6 ms·

The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings

The New York times had an interesting take on this in [1]. It argues that what we are seeing now is a resurgence of a victorian view of women as fragile beings that need to be sheltered from any possible harmful situation. This is bullshit; women are as capable as a man of saying no and tactfully pointing out when something emotionally difficult is happening. I think the problem is that we have gone from rightly taking down the Weinsteins, a predator which is why its shocking (normal no's don't work on people like him as he seem to get off on ignoring them), to trying to regulate away the awkward encounters and misinterpretations that is the natural occasional byproduct of the situations that makes life interesting. In my experience it's the 1:1s with mentors and colleagues that is the most interesting, and a victorian worldview is telling us that we can't do those anymore if the mentor is a man while the mentee is a woman and that will rob women of equal learning opportunities. Because why take the risk if any accusation can't be defended against and results in blacklisting from your industry, even if the mentee says the accusation is bullshit? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-harassment-believe-women.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/opinion/metoo-sexual-hara...

digi_owl 9y ago
Meaning that #meetoo has become yet another arrow in the SJW quiver...
- asabjorn 9y ago
  My personal anecdotal experience is that people that say they are social justice warriors, including my cousin, tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. It is very hard to meet the person in front of you for whom they express themselves to be when you already made up your mind on who they are before they opened their mouth. Don't get me wrong, I donate the the ACLU to protect the speech of the social justice warriors of the world and any other exclusive world-view. However, it is important that we protect ourselves from being limited to these exclusive world-views and refuse that they limit us from exploring possible different solutions. Protecting our democracy is messy and hard.
  - ThrowAway3456 9y ago
    > tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. I think you hit the right spot right there. I always baffled me how little empathy hardcore leftist display for other people experience
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      I think its more about the balkanization of American discourse rather than any particular group doing this on their own. There is an excellent comment by @stupidcar outlining this as part of this thread. Its worth a read.
- dang 9y ago
  Would you please not post ideological flamebait? If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16092277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16092277 is fine, this is not.
skybrian 9y ago
I suspect there might be a middle ground between the libertarian/individualist "people are competent, rational agents and you're on your own" and treating people as children. We might, for example, recognize that many people, even competent adults, can be quite bad at dealing with awkward or hostile social situations, and can use help.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't teach your kid to walk without risking that they occasionally fall and hurt themselves, and as we grow further these kind of small falls is a natural byproduct of taking risks that leads to growth. It really sucks when your kid runs in front of a car, but thankfully that is quite rare and there are some simple heuristics that seems to ameliorate most such potential situation.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    Okay, so how do you decide whether to have hire school crossing guards or not? Or to put in a stop sign or not? Or to require seatbelts? We can and do make decisions as a society to change the environment we live in for the better. You can't eliminate all risk and not every proposed solution is going to make sense, but that doesn't mean you just say "hey, they're adults" and shrug.
joshuamorton 9y ago
Two things to note: Saying that this is from the nyt is misleading. It's an option piece and I doubt it's endorsed. Second, that article appears to be attacking a strawman. Few, if any, if the feminists I communicate with believe that "believe all women" is an absolute insofar as there should be no further investigation. It came about because historically, society didn't trust but verify, it ignored and threw under the rug. Believe women was a reaction to "but are you sure you weren't asking for it" and "but you don't remember, so how do you know you didn't consent". It was a call to trust but verify. People who say otherwise are either missing important context, or are pushing a false narrative.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  I agree with you that attributing this view to a whole group is likely to be neither accurate nor particularly interesting. Plenty of feminists and others seem to be waking up to the conclusions made by this piece. As much as I believe you that most people furthering this view had the best intentions, that does not stop us from critically inspecting if this idea is a good one when applied in real life. In practice this has turned into what the article describe, and I believe any claim to the otherwise is at this point only of rhetorical interest. Are you claiming otherwise, and if so how do you explain the mob-like behavior with no due process?
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I reject the claim that "believe women" has turned into what the article describes, except in alarmist circles. The reactions to different accusers I think sides with me on that. Consider Weinstein vs. Franken. Reactions we're very different, in part due to the political nature, but also because the Franken accusations are less extensive than the Weinstein ones. Alarmism like that article misses the context that Franken chose to step down, prematurely in the eyes of many, whereas Weinstein has denied and fought this. Had Franken reacted like Weinstein, he'd still be in the senate and likely free of any major repercussions. What mob like behavior and what lack of due process? Do you mean that people are seeing legal repercussions without due process? Or that private entities are choosing to disassociate from people without due process? In the second case, what standard of due process is necessary? Are you suggesting it is morally wrong for me to disassociate from someone if I witness them committing a heinous act, because due process has not completed? If not, at what level of certainty is it morally acceptable for me to disassociate from them?

