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

Let's get a little louder

juliaelman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–149 of 149 posts

Re: Let's get a little louder

#141

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

theorique wrote: post #127
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that it might have been worthwhile talking to a bouncer or other member of staff to warn the guy to stay away from her, or risk being thrown out. Whether or not that's reasonable, I don't know; but if the guy was a real problem for her (and from her side it sounds like he was), then "telling people" at that point in time, rather than afterwards, would have been more prudent. There's absolutely no reaso…

His choice of career has fuck all to do with that, and neither does the conference. It kind of does, though. According to Julia's account, this was not simply an isolated incident. When she talked to the organizer, he admitted that this individual who behaved in a harassing way had shown a previous pattern of behavior of this type. Since the organizer knew of this, this behavior presumably took place at other events…

I may have read the organiser's quote the wrong way, so I'll concur on that count, and agree that some degree of responsibility is required so that this behaviour is weeded out.

However, I'm still loathe to apportion blame or make anyone except the individual accountable for their own behaviour, insofar as it's suggested that the organiser doesn't condone that behaviour, and merely wasn't sure what to do in lieu of the ability to refer to existing policy.

That problem, with this particular conference, has been solved, I would think. However the individual will still very much be under the impression that he's not being a dick. Because he wasn't properly called out on it as and when it was happening.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#142

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

theorique wrote: post #127
FuzzyDunlop wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that it might have been worthwhile talking to a bouncer or other member of staff to warn the guy to stay away from her, or risk being thrown out. Whether or not that's reasonable, I don't know; but if the guy was a real problem for her (and from her side it sounds like he was), then "telling people" at that point in time, rather than afterwards, would have been more prudent. There's absolutely no reaso…

His choice of career has fuck all to do with that, and neither does the conference. It kind of does, though. According to Julia's account, this was not simply an isolated incident. When she talked to the organizer, he admitted that this individual who behaved in a harassing way had shown a previous pattern of behavior of this type. Since the organizer knew of this, this behavior presumably took place at other events…

I may have read the organiser's quote the wrong way, so I'll concur on that count, and agree that some degree of responsibility is required so that this behaviour is weeded out.

However, I'm still loathe to apportion blame or make anyone except the individual accountable for their own behaviour, insofar as it's suggested that the organiser doesn't condone that behaviour, and merely wasn't sure what to do in lieu of the ability to refer to existing policy.

That problem, with this particular conference, has been solved, I would think. However the individual will still very much be under the impression that he's not being a dick. Because he wasn't properly called out on it as and when it was happening.

(Given that we only have one account of this, I want to keep this general, because even if the story doesn't add up at the end, we know that such people do exist and that it does go on.)

Re: Let's get a little louder

#143

Post by sojourner »

roopeshv wrote: post #138
lambda wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Trigger warning for anyone reading this comment: this comment discusses non-consensual sexual situations) > Nope, but the sphere of influence of the conference organizer does. Obviously, the conference organizer cannot determine whether someone can go to a particular bar at a particular time. However, the conference organizer can decide who can go to the conference. And that can be based on any judgment they want th…

i am not addressing most parts of the answer, but this one part of the reply bugs me the most; "he wound up raping another member". Because this equates any sexual harassement with rape. Are you suggesting that someone would eventually rape just because they are assholes?

Listen, I know it seems far-fetched to you, and I’m not saying that this guy is a rapist, or a potential rapist, but why on earth would anyone take that chance?

Let’s go back to the videotape: he gets a ‘no’, he keeps chasing, he gets the subject changed, he keeps chasing. He gets the subject changed to a couple of the females in his life which matter to most guys — his wife and his daughter, and he refers to them in some of the most vile ways possible and keeps chasing. His quarry keeps physically removing herself from his presence, he keeps chasing. And he’s completely comfortable doing all of this in a public setting. What's he capable of in private?

I’m not saying he’s a potential rapist, but I wouldn't be taking any chances. If I got a bartender to throw him out of the bar, I’d be paying some burly dude to escort me to a friend’s house for the night, because I don’t know when this guy gets the message.

Let me ask you a question. Where would your head have to be for you to refer to your daughter as a slut? And that you would choose that line on your intended prey, instead of the usual sweet nothings and empty compliments in the arsenal of most other guys? Now, that you’ve mapped that mindset, how would you want any of the women in your life that you care about to handle dealing with anyone with that kind of mindset?

Personally, I not only want this guy’s name, I want pictures, interviews with his wife, daughter, and parents, and I want it on Oprah with experts present to give me a full psychological profile. I wasn’t even there and I want someone to hold my hand and tell me it’s going to be alright.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#144

Post by sojourner »

ta12121 wrote: post #61
icebraining wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I then (...) asked how his daughter was, thinking that would snap him out of it. And with a blank stare he said bluntly, "She's a slut." I'm having much trouble seeing what kind of person except an extreme asshole would say something like this. Regardless of what they really think.

Someone who's frustrated and being unable to control their teenage daughter?

Not even Al Bundy called Kelly Bundy that.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#145

Post by sojourner »

yock wrote: post #27
davidw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more reason to have a well thought-out policy in place for how to deal with a potentially explosive situation.

If a conference wants to have a policy governing the actions of their attendees whilst at the conference , wonderful. If a conference thinks they have any right to govern the actions of people who happen to be attendees whilst not at the conference , then they can go pound sand. It's sad that this woman was apparently treated so poorly, but there's no possible way for a conference to write a legally-binding code of c…

Except that others have done so?

