Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost • Hacker News Board

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#141

Post by YorkshireSeason » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

bradleyankrom wrote: post #110

bradleyankrom wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where is the data suggesting women are falsely accusing men of assault at anything approching a significant rate?

Consensus seems to be that somewhere between 2% and 10% of investigated rape claims prove to be false. Stanford: Myths about false accusation [0] BBC: The truth about false assault accusations by women [1] CNN: Sexual assault false reporting: What the statistics say [2] [0] https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297 [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03…

   Consensus seems to be

There is no consensus. Your references [0, 1] both claim some variant of most-rapes-are-not-reported trope (I have not had time to look into [3]):

- "only about 40% of rapes are ever reported" [0]

- "the number of rapes and sexual assaults which are never reported or prosecuted far outweighs ..." [1]

Pretty much by definition of "not reported", it is difficult to believe that one can confidently make statements about the number of rapes that are not reported. Another shortcoming of [0, 1] is that they don't in fact say what they mean by rape. The very definition of this term is controversial (e.g. statutory rape, which is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. Note also that the age of consent varies between different legal systems). This is a serious omission.

Given this, why should one take the rest of the articles serious?

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#142

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #24

bussierem wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When there have already been numerous well-documented instances of people making false accusations that absolutely RUIN THE LIVES of the defendants, it can hardly be a surprise that people with a lot to lose would take drastic, if ill-though-out, measures to protect themselves from that possibility. As another comment said, even when the false accusations are found to be false, it's usually too late for the defendant…

Hey, can you show me some of these well documented instances? The Duke Lacross case gets brought up a lot, but all those guys were exonerated and as far as I'm aware doing fine. Kavanaugh just got appointed to the Supreme Court and Lois C.K is popping up to do comedy sets, so I'm curious to see these many well documented cases you refer to.

[deleted]

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#143

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

throwaway5250 wrote: post #127

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tell that to Neil Degrass Tyson! Would you ever consider him an asshole? And yet, here he is getting lambasted for pointing out a tattoo on a woman's arm and telling people he doesn't do hugs. I thought he was being accused of physically touching a clothed area of the woman's arm without being granted consent, not merely "pointing out". The words "pointing out" imply a gesture, which can be done at a distance, not…

> accused of physically touching a clothed area of the woman's arm without being granted consent Is this really an offense worth ending someone's career over? (And is it any surprise that we might all deduce the lesson if it is?)

> Is this really an offense worth ending someone's career over?

In isolation? No. It's a social faux pas that should be responded to with apology and remediation. Nobody is perfect, after all.

As one incident in an overall pattern of abuse stretching one's career? Different matter. If this pattern holds, the accused doesn't need to be propped up as a role model for science communication.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#144

Post by buboard » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:09 PM UTC

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #31

This is cowardice. Rational cowardice, perhaps, but still cowardice nonetheless. > “Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.” This reveals so much about the mentality of the people being interviewed. The statistics of false rape accusations do not justify this concern. I would expect that an industry that copes wi…

> This is cowardice.

That's offensive. These men have the right to do displays of virtue (such as only talking with an open door). Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#145

Post by phicoh » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:09 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #133

phicoh wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act). But maybe there are such places.

This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him. Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a…

Maybe you can point to a case where literally the only evidence was the story of the victim?

(I would be really scared to live in such a country, that strikes me a a recipe for disaster)

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#146

Post by kajecounterhack » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

guitarbill wrote: post #93

kajecounterhack wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Colleges, businesses, and online communities almost always simply believe the victim, and even if a trial should occur and the accused is vindicated, the accused has already been fired, expelled, or crucified by public opinion If you flip this statement, you find yourself in a similarly bad situation: if you always assume the perpetrator is innocent, the victim is now in a world of hurt until / if they can get a co…

> The result is that women live in a state of _perpetual fear of men_. And that's current state. Hyperbole does not help at all, and this statement is several levels beyond hyperbole. A bit of nuance, please.

It's not hyperbole. Some easy ways to check IRL: Do the women in your life not check their routes when walking when it's dark out? Do the men?

Do women try to bow out gracefully from relationships even if the onus shouldn't be on them, sometimes from fear of men potentially harming them? Do men do this at all?

Do you tell your daughter to watch out for predators before college? Do you tell your son the same thing, or different? Which one are you more worried for? Do you tell your daughter to stop being vigilant in because creeps aren't a threat?

