8 ms·

FWIW I do believe sexism exists in tech. My displeasure seeing stories like this one centers around the comments. 1. Commenters seem to be attributing the acti

• ryguytilidie 12y ago
  "People seem to want the penalty for the investor to be very high (public shaming, ban from YC investment opportunities, etc). I'll basically never support something that can majorly impact a person's livelihood which lacks due process." Well this is a tough situation. I'm not sure she could take this fellow to court for touching her sideboob, so there absolutely will not be due process. With that being the case, he should just be allowed to do the same over and over and the victim shouldn't be allowed to say anything?
  • yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Two Sundays ago, a woman flirted with my friend and got him to buy her a drink. She was uninterested in him, merely thirsty. Should the victim spread her name far and wide, publicly shaming her? If unexpected and unwanted physical contact is the dividing line, that same day a different woman kissed me without my permission. Should I publicly name and shame her? I suspect most people's demands for a public naming/shaming are merely knee-jerk emotional responses rather than principled positions.
    • chasing 12y ago
      Did this happen in a business setting? Did either women try to use a potential $50k investment as a tool to gain sexual access? If not, your friend should probably just be more careful who he buys drinks for. As for the kissing, you don't provide many details, so I'm going to assume you're talking about your grandmother. In which case, absolutely name and shame. Grandmas have been getting away with that crap for way to long.
      • yummyfajitas 12y ago
        A similar event did happen in a semi-business setting last year. I met a woman at a bar, discussed work and personal travel, and decided to meet up another time. I thought it was a sale, she thought it was a date. She did touch me in a manner far better suited to a date, at which point I figured out that we talked past each other. Should I name and shame her? If you've actually got some set of abstract principles you are willing to use across the board, I'd love to hear them. But I don't think that's where most of the commenters here are coming from.
        • tptacek 12y ago
          If you feel like that person was exploiting a power dynamic to coerce you into accepting her advance, and that the world would be a better place if you "named and shamed" (note your misdirection here, since the person we're discussing didn't "name and shame" anyone), then yes.
          • yummyfajitas 12y ago
            I know the OP didn't name and shame, I'm referring to the comments here asking for them to do so - this comment thread is about whether or not that should be done. I don't know what "power dynamic" means, but feel free to provide a clear definition for it. If you've actually got some set of abstract principles you are willing to use across the board, I'd love to hear them. From my vantage point, I don't see much of a problem here. Offering investment is a beneficial act. So is offering romantic or sexual options. It's hard to see why offering both together suddenly becomes a bad thing - worst case the recipient can decline and is exactly as well off as before.
            • tptacek 12y ago
              From my vantage point, I don't see much of a problem here. Offering investment is a beneficial act. So is offering romantic or sexual options. It's hard to see why offering both together suddenly becomes a bad thing - worst case the recipient can decline and is exactly as well off as before. I'm not sure where to start with this. Is it the idea that you find the act of a stranger putting their hand on a bodily location that would trip the statutes in several US states governing sexual assault "an offer of romantic or sexual options"? The idea that such an "offer" of "options", were we to stipulate that there was any optionality involved, would have been benign? Your statement that the "worst case" is the recipient declines and is "exactly" as well off as before? But then I reread your second graph, where you cordially invite me to litigate the meaning of the term "power dynamic", and I realize you're just going to draw me into a fake debate where you play the nerd trump card of discrediting a straw man notion of social science instead of engaging the actual issue. And it's not like I'd lose that argument, just that it would be an enervating experience for both of us.
    • vertex-four 12y ago
      > Two Sundays ago, a woman flirted with my friend and got him to buy her a drink. She was uninterested in him, merely thirsty. Flirting is flirting, and doesn't necessarily imply intent to go any further. Some people enjoy flirting and find it fun in itself. You and your friend are likely in the wrong for expecting it to go any further. > If unexpected and unwanted physical contact is the dividing line, that same day a different woman kissed me without my permission. Should I publicly name and shame her? "Unwanted kissing" is sexual assault under most definitions (including many legal ones). I wouldn't see an issue with publicly naming this woman. It's your choice, though, and strongly depends on what you feel about it.
