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

Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

cherylyeoh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 416 posts

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#391

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #9

" It’s not just inappropriate, it’s assault. " I'm going to have to stop reading there. Now, of course, I don't know what happened, I wasn't there. What I'm seeing in front of me are glowing pixels that don't constitute a conviction. In my opinion if you believe you've been the subject of assault you ought to approach the police, or probably a lawyer.

Good luck as a foreigner in Malaysia approaching the local police to file a complaint for assault based on a forced kiss against another foreigner who happens to be a millionaire. But that doesn't make it right. Note that it is extremely hard to get these cases to go anywhere in the West where you know the law and where the lines tend to be drawn rather sharper than in Asia (unless there is drugs involved).

While I agree getting cases to go anywhere is a problem, I don't believe writing blog posts is the answer. I could be wrong.

I don't have a well thought out comprehensive solution.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#392

Post by eropple »

glangdale wrote: post #390
camelite wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will second that the moderators deserve credit for the change in "tone" as you put it. But it is not really a change in tone, but rather that the hold-on-a-seconders, whose "tone" is generally utterly anodyne in comparison to the reflexive vituperation they receive (not that it bothers me) have been warned off contributing. And so it goes.

The contributions of those anodyne 'hold-on-a-seconders' should not be missed. There was a reflexive script that they worked off that sounded all very mature but pretty much came down to people wandering into every thread and reminding everyone that sometimes victims lie. They never had any specific reason to do this; it was never the case that these guys had new information. They just felt consistently moved to remi…

Exactly this. It's whataboutism designed to discredit and damage the victims and to that end I actively don't respect (and do downvote, and sometimes flag) those posts.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#393

Post by [deleted] »

jhanschoo wrote: post #251
jacquesm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.

I was wondering how true this was. It's here: >With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christ…

[deleted]

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#394

Post by tgjsrkghruksd »

jhanschoo wrote: post #251
jacquesm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think it would have been wrong for him to publish specifics as that could cause further distress to the victims involved. But he did publish specifics, selected to make it look as if he had just misread the situation. Which in fact did cause further distress to the victims, see linked article.

I was wondering how true this was. It's here: >With respect to the NYT article above and Sarah Kunst specifically, I’d like to sincerely apologize for making inappropriate advances towards her several years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group, where she mentioned she was interested in a job at 500. While I did not offer her a job at the time, a few days/weeks later I did refer her to my co-founder Christ…

For anyone for whom it's not obvious. The point is not that he spiked her chances to get hired for rejecting his advances, or that she wasn't treated fairly by in the remainder of the interview process. The point is that he hit on her when she was expressing interest in a job, an advance backed by not only an (even if ultimately unfounded) fear that her application MIGHT be spiked if she rejected his advances, but a strong impression that ACCEPTING these advances would GET her the job. Sex and romance in the workplace is always fraught, but this is why above almost all you never, never initiate them with someone in your chain of command or when they are attempting to move into it. Contrary to what others are saying it is still in and of itself probably not a crime in most jurisdictions but it is a serious civil wrong that can cost immense money and goodwill, besides being just wrong. And if you're the CEO of the organization, well, you should be appropriately compensated already.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#395

Post by CPLX »

qubex wrote: post #382
CPLX wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever spent a lot of time around people you look up to and respect professionally and/or who are a bit famous? You get flustered and want to be liked and accepted. It's natural, and the burden is on the person in the more powerful position not to exploit that.

A long while ago I made the decision that I would never drink if I were not comfortable with the situation. Trying to impress somebody is a situation I am not comfortable with, so in this particular situation I would not drink. I consider this a sound policy (but then of course, of course I would, because it is my policy, so I'm biased).

That's nice in theory, but as long as sharing drinks with people is the world's most preeminent traditional method for socializing and turning casual acquaintances into close connections you're going to be necessarily swimming up stream with that policy.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#396

Post by afeezaziz »

jacquesm wrote: post #165
afeezaziz wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not believe that Malaysian police take a laidback attitude to sexual assault reports sd you have implied here. Even cases of a woman being sexually assaulted by another woman is also taken seriously in Malaysia. I think you need to stop having preconceived ideas about South East Asian countries. They might look similar but they are not.

I invite you to read: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236666.pdf "Rape and Domestic Violence: Rape, including marital rape, is a criminal offense, as are most forms of domestic violence. The penal code states that rape is punishable by a prison term of up to 20 years and whipping. Marital rape does not have a minimum penalty, but the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment. According to women’s group…

I think you have misconstrued understand about the culture of Malaysia. I suggest if you want to know more to read more perhaps report originating from Malaysia to give a better context.