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#147

Post by threevodka » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

towelr34dy wrote: post #135

threevodka wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re all interlinked behaviours. For people who are constantly at risk of being sexually assaulted, being harassed by someone is a major indicator of that someone posing physical danger. Although the verbal harasser may never escalate to physical assault, their harassment is a part of the environment that creates risk to potential victims and contributes to their fear. As men it’s easy to think of harassment as is…

So... you think it is fair to the woman in example 1 to have the same term applied to example 2? 1- The first woman's gang rape where she spent months in the hospital recuperating. 2- An upper middle class woman getting told in a loud manner "uuuuhhh girl, you're looking finnnnneeee today" Really? You can't see the difference between 1 and 2? You can't see the need for different terminology? That's on you. I find it…

Sure, #1 is uniquely described as “gang rape” and #2 is “verbal assault”. I don’t think verbal assault and gang rape are equivalent. That’s not what I’m arguing.

I am arguing that any form of sexual assault is predatory behaviour engaged in by an abuser and it is completely appropriate for a woman to consider someone who verbally harasses them to be a sexual assault risk.

Sexual assault is woefully under reported and woefully under prosecuted, you cannot possibly argue that we have ever applied “logic and reason” to this issue. The progress that has been made in the last decade has improved the logic and reason applied to this issue but we have a long way still to go. A few decades ago you could not legally rape your wife, how is that logical? Or well reasoned?

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#148

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:14 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #144

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #31

This is cowardice. Rational cowardice, perhaps, but still cowardice nonetheless. > “Some men have voiced concerns to me that a false accusation is what they fear,” said Zweig, the lawyer. “These men fear what they cannot control.” This reveals so much about the mentality of the people being interviewed. The statistics of false rape accusations do not justify this concern. I would expect that an industry that copes wi…

> This is cowardice. That's offensive. These men have the right to do displays of virtue (such as only talking with an open door). Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement.

> Why do you presume that men must risk their jobs ? It sounds like some some macho-requirement.

One of the cornerstones of their entire industry accounting for the uncertainty of the future. They're already risking their jobs (and, indeed, their companies) every day.

Contrast that with a statistically insignificant number of false accusations.

If they are truly afraid of false accusations (like they say) rather than true accusations, then they haven't clearly done the math.

(If, on the other hand, they're afraid of true accusations, they should proactively cease to sexually harass women and maybe they'll have a less guilty conscience.)

I'm not imposing a macho-requirement on anyone, just asking that they exercise some sense of consistency here.

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#149

Post by bradleyankrom » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

YorkshireSeason wrote: post #141

bradleyankrom wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consensus seems to be that somewhere between 2% and 10% of investigated rape claims prove to be false. Stanford: Myths about false accusation [0] BBC: The truth about false assault accusations by women [1] CNN: Sexual assault false reporting: What the statistics say [2] [0] https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297 [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 [2] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03…

Consensus seems to be There is no consensus. Your references [0, 1] both claim some variant of most-rapes-are-not-reported trope (I have not had time to look into [3]): - "only about 40% of rapes are ever reported" [0] - "the number of rapes and sexual assaults which are never reported or prosecuted far outweighs ..." [1] Pretty much by definition of "not reported", it is difficult to believe that one can confidently…

show me better sources and data?

Re: Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

#150

Post by nickpsecurity » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

I had to deal with this crap more than once. It's a real thing. The article doesn't mention a helpful strategy that kept false claims off my own record: having a diverse team with plenty of women who respect you and will have your back. Even some that don't like you but have character that they won't lie about you. They told the truth about me to anyone that asked. That included what they liked, shrugged over, or really hated (about 99% shit I'd say). The world of difference between what a few women claimed and what my coworkers said spending years with me in private got those claims discarded before they could touch my record. One I had to hold back so she didn't do something crazy since women hate false claims about this stuff about as much as men. Those claims create false perceptions that undermine attempts to deal with actual harassment and sex crimes. So, a certain percentage of women working with me go all out fighting any BS they see like that.

So, that led to a generic solution building on what I was already doing. Just bring more women (and minorities) into your workplace, treat your workers well, spend time with them (in public if you're worried), build relationships, have their back where they need it, and they'll probably have yours, too. I actually don't have much charisma or management skill only working one job like that. I was the favorite boss of most of my people for years, though, just doing the above surviving all false claims of all types. It probably helps that I'm pretty genuine where they just knew what I would or wouldn't do.

The people, men or women, who my bosses thought weren't motivated would sometimes work hardest for me. It's just because I treated them respectfully. Also, helping them would where I could. Such tiny things go so far to bring out the best in people. As a side effect, they also reduce the number and effectiveness of false claims. So, I recommend companies just do more of that. Treating people well, inclusive behavior, and so on. Every company I know like that out here gets good results of some kind.