3 ms·

You'd rather say that she was sufficiently well connnected to make her voice heard. Even then she came public only after she had left the company and was employ

• xenadu02 9y ago
  > You'd rather say that she was sufficiently well connnected to make her voice heard. Most complaints of this nature damage the victim's career prospects and/or end up with loss of job/funding/etc. There is rarely evidence because the few who perpetrate this kind of behavior often deliberately avoid leaving evidence. They also rely on societal signals that most people don't believe it or don't care. It isn't very hard to figure out. Every rape trial includes a huge segment on what the victim was wearing, as if that mattered. The message is clear: this is the way powerful people work, deal with it. > Even then she came public only after she had left the company and was employed elsewhere Which is damn smart on her part.
• linkregister 9y ago
  Indeed. Anyone who was old enough to understand the Clarence Thomas sexual harassment investigation can recall how much Anita Hill was dragged through the mud, despite having a compelling case. I think the fact that Susan was not currently suing Uber was the primary reason why her story was believed by the general public. The critics who would howl "she's just trying to make false accusations for a payday" had no ammunition. Either that or things have dramatically changed for the better since the 90s.
  • ChuckMcM 9y ago
    > Either that or things have dramatically changed for > the better since the 90s. I expect it is a bit of both.