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

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 245 posts

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

#191

Post by faissaloo »

neaden wrote: post #105
glbrew wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not defending their gender policies per se but I am increasingly jealous of societies that actually have a culture other than neoliberalism. Every society has its faults but I'm seriously wondering if ours may be much greater than those we love to attack (like the middle east). At least they have large cohesive families they live close to, share meals with, enjoy traditions with. It seems like most Americans don'…

Yeah, here in America I can't go with my family to a nice public stoning of an adulterous woman. I just have to settle for my wife being allowed to drive on her own and have meaningful rights.

Obviously thinking one element of a culture is good means you agree with everything that culture does.

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

#192

Post by wombatpm »

pmastela wrote: post #114
falcolas wrote: post #2

Personal opinion - the lack of a "innocent until proven guilty" judicial system when it comes to sexual harassment claims is what has caused much of the fear of women. 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. The records of the accus…

> 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. Colleges don't almost always simply believe the victim. It's quite the opposite: “Alarmingly, many universities are compounding this trauma by failing to support survivors and, in some cases…

Human Resources does not exist to protect the employees. They exist to protect the company from employees. So victims are right to fear HR.

In a way it is like Game of Thrones. If you take something to HR, you better win. And sometimes both of you lose.

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

#193

Post by YorkshireSeason »

repolfx wrote: post #177
YorkshireSeason wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please cite your sources? There is no serious, solid research on this question. "News" is certainly not where you can get serious figures on this matter. Even the very definitions of what counts as sexual harassment / assault / rape / hate speech etc are deeply controversial. A most prominent example are radical feminists like Dworkin who essentially say that all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

There is such research actually. Look at the studies by Kanin, Jan, and their replications. The topic of what proportion of allegations are false is studied from time to time, but not often, because the studies that are done usually report eye-wateringly high figures. In the UK, official government research put the figure at 10% of all (rape) accusations being false. But if you read the reports, you'll see that the t…

This is interesting, and coheres with my working hypotheses about this subject. I'm planning to write a paper about this subject.

Which paper do you mean by Jan and what replications have you got in mind? And where do you recommend I look for the UK figures?

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

#194

Post by ryandrake »

TomVDB wrote: post #151
neaden wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ultimately, I don't think the percentage of cases really matter: we have a tendency to have an irrational fear of things that have a very low probability. (Like child abduction etc.) I don't think this is any different. The chance of being falsely accused is probably very small, but I know I'd absolutely crushed, both mentally and physically (lack of sleep for months in a row) if it happened to me. Even if, a year or…

This is risk impact 101. Risk = probability x impact. Even when the probability is small (false accusations), the huge potential impact can result in large overall risk.

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

#195

Post by netcan »

wutbrodo wrote: post #89
netcan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. Until recently, the women/victim side was assumed guilty... still are in many places/circumstances. We're leaving judge and jury duty to the public, social media, old media, individuals and (above all) corporate policy. None of these operate on a presumption of innocence.

> We never really had "innocent until proven guilty" in these circumstances. Legally sure, but courts have little involvement even now. > Until recently, the women/victim side was assumed guilty... still are in many places/circumstances. The victim being "assumed guilty" is just an awkward phrasing of "innocent until proven guilty" for the perpetrator. What do you see as the difference?

I meant that when word gets out, someone is assumed guilty and socially sanctioned in some way.. at least. Previously it was generally the "young lady in question," as a matter of cultural prudence.

I'm not saying that prejudice is right, it's just.. evidently hard to shake.

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

#196

Post by threevodka »

towelr34dy wrote: post #172
threevodka wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t swing a cat without finding a victim of sexual harassment who felt violated by harassment even if it wasn’t physical. Your physical body isn’t the only part of you that exists, if you are harassed to the point where you don’t feel safe living your life because of the threats posed to you wouldn’t you feel violated? Your life has been compromised. If you mean “physically violated” then sure, you cannot be ph…

"physical assault can be far less violating than ... verbal harassment." ... You are the reason for the article above. Congrats. Now celebrate your victory.

My statement is absolutely true and the fact that you see harassment and assault as such black and white things makes your ignorance clear — the fact that you had to edit my single sentence to try and make your point should have been a pretty clear sign of that.

There are physical assaults that are far less consequential than verbal assaults, that’s an indisputable fact. Anyone who has experience with victims, has been a victim _or_ even just someone who uses “logic and reason” would understand that.

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

#197

Post by mannykannot »

gnicholas wrote: post #179
mannykannot wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think all cases that are based only/mostly on a victim's statement are very difficult to prove. In my other comment, I was pointing out that sex-based cases are more likely to be based mostly on a victim's statement than other cases.

Indeed - there seems to be an absence of empirical evidence for any more specific claim than that such claims are difficult to prove.

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

#198

Post by neaden »

votepaunchy wrote: post #178
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.

> Dr. Ford came forward before he was nominated. You know that Kavanaugh was shortlisted by Romney during the 2012 presidential campaign? Predating Dr. Ford's timeline for documenting the alleged abuse during therapy.

I mean if your theory is that she just randomly picked someone from Romney's shortlist of Supreme Court judges and decided to expose herself to a whole bunch of death threats, vileness, and potentially lose her job in the thought that it would discredit him I guess that's theoretically possible. It goes against logic and human nature and compared to the alternate hypothesis of a drunk teenager did something inappropriate it's very unlikely.

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

#199

Post by neaden »

repolfx wrote: post #175
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.

Is that true? I thought her claims were investigated in detail and found to be clearly false, with witnesses she said were there saying they had no clue what she was talking about and remembered no such party, her own testimony contradicted itself, etc. And then the fact that she waited decades to do anything about it. The last I heard about Kavanaugh he'd been totally exonerated. There's no reason to believe he did…

No, that is not what happened. Her claims were briefly investigated, there was only one other witness, Mike Judge, and he was not questioned. No one else remembers that specific party but they all agreed that it was the kind of thing get together they would have gone too, her testimony was consistent, and lots of assault victims wait a long time before coming forward. So you managed to be wrong about everything.

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

#200

Post by CiPHPerCoder »

repolfx wrote: post #182
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…

You're assuming those stats are correct. I've seen very different stats that say the problem is huge. But realistically, regardless of what the stats are, if you read news stories about powerful men being shot down through false or trivial accusations every day, stats aren't going to be the main thing on your mind, are they?

The news sensationalizes.

When I was arrested many years ago, the news spun it as though I had hacked into millions of computers and used them to DDoS the FBI, and then somehow use that to take over their computers.

In reality, I had found that they had an unsecured arbitrary file upload (i.e. had zero authorization guarding it) and told them about it on Twitter. Not the best move, but a far cry from what the media accused me of.

If you expect me to take the word of reporters above that of scientists, well, that ain't happening.

Post reply on HN