18 ms·

This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real o

by wand3r 9y ago

This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People are fucked up. You have rapists, liars, sociopaths and ladder climbers and guys and girls who get overwhelmed by greed, desperation or just stupidity and break their otherwise decent character. The media makes it fucking impossible to tell people apart. Great example was the 500 startups thing. I am prepared to believe that there was some dodgy ass shit going on and he was being a scumbag; but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth not knowing the full extent of what happened and watching the accuser ride the publicity to raise a round. This is so messy. Is this just how the game is played? Leverage on both sides used as a weapon instead of just treating humans like humans. Sad to see false accusations. Sad to see real ones. Sad to see people capitalizing on this climate, and the most sad: People who really really hurt (either reputation or physically) just getting killed in the crossfire on top of the horrible events. This is sick.

thereare5lights 9y ago
Oh stop spewing bs about sexual harassment as "hitting on" people. The accusations against the VCs McClure and Pollock involved groping or worse.
- Dude2018 9y ago
  What about using lipstick to emulate sexual arousal? Why did they use make up doing business?
  - marchenko 9y ago
    Perhaps these lipstick-wearing women were raised in a social environment where a previously supernormal stimulus (heightened lip pigmentation/smoothed glossy lip surface) is now expected as a normal aspect of professional presentation in many contexts, and they do not wish to be asked "are you feeling well?" on a regular basis.
    - Dude2018 9y ago
      Did not stop from fighting other things considered "normal". Truth is getting hit vs getting harassed is based on hotness of the guy.
    - prawn 9y ago
      "are you feeling well?" I've witnessed this: (concerned) Is x OK? Huh? Is she upset? She looks like she's been crying. (realising) No, she's just not wearing any makeup. You normally see her with makeup on.
      - jlebrech 9y ago
        that's where not giving a shit comes into play. you don't accidentally sexism.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        Sure you do. If you behave to the detriment of one gender but not another, that's sexism. You then say "sorry, didn't mean that", and change your behaviour now that you know.
        jlebrech 9y ago
        sure, assuming someone has been crying is dumb. noticing a change of appearance is something women want you to do when it's a positive thing ie. new haircut. but if it's negative it's probably best to reword what you're saying in a more positive way. but you can talk to men how you want, they won't care. so yes you have to behave differently to both genders.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        I said "to the detriment of", not "differently", for a start.
        9y ago
  - Bakary 9y ago
    I don't think makeup is a good example, because it's often a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation. Wear makeup and you will be accused of boldness or manipulative tendencies, don't wear it and your appearance will be criticized and commented on. Based on my experience the former is the preferable choice.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Mostly because women often get pulled into meetings with their bosses/HR and told to wear makeup if they don't. Seriously. Even if they don't, they get accused by work colleagues of not looking good enough, and clients comment on it. This isn't something women do to be manipulative - it's something that's enforced as part of a woman's dress code by the company. Or, in other words, if you think makeup is intended to replicate visual signs of arousal... then this is the culture you work in forcing women to appear sexually aroused in workplace environments. Which is, of course, also something that feminists have talked about for decades.
    - belorn 9y ago
      From what I have read, tools to improve ones appearance (makeup, manicures, trendy clothes) is primarily about social status and inter-sex pecking order. Men do the same thing, but instead of makeup it is different signal of having wealth (clocks, gadgets, cars). I recall reading that if a woman has no other female coworkers, the trend is a decrease use of such signals. With no one to compete with then there is no need to spend energy on it.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Then campaign against it. Until then, "corporate expectation" is a convenient excuse, despite the fact that many corporations will fold in the face of any social pressure. Like how "men" are claimed to be responsible for pressuring women into unrealistic body images, despite the fashion industry being run, and chosen by women.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        We have been for decades? Like, this was a part of second-wave feminism half a decade ago. It's hardly a new idea.
        Chris2048 9y ago
        There are lots of ideas in the world, I'm talking about actual action. Various celebs will back a "ban bossy" campaign, but millions of women are forced to feign sexual availability against their wishes, and barely any motivation to protests it?
  - nl 9y ago
    Or maybe they do it because it looks good? Like how some people wear clothes that look good on them.
InclinedPlane 9y ago
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the workplace that romance or sex should see the light of day is if every party is fully empowered to decline with not even the slightest hint of impact to the workplace, career, employment, etc. A good rule of thumb: unless a coworker is inarguably already a personal friend outside of work then introducing even the hint of romance into an otherwise entirely professional relationship could be not just awkward but potentially compromising. In every situation, the balance of doubt should always fall on the side of not engaging in romantic behavior with coworkers. Another good rule of thumb: if there is a level or authority imbalance (enormously more so if there is a direct superior/inferior relationship between two coworkers) then everyone should tread ten times or a hundred times more carefully than they would with any other relationship. Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexities, minefields, and pitfalls of a work environment if an overture is made that is unwanted that almost certainly means that the person making it fucked up royally. They failed to read the other person, and they made them uncomfortable, and they complicated their professional relationship. The 500 startups thing is a near perfect case of the sort of sexual harassment that many get away with because it has just the thinnest thread of deniability[1]. People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship. If this sounds like a lot of restrictions, it is, but it's the only way to make sure that people feel safe and comfortable in their workplace and in their career. The workplace is not a dating service. If you happen to make a friendship at work that turns into a romance, congratulations, but that's not what it's for. If the first, or only, thought you jump to when thinking about a workplace where romantic overtures are a lot more difficult is "that sucks, how are dudes even gonna get with any ladies ever?" instead of "it would be nice if we could get to a workplace that wasn't so toxic it kept hemorrhaging female talent by the day" then you are part of the problem. [1] https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/ https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-blac...
