Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings • Hacker News Board

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#31

Post by vorotato » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

uoaei wrote: post #18

vorotato wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how a pithy hashtag could be misconstrued, and I doubt that is how the hashtag was intended. It shouldn't mean assume the accused party is guilty, it should however mean don't dismiss the injured party. If someone came up to you and said "James broke my leg" the response shouldn't be "No he didn't", but it also shouldn't be "Let's beat him up". It should be "Hey lets help you get that leg fixed up, and help…

In this case, intent has no bearing on its utility. What should guide the rhetoric of social movements is, to take it back to your college GE writing class, the consideration of "writer-based" vs. "reader-based" writing. In the former, you write what you feel based on how it makes sense to you; in the latter, the intent of the writing is to convey a message in the way that the audience can comprehend it. That hashtag…

I'll be honest I'm don't really think the hashtag was written with that much thought in mind. It seems to be more a reaction to people being told "I don't believe you" when they claim someone has assaulted them. I agree it's unclear, and reading the responses is a mixed bag. #MeToo was more direct and obvious what it was about, however I don't think it's a huge mental jump to realize that "Assume the accused is guilty" isn't a nuanced conclusion and is frankly untenable as a policy.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#32

Post by vorotato » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 10:33 PM UTC

brucephillips wrote: post #30

vorotato wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were on a work trip together as colleagues. If you're on a work trip, or any work event you don't make advances on your colleagues and you definitely don't make sexual jokes. IANAL but unwanted advances in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment, feigned groping jokes also count as sexual harassment. If she was making butt grope jokes at him she could similarly lose her job. It's a very bad idea all around a…

> If you're on a work trip, or any work event you don't make advances on your colleagues and you definitely don't make sexual jokes. Different cultures are different. Sex isn't inherently evil or even taboo. Military guys hit each other in the balls on a regular basis. The only absolute here is that you shouldn't continue some behavior you know is unwelcome. It's entirely possible Franken was abiding by this rule.

It's law in the US, and he is a United States Senator. Just because people in the military don't report sexual assault for being whacked in the balls doesn't mean one couldn't, or shouldn't. Sex isn't evil, but sex is often used in the workplace to coerce, intimidate and violate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, there is absolutely something wrong with violating consent. People have the right to their bodily autonomy, some people even have strict religious codes that they've been working all their life to follow. Some people commit suicide after a sexual assault. If you want to hit your own balls that's fine, if someone gives you express permission to hit their balls that's also fine (though you should probably get it in writing), but if you go up and down the streets hitting people in the balls you're going to get arrested.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#33

Post by vorotato » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

nuclearchicken wrote: post #28

vorotato wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had only seen the photo and not read the investigations around it. In the photo it was unclear as to whether he was or was not touching. I'll concede I may have been wrong about that but still stand by the premise that you should not be a US senator if you cannot avoid sexually harassing US citizens (joke or otherwise).

Quite right. Elected officials should conduct themselves in a manner which could never be construed as anything other than sheer professionalism.

I mean that seems a bit hyperbolic. I'm merely saying that it's reasonable to expected elected officials to not engage in criminal behavior.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#34

Post by brucephillips » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

vorotato wrote: post #32

brucephillips wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're on a work trip, or any work event you don't make advances on your colleagues and you definitely don't make sexual jokes. Different cultures are different. Sex isn't inherently evil or even taboo. Military guys hit each other in the balls on a regular basis. The only absolute here is that you shouldn't continue some behavior you know is unwelcome. It's entirely possible Franken was abiding by this rule.

It's law in the US, and he is a United States Senator. Just because people in the military don't report sexual assault for being whacked in the balls doesn't mean one couldn't, or shouldn't. Sex isn't evil, but sex is often used in the workplace to coerce, intimidate and violate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sex, there is absolutely something wrong with violating consent. People have the right to their bodi…

This response is entirely irrelevant to the argument. No one is defending violating consent. I'll just bow out now.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#35

Post by belorn » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 11:18 PM UTC

vorotato wrote: post #26

belorn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not disagree more. In a world where great injustice have happened, the solution is rarely to abandon the legal system in order to right the wrongs. Too much collateral damage. The article encourage us to discuss how to right the wrongs without abandoning the legal system. That would be a nice discussion to have on HN.

I think most people who supported #MeToo or #BelieveAllWomen do not believe in abandoning the legal system, though they may be discussing adjusting the legal system such that we actually see more convictions of rapists, assaulters, etc where the evidence succeeds in proving the accused party guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If we agree to that then I think we can also agree that adjusting the legal system such that we actually see more convictions is also something which practically everyone would want. There is few crimes in any nation that has more than a single digit conviction rate. To give an example, Sweden has dedicated police units for sexual violence crime, dedicated unit of prosecutors for it, and a legal system where if there is evidence proving the accused party is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt then the accused will get jail time. It still only has 8% clearing rate, which to be fair is higher than in the US, but still where the wast wast majority fails because a lack of any evidence beyond the testimony of the accuser and accused. By a coincident, assault also has the exact same 8% clearing rate (but with a higher occurrence rate).

