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

Because it needs to be said

blogjustine.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 635 posts

Re: Because it needs to be said

#591

Post by zequel »

Dalkore wrote: post #543
makomk wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she'd punched her aggressor, people would instead be complaining about how she overreacted, and how their first impressions are that she's very hostile and aggressive, and she should just have said no again more firmly (I can remember this happening before). Female rape and sexual assault victims basically can't win no matter what they do.

How about a compromise, walk away. Pull away. Or clearly say Stop it or No. All those would of worked just fine. What I am saying is that a victim usually has no alternatives when they are victimized. From her own account, she had the ability to exercise any of the items listed above to remove herself from this situation.

I'd be ok with that but he was her employer. She's in a really tough position. If it was a co-worker, it'd be a different conversation imo.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#592

Post by DanBC »

pearjuice wrote: post #375
gregd wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pearjuice, after reading your other comments in this thread and the justifications you're using for the sexual assault that occurred, I would be seriously concerned with those around you, should you ever partake in drinking with them. You mention "why" a lot in some of your posts. "Why did she not get off that bar?", "Why did she even get on that bar?". Let us be clear about one thing. Justine suffered a sexual assau…

So any contact by a man on woman which has not explicitly said "Yes, I am okay with this" is sexual assault? Rape? Shouldn't the victim have responsibilities? Know what is at stake?

> So any contact by a man on woman which has not explicitly said "Yes, I am okay with this" is sexual assault? Rape?

Yes. It really is very simple: when you're with someone who has been drinking, or who you are the boss of, or both, you need to get explicit consent for sexual activity.

"Are you okay with this?"

> Shouldn't the victim have responsibilities? Know what is at stake?

"She was wearing a short skirt" wasn't particularly acceptable in the 1980s and, as can be seen from this thread, is not acceptable today.

Why is it so hard to understand that people initiating sexual contact need to be the ones to take responsibility? Especially if they're in a position of power over the other person?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#593

Post by glesica »

hrvbr wrote: post #218
Confusion wrote: post #118

I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…

Yes, my first impression is that she's very fragile and passive. "Assault" is a too strong word if the guy let her go when she left for a smoke. And why didn't she punch the aggressor? Friends can be punched too. Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted. If someone uses his physical force against us, we're not supposed to just say "please stop" as if the guy were respectful enough to obey. And she went back to…

> Saying "no" isn't enough to claim she resisted.

Actually yes, yes it is enough you sick, perverted fuck. "No means no" isn't just a slogan, and it isn't "No, along with some physical resistance means no".

Re: Because it needs to be said

#594

Post by lawnchair_larry »

steveklabnik wrote: post #139
kenster07 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate that, and if the story is true, I hope the perpetrator suffers the consequences. But we are not the jury here, as fun as it may be. We should not try to ruin someone's life in such a fickle forum.

Absolutely nothing about this is 'fun'.

It's rather inappropriate for you and wilkie to be vilifying and linking to individual HN comments you disagree with on twitter. That's poor etiquette and not having a discussion in good faith. Don't pretend you're civil here and then talk behind people's backs in another public venue. Grow up.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#595

Post by Dylan16807 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #575
Dylan16807 wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, it seems an order of magnitude more important to fire the person than to publicly acknowledge his wrongdoing. I would be extremely upset if they had done it the other way around, so I don't think this counts as sweeping it under the rug. Do you think the public acknowledgement is more important than the firing? Is the problem that they were only 80% behind her instead of 100%? Is it something else? I really wa…

False dichotomy. Not either-or. Both.

I didn't make a false dichotomy. Read my post again. I think the firing was about 90% of what they should have done. Do you disagree with that?

'Swept under the rug', to me, sounds like doing close to 0%.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#596

Post by tunesmith »

Confusion wrote: post #118

I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…

This point wouldn't be made if there wasn't an underlying feeling that she shouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#597

Post by Larrikin »

hawkharris wrote: post #52
sneak wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, private citizens cannot initiate criminal trials, and most police do not take reports of sexual assault very seriously, if indeed they do anything at all.

That's right. I didn't mean to imply that citizens can initiate it on their own, but the author should at least try to press charges. The definition of sexual assault / rape varies by state. In any case, I don't think vigilante justice by blog post is an appropriate solution.

I think ideally the community as a whole should simply ignore stories like this until they are proven or disproved in a court of law. All they do is get the community in an uproar and don't actually solve anything except making the life of both people worse. Until that both people should be given the benefit of the doubt

Re: Because it needs to be said

#598

Post by drogus »

swombat wrote: post #395
gregd wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll oblige you with a response. This wasn't just "any contact". Did you read where he jammed his tongue down her throat? Did you read where he groped her ass? Did you read the part about penetrating her with his finger? Quit trying to frame this as just "any contact" because it wasn't.

Without wading into this pointless debate, the fact that this part of the story was in the shape of bullet points does not help lift the ambiguity... The bullet points seem to cover several minutes at least, if not a good half hour or longer. At all times she could have said "please stop now". Did she? Perhaps she did. We don't know, though. At one point she expressed surprise that her boss would do this even though…

The lack of resistance is not a consent.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#599

Post by chris_wot »

pearjuice wrote: post #577
gregd wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was Joe's personal responsibility? Why do people insist on bringing Justine's personal responsibility into this equation but not Joe's? He was in a position of power over her which most firms with an HR department are very specific about. Two words: Rape Culture. Rape culture exists when we continue to question the motives of the victim. The fact that many of you continue to excuse his behavior and question hers…

So now Joe is responsible? For her? When did she shift from being a strong independent woman who needs no man to having someone be responsible for her? I thought she was a grown up woman able to make her own choices and stand for her own actions but now she isn't responsible? I know her writing doesn't really lie about the quality of that responsibility (pouring yourself drunk in a work week, que) but she IS responsi…

Yeah, as the boss he does have some responsibility. And he sure as hell is responsible for his own actions.

You just don't get it, do you? If you don't ask for explicit consent, and rely on mixed signals to evaluate consent, if you get I wrong then you are still responsible. That's the personal responsibilty of the one initiating the unwanted sexual advances.

I don't care if she stripped down naked and paraded up and down the bar. This doe s not give any man the right to engage in unwanted sexual activity. Full stop. A court of law would find the same, and in fact there are quite a few surprised men who have found this out, to their cost.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#600

Post by chris_wot »

pearjuice wrote: post #570
chris_wot wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. But it seems that it will be unlikely, given they have shown pretty clearly they understand that a. if you are the boss, don't make advances on underlings, and b. they are unlikely to make an advance until they are sure thy have communicated clearly with the other person.

Which only asserts that these guys have never been intimate with a woman. These things develop and often it is very vague when things should progress or not. When you as male are allowed to drink alcohol from a belly and allowed to kiss the fore head and wrap your arms around the suspect, at which point should you communicate? In a blink the momentum could be lost and all is left will be uncomfortable positions (she…

I'm going to repeat this yet again, in the hope it gets through to you, or someone else who might be under the strange misconception that unwanted sexual advances by a man to a woman is the personal responsibility of the woman:

If you do not have explicit consent, and you misunderstand the signals given by the woman, no matter what the perceived provocation: it is your responsibility as to what happens. Your failure to understand you've stepped over the line into the realms of sexual assault has nothing to do with the woman.

If a man gets it wrong, he cannot say that it is the fault of the woman. The woman may have given out some mixed signals, but it was the man who initiated the contact, and it was the man's responsibility and duty to ensure that the woman was ok with what is happening.

Post reply on HN