SeoxyS 9y ago
> watching the accuser ride the publicity to raise a round. Can you elaborate on this? Did I miss part of the story—did one of the accuser actually do that?
- saturdaysaint 9y ago
  It sure reads like this guy didn't read the story and is running with the (admittedly misleading) headline. This story doesn't have any grey area or confusing situation - anonymous slander on the internet has nothing to do with sexual politics.
  - qb45 9y ago
    I'm under impression that the part about "riding the publicity to raise a round" referred to some other case involving 500 startups, not this one here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
BlackFly 9y ago
Compare the definition of harassment: Persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress or deliberate pestering or annoying. With the definition of sexual harassment: The making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position or when acquiescence to such behavior is a condition of continued employment, promotion, or satisfactory evaluation. There are really two separate definitions of sexual harassment. One is quid pro quo harassment, which is essentially just abuse of power of a sexual nature; I think everyone can agree that this should not be tolerated. The other definition is unwanted and offensive sexual advances or remarks. The problem is that this definition doesn't rise to the actual level of harassment: it doesn't need to be deliberate or persistent. If it is deliberate and persistent than it is simply harassment; the sexual nature is completely irrelevant and most people will agree it shouldn't be tolerated. I can talk about the many bizarre and fascinating parasites that exist in the world that many people will find far more unwanted and offensive than any casual sexual joke. Surgeries, the making of some foods, the history and ongoing saga of torture, and other topics all fall in the same category. However, you will not be accused of harassment for constantly talking about how people contract Noro virus although people will generally ask you not to talk about it during a meal.
- ivanhoe 9y ago
  It always seemed to me, as outsider, that sex in the US culture is a single topic that is especially uncomfortable to people, far more than in Europe. Just look at the TV/movies or social media rules: you can show blood, violence, guns, all kinds of criminal or deviant behavior, but any kind of nudity will set off alarms, to the point that we need to defend mothers' rights to breastfeed in public because nipples are somehow offensive? And if someone can be upset by mother breastfeeding a baby, then why be surprised that someone else is easily upset by unwanted sexual context of a joke or a conversation? That's simply what happens when society suppresses sexuality as something completely inappropriate outside of bedroom or academical discussions. And also alienation of people doesn't really help, our private space is getting bigger and bigger everyday, and we're more and more intimidated by any casual human contact. Being a hard-core introvert I sort of like it better that way, but that has a consequences that you need to respect other people's right to not give a damn about you, too.
pron 9y ago
> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Yes, but the two sides aren't equal. If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon, that we can both hurt each other does not mean that there is a balance, or that both sides need equal protection. Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false. So there may be two problems, both sad, but one is orders of magnitude bigger than the other.
- Klockan 9y ago
  > Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false. I don't understand the logic here, are you saying that men gain more from sexually harassing women than women gain from falsely accusing men? I think you would have a hard time finding a man who would be in a better position if he just started sexually harassing women. Edit: Note that I believe that honest accusations are far more common than false ones, I am just criticizing this explanation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I think GP is simply implying that, since "a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false", she doesn't have a strong incentive to make false accusations. Which is IMO a fair explanation, though personally I disagree with the assumption here. The way sexual harassment is treated these days, even a vague false accusation is a very powerful weapon. Hell, even a threat of an accusation is a powerful weapon.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      Sorry to interrupt your little men-only discussion "women: willing victim or scheming accuser?". But did any of you notice that the alleged false accuser in this case is actually a man?
mcappleton 9y ago
False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.
- irb 9y ago
  That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.
  - Vadoff 9y ago
    A false accusation is different from an accusation that wasn't provable. There have been many cases of false accusations in which it was proven that the accuser was intentionally lying in order to get revenge or reap some reward. There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits to having lied, but with zero legal consequences.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      > There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits "admits" can be a loaded word. The accuser claims. Hopefully, their accusation was not the only evidence in the first place.
      - tajen 9y ago
        In France the state's prosecutor is the accusation, and cites the victim as a witness. That allows pursuing the trial if the victim is pressured to remove the complaint.
        tatersolid 9y ago
        The same is true in the USA, the district attorney can and often does prosecute crimes on behalf of the state without any victim "pressing charges".
jlebrech 9y ago