    • kefka 12y ago
      Yeah, that's a shitty thing to do. It's called Pussy Privilege. If a man did this, it'd be screamed at from mental abuse (drink) to rape(kiss). It sums up to : I'm a woman, get me something because I "might" have sex with you. But not really. And those that realize this to its full potential can screw their way to the top.
      • chasing 12y ago
        > It's called Pussy Privilege. On Reddit, maybe, but not when speaking with adults.
      • chrisbennet 12y ago
        That sort of thing only works on men who think they can trade something for sex. If you buy a woman a drink (or bring a deer to her cave) with the expectation that she now "owes" you, be prepared to be disppointed. Suppose someone of the same sex bought you a drink, would you feel obligated to have sex with them? How about if they implied that they would love to invest in your company?
        • yummyfajitas 12y ago
          Yes, blame the victim, a young college kid who didn't know any better. But I suppose even a college kid from a village with less than one lac people should immediately know all the subtleties of picking up women, right? FYI, it's a dick move to accept a drink from someone who you don't want to continue interacting with. I wouldn't accept a drink from a man I didn't want to at least hang out with either.
          • chrisbennet 12y ago
            Yes, it's totally a dick move to misrepresent your intentions in order to exploit someone. I agree with you. (BTW: I'm from a small village!) My comment was aimed at those men who feel "entitled" to things because they somehow imagine that every woman is a prostitute and it's just a matter of price. It's a question of respect and empathy. When someone tries to use the "law or reciprocity" for gain instead of being genuinely generous, they shouldn't be shocked when someone sees through their attempt and shuts them down.
  • ssharp 12y ago
    I think it's a difficult moral judgement to make. If she were to out his name, he would likely have to face extreme consequences. The internet justice mob is relentless and often over-prosecutes. However, by staying silent, she feeds into his power and does absolutely nothing to stop this type of behavior from him or anyone else. I actually think her strategy was good. She is raising awareness without alerting mob. Since this story hit HN, and will likely be circulated outside of it as well, the investor is more likely to come across it, and any other investors or persons in a position of power in technology are also much more likely to read it. In today's age, there is an unfortunate balance between what can be responsibly shared online and what cannot. Once you put something out there, it's no longer in your hands. By not naming the investor publically, she also still has power to let individuals like her peers, colleagues, YC, etc. know of his specifics.
• tptacek 12y ago
  This is the second time on this thread you've suggested there might be "another side to the story". When the "other side" would belong to an anonymous abstraction, the suggestion that we dig for it is disingenuous: it comes across not as truth-seeking, but as a mendacious attempt to discredit the account. The moral of this story wasn't "here is a person who is evil", or even "here is an event that doesn't do a good enough job to keep stuff like this from happening" (is the event even named?). The moral of the story is "this stuff happens, and this is what it is like for people who experience it". You may just have to live with the fact that there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep.
  • dlss 12y ago
    As I said above, my displeasure seeing stories like this one centers around the comments. (which to be clear is not a problem with the story). I agree the moral of this story wasn't "here is a person who is evil". The commenters calling for OP to name the investor don't seem to have grasped this.
  • yummyfajitas 12y ago
    You may just have to live with the fact that there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep. Similarly, there's no way to question satanic cults without sounding like you don't care about the children being ritually molested. Or no way to criticize MADD without sounding like you support drunk driving. And there's no way to question accusations of witchcraft without sounding like a witch. The blind acceptance of a moral panic is definitely scary. I'm pleasantly surprised to see you calling it out on this topic. getting
    • tptacek 12y ago
      When the best example you can come up with of someone being railroaded by outrage is this guy: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw50uko2nl5aoj2/Screenshot%202015-02-16%2011.57.12.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/rw50uko2nl5aoj2/Screenshot%202015-... --- which, seriously, is actually the last example you provided of someone getting railroaded by outrage --- ... I think it's fair to call shenanigans on the idea that we're in a "moral panic". Of course, your comment wasn't germane to mine, either; it was an attempt to change the subject. The comment to which you responded doesn't even engage gender --- it doesn't even mention it. It's a smokescreen, which you're throwing up as another attempt to discredit the story.
