16 ms·

I feel so naive asking this, but I really would like to better understand the specific scenario that led to being raped repeatedly "several times over months" b

by abalone 12y ago

I feel so naive asking this, but I really would like to better understand the specific scenario that led to being raped repeatedly "several times over months" by a colleague. Especially because it apparently happened to another female colleague by another man "in much the same way my attacker had raped me." I don't doubt FOR A MINUTE that this can happen but perhaps understanding the circumstances could provide a focal point for specific change. For example, how do colleagues end up even physically alone in the same space together especially after the first RAPE? Does this stem from unsupervised after-work parties that employees feel obligated to attend? Is it related to conferences or work travel? Clearly she would seek to avoid being near her rapist alone but couldn't. Are there things companies can be doing to better avoid such scenarios?

rayiner 12y ago
Story from a friend of a friend's law firm. Young associate worked for this partner. Over the course of months, he coerced her into giving him blowjobs. Eventually she quit. 1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence. 2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. 3) Why let it happen more than once? If you've ruled out calling the police, what are you going to do? Can you afford to quit your job on the spot? Can you compromise your long term future at the firm by bringing it to the management? You've worked years to get to where you are, and you just want to do your job and try to get ahead, just like your coworkers who didn't catch the eye of some creep.
- learc83 12y ago
  > Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. Would the police do anything about the scenario you outlined above? Wouldn't sexual harassment where the boss trades sexual favors for promotions/job security be considered a civil matter in most places?
  - bluehat 12y ago
    Fun fact: bringing a lawsuit against your company is not good for feeling like you're going to be getting hired places later: especially since I believe (not completely sure) you can only sue for punitive damages.
    - hackuser 12y ago
      Also consider being publicly dragged through the mud, having your sexual history become a matter of public discussion, and having to defend yourself against a far more powerful member of the community, who may be eating dinner with the judge that night. You might find that you become the villain in the eyes of your community.
- woofyman 12y ago
  That's not rape. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Edited to clarify. Oral sex without consent is also rape. Threatening to fire someone unless they give them a BJ is sexual harassment.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - bluehat 12y ago
    That is not consent.
  - golemotron 12y ago
    The word 'rape' is being re-defined now. The definition is being expanded far beyond what we called rape 20 years ago. Feminists are trying to do this in order to call attention to sexual harassment, but it is backfiring. They will dilute the term to the point where violent rape is no longer seen as the uniformly more serious offense that it is.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - unepipe 12y ago
      Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.
      - BadassFractal 12y ago
        For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy. Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it, I might never find one again. I'm under duress. Sure, there's no sexual abuse in this specific scenario, but as other posters have mentioned, modern definition of rape makes it not about sex, but about power structures. Am I being raped, in the scenario above? Note: I want to stress that I'm simply having a philosophical discussion here, I have no agenda, downvotes are pointless.
- swatow 12y ago
  Can you clarify what sort of coercion was involved? My understanding is that rape does involve physical violence, or at least physical coercion. In particular, "give me a blowjob or you are fired" is not rape, but "give me a blowjob or I'm not unlocking the door" is.
  - e40 12y ago
    My understanding is that rape does involve physical violence, or at least physical coercion. You're missing the threat of violence.
  - jdub 12y ago
    Which part of "consent" is confusing to you?
  - emmab 12y ago
    The former is most definitely rape. We call sexual coercion rape because it can cause severe and lasting trauma even if physical violence or threat of physical violence is not part of the coercion.
  - Lazare 12y ago
    Rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes with technical legal definitions. In NZ, for example, the former would be the crime of "Sexual conduct with consent induced by certain threats" (penalty of up to 14 years in prison), whereas the latter would be the crime of "sexual violation" (penalty of up to 20 years in prison). Other countries might lump them together, or call them different names. If you're trying to discuss the actual crimes, you'd want to 1) mention what jurisdiction you're talking about and 2) use the actual names of the crimes as per the statute book. But as a practical matter, it's all rape.
    - swatow 12y ago
      You say that rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes and chide me for not being more specific. And yet the person I replied to was making a positive claim that certain actions were rape. So how am I supposed to interpret that claim? Does rape take on a different meaning (e.g. a broader feminist definition) in that context? If rape is defined to be a crime or class of crimes, it's completely unreasonable to selectively ask people to be very specific about which crimes they mean. In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.
- golemotron 12y ago
  I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs under the threat of losing my job. I'd quit and take my chances. What am I missing here?