The question is how to get the clearing rate anything near in which people will start to feel that the guilty will be punished.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#36

Post by RickJWagner » Fri, Jan 05, 2018, 11:38 PM UTC

pzenger wrote: post #6

vorotato wrote: post #3

"the trickle-down effect to cases like those of Garrison Keillor, Jonathan Schwartz, Ryan Lizza and Al Franken, in which the accusations are scattered, anonymous or, as far as the public knows, very vague and unspecific, has been troubling." This is a hot take, especially when Al Franken was literally photographed with his hands on a woman's chest. Sexual assault is bad, using your position to enable that should get…

He had his hands hovering over a woman's chest, not touching it.

True. He also forcibly kissed an unwilling woman, trying to force his tongue into her mouth.

Franken was creepy. We need to get rid of creeps on both sides of the political aisle.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#37

Post by IanDrake » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 1:06 AM UTC

The reason we must be careful is beacuase women can suffer from mental illness just as easy as men. People with mental illness make things up.

Remember “mattress girl” or the Duke lacrosse team?

These cases ruined innocent lives, not something to be taken lightly.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#38

Post by uoaei » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 9:26 AM UTC

vorotato wrote: post #31

uoaei wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, intent has no bearing on its utility. What should guide the rhetoric of social movements is, to take it back to your college GE writing class, the consideration of "writer-based" vs. "reader-based" writing. In the former, you write what you feel based on how it makes sense to you; in the latter, the intent of the writing is to convey a message in the way that the audience can comprehend it. That hashtag…

I'll be honest I'm don't really think the hashtag was written with that much thought in mind. It seems to be more a reaction to people being told "I don't believe you" when they claim someone has assaulted them. I agree it's unclear, and reading the responses is a mixed bag. #MeToo was more direct and obvious what it was about, however I don't think it's a huge mental jump to realize that "Assume the accused is guilt…

You'd be surprised by the extent to which governments enact policies based on a tiny, very vocal minority of people with bones to pick.

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#39

Post by tatersolid » Sat, Jan 06, 2018, 9:34 AM UTC

vorotato wrote: post #29

brucephillips wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still not completely clear. I haven't been following this case specifically, so I don't know other details that may have come out, but there can easily be mitigating circumstances. Maybe they had a cat and mouse game going on all day, and she had been doing the same to him. Maybe he was merely reciprocating an inside joke. He wasn't her boss, so that sort of game wouldn't be a big deal. I'm sure this sounds to y…

They were on a work trip together as colleagues. If you're on a work trip, or any work event you don't make advances on your colleagues and you definitely don't make sexual jokes. IANAL but unwanted advances in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment, feigned groping jokes also count as sexual harassment. If she was making butt grope jokes at him she could similarly lose her job. It's a very bad idea all around a…

> IANAL but unwanted advances in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment

No, it doesn’t.

Asking a colleague someone on a date may be an “unwanted advance” but that is not sexual harassment. Even asking someone on a date and having them decline multiple times is not sexual harassment, so long as the asker is polite and respectful about it.

Sexual harassment is a fairly high legal bar in the USA. You can sue for just about anything, but if you want to win you need evidence of truly bad behavior.

Which is as it should be; convicting based solely on the accuser’s testimony is not fair no matter the crime.

Source: recent all-hands corporate training session held by an employment attorney

Re: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings

#40

Post by vorotato » Sun, Jan 07, 2018, 12:41 AM UTC

tatersolid wrote: post #39

vorotato wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were on a work trip together as colleagues. If you're on a work trip, or any work event you don't make advances on your colleagues and you definitely don't make sexual jokes. IANAL but unwanted advances in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment, feigned groping jokes also count as sexual harassment. If she was making butt grope jokes at him she could similarly lose her job. It's a very bad idea all around a…

> IANAL but unwanted advances in the workplace constitutes sexual harassment No, it doesn’t. Asking a colleague someone on a date may be an “unwanted advance” but that is not sexual harassment. Even asking someone on a date and having them decline multiple times is not sexual harassment, so long as the asker is polite and respectful about it. Sexual harassment is a fairly high legal bar in the USA. You can sue for ju…

edit: To clear the air, I completely agree regarding the statement. "convicting based solely on the accuser’s testimony is not fair no matter the crime."

it's not always so clear cut though, for example if they decide to quit as a result of the advances, then it could count as sexual harassment due to the adverse employment decision. Admittedly you're completely right about winning. You're not going to win a lawsuit because Sally politely asked you out once, but maybe if she "politely" badgered you every single time she spoke to the point where you were not willing to work with that person any more, and that caused you to get demoted.

Usually someone has to be a dirtbag, but some people think they're not dirtbags when they totally are dirtbags. That's when HR disasters happen and the accused weave some tale about how they were totally innocent when in reality they were shitty people creating a hostile workplace otherwise the jury would never have voted the way they did.

bob: "Oh but you said asking out was okay" HR: "yeah but uh your version of asking out was putting your balls on their desk and saying 'hey babe you know you want this'" bob:"Yeah but there was nothing rude about that, babe is a compliment"

bob@thePub: "I can't believe they fired me you ask a girl out and all the sudden it's sexual harassment"

you know who I'm talking about.