5 ms·

> repeated unwelcome advances even after it was made clear they had a significant other Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single.

biocomputation 9y ago
I am the very close relative of two women in tech. One of my relatives was on the receiving end of repeated, unwanted advances over the last several months, none of which were reported to HR because she didn't want to destroy her career at the company. Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company. This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career. Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility. Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech. It's pervasive. Still.
- braveo 9y ago
  I mean, there's a line. If he hadn't crossed it yet, then he hadn't done anything that needed or deserved to be fired for. That's why the line is there. I have to wonder if the woman in question made it clear she didn't appreciate the attention? It could've just been an idiot who took her silence as implicit approval, playing coy, etc, causing him to escalate to naked pictures. And I'm not saying it's her fault, but communication goes both ways. And like I said, he may have just been an idiot.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
      - DonHopkins 9y ago
        This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emerging-trump-defense-a-naif-in-the-oval-office/2017/06/08/51abdd9c-4c71-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
        FeepingCreature 9y ago
        > the lame excuse that they're not guilty That's not what they said at all. > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character. Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        DonHopkins 9y ago
        Yes it is what they said, actually: "And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault". Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it. So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?
- r00fus 9y ago
  Does sending dick-pics or beefcake shots actually work? Especially if you keep getting rejection? What prompts this kind of mentality?
  - s_kilk 9y ago
    > What prompts this kind of mentality? Maladjusted chuds being maladjusted.
  - belorn 9y ago
    It was just the other day that that I read in the local news about a woman that was arrested for sending breast pictures to an ex, sending death threats to his new girlfriend, and stalking him from his home to work. Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.
noobermin 9y ago
I think they are using a euphemism for essentially saying "no" to sex/relations.
- munchbunny 9y ago
  Yup, this one. It's a common tactic to bring up the significant other when it seems like the conversation might be going in a non-platonic direction and you want to head it off. It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection.
  - chongli 9y ago
    It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection. Yes, and even if the person being rejected poses no risk it's nice to spare their feelings with what amounts to a little white lie. It helps everybody save face and ideally allows the conversation to move on to other things.
taneq 9y ago
I think this is a pretty important point. The default option for declining a proposition shouldn't have to be "I already have a partner". A simple 'no, thankyou' should suffice.
munchbunny 9y ago
> Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single. Definitely agree with you there. I added the extra "made clear they had a significant other" since it would help to push the line even further into unacceptable territory. I don't mean to imply that the relationship status is a necessary condition for unacceptability. The fact that women have learned to use the existence of an SO as an escape rather than outright saying no reflects poorly on the men that caused the learned behavior.

biocomputation 9y ago

I am the very close relative of two women in tech. One of my relatives was on the receiving end of repeated, unwanted advances over the last several months, none of which were reported to HR because she didn't want to destroy her career at the company. Last weekend she received an unsolicited, nearly naked photo from the same male co-worker. Needless to say, he is no longer at the company. This is sad on two counts. First, it's sad that my relative felt she couldn't report because she thought it would harm her career. It sickens me to say this, but maybe she was right. Maybe it would have harmed her career. Second, and I've seen this before, she had to endure further harassment until he really escalated so she could report something significant enough that she felt it wouldn't harm her credibility. Though we're discussing this through the lens of the tech industry, the most horrifying thing of all is that this isn't even a problem that's unique to tech. It's pervasive. Still.

braveo 9y ago
I mean, there's a line. If he hadn't crossed it yet, then he hadn't done anything that needed or deserved to be fired for. That's why the line is there. I have to wonder if the woman in question made it clear she didn't appreciate the attention? It could've just been an idiot who took her silence as implicit approval, playing coy, etc, causing him to escalate to naked pictures. And I'm not saying it's her fault, but communication goes both ways. And like I said, he may have just been an idiot.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  So you're saying idiots can't sexually harass people. Is that your excuse?
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emerging-trump-defense-a-naif-in-the-oval-office/2017/06/08/51abdd9c-4c71-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
      - FeepingCreature 9y ago
        > the lame excuse that they're not guilty That's not what they said at all. > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character. Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        DonHopkins 9y ago
        Yes it is what they said, actually: "And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault". Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it. So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?
r00fus 9y ago
Does sending dick-pics or beefcake shots actually work? Especially if you keep getting rejection? What prompts this kind of mentality?
- s_kilk 9y ago
  > What prompts this kind of mentality? Maladjusted chuds being maladjusted.
- belorn 9y ago
  It was just the other day that that I read in the local news about a woman that was arrested for sending breast pictures to an ex, sending death threats to his new girlfriend, and stalking him from his home to work. Stalking seems to be some form of obsessive behavior, and I suspect that sending pictures is an early stage of such behavior. It also describe a cure for it, ie similar cures we have when obsessive behavior makes someone a criminal.

noobermin 9y ago

I think they are using a euphemism for essentially saying "no" to sex/relations.

munchbunny 9y ago
Yup, this one. It's a common tactic to bring up the significant other when it seems like the conversation might be going in a non-platonic direction and you want to head it off. It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection.
- chongli 9y ago
  It's a way to avoid taking on the personal risk related to giving an outright rejection. Yes, and even if the person being rejected poses no risk it's nice to spare their feelings with what amounts to a little white lie. It helps everybody save face and ideally allows the conversation to move on to other things.

taneq 9y ago

I think this is a pretty important point. The default option for declining a proposition shouldn't have to be "I already have a partner". A simple 'no, thankyou' should suffice.

munchbunny 9y ago

> Repeated unwelcome advances are not OK even if the person is single. Definitely agree with you there. I added the extra "made clear they had a significant other" since it would help to push the line even further into unacceptable territory. I don't mean to imply that the relationship status is a necessary condition for unacceptability. The fact that women have learned to use the existence of an SO as an escape rather than outright saying no reflects poorly on the men that caused the learned behavior.