  - bluehat 12y ago
    Being reasonably sure that wouldn't happen at the next job.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - JohnBooty 12y ago
    From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. Also, > Young associate worked for this partner I don't know how the legal profession works. But: 1. It's quite likely that leaving firm as a young associate carries a huge negative connotation. In other words, her choices might not have been "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job." It might have been more like "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job, and maybe not find another job because there's this huge negative on her resume." 2. The law profession has a reputation for being quite chummy. If she had quit over this harassment, even if she filed no charges then it's quite possible that this partner would have gone on the offensive to discredit her character to other influential people.
    - graeme 12y ago
      In the US, if she was at Biglaw, then my impression is that leaving is basically unheard of. You're intended to work for a firm for 2-4 years and move on, or stay at the firm on a partner track. Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc. Edit: I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.
- geofft 12y ago
  Your comment reminded me of this story I read about a month back, which was pretty eye-opening to me as a male who's never been in a position to worry about these things: http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1682583526 http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1... I'd known, intellectually, that a large fraction of rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows and somewhat trusts. But the story here put concrete details to that and made me think. What do you do if someone you like, who you have been consensually involved with, takes advantage of you? What do you do if they had been, until then, your strongest support at a new school (or in a new job, or something), and social structures are that you're expected to keep working together? Is there even a better response than pretending it didn't happen, at least for a bit? I'm also a little ashamed to say that, if I hadn't heard stories like this one and thought them through, I can see myself being the skeptical cop who says, well, why were you continuing to hang out with him and invite him over. And I'd known intellectually that skeptical cops were a problem that dissuaded reporting, and that it often was naïveté not malice, but never thought through what an actual case would look like.
- randyrand 12y ago
  Edit: I'm wrong. Apparently coercion implies under threat. I Thought it just meant to convince someone of something. My apologies.
  - woofyman 12y ago
    Coercion includes force or threats. The nature of the threat matters in this discussion.
- hrktb 12y ago
  I think what horrifies me the most in these stories is that, once someone is in a situation where he/she is coerced in a position to have sex, there is basically nothing stopping an escalation in abuse. If her boss found her attractive enough to want a blowjob, why won't he progressively try to get as much as he can get away with ? She was not in position to refuse the first step, she won't be in a better position to refuse further abuse. At the first threat, I have the feeling she already has to choose between her career and getting abused for years.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Slightly more insidiously: she may have given enthusiastic consent to the first step, consent may have dwindled on subsequent steps, and she's still in just as shitty a position regarding refusing further steps, except now she has the problem of being taken seriously by people who think she lost the right to withdraw her consent along the way.
- indrx 12y ago
  1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence. The definition of rape in California says nothing about "coercion": http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... It does mention "duress" which implies a threat of violence. If your friend's boss was not threatening violence then it's wrong to call it rape.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Keep reading your own link. Duress includes "retribution" not limited to physical violence. " (b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."
- yason 12y ago
  That's quite different. She had an option to decline. Maybe it would've a very hard choice indeed, both socially and career-wise but she did have that choice. It might be convenient in some cases to broaden the definition of rape gradually but the bottom line is you can not be raped if you are simply able to walk away. It might be harassment. It might be blackmailing. It might be a lot of nasty, disgusting, and even criminal things. In the above story, the partner was obviously a complete prick. But the scheme is inherently different from a rape. This abusing prick could've asked both men or women under his supervision for a number of completely unreasonable favours, whether sexual or non-sexual, declining of which would've been similarly catastrophic for the career of his staff members because of the power the abusing partner held over the matter. But they could've walked away. Maybe they could have restarted their career elsewhere or had to change careers, I don't know. Life isn't fair. But they could've walked away and from what I understand, so could've this young associate in the law firm. I think the very definition of rape is crossing the very line where the victim is not allowed to leave and forced to be abused instead. A rape is a physical act of violence, regardless of whether what happens is an intercourse or a blowjob or whatever and whether the victim was physically threatened by fists, a knife, or a gun, but the physical nature of the act means if you are able to walk away the rape doesn't happen because it can not happen. And that is for the same reason why a robber with a knife can't kill you unless you're within a few feet of him. A knifeman can't kill you a block away and a rapist can kill you if you're not there. In some jurisdictions coercion might translate to non-physical threats. Then maybe there it could be classified as a rape. It's still as wrong as if it's classified as something else. But the dynamic of that situation is nevertheless different from the dynamic of a rape with the latter interpreted in the traditional sense. There is a line between situations from where you can actually walk away and situations from where you can not.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercion arises from our deep-seated deference to rich people. A migrant worker has to pull a knife to coerce someone. A law firm partner doesn't have to, but can exercise powers that are just as immorally coercive. Would it be easier if I called it "white collar rape?"