There is a shame associated with rape hence many victims chose to be quiet, most families would prefer for the perpetrators to marry the victim.

Furthermore, statutory rape in Malaysia is quite prevalent so the 52% is actually statutory rape.

"So, how much do you think would happen if a foreigner reported a forced kiss by another foreigner?"

If you have any evidence, even anecdotal evidence that a foreigner reported a forced kiss by another foreigner but was ignored in Malaysia, please share it.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#397

Post by whitemale »

grey-area wrote: post #314
orthoganol wrote: post #171

I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope it's also not wrong to say these…

If you find this sort of example terrifying, imagine for a moment what it'd be like to be on the other end of aggressive advances from a guy who could make or break your career and wanted you to submit to sex. Hopefully that puts your terror as a guy in perspective.

If a women who I find unattractive would ask for me to sleep with her for a contract, I would just find another contract. I get to choose who I sleep with, she gets to choose who she awards the contract to, we both have our freedoms. If she would however try to force herself on me, I would call the police, because she has just violated my freedom.

Everyone deals with people in power, and many in power abuse it, corruption is not a gendered issue, making it gendered will only generate even more problems.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#398

Post by whitemale »

emmab wrote: post #188
orthoganol wrote: post #171

I like it - the all or nothing approach is terrifying as a guy, and defining levels of inappropriateness with exact descriptions of actions is very helpful for those who are freaked out they are going to unwittingly harass someone they are attracted to even just acting naturally. I'm hopefully not belittling the recipients of undesired advances of VC assholes like McClure, but I hope it's also not wrong to say these…

Asking permission before touching people, and not arguing when they say no goes a long way. Want to be able to touch someone without asking every time? Ask them permission for that! "Hey is it ok if I touch your arms and back without asking in the future?"

Preamble: I am not defending the guy mentioned in the article, his only defense could be that he was drunk(not good enough imho).

What about when at a nightclub? What about women who rely on easily misinterpret-able body language?

What if two people have totally consensual intercourse where one has more power over the other one?

The issue I take here is that people pretend like the issue is black and white, while it's incredibly nuanced. The other issue is that when gender comes into play, people become emotional, I would love to talk about this topic as if instead of sex the guy demanded money from the women in exchange for the deal, then I feel we could have a much more rational conversation about this.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#399

Post by qubex »

CPLX wrote: post #395
qubex wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long while ago I made the decision that I would never drink if I were not comfortable with the situation. Trying to impress somebody is a situation I am not comfortable with, so in this particular situation I would not drink. I consider this a sound policy (but then of course, of course I would, because it is my policy, so I'm biased).

That's nice in theory, but as long as sharing drinks with people is the world's most preeminent traditional method for socializing and turning casual acquaintances into close connections you're going to be necessarily swimming up stream with that policy.

It's not a theory, it's my practice. There's many cultures/religions where drinking is not allowed and somehow they manage to socialise too. I just say "thank you, but no thank you, I don't drink" and that's the end of it, the one time somebody was pushy I just remarked I'm on medication (little white lie there) and that was it.

Plus, incidentally, this is Malaysia... I lived in Malaysia for several years in the mid 2000s. There's a lot of heavy social drinking there but there's also a predominant Muslim culture (the Malays) who in theory should be barred from imbibing alcohol. As such, Malaysians are, in my experience, very adept at mixing in social situations where copious drinking is occurring while still allowing for some members that abstain from doing so on cultural grounds not to fell out of place.

It isn't impossible to do. It isn't even difficult to do. In fact it's an absolute non-issue.

Now, this is not terribly relevant in the present context (this was her house, I presume the alcohol was taken from her drinks cabinet, & cetera) but you should never allow anybody to pressure you into drinking because of social pressure. That somehow you seem to believe that the social situation begets the behaviour is a bit alarming.

Re: Shedding Light on the “Black Box of Inappropriateness”

#400

Post by CPLX »

qubex wrote: post #399
CPLX wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nice in theory, but as long as sharing drinks with people is the world's most preeminent traditional method for socializing and turning casual acquaintances into close connections you're going to be necessarily swimming up stream with that policy.

It's not a theory, it's my practice. There's many cultures/religions where drinking is not allowed and somehow they manage to socialise too. I just say "thank you, but no thank you, I don't drink" and that's the end of it, the one time somebody was pushy I just remarked I'm on medication (little white lie there) and that was it. Plus, incidentally, this is Malaysia... I lived in Malaysia for several years in the mid…

Well yes. If you live in a Muslim country you may have a different perspective.
Post reply on HN