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

#161

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

danesparza wrote: post #37

tomp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just common sense for people to protect their future/careers. And it's not just men that think that way - from the article: > A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule, established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner with a woman 35 or younger.

Yeah. That's good advice ... because (#metoo movement aside) WHO HAS "BUSINESS" DINNERS ALONE WITH MARRIED PEOPLE? This is something completely different than having dinner with a group of people.

I would wager that if you send N (where N>=2) employees to go do something, like drive somewhere and go meet with a client, go remove hardware from a datacenter rack, man a booth at some trade show, volunteer at some university event, etc, etc. and the logistics are such that it will be convenient for each of them to eat a meal or meals, possibly at a restaurant, there is a very good chance that if they go out to dinner they will do so together. Ideally gender and marital status would have no effect on whether or not that is acceptable.

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

#162

Post by dvlsg » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:44 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #107

neaden wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with the Oxford Union president. Jian Gomeshi was credibly accused, the fact that he was found not guilty does not mean his accuser was false. I don't know why you include Emma Sulkowicz, I know of no evidence at all that she falsely accused someone. Also Jian Gomeshi is writing articles for the New York Review of Books and the man Emma Sulkowicz accused graduated, so neither of their lives were ruin…

The idea that Ghomeshi was “credibly accused” is rather the point. In the only cases that went to court, he was found not guilty, and the judge went on quite a tangent about how the witnesses had lied to and hid evidence from the court. If that’s not enough to clear his name, how can anyone ever escape the stain of a credible accusation? It seems prudent given that problem to ensure that no accusation will be credibl…

Witnesses for which side? Or was it both sides?

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

#163

Post by wl » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:44 PM UTC

danesparza wrote: post #37

tomp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just common sense for people to protect their future/careers. And it's not just men that think that way - from the article: > A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule, established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner with a woman 35 or younger.

Yeah. That's good advice ... because (#metoo movement aside) WHO HAS "BUSINESS" DINNERS ALONE WITH MARRIED PEOPLE? This is something completely different than having dinner with a group of people.

> WHO HAS "BUSINESS" DINNERS ALONE WITH MARRIED PEOPLE?

Would you give it a second thought if it were two men or two women?

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

#164

Post by FilterSweep » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #122

neaden wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be clear, you know he almost certainly did it right? Dr. Ford came forward before he was nominated. Also he has full time security guards now and gets welcomed with standing ovations, whereas Dr. Ford keeps having to move because of all the death threats and hasn't been able to go back to her job.

If you were in Kavanaugh’s position, and you didn’t do it, how would you go about clearing your name?

You’d have to start under the presumption that he didn’t do it.

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

#165

Post by dsfyu404ed » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

cuddlecake wrote: post #95

danesparza wrote: post #5

So as a father of two daughters in their 20's, this makes me sad. Instead of attempting to see women as equals and moving to bridge the gap -- the best solution Wall Street can come up with is to further isolate themselves? Why can't these men just learn to treat women like the humans they are?

As ridiculous as it may sound, most of (these) men treat women like the humans they are. Most of women also treat men like the humans they are. The problem lies in the fact that bad women treat all men badly and bad men treat all women badly.[citation needed] Hence, fear results in good men and women having to avoid eachother, for lack of a better response.

A minority of people with an outsize impact ruin it for everyone else. Nothing new there.

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

#166

Post by buboard » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #148

buboard wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

i think you got it wrong. they are not risking their jobs, they are risking other people's money.

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

#167

Post by mannykannot » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:54 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…

So, it is no different than for any other sort of accusation lacking corroborating evidence?

Is there evidence that this is more likely in sexual assault cases than others? Your post here [1] (and the post you are replying to) seem to suggest that it is actually less likely in these cases.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977

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

#168

Post by interesthrow2 » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

temp-dude-87844 wrote: post #51

This sort of fear-based hypercorrection, a misguided but not necessarily ineffective form of risk avoidance, happens in many walks of life. The same calculus is at the root of non-lower-class whites (as well as nearly everyone of high status) in the US avoiding neighborhoods with blacks and latinos. To them, the visible race serves as a proxy to all sorts of unpleasantness they wish to avoid, purely on correlation, a…

> The same calculus is at the root of non-lower-class whites (as well as nearly everyone of high status) in the US avoiding neighborhoods with blacks and latinos.

You know what I'm black, my spouse is white, and what do I tell her? "better safe than sorry". Sure if my spouse acted that way, we would have never met. I believe in personal responsibility, I also believe we have a responsibility to display an image other than the one displayed by "statistics", Hollywood and other cheap entertainment. When a white woman changes sides of pavement when I walk toward her minding my own business, I understand. It breaks my heart but I understand.

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

#169

Post by hoaw » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 7:00 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #21

ams6110 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, employers, universities, etc. should not even be involved in these kinds of claims. They are not competent to investigate them. If a crime has been committed, there is a judicial system that can and will deal with that, with established standards regarding presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

To be fair, there are a number of behaviors which create negative environments for men/women/minorities/majorities which are not against the law. I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts.

> I personally have no problems with a company/college having higher standards than "it's against the law" - they simply need to ensure that investigations into those broken standards don't turn into witch hunts.

What is missing is a suggestion for how you could avoid that. If business and institution are free to handle these things as they please, which they generally would be granted under labor law and free speech, there are those that are going to disagree with you and there are those that are going to be outright bad at it. Just like they are at handling a lot of other things.

If sexual harassment is as important as not being deemed "a team player" at a company or the right of colleges to design their own admissions process (sometimes to the detriment of Asian students) we can expect people to be mistreated, at the least subjectively so, for this as well.

You can certainly can judge those involved, but I think it is hard to make a case against the problem as such. Because if you have e.g. extensive rights for companies and extensive free speech, there will be downsides as society changes. But that is an expected part of the process, unless you want to change the process and thereby labor law and the rights of colleges or introduce something like the right to be forgotten.

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

#170

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Mon, Dec 03, 2018, 7:03 PM UTC

dvlsg wrote: post #162

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that Ghomeshi was “credibly accused” is rather the point. In the only cases that went to court, he was found not guilty, and the judge went on quite a tangent about how the witnesses had lied to and hid evidence from the court. If that’s not enough to clear his name, how can anyone ever escape the stain of a credible accusation? It seems prudent given that problem to ensure that no accusation will be credibl…

Witnesses for which side? Or was it both sides?

For the prosecution. The accusers had all continued flirting with (and in one case sleeping with) Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults. One lied about it, and the other two didn't bring it up until the defense got hold of their emails.