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hackuser 12y ago
  Excellent points. I think that's one reason why management must consider this behavior unacceptable and make that abundantly clear to everyone ahead of time. Silentl disapproval isn't enough, because the victims won't trust you to come forward, and the attackers won't be detered. It's also the reason sexist jokes and seemingly harmless behavior is problematic; it sends the the message to attackers and victims alike that nobody takes these issues seriously.
- randyrand 12y ago
  1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence I was curious if this is technically rape in my home state (Illinois) so I looked it up... edit: Already downvoted? C'mon this is relevant! (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-13) Sec. 11-1.20. Criminal Sexual Assault. (a) A person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and: (1) uses force or threat of force; (2) knows that the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act or is unable to give knowing consent; (3) is a family member of the victim, and the victim is under 18 years of age; or (4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age.
  - pekk 12y ago
    Are you arguing that blackmailing someone into having sex with you, or threatening them with consequences like having your career ended, isn't rape in the state of Illinois? Why?
    - brazzledazzle 12y ago
      If I were a woman I'd want to know where this was illegal or not. I want to know for my daughters when they grow up.
      - pekk 12y ago
        I'm pretty sure it is illegal, but nobody in this thread is a lawyer providing legal advice so that's moot. What is the point of arguing that blackmailing people into sex isn't rape?
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        brazzledazzle 12y ago
        I think you may be misconstruing and applying intent that isn't there.
- jobposter1234 12y ago
  Very serious issue, but your first point is silly. While the absence of coercion does not clear the bar for "not rape", it does not follow that being unable to declare "not rape" equals "rape". In your world view, it it inappropriate for any sexual intercourse to exist between a person of power and a subordinate who might gain from a relationship? Because the conclusion of #2 seems to be that sexual relationships can only exist between social / workplace equals, otherwise it will be M.A.D. Rape is very serious. Sexual relationships are very complex. Every situation is different, and there is nobody (famous) on this forum that knows all the facts and should comment on this case, and should especially not try to draw conclusions from it. This is more of a comment about the thread in general than your response, except where I specifically asked questions.
- byEngineer 12y ago
  Any evidence that she didn't do it on purpose to destroy the guy after he didn't want to leave wife for her? Remember, male weapon might be brute force, but it's not like Mother Nature didn't empower women in millions of years of the evolution process. Females are masters of social manipulation. And 99% of the time this isn't a bad thing. The same way that 99% of the time this isn't bad that male is physically strong. The problem is 1% of those who abuse. In other words ask your lawyer friend what are the guy chances of she started giving her boss sexual favors then demanded he divorces wife. And as this doesn't happen, she starts her big time drama about being raped. No evidence what so ever. Just her word that she was raped by giving a head CS his that she wanted it. Poor weak sex, hahaha... And you white knights clueless about social manipulators aka women. Grow up!
- CodeWriter23 12y ago
  > 2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. As a man, I may have a hard time understanding any nuances here, but I think being known as "the woman who called the police on her boss" would be highly advantageous in creating a filter where the only male bosses who would want to hire you are the ones who know they aren't going to rape you. Or try to fuck you "consensually" (air quotes) either.
  - throw3024309 12y ago
    The future hiring manager does not know what really happened, and any details is effectively hearsay to them. The person becomes a very risky hire personally to the new boss then, because if the police were called once, they might be called again, even if you did nothing wrong. And your career and future income might be ruined. It's much safer to just hire the other person with no history of police involvement. The general principle can be applied to other crimes too.
- joyeuse6701 12y ago
  I've been pressured into sexual favors, and I said no, because my dignity was worth more than a job. Been assaulted before by someone with much more power, fought back too. When life shits on you, you have a decision to make, and that decision lies squarely with you the victim. Every question you've asked is based on fear. Doing nothing because of that fear is cowardice. You are defending it. Stop it. Nothing can be borne from it.