digi_owl 9y ago

Meaning that #meetoo has become yet another arrow in the SJW quiver...

asabjorn 9y ago
My personal anecdotal experience is that people that say they are social justice warriors, including my cousin, tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. It is very hard to meet the person in front of you for whom they express themselves to be when you already made up your mind on who they are before they opened their mouth. Don't get me wrong, I donate the the ACLU to protect the speech of the social justice warriors of the world and any other exclusive world-view. However, it is important that we protect ourselves from being limited to these exclusive world-views and refuse that they limit us from exploring possible different solutions. Protecting our democracy is messy and hard.
- ThrowAway3456 9y ago
  > tend to not engage well in the conversations that facilitates equality by building mutual empathy. I think you hit the right spot right there. I always baffled me how little empathy hardcore leftist display for other people experience
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    I think its more about the balkanization of American discourse rather than any particular group doing this on their own. There is an excellent comment by @stupidcar outlining this as part of this thread. Its worth a read.
dang 9y ago
Would you please not post ideological flamebait? If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16092277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16092277 is fine, this is not.

skybrian 9y ago

I suspect there might be a middle ground between the libertarian/individualist "people are competent, rational agents and you're on your own" and treating people as children. We might, for example, recognize that many people, even competent adults, can be quite bad at dealing with awkward or hostile social situations, and can use help.

asabjorn 9y ago
I don't think you can have it both ways. You can't teach your kid to walk without risking that they occasionally fall and hurt themselves, and as we grow further these kind of small falls is a natural byproduct of taking risks that leads to growth. It really sucks when your kid runs in front of a car, but thankfully that is quite rare and there are some simple heuristics that seems to ameliorate most such potential situation.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Okay, so how do you decide whether to have hire school crossing guards or not? Or to put in a stop sign or not? Or to require seatbelts? We can and do make decisions as a society to change the environment we live in for the better. You can't eliminate all risk and not every proposed solution is going to make sense, but that doesn't mean you just say "hey, they're adults" and shrug.

joshuamorton 9y ago

Two things to note: Saying that this is from the nyt is misleading. It's an option piece and I doubt it's endorsed. Second, that article appears to be attacking a strawman. Few, if any, if the feminists I communicate with believe that "believe all women" is an absolute insofar as there should be no further investigation. It came about because historically, society didn't trust but verify, it ignored and threw under the rug. Believe women was a reaction to "but are you sure you weren't asking for it" and "but you don't remember, so how do you know you didn't consent". It was a call to trust but verify. People who say otherwise are either missing important context, or are pushing a false narrative.

asabjorn 9y ago
I agree with you that attributing this view to a whole group is likely to be neither accurate nor particularly interesting. Plenty of feminists and others seem to be waking up to the conclusions made by this piece. As much as I believe you that most people furthering this view had the best intentions, that does not stop us from critically inspecting if this idea is a good one when applied in real life. In practice this has turned into what the article describe, and I believe any claim to the otherwise is at this point only of rhetorical interest. Are you claiming otherwise, and if so how do you explain the mob-like behavior with no due process?
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I reject the claim that "believe women" has turned into what the article describes, except in alarmist circles. The reactions to different accusers I think sides with me on that. Consider Weinstein vs. Franken. Reactions we're very different, in part due to the political nature, but also because the Franken accusations are less extensive than the Weinstein ones. Alarmism like that article misses the context that Franken chose to step down, prematurely in the eyes of many, whereas Weinstein has denied and fought this. Had Franken reacted like Weinstein, he'd still be in the senate and likely free of any major repercussions. What mob like behavior and what lack of due process? Do you mean that people are seeing legal repercussions without due process? Or that private entities are choosing to disassociate from people without due process? In the second case, what standard of due process is necessary? Are you suggesting it is morally wrong for me to disassociate from someone if I witness them committing a heinous act, because due process has not completed? If not, at what level of certainty is it morally acceptable for me to disassociate from them?