clearly sexual harassment is continued advances, one rejected advance shouldn't be considered harassment, but it would make a working relationship awkward. so it's best to not do it anyway. but also if merely (awkwardly trying) being nice is considered harassment bosses will be less willing to hire (attractive) women.
- gkya 9y ago
  Well it depends on the advance itself, no? It's quite a way from "You look really nice today" to groping.
  - 5555624 9y ago
    It is a long way; but, groping is not sexual harassment, groping is sexual assault.
- dhdjdndbr 9y ago
  I did that when I ran my own company. Hired several women (close to 50% of technical staff) but none of them even remotely attractive. Didn't want the distractions.
crush-n-spread 9y ago
Ah, don't get to twisted about it. The world is much less "sick" than it ever has been. We are dealing with the world of business, and that world is won by people who will do anything to win.
DanielBMarkham 9y ago
I have been watching this issue for many years online. I have done my best not to comment on it. But what you've said rings true: there's something really wrong here, and it has to do with the internet. I've come to the conclusion -- and I may certainly be wrong -- that good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things. As a human being, you can and should acknowledge and feel for people in pain. You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things. And I mean that in the extreme: whether something makes you personally happy or disgusted shouldn't play any role at all in which polices you support or advocate. The problem is, that's not how the internet or public discourse happens. The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage. Everybody is a publisher and emotion sells eyeballs. There's simply too much attention to be gained by having some outrage-of-the-week. Now that we're all instantly connected, this means that any public discourse that has the potential to manipulate people emotionally will manipulate people emotionally. That's great for publishers, but not so much for trying to have a just society. The only solution I've come up with is to simply disengage from public conversations about things people get really upset about, which is kinda the default stance on HN. Or at least it used to be. But even that approach is problematic, because the larger your audience, the more topics and subtopics become off-limits. In this area, how to have a fair, just, and decent society, the internet is not helping things. Just the opposite, in fact.
- qb45 9y ago
  I think the problem is not only with the Internet but mainly with people having no idea of just how large and varied the world is, how other people see things and how bizarre shit lurks just behind the horizon of their own life experience. The Internet only connected different strains of people together and now they are surprised, disgusted, scared or angered by what they see. And such phenomenon isn't even limited to the Internet. For example, in case of this "sexual harassment in tech", I really think it's a matter of significant lack of understanding between the parties involved. Apparently it's not the case that most women would agree to have sex with just any random dude, but nevertheless some men seem to expect exactly that. OTOH, I very much doubt that they would be willing to take them by force, but nevertheless women end up worrying about all the possible things that may have happened. > good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things That's plausible. Good policy probably benefits from understanding, which seems to be improved by familiarity, which reduces emotional reactions, particularly the negative ones. > You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things. But OTOH, if for whatever reason you can't obtain familiarity and understanding, it probably may be safer to follow your gut feeling. I think that's what guides many people and they probably don't think about it much. > The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage. THB, you could equally well describe Bolsheviks or Nazis that way. And they have this curious property of predating the Internet by several decades ;)
matt4077 9y ago
> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Did you notice that the false accuser is also a man? Because it appears that there are simply no women anywhere in your "equation".
koonsolo 9y ago
> This world is getting so fucked up. The world is bigger than US. And for the rest of us, we don't really seem to have this problem.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Tell that to Horst Arnold.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
saturdaysaint 9y ago
It sure reads like you (and nearly all of the subcomment authors) didn't read the article. This has absolutely nothing to do with the accused guy's behavior or about any woman whatsoever. It's a case of anonymous internet slander by a male against another male. What does a guy pretending to be a random woman have to do with "using sex to their advantage"? I repeat: you didn't read the article.
Grustaf 9y ago
I think an even more important point this illustrates is that there is a reason we have courts and a presumption of innocence. Abondoning this principle is dangerous.
needlessly 9y ago
>This world is getting so fucked up it already is. Just visit parts of Mexico
- qb45 9y ago
  Sorry, I live too far. Care to elaborate?
Geekette 9y ago
500 startups have several accusers come forward against at least 2 of its leaders[1][2][3][4]. Nobody can necessarily know the full extent of what happened without having been there when each incident occurred but there has been enough information released to see patterns and the accused aren’t exactly denying the events. Given how hard it is historically for female founders to get funding even under the best of circumstances, it’s much harder during this particular period, with the negative attention and some men even considering avoiding hiring/investing/being alone in a room with a woman[5]. I definitely can’t see any “accuser ride the publicity to raise a round”. Also, in the case cited by the parent post is of a man anonymously pretending to be a woman and posting false accusations against an investor, which has nothing to do with recent accusations by non-anonymous sources. [1] https://www.axios.com/500-startups-partner-elizabeth-yin-resigns-2452787280.html https://www.axios.com/500-startups-partner-elizabeth-yin-res... [2] https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/ https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-blac... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/the-long-term-cost-of-sexual-harassment/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/the-long-term-cost-of-sexu... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre... [5] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/23/dear-tech-dudes-stop-being-such-idiots-about-women/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/23/dear-tech-dudes-stop-being...

