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

231–240 of 245 posts

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

#231

Post by tomp »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #146
guitarbill wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Do the women in your life not check their routes when walking when it's dark out? Do the men?

Of course we do. Btw statistically men are assaulted more often than women.

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

#233

Post by danesparza »

lucozade wrote: post #181
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 a senior executive at a financial institution, and a father of a daughter, you may not be surprised to hear that I don't agree with this characterisation. The article focuses on the self-preservation concerns and it would be a lie to suggest that there's no CYA involved. But it's not the only dynamic. As a senior exec I both legally represent my employer and am seen to represent it by many employees. If how I act…

I appreciate your thoughtful response. Thanks!

I agree with your conclusion that "if senior folk get more thoughtful about their actions, it's likely to be net positive".

You also mentioned that "If how I act or communicate is misconstrued this could have far reaching consequences". I agree -- and this also cuts both ways.

The original point I was trying to (clumsily) make was: One could easily see the men in the original article as actively excluding women from positions of power. The 'far reaching consequences' in this case would be punishing women who have legitimate grievances for raising those grievances and emphasizing a power gap between genders.

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

#234

Post by everdrive »

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…

It's not perceived. Certain neighborhoods don't want some white guy strolling through. I was raised on the naive liberal ideals of the 90s ("I don't see race," etc) was served a dose of reality when I moved to Philly. I had a black friend and coworker, and when I walked on Giraud she'd get nervous about me. People would grimace at me, and mutter "white bitch" under their breath.

Being as naive as I was, I was completely unprepared for it. Worse, it seems that if you mention this on the internet people counter with "that's not half as bad as X group has it." As if there's some race to win the "who had the harder life" competition. And anyone who's not in 1st place doesn't have the right to complain.

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

#235

Post by everdrive »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #59
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 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…

>if you always assume the perpetrator is innocent,

Yes, "innocent until proven guilty" is a terrible and fearful situation.

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

#236

Post by rdl »

wutbrodo wrote: post #126

This was utterly, utterly predictable, and I'm sure the same dynamic is playing out in milder, more insidious forms in industries that are less openly regressive than Wall Street. I said as much to many of my friends during the nascency of the movement, and was baffled at how novel a concept it seemed to all of them. This isn't fair to women, of course. But Water flows downhill, and people follow incentives. If you c…

I think the only viable resolution is: providing help for victims should be a very low bar, in ways which don't hurt anyone else including an accused, and punishment should retain a higher bar (although you certainly don't need to meet criminal conviction standards to fire someone accused of certain behavior.) And as with a lot of things, focus on prevention/rapid intervention as early as possible, rather than waiting until serious harm has been done.

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

#237

Post by belorn »

wutbrodo wrote: post #228
dgzl wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cosby, Weinstein I see your point now. > decades of independent accusations may reasonably add up to a bit more than the initial presumed innocence. It's the formalization of this new standard (which many/most already agree to) that I'm open to. How much is 'a bit more' then? You're essentially saying we should be allowed to substitute evidence if enough people vouch for a claim. In which case, to what degree of gu…

I think you're taking my openness to the idea as advocacy. I don't have any stronger a belief in it than your "I see your point now" remark implies. I'm saying I'm open to the idea that there's a problem in the evidentiary standard on pragmatic grounds, and am waiting to see if the movement has any detailed suggestions for a new standard. I'm _not_ claiming that I myself have the details for this new standard, and as…

> and am waiting to see if the movement has any detailed suggestions for a new standard

We can actually start to evaluate those already since many have already been created in specific places and nations.

Lets start with university policy and Title IX where accusation directly leading to suspension while investigation is on going. No evidence needed, and the later hearing panel that make a judgment is conducted by the school administrators and not the legal system.

Is this a good system? From what I have read it has every possible problem with it, among them being that most accused students can't afford a lawyer or even staying at campus while suspended so cases usually resolve itself automatically since the accuse has to leave regardless of the merit of the case. We also get cases where A accuse B, whose friend C then accuse A, with both A and B now suspended.

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

#238

Post by [deleted] »

flukus wrote: post #226
asianthrowaway wrote: post #68

I always wondered, why don't women get very harsh sentences if they get caught making up false rape allegations? I think that would discourage that sort of behavior and sort of balance things out.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to them too. What percentage of false allegations can be proven to be false, like the accused being in a different place at the time? Despite a couple of high profile exceptions I'd wager that's small enough to be a rounding error.

[deleted]

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

danesparza wrote: post #61
YorkshireSeason wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't these men just learn Look what you have not said: "Why can't these women just learn ..." Somewhow you only seem to require men to do things? Are you arguing that it's acceptable for women falsely to accuse men? Ask yourself: what have you done to ensure that women not falsely accuse men? Have you had "the talk" with your daughters about false accusations?

The men are in a position of power. Side note: How many women have been accused of sexual harassment?

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by everdrive »

CiPHPerCoder wrote: post #88
jbob2000 wrote: post #74

> Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.” That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.” 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. You literally can b…

> 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…

Excellent clarification. I'll get his scarlet letter ready.
Post reply on HN