81–86 of 86 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, who cares about the safety of the victim, let's prioritize the feelings of the attacker.
That's what I said "Don't spare their feelings, just get the message across I guess." I don't even know what you are trying to say....
Tone is hard on Hacker News. I apologize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thank you for the sources. What I was specifically doubting was the linkage between attrition and sexism(which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the text you quoted). I will take a look over the links you provided this evening, but if you have anything more specific to add on the linkage between attrition and sexism, I'd love to hear it.
https://gist.github.com/wilkie/5032530 You naturally cannot use a microscope and come to a fixed, proven conclusion. However, I would say that all of the causes of attrition are very likely based upon a prevailing systemic gender oppression (sexism.)
See, I provided as much proof for my argument as you did for yours. Where are we now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it stops being a problem, it will stop being topical.
Can you name an industry(at least as broad as "tech" field) which has no sexual harassment lawsuits, or exceptionally few? You can tell stories like the one in the blog about any field. Tech is not special. If there is going to be change, it will have to come from society at large, and not by fiddling with the dials of a specific field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? That's quite a naive view. Are people (men/women/gay) ever SURE about when to flirt with another person? By this logic, half of the population would have never been born (which might have been a good thing, with respect to overpopulation and all, but that's a different argument).
What you're saying is, "I am willing to possibly sexually assault someone in order to get a date." You're a bad person.
No. That's the strawman you made out of what I'm saying. Can you please respond to what I actually said and not put words in my mouth as you please?
What I'm saying is: some people can also consider completely casual flirting to be a "sexual assault". As in, when you're flirting you're never sure beforehand if the other part wants your flirt. And in many cases, it takes a little time to win them over (or fail). It's not like there's a standard protocol: "OK, you can flirt me now".
And yes, people DO fall in love in tech conferences, or meet possible partners, as they do in ANY other place, including offices and funerals. So they do have the right to approach someone else they like there.
>You're a bad person
And who are you to tell me that?
Apparently in your mind verbally assaulting someone you disagree with and telling them they are a "bad person" is perfectly OK?
That's your idea of making the world better by stoping sexism? Introducing hatr-ism?
I have had the misfortune of seeing how very deep this sexism goes- it's not just sexual harassment that's an issue (though I will say, it's the most pressing), but also the prejudices women meet in the tech world. It's as if there are two major discussions about women's roles in tech: women are either assumed to be underqualified or over glamorized. Get more women into tech, and then get over having them there.
> it's not just sexual harassment that's an issue How does discern sexual harassment (between adults with no business ties between them) from flirting? I ask because I've also seen flirting remakers being conceived as "harassement". That "the place was not appropriate" or "it was uncalled for" is not a proper answer I think. There would be VERY FEW relationships and/or marriages if people never approached other peopl…
So, the solution is to seriously restrict flirting at tech conferences as a form of harassment, but allow SYN, SYN ACK, ACK exchanges, and have people who want to flirt go to singles bars or 'geek mixer' events.
Can you understand this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://gist.github.com/wilkie/5032530 You naturally cannot use a microscope and come to a fixed, proven conclusion. However, I would say that all of the causes of attrition are very likely based upon a prevailing systemic gender oppression (sexism.)
And I would say that all of the causes of attrition are very unlikely based upon a prevailing systemic gender oppression. See, I provided as much proof for my argument as you did for yours. Where are we now?