by wand3r 9y ago

thereare5lights 9y ago

Oh stop spewing bs about sexual harassment as "hitting on" people. The accusations against the VCs McClure and Pollock involved groping or worse.

Dude2018 9y ago
What about using lipstick to emulate sexual arousal? Why did they use make up doing business?
- marchenko 9y ago
  Perhaps these lipstick-wearing women were raised in a social environment where a previously supernormal stimulus (heightened lip pigmentation/smoothed glossy lip surface) is now expected as a normal aspect of professional presentation in many contexts, and they do not wish to be asked "are you feeling well?" on a regular basis.
  - Dude2018 9y ago
    Did not stop from fighting other things considered "normal". Truth is getting hit vs getting harassed is based on hotness of the guy.
  - prawn 9y ago
    "are you feeling well?" I've witnessed this: (concerned) Is x OK? Huh? Is she upset? She looks like she's been crying. (realising) No, she's just not wearing any makeup. You normally see her with makeup on.
    - jlebrech 9y ago
      that's where not giving a shit comes into play. you don't accidentally sexism.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        Sure you do. If you behave to the detriment of one gender but not another, that's sexism. You then say "sorry, didn't mean that", and change your behaviour now that you know.
        jlebrech 9y ago
        sure, assuming someone has been crying is dumb. noticing a change of appearance is something women want you to do when it's a positive thing ie. new haircut. but if it's negative it's probably best to reword what you're saying in a more positive way. but you can talk to men how you want, they won't care. so yes you have to behave differently to both genders.
        vertex-four 9y ago
        I said "to the detriment of", not "differently", for a start.
        9y ago
- Bakary 9y ago
  I don't think makeup is a good example, because it's often a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of situation. Wear makeup and you will be accused of boldness or manipulative tendencies, don't wear it and your appearance will be criticized and commented on. Based on my experience the former is the preferable choice.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Mostly because women often get pulled into meetings with their bosses/HR and told to wear makeup if they don't. Seriously. Even if they don't, they get accused by work colleagues of not looking good enough, and clients comment on it. This isn't something women do to be manipulative - it's something that's enforced as part of a woman's dress code by the company. Or, in other words, if you think makeup is intended to replicate visual signs of arousal... then this is the culture you work in forcing women to appear sexually aroused in workplace environments. Which is, of course, also something that feminists have talked about for decades.
  - belorn 9y ago
    From what I have read, tools to improve ones appearance (makeup, manicures, trendy clothes) is primarily about social status and inter-sex pecking order. Men do the same thing, but instead of makeup it is different signal of having wealth (clocks, gadgets, cars). I recall reading that if a woman has no other female coworkers, the trend is a decrease use of such signals. With no one to compete with then there is no need to spend energy on it.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Then campaign against it. Until then, "corporate expectation" is a convenient excuse, despite the fact that many corporations will fold in the face of any social pressure. Like how "men" are claimed to be responsible for pressuring women into unrealistic body images, despite the fashion industry being run, and chosen by women.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      We have been for decades? Like, this was a part of second-wave feminism half a decade ago. It's hardly a new idea.
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        There are lots of ideas in the world, I'm talking about actual action. Various celebs will back a "ban bossy" campaign, but millions of women are forced to feign sexual availability against their wishes, and barely any motivation to protests it?
- nl 9y ago
  Or maybe they do it because it looks good? Like how some people wear clothes that look good on them.

