offending. They often try to do so by emphasizing to the man "I have a boyfriend." I always tell them that is the wrong approach because it signals to potentially predatory men that she is perfectly willing to go along with being some man's property and all he has to do is find some way to claim her as his own. That's the wrong signal for a woman to send if she really wants a career. She needs to find a polite way to deflect his attentions without saying "It's cuz I belong to someone else right now." Some men take that as a challenge, as "come get me, big boy." So it is not a good way to avoid trouble.

If women want to compete with men and not just be their toys, they need to exercise agency and own their decisions that "No, I am not up for a relationship with you. Because I say so, not because of some other man's property rights over me." If a woman says "I would get with you if I weren't with someone else" she needs to really and truly mean that. It shouldn't be a polite fiction. Such polite fictions tend to lead to worse trouble than the one they thought they were trying to cleverly sidestep.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#378

Post by Mz » Sat, May 03, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

patcon wrote: post #222

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 sorry for derailing, but I read your HN bio and have to suggest this: Join Gittip. Also, you should come to Nicaragua. It's nice, and stupid-cheap if you have a way to be of service to others remotely :) http://bit.ly/patcon-budget

Thanks for your concern. I will look into Gittip. Nicaragua is not likely to make my agenda. I sometimes wish I could do something like that, but my health challenges are complicated enough as is in a country where I know the language and culture and so forth. For that and other reasons, I am stuck in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#379

Post by ElComradio » Sat, May 03, 2014, 6:34 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #353

ElComradio wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How polite one finds it depends entirely on how much one sympathizes with the request.

Re: It's Different for Girls

#380

Post by jdhzzz » Sat, May 03, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

I find the phrase "Tits up" simultaneously offensive and hilarious. Thinking of saying it in front of my mother tilts me more towards offensive, but I still smile...