• claar 12y ago
  > I'll basically never support something that can majorly impact a person's livelihood which lacks due process. Thank you. If we can manage to learn something from the many Justine Sacco's with ruined lives due to misinterpreted words and actions, it's that due process has value. Taking the time to process incidents properly is more important than expressing our (appropriate) outrage at the alleged actions. Doing so honors the victim as well, as today's victim is tomorrow's alleged perpetrator.
• PaulAJ 12y ago
  I can't see that this is down to fundamental attribution error. That is the fallacy of assuming that because someone acts in a particular way, its because they are always that way, or that its because they are a member of a group that is always that way. However this kind of sexual harrasment is unacceptable no matter how many times you do it. Even if its just once because he was feeling lonley/sad/drunk/whatever, its still showing that the guy is an asshole.
  • dlss 12y ago
    So in your case, the FAE is "guy is an asshole" rather than "acted like an asshole". I'm pointing this out because I thought it was interesting that you still at least sounded like you were committing the FAE, even in a comment explicitly talking about the FAE. > However this kind of sexual harassment is unacceptable no matter how many times you do it. Even if its just once because he was feeling lonely/sad/drunk/whatever I'm sorry to hear that OP had this experience, but I'm not willing/able to draw conclusions about the character of the other party w/o hearing the other side of the story. For example, you're assuming that the actions were intentional on his part and that he understood OPs wishes/desires/state-of-mind. To put that another way: conditional on the assumptions you're making being correct, I agree the guy's a complete asshole :p
    • freshhawk 12y ago
      While FAE is a common bias, I think this is misusing it. This is not the cliche example of "driving like an asshole", which everyone does at some point for a variety of reasons. FAE requires an alternate explanation where the behaviour is justified and the assumption it's the result of a character flaw is the error. You can drive like an asshole because you are racing to the hospital or late to a big job interview or something similar. At the very least he was being sexually aggressive in a business context with a person over whom he had substantial power. There are no charitable explanations based on unknown circumstances we can reasonably assume here. Your character is determined by the totality of your actions, not by some imaginary inner version of yourself - although that's a very common delusion we all use to avoid acknowledging our character flaws.
• freshhawk 12y ago
  "I'll basically never support something that can majorly impact a person's livelihood which lacks due process" You realize in practice this means you are against nearly all public discourse and, even more insane, are proposing a stance that linearly scales protection from being mentioned in public with wealth. What about a journalist impacting a politicians livelihood by printing a sourced story? That's out. Whistle-blowing of any kind? Obviously out. Filing a law suit? Well that goes public before the due process so that's out too. This is simply a restatement of a very old school defense of the strictly hierarchical society. One should know their place and not question or impugn the integrity of their betters. We are social animals, your livelihood will be affected by what people think about you. Get over it. There is no solution to this that respects the concept of freedom.
  • dlss 12y ago
    > You realize in practice this means you are against nearly all public discourse I don't believe this to be the case. IMO due process is scalar not binary, and responsible journalism includes many due process protections... for example, the other side of the story has been considered and presented in most news stories, and if the central claim is proven false the story is usually killed. > even more insane, are proposing a stance that linearly scales protection from being mentioned in public with wealth. I didn't mention scale / I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. > This is simply a restatement of a very old school defense of the strictly hierarchical society. One should know their place and not question or impugn the integrity of their betters. Not at all. I'm saying that before you punish people you should consider the idea that they are innocent and limenting that most of the other commenters don't seem to agree with this position. I'm not sure to what extent you are arguing with me, and to what extent you are arguing with cached thoughts from other discussions. https://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html https://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html might help with that.
    • freshhawk 12y ago
      > I didn't mention scale / I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. I am assuming that the more wealthy someone is the more likely it is for a bad public reputation to impact their livelihood. I was unclear about that. To be more clear the correlation is extremely messy but exists. The rest of it we covered in the other thread (yes, I recognized the username). There is no punishment going on, the person in question is anonymous. We are considering the actions and how unethical they are. You keep saying there is some way this person could be innocent, what could that be? Put your cards on the table, come up with a hypothetical where you were an investor at a business event and you combined an offer of money with making a pass and should be judged to be innocent.