InclinedPlane 9y ago

OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the workplace that romance or sex should see the light of day is if every party is fully empowered to decline with not even the slightest hint of impact to the workplace, career, employment, etc. A good rule of thumb: unless a coworker is inarguably already a personal friend outside of work then introducing even the hint of romance into an otherwise entirely professional relationship could be not just awkward but potentially compromising. In every situation, the balance of doubt should always fall on the side of not engaging in romantic behavior with coworkers. Another good rule of thumb: if there is a level or authority imbalance (enormously more so if there is a direct superior/inferior relationship between two coworkers) then everyone should tread ten times or a hundred times more carefully than they would with any other relationship. Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexities, minefields, and pitfalls of a work environment if an overture is made that is unwanted that almost certainly means that the person making it fucked up royally. They failed to read the other person, and they made them uncomfortable, and they complicated their professional relationship. The 500 startups thing is a near perfect case of the sort of sexual harassment that many get away with because it has just the thinnest thread of deniability[1]. People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship. If this sounds like a lot of restrictions, it is, but it's the only way to make sure that people feel safe and comfortable in their workplace and in their career. The workplace is not a dating service. If you happen to make a friendship at work that turns into a romance, congratulations, but that's not what it's for. If the first, or only, thought you jump to when thinking about a workplace where romantic overtures are a lot more difficult is "that sucks, how are dudes even gonna get with any ladies ever?" instead of "it would be nice if we could get to a workplace that wasn't so toxic it kept hemorrhaging female talent by the day" then you are part of the problem. [1] https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/ https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-blac...

SeoxyS 9y ago

> watching the accuser ride the publicity to raise a round. Can you elaborate on this? Did I miss part of the story—did one of the accuser actually do that?

saturdaysaint 9y ago
It sure reads like this guy didn't read the story and is running with the (admittedly misleading) headline. This story doesn't have any grey area or confusing situation - anonymous slander on the internet has nothing to do with sexual politics.
- qb45 9y ago
  I'm under impression that the part about "riding the publicity to raise a round" referred to some other case involving 500 startups, not this one here.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

BlackFly 9y ago

Compare the definition of harassment: Persistent attacks and criticism causing worry and distress or deliberate pestering or annoying. With the definition of sexual harassment: The making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position or when acquiescence to such behavior is a condition of continued employment, promotion, or satisfactory evaluation. There are really two separate definitions of sexual harassment. One is quid pro quo harassment, which is essentially just abuse of power of a sexual nature; I think everyone can agree that this should not be tolerated. The other definition is unwanted and offensive sexual advances or remarks. The problem is that this definition doesn't rise to the actual level of harassment: it doesn't need to be deliberate or persistent. If it is deliberate and persistent than it is simply harassment; the sexual nature is completely irrelevant and most people will agree it shouldn't be tolerated. I can talk about the many bizarre and fascinating parasites that exist in the world that many people will find far more unwanted and offensive than any casual sexual joke. Surgeries, the making of some foods, the history and ongoing saga of torture, and other topics all fall in the same category. However, you will not be accused of harassment for constantly talking about how people contract Noro virus although people will generally ask you not to talk about it during a meal.