- abalone 12y ago
  I don't mean to split hairs but legally it looks like many or most states draw a distinction between sexual extortion and rape.[1] The difference being that sextortion is a lesser felony. I wonder if that is the case here. Certainly sextortion among engineers/scientists would be an extraordinarily troubling state of affairs. But based on the OP's comments here[2] she is referring to rape and that the enabling factor had something to do with social life being mixed up with professional life. So, not exactly extortion but it would have been costly to avoid the person. This may be pie in the sky but I wonder if a concrete step that startups can take to reduce problems like this is to make a conscious effort to not penalize employees for not attending off-hours social events. Aside from acquaintance rape, obviously, there's also things like not penalizing older employees with kids to go home to or alcoholics who need to avoid enabling environments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextortion [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168365
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    I mean, well, you do mean to split legal hairs, clearly. Why are they relevant to the discussion? What do you think it is we're discussing?
    - abalone 12y ago
      Not at all. It's that the strategies startups can adopt to fight sextortion are different from ones to fight being forced to see your rapist in social situations. That's why it's important to understand the specific scenario: solutions are different. Sextortion could happen even without pressure to hang out in social situations, for example. One person simply extorts another, forces them to meet in private. But what the OP is describing seems to be more in the realm of, I don't want to be alone around this person but I have to for professional reasons, and they keep taking advantage of it to rape. That might be something that startups can actually target with policies that ensure unsupervised social contact with colleagues is not necessary for professional advancement. That's not really on anyone's radar, it seems.
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  >2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. I feel like this is the kind of brave move we'd want to reward, for helping to clean up the whole firm. Ok, I'm naive. So be it.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  That is absolutely not rape.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bluehat 12y ago
I don't really want to be the one to speak authoritatively on this topic because I can only speak about a very personal subject that happened to me and about what a colleague of mine told me under very strict confidence. I'd rather see serious scientific study on the topic, so we can refine our efforts to most effectively cut out this problem at the root cause. We know rape is statistically a problem and we know it isn't well-studied. We are scientists. The next thing to do is not to listen to panic and get reactionary, it is to dedicate the resources necessary to pursue a proper understanding of it. We're also engineers and entrepreneurs. I'd like to think we know well enough that to start with the lowest hanging fruit when trying to make positive change. These are the reasons I'm not really ready to march in here with a "how to fix rape: the article." I would be really excited to see what other people have written as far as possible solutions to this. I'm trying to read through scholarly criminology journals when I have time. They're doing some good work. I wish more smart people were paying attention. In the meanwhile, what I am for sure is needed is for people to look out a little bit for each other, so if there is somebody in your life who has reason to feel afraid and alone (or afraid of being alone), they know they aren't going to be.
- abalone 12y ago
  But I'm not asking for an authoritative proposal to fix rape. That would be great, and take years. I just want to understand the specific scenario that led to a series of repeat rapes by a colleague over several month, also experienced by another female colleague. Isn't there a way to describe it generically without revealing any identities? For example, is it after work parties involving alcohol? Does it involve professional blackmail? If so, was there no way to gather evidence that could be used for prosecution, such as a clandestine recording? It seems to me like there could be an opportunity to speak to the startup community here and now and implement a policy that targets these specific circumstances, and make a difference in the near term.
  - bluehat 12y ago
    It involved people I couldn't cut out of my social circles without dramatic sacrifice. Even getting rid of of him as much as I did without calling him a rapist cost me a great deal.
mynameishere 12y ago
this can happen Yeah, it can happen by the Golden Horde, the Red Army in Berlin circa 1945, or Rotherdam/Oxfordshire imports. But in realistic contexts is it possible? Is it possible that a woman can be raped at work? Sure. And not report it to the police? I guess. And continue working with her rapist? Umm... And then get raped again? And then not report it again? And then keep working there again? And then get raped again? Etc. Etc. It's bullshit. Even Hollywood executives, island-owning venture capitalists, NFL players, and 1970s-era rock groups can't actually get away with this degree of abuse. But to credit such abuse with beta male code jockeys? Bull.
