Live data from Hacker News

Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

medium.com

311–320 of 407 posts

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#311

"I have had interviewers attempt to solicit sexual favors from me mid-interview and discuss in significant detail precisely what they would like to do" Bullshit.

Of every claim you have heard, this is the one you think isn't real?

I think the reason you always see these sort of responses in these threads is that most men really have zero awareness of what women have to put up with in everyday life.

If we imagine that only 1 in 20 guys is a creep or worse, and that all of these men will remain regular offenders throughout their life, that's still a huge amount of individual incidents of women being made to feel uncomfortable (or worse). When you look at it this way, it's easy to see how a woman might find herself being harassed in some way or another on almost daily basis. Discussion with female friends bears this out.

I personally know of several guys who, while I'm not claiming they've committed any crimes, I wouldn't feel comfortable leaving them alone with female friends. But because a lot of men don't have any first hand experience of this sort of behaviour, it's difficult for them to believe it's real.

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What language would you suggest be used instead of the word "rape"?

I'm not a native English speaker and I wouldn't bet on myself coming up with an appropriate description. However, using any word would be perfectly fine if the authors dedicate a short paragraph at the beginning explaining what they mean by the words they use, especially if they don't mean the same things most people are used to. I keep getting down-voted, so, maybe it helps to repeat: I'm not saying that this isn't…

I'm not among your downvotes, and I don't believe you're minimizing rape (of the obviously violent or not obviously violent sort), though I can see how some could see it that way; the fact that you're a non-native speaker may also be contributing to it, though I think your English is quite good, and I believe I understood you the first time.

I asked for suggestions for alternatives not as a challenge, but as a sincere question. I don't think it's the worst idea ever, but I think there is risk involved. The kind of person that would use a phrase like "real rape" s the kind of person that would use the new term to minimize the experience. And, there is also risk in saying that rape that does not include bruises, blood, kicking, screaming, etc. is not violent, which is probably the biggest problem with using terminology like "violent rape" and "not violent rape", because all rape is an act of violence.

And, just in case there is any thought that I am exaggerating about the existence of assholes who would claim rape without obvious violence isn't really ape. An American lawmaker used the term "legitimate rape" a couple of years ago when explaining why a woman shouldn't be able to get an abortion even in the event of rape, because if it was a "legitimate rape" she wouldn't have gotten pregnant. This is a pretty widespread opinion about rape; that a "legitimate rape" is an obviously violent one, with screaming and fighting, and anything else doesn't really deserve to be called rape or treated like rape.

Source on the "legitimate rape" comment: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-...

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercio…

But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? This is strangely reminiscent of a lot of arguments that men's rights activists make. Namely, they'd rather be raped than lose 50% of their income to paternity fraud. They even attach a prefix to the word rape - "divorce rape" instead of "white collar rape". I take it you also support their…

[deleted]

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#314
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't used the word "female" anywhere that I can see. :)

Alright, if you insist on an explanation: In this particular comment, I had originally written "white, middle class, males", but then decided that wasn't useful specificity in this particular conversation. I deleted the adjectives and kept the subject noun untouched. I apologize for causing cognitive dissonance for you due to the difference. I assure it is not out of self-hatred, or any sort of intent to make men see…

> , I had originally written "white, middle class, males", but then decided that wasn't useful specificity in this particular conversation.

Yeah, it's not always on topic to bring up some kind of Privilege Bingo.

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#315
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story from a friend of a friend's law firm. Young associate worked for this partner. Over the course of months, he coerced her into giving him blowjobs. Eventually she quit. 1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence. 2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police…

I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs under the threat of losing my job. I'd quit and take my chances. What am I missing here?

As a heterosexual woman, I agree with the sentiment. No one could coerce me into giving blow jobs by threatening to fire me, either. In fact, MOST women would HEARTILY agree with that! I'd quit a job like that. You'd quit a job like that. Most people would quit a job like that.

It's not being a man or woman, being straight or gay, being compatible or not with an abuser, that makes the difference here. Unwanted sex is soul-destroying for everyone. Routine sexual abuse is a horrible, unbearable prospect. For everyone.

It's the implication of the "most" that you're missing.

Most people would walk away from that job. Most people would run!

But that's most. Who else is left?

Who wouldn't run from a situation like that?

I don't know why the particular lady described above didn't run sooner. But I can think of some people who wouldn't.

Someone for whom that job represented their one and only opportunity to break into their chosen field. Someone for whom what was at stake was not just one source of a paycheck, but their entire livelihood. Their entire chosen career. It might be worth it, then, to endure the abuse until you could safely move on.

Someone who was too young or inexperienced to understand their options. Who didn't know this isn't just the way the world works. Who didn't know what resources society offers to fight back with, who didn't think the community would help or back them if they left. Someone who literally sees no way to fight back, for whom leaving represents a public humiliation they see as even more painful than the private humiliation. It might be worth it then.

Someone living paycheck to paycheck, who can't afford to miss even one without seeing their family plunged into immediate misery.

Someone for whom the job represented access to health insurance that was keeping their daughter alive, that they couldn't afford another way.

Someone suffering depression, with such a low sense of self-worth that no abuse feels undeserved, without the will to fight anything in any way.