ivanhoe 9y ago
It always seemed to me, as outsider, that sex in the US culture is a single topic that is especially uncomfortable to people, far more than in Europe. Just look at the TV/movies or social media rules: you can show blood, violence, guns, all kinds of criminal or deviant behavior, but any kind of nudity will set off alarms, to the point that we need to defend mothers' rights to breastfeed in public because nipples are somehow offensive? And if someone can be upset by mother breastfeeding a baby, then why be surprised that someone else is easily upset by unwanted sexual context of a joke or a conversation? That's simply what happens when society suppresses sexuality as something completely inappropriate outside of bedroom or academical discussions. And also alienation of people doesn't really help, our private space is getting bigger and bigger everyday, and we're more and more intimidated by any casual human contact. Being a hard-core introvert I sort of like it better that way, but that has a consequences that you need to respect other people's right to not give a damn about you, too.

pron 9y ago

> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Yes, but the two sides aren't equal. If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon, that we can both hurt each other does not mean that there is a balance, or that both sides need equal protection. Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false. So there may be two problems, both sad, but one is orders of magnitude bigger than the other.

Klockan 9y ago
> Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false. I don't understand the logic here, are you saying that men gain more from sexually harassing women than women gain from falsely accusing men? I think you would have a hard time finding a man who would be in a better position if he just started sexually harassing women. Edit: Note that I believe that honest accusations are far more common than false ones, I am just criticizing this explanation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think GP is simply implying that, since "a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false", she doesn't have a strong incentive to make false accusations. Which is IMO a fair explanation, though personally I disagree with the assumption here. The way sexual harassment is treated these days, even a vague false accusation is a very powerful weapon. Hell, even a threat of an accusation is a powerful weapon.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Sorry to interrupt your little men-only discussion "women: willing victim or scheming accuser?". But did any of you notice that the alleged false accuser in this case is actually a man?

mcappleton 9y ago

False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent. Until that happens, people will see no reason to stop false accusations that they think will help them.

irb 9y ago
That's a terrible idea. It would mean that people would fear to report genuine crimes because they are then harshly punished if the accused is acquitted. The fact is that the justice system is not perfect. Occasionally a guilty person will be acquitted, and it would really be best not to also punish an innocent as a result of that.
- Vadoff 9y ago
  A false accusation is different from an accusation that wasn't provable. There have been many cases of false accusations in which it was proven that the accuser was intentionally lying in order to get revenge or reap some reward. There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits to having lied, but with zero legal consequences.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > There have even been cases in which the accuser later admits "admits" can be a loaded word. The accuser claims. Hopefully, their accusation was not the only evidence in the first place.
    - tajen 9y ago
      In France the state's prosecutor is the accusation, and cites the victim as a witness. That allows pursuing the trial if the victim is pressured to remove the complaint.
      - tatersolid 9y ago
        The same is true in the USA, the district attorney can and often does prosecute crimes on behalf of the state without any victim "pressing charges".

jlebrech 9y ago

clearly sexual harassment is continued advances, one rejected advance shouldn't be considered harassment, but it would make a working relationship awkward. so it's best to not do it anyway. but also if merely (awkwardly trying) being nice is considered harassment bosses will be less willing to hire (attractive) women.

gkya 9y ago
Well it depends on the advance itself, no? It's quite a way from "You look really nice today" to groping.
- 5555624 9y ago
  It is a long way; but, groping is not sexual harassment, groping is sexual assault.
dhdjdndbr 9y ago
I did that when I ran my own company. Hired several women (close to 50% of technical staff) but none of them even remotely attractive. Didn't want the distractions.

crush-n-spread 9y ago

Ah, don't get to twisted about it. The world is much less "sick" than it ever has been. We are dealing with the world of business, and that world is won by people who will do anything to win.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