eveningcoffee 12y ago
"A second colleague at a different institution held me against a wall against my objections and struggles and hit me with objects for his own amusement." Now this sounds rather as an assault, a sick power play, but I would accept it called rape when it involved was sexual amusement but probably sexual assault would be a better term as it would not dilute the meanings confusingly. Nonetheless this kind of behaviour is sickening and not acceptable by any means but it would explain why it was possible to tolerate it multiple times and how hard it was to do anything to prove that it happened. Edit: I think that it would be much easier to fight with such behaviour by calling it by actual names. For example "Stop sexual assaults at work" would be in my opinion much more convincing and believable slogan than the exaggerated wording. This would make the fight with the problem easier as it would not create that much confusion and opposition from it. Using strong words creates opposition as people would find it by their own experience rather not believable but perhaps they have seen, heard something that would fit sexual assault definition or sexual harassment definition. I believe that it would be much easier to define and establish the definition of sexual assault in peoples minds and educate them to see it than trying to redefine the established definition of rape in the society. For clarification, I consider here acts that are described by "A second colleague at a different institution held me against a wall against my objections and struggles and hit me with objects for his own amusement." Now again, we should not tolerate this kind of behaviour and we should fight against it but I think it would be easier when we do not call it by too strong names as it would be then easier to establish this as wrongful and not acceptable behaviour in peoples minds. I think that it is easier to fight with concrete problems individually rather than stretching the definitions.
- pron 12y ago
  > I think that it would be much easier to fight with such behaviour by calling it by actual names. No, it won't, and let me explain why. One of the well known forms of sexism is what I like to call (I wonder if there's an academic name for this) "everyone's a lawyer". You'll find that often when men report wrongdoings, there's a simple expression of outrage, but when women do, everyone's a lawyer who says "of course that's horrible, but let's call it by the right name". Leave the precise naming of offenses to the courts; these are legal definitions, after all, and we are not judges and not bound by the rules of evidence. The best way to fight it is to express outrage, period. No caveats, no "right names", and no legal maneuvering that is not our job anyway.
datashovel 12y ago
I can imagine at least one likely useful, but probably extremely invasive policy. But if, based on all of these recent blog posts, this is as pervasive as we're lead to believe then I would argue that invasive policies are the least of your concerns. For all company events pair people up and make each persons' well-being the other person's responsibility. In the sense that they will share the responsiblity for reporting issues about things that happen to either of the pair, and not that they would be somehow liable for the other person's well-being. You could give people an option to anonymously "blacklist" certain partners if they don't feel safe around them, or anonymously "whitelist" certain pairings with people who they know they are comfortable around. Bottom line, if it's not good enough to make a person's well-being their own responsibility then distribute the workload across at least one, and perhaps many other people within the organization.
- datashovel 12y ago
  as an addendum to that: If your partner didn't see it, it didn't happen. This would force the pair to stick together at all times if they were at all concerned for their well-being.
  - bluehat 12y ago
    This sounds pretty shitty to live. I would like to think we can do better.
    - datashovel 12y ago
      I completely agree. It's not ideal. I wish all people respected one another and understood social and personal boundaries. The comments here reflect my attempt to reconcile the fact that that's obviously not something we can count on. But in terms of the big picture I agree that "awareness" is an important hurdle. So the reasoning goes: It appears there needs to be some mechanism in place to hold people accountable for their actions. Not that we don't want the overarching goal to teach people how to respect others, but that's a life lesson, and not necessarily something that you can put a definitive timeline on in terms of when you're going to achieve your goal. I think a real-world solution needs to recognize that you can't guarantee that all employees will understand or follow your guidelines for how to behave in the workplace. So it follows that part of the plan needs to incorporate accountability. It's far more difficult to hold someone accountable when all you have is hearsay. With 3rd party testimony, however, a company is going to have more data to use when trying to figure out / arbitrate a dispute or investigate a claim of harassment. So, in principle I like the idea that people have mentioned where everyone should be responsible for everyone else. In theory this looks like it's a great idea, but in practice if this is your only rule / policy, it makes it very difficult for people to gauge whether progress is being made, or if they'll ever accomplish their goal. When you have a specific responsibility I find it's going to be far easier for the person to comprehend and observe whether or not they're accomplishing or are on the path to accomplish their objectives of keeping the workplace safe for everyone. Imagine if one day Larry Page sends out a memo to all Google employees, and says that he's decided to change how they operate. From today forward, "There are no longer specific jobs or goals. Instead we're all just going to concentrate on our one overarching goal. All employees are now in charge of making sure the company makes money". And that's the only direction that is given. It's one big overarching goal and everyone just needs to make sure that happens. No specific tasks are laid out for any one individual in order to make that happen. Now consider this scenario in contrast to the world at Google today where I imagine everyone, though in spirit are all working toward the single overarching goal of the company, each "cog in the wheel" has their own specific responsibilities to make that happen.