In short, someone vulnerable.

Yeah, most people don't need a job badly enough to be worth selling their soul and dignity for. Those people aren't raped under the threat of losing their job. It's everyone else who has to worry about that problem.

It is a cruel truth that the people who can leave, the people who can fight back, the people who have the will and resources and personality to retaliate . . . are the ones who are left alone.

This isn't a situation you could find yourself in now. It's not a situation you probably ever could find yourself in. Maybe, though. Life is crazy. Imagine yourself five years of hell from now. Imagine you're diagnosed with cancer, put your life on hold for a grueling year or two, lose all your health, all your savings, and the currency of your skills. Imagine an overzealous state prosecutor comes after you for a crime you didn't commit, and after two years of stressful court battles, you're convicted and serve some time in prison. Imagine you forget what financial security ever felt like. Imagine the stress results in crippling depression, and thoughts of suicide prompt you to seek medical help. Imagine the medication you're given comes with side effects, and you experience severe mood swings, alienating everyone but your closest family and friends. Imagine as you start to recover from all of that, you move two states away from anyone you know to get a new job and start over.

I don't know what it would take for you to become so vulnerable that someone thought they could take advantage of you to that degree. I do know that whatever it would take for you personally, life can be that cruel, and more. Rape is not a female problem, and it's not a male problem. It's a vulnerability problem. If someone ever does take a look at you, and think to themselves, "that guy is so completely under my power that I bet I could get him to blow me" . . . it won't matter a bit that you're a heterosexual man. Getting someone to put up with sexual abuse requires extreme vulnerability. If someone ever thinks they see it in you, for whatever reason, for whatever combination of circumstances is necessary to make that true, there's a good chance they'll be right.

It's true with most kinds of attacks -- the strong aren't the ones who have to worry. The powerful, even the merely self-sufficient, are left alone. The vulnerable people are the ones who are targeted. It's extra true with abuse in general, and sexual abuse in particular. The ones who are targeted are the ones who would need extraordinary outside help in order to stop it. For whatever reason.

That is why it is so important to intervene aggressively if you see a problem. The people who can help themselves are already not targets.

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, more devils advocate. Your boss comes into the office to fire you. You really really need your job or you and your family starve. You really really don't want to. In fact you would do anything but stoop to this level. But you have no choice and you know he is into you. Your family is starving. You decide to ask your boss, "I'll fuck you if I keep the job." He agrees. It's still sex against your will. You're onl…

That sounds more like prostitution. I think the important element is this: did person A attempt to coerce person B into having sex? If yes, then A raped B. Let's apply that to your scenario. Is the boss trying to coerce the employee into having sex? No, the boss is firing the employ because * Maybe they're a shitty employee, or * Perhaps because the company has dwindling resources, or * Fill in the blank. In your sce…

The tragedy of all of this is that it is endlessly open to "he said" versus "she said." And that's the problem with the expansive definition of rape. In the case we are talking about the evidence would have to be that she felt coerced and that there was a power structure that make her feel coerced. It's entirely possible for someone to be in that power structure and still consent or (if they are a bad actor) say that they felt coerced after the fact. Criminal indictment and conviction should be based more than a just a victims statement of their subjective experience.

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is sex somehow fundamentally different than every* other act that it should be treated so differently? * Every. If I used my power at work to make you eat a literal lunch of feces, is that more or less egregious? I know what my gut would say, but why? Isn't the core bad behavior the concept of abrogating another human's free will? Why is sex in this other classification? Edit: put another way, why is it that being co…

Sure, that would be fucked up, wouldn't it? Fortunately, we don't have too much of a problem with some people forcing other people to eat feces, in the workplace or elsewhere. Or with people scared to complain about their bosses making them eat shit, for fear of ruining their career. We do have a pretty big problem with sexual violence, sexual coercion, and gender-based discrimination, in the workplace and elsewhere.…

Very well said. I'm deeply disappointed by a lot of the comments here. Theoretical distinctions and arguments are often important, but it's unacceptable to use sophistry to ignore serious problems.

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked a honest question and did not accuse the author of lying. I really can't get my mind around such violence being common in the workplace without the attackers suffering any consequences. I'm astonished.

Apologies for misinterpreting your intentions. In my experience, denial is a very common response from men when faced with this kind of story. It is disappointingly common among men in tech, in particular.

And the accusations are equally predictable and disappointing.

Maybe some (or many) those "disappointingly common" cases aren't quite the clear-cut misogyny but more similar to what you ran into in this thread?

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercio…

You bring up a good point, but the law is very clear and intentional (in illinois). "Uses force or the threat of force." It means that even if you decline you have no choice but to have sex with them. You will be forced to. In the white-collar situation, you can say no, even if you don't want to.

Did you not read item 4 in the statute you quoted? Here it is again:

"(4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age. "

Re: Sexism in Tech: Don’t Ask Me Unless You’re Ready to Call Someone a Whistleblower

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.

For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy. Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it…

Why is this the most important philosophical discussion to have right now? I just explained how terrible things can be, a thing I called rape only one of a large number of issues.

Why is "was she technically correct in saying rape" the most important takeaway from this? Even if I'm wrong, don't you see other things worth fixing?

Post reply on HN