Re: Let's get a little louder

#146

Post by sojourner »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #131
LeafStorm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if I was being sexually harassed, I wouldn't stay around the harasser long enough to pull out a camera phone and record the (horribly vulgar) advances - especially considering the risk of the harasser becoming violent when recorded. I would get the heck away.

But she did not flee. She engaged and escalated. He attempted a 5 second caveman courtship, and she responded to it, teasing him about his wife to check if his testosterone really was turned up to 11. Soo-prise, it was! Maybe even 12. So then she teased him about his daughter, to see if he would virtually castrate himself to impress her. Soo-prise, it turns out Mr. Caveman does not live to sexually impress his daught…

Sigh. She mentioned his daughter and wife not to engage and escalate, but to remind him he was a human being. Fail.

Personally, this guy deserves filming and posting, but a lot of women like being nice. Even with people being utter and complete sociopaths. She gave him some consideration, like a lot of women would. He was drunk, and she kept nicely attempting to redirect his attention away from her. Even now, she is not outing him. She has kept the details vague enough so that few probably could guess who this was.

Not everyone enjoys being obnoxious. Even with determined assholes, even with dangerous sociopaths (not saying he was one, just saying in general).

That wasn't a tease or a challenge she was throwing out to him. That was a "I said no. And by the way, you're married, so even if I was attracted to assholes, it would still be a no. And by the way, you're married with children, so even if I was attracted to assholes, it would still be a no. Oh, and by the way, have I mentioned, no? No? Then, let me say it again no."

I think it's interesting that you see her actions as engaging and escalating. I'm sure there are a significant number of males who would agree with you on that. I'm curious, because I've encountered a fair number of guys who don't seem to hear the word "no" or follow-up phrases that indicate "no": say I'm having a great time in a bar after the conference, and here comes the father with a slut for a daughter looking for some action. Are my only options to get the bartender to throw the guy out, or to leave the bar in order to have this guy -- if not to hear and respond to my "no" -- act as if he did? Or is there something magical phrase that a woman can tell a guy where he will hear "no" and actually respond as if he respected that?

Re: Let's get a little louder

#147

Post by sojourner »

ToesByNoon wrote: post #136
LeafStorm wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if I was being sexually harassed, I wouldn't stay around the harasser long enough to pull out a camera phone and record the (horribly vulgar) advances - especially considering the risk of the harasser becoming violent when recorded. I would get the heck away.

Come to think of it, I'd bet if she pulled out a cellphone and started recording the stuff he was saying, he would have walked away a lot faster.

Do I have to be that rude? I mean, I'll do it if I absolutely have to. But do I really have to do that?

Re: Let's get a little louder

#148

Post by jen_h »

wpietri wrote: post #87
jen_h wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that sexual harassment shouldn't be routine and we shouldn't tolerate it. I sort of understand where the anti-harassment policy folks are coming from, but I vehemently disagree that it's appropriate to codify common decency and respect, especially in technical circles, where we should all know better. We should strive to treat each other with respect regardless of gender, race, or anything else for that…

I don't think a policy is just about codifying respect. It's also about putting together a mechanism for handling the inevitable failures. Consider the model policy from the Ada Initiative: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_ant... A good chunk of that is about how the working-to-fix part works. I think that's really valuable to have thought through in advance. I have banned people before (never…

Yeah, I get that--in crisis mode, a playbook is almost required to make sure you make no missteps as someone in charge. This is pivotal in, say, security incident response, or a corporate setting where there are all kinds of legal issues, but at a conference, which is mostly among friends, I don't know. Maybe if you can appropriately genericize the policy, but most of the policies I've seen have almost unilaterally been specifically tailored to protect women (which is great, for me--but maybe not for others who are being singled out). Or they'll talk about "feeling safe."

But, you know, when that guy walked up to me when I was talking to my (male) colleagues and specifically singled me out to ask that I allow him to photograph my "tits" as part of a conference "scavenger hunt," I told him off. Then he came back, and I told him off again. I never felt "unsafe," just angry and humiliated. If you're looking at "reporting someone if you feel fear," then it's likely that poor guy had a high possibility of being the one reporting it had he come back a third time.

tl;dr: Most of these policies make women and minorities out to be victims vs. ensuring that people just treat each other with common decency and respect. Not a fan of singling any of us out and I don't think it's productive.

Re: Let's get a little louder

#149

Post by roopeshv »

sojourner wrote: post #143
roopeshv wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i am not addressing most parts of the answer, but this one part of the reply bugs me the most; "he wound up raping another member". Because this equates any sexual harassement with rape. Are you suggesting that someone would eventually rape just because they are assholes?

Listen, I know it seems far-fetched to you, and I’m not saying that this guy is a rapist, or a potential rapist, but why on earth would anyone take that chance? Let’s go back to the videotape: he gets a ‘no’, he keeps chasing, he gets the subject changed, he keeps chasing. He gets the subject changed to a couple of the females in his life which matter to most guys — his wife and his daughter, and he refers to them in…

he's an asshole, so he's a potential rapist. he doesn't respect his daughter and wife, so a potential rapist. he is bothering me, so a potential rapist. i don't want him to make me uncomfortable, so let's make him publicly and nationally uncomfortable. great logic. i wish this world was filled with more awesome people like you.
Post reply on HN