I have been watching this issue for many years online. I have done my best not to comment on it. But what you've said rings true: there's something really wrong here, and it has to do with the internet. I've come to the conclusion -- and I may certainly be wrong -- that good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things. As a human being, you can and should acknowledge and feel for people in pain. You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things. And I mean that in the extreme: whether something makes you personally happy or disgusted shouldn't play any role at all in which polices you support or advocate. The problem is, that's not how the internet or public discourse happens. The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage. Everybody is a publisher and emotion sells eyeballs. There's simply too much attention to be gained by having some outrage-of-the-week. Now that we're all instantly connected, this means that any public discourse that has the potential to manipulate people emotionally will manipulate people emotionally. That's great for publishers, but not so much for trying to have a just society. The only solution I've come up with is to simply disengage from public conversations about things people get really upset about, which is kinda the default stance on HN. Or at least it used to be. But even that approach is problematic, because the larger your audience, the more topics and subtopics become off-limits. In this area, how to have a fair, just, and decent society, the internet is not helping things. Just the opposite, in fact.

qb45 9y ago
I think the problem is not only with the Internet but mainly with people having no idea of just how large and varied the world is, how other people see things and how bizarre shit lurks just behind the horizon of their own life experience. The Internet only connected different strains of people together and now they are surprised, disgusted, scared or angered by what they see. And such phenomenon isn't even limited to the Internet. For example, in case of this "sexual harassment in tech", I really think it's a matter of significant lack of understanding between the parties involved. Apparently it's not the case that most women would agree to have sex with just any random dude, but nevertheless some men seem to expect exactly that. OTOH, I very much doubt that they would be willing to take them by force, but nevertheless women end up worrying about all the possible things that may have happened. > good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things That's plausible. Good policy probably benefits from understanding, which seems to be improved by familiarity, which reduces emotional reactions, particularly the negative ones. > You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things. But OTOH, if for whatever reason you can't obtain familiarity and understanding, it probably may be safer to follow your gut feeling. I think that's what guides many people and they probably don't think about it much. > The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage. THB, you could equally well describe Bolsheviks or Nazis that way. And they have this curious property of predating the Internet by several decades ;)

matt4077 9y ago

> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Did you notice that the false accuser is also a man? Because it appears that there are simply no women anywhere in your "equation".

koonsolo 9y ago

> This world is getting so fucked up. The world is bigger than US. And for the rest of us, we don't really seem to have this problem.

valuearb 9y ago
Tell that to Horst Arnold.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

saturdaysaint 9y ago

It sure reads like you (and nearly all of the subcomment authors) didn't read the article. This has absolutely nothing to do with the accused guy's behavior or about any woman whatsoever. It's a case of anonymous internet slander by a male against another male. What does a guy pretending to be a random woman have to do with "using sex to their advantage"? I repeat: you didn't read the article.

Grustaf 9y ago

I think an even more important point this illustrates is that there is a reason we have courts and a presumption of innocence. Abondoning this principle is dangerous.

needlessly 9y ago

>This world is getting so fucked up it already is. Just visit parts of Mexico

qb45 9y ago
Sorry, I live too far. Care to elaborate?

Geekette 9y ago

500 startups have several accusers come forward against at least 2 of its leaders[1][2][3][4]. Nobody can necessarily know the full extent of what happened without having been there when each incident occurred but there has been enough information released to see patterns and the accused aren’t exactly denying the events. Given how hard it is historically for female founders to get funding even under the best of circumstances, it’s much harder during this particular period, with the negative attention and some men even considering avoiding hiring/investing/being alone in a room with a woman[5]. I definitely can’t see any “accuser ride the publicity to raise a round”. Also, in the case cited by the parent post is of a man anonymously pretending to be a woman and posting false accusations against an investor, which has nothing to do with recent accusations by non-anonymous sources. [1] https://www.axios.com/500-startups-partner-elizabeth-yin-resigns-2452787280.html https://www.axios.com/500-startups-partner-elizabeth-yin-res... [2] https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-black-box-of-inappropriateness/ https://cherylyeoh.com/2017/07/03/shedding-light-on-the-blac... [3] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/the-long-term-cost-of-sexual-harassment/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/20/the-long-term-cost-of-sexu... [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepre... [5] https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/23/dear-tech-dudes-stop-being-such-idiots-about-women/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/23/dear-tech-dudes-stop-being...