needacig 12y ago
She explains that she could not have reported the rape without destroying most of her personal and professional relationships, because the perpetrator was someone who was central in her social circles (possibly even considered a friend before that). See her comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168542 I think this is pretty common and is why many rapes go un-reported. Reporting some criminal stranger on the street who jumps you seems like a no brainer to me, but reporting someone you thought was a friend and who is friends with most of your friends? I bet a lot of people decide it's not worth upending their lives and starting over for.
runamok 12y ago
Rape doesn't have to be violent. The person could have decided she was into it even though she was saying no, no, no and just proceeded. Presumably she didn't report the rape for her own reasons. I can only imagine how painful it is to revisit this without going into the gory details and be cross examined by the internet. The sum of all the things she has dealt with are incredibly saddening to me. I have met Katy before and seen how much she did for Hacker Dojo and have a lot of respect for her. I think the focal point for change is exactly what she is saying regarding "whistle blowers". Someone that comes forward to reveal crimes whether it be Snowden or a woman sexually harassed or raped by a colleague should be respected and not pilloried and made persona non-grata. Bring this bullshit into the light.
imaginenore 12y ago
And, more importantly, why nobody ever calls the police and sues the guy for physical and emotional damages. That part of the story sounds made up.

by abalone 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

Story from a friend of a friend's law firm. Young associate worked for this partner. Over the course of months, he coerced her into giving him blowjobs. Eventually she quit. 1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence. 2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. 3) Why let it happen more than once? If you've ruled out calling the police, what are you going to do? Can you afford to quit your job on the spot? Can you compromise your long term future at the firm by bringing it to the management? You've worked years to get to where you are, and you just want to do your job and try to get ahead, just like your coworkers who didn't catch the eye of some creep.

learc83 12y ago
> Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. Would the police do anything about the scenario you outlined above? Wouldn't sexual harassment where the boss trades sexual favors for promotions/job security be considered a civil matter in most places?
- bluehat 12y ago
  Fun fact: bringing a lawsuit against your company is not good for feeling like you're going to be getting hired places later: especially since I believe (not completely sure) you can only sue for punitive damages.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    Also consider being publicly dragged through the mud, having your sexual history become a matter of public discussion, and having to defend yourself against a far more powerful member of the community, who may be eating dinner with the judge that night. You might find that you become the villain in the eyes of your community.
woofyman 12y ago
That's not rape. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. Edited to clarify. Oral sex without consent is also rape. Threatening to fire someone unless they give them a BJ is sexual harassment.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bluehat 12y ago
  That is not consent.
- golemotron 12y ago
  The word 'rape' is being re-defined now. The definition is being expanded far beyond what we called rape 20 years ago. Feminists are trying to do this in order to call attention to sexual harassment, but it is backfiring. They will dilute the term to the point where violent rape is no longer seen as the uniformly more serious offense that it is.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - unepipe 12y ago
    Forced oral sex is considered rape. This isn't feminist redefinition. You think if a gun is to your head and you give a blowjob that is sexual harassment? Think about someone who has a family and needs their income, and what this kind of situation puts them in.
    - BadassFractal 12y ago
      For the sake of argument, let me play the devil's advocate here and do a bit of armchair philosophy. Let's say I have a family, many mouths to feed, maybe it's the last job I could possibly get in my small town in the middle of nowhere. I hate the job, it sucks the life out of me, I don't want to do it, but I'm forced to "against my will" every single day because otherwise my family will starve to death. If I lose it, I might never find one again. I'm under duress. Sure, there's no sexual abuse in this specific scenario, but as other posters have mentioned, modern definition of rape makes it not about sex, but about power structures. Am I being raped, in the scenario above? Note: I want to stress that I'm simply having a philosophical discussion here, I have no agenda, downvotes are pointless.
swatow 12y ago
Can you clarify what sort of coercion was involved? My understanding is that rape does involve physical violence, or at least physical coercion. In particular, "give me a blowjob or you are fired" is not rape, but "give me a blowjob or I'm not unlocking the door" is.
- e40 12y ago
  My understanding is that rape does involve physical violence, or at least physical coercion. You're missing the threat of violence.
- jdub 12y ago
  Which part of "consent" is confusing to you?
- emmab 12y ago
  The former is most definitely rape. We call sexual coercion rape because it can cause severe and lasting trauma even if physical violence or threat of physical violence is not part of the coercion.
- Lazare 12y ago
  Rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes with technical legal definitions. In NZ, for example, the former would be the crime of "Sexual conduct with consent induced by certain threats" (penalty of up to 14 years in prison), whereas the latter would be the crime of "sexual violation" (penalty of up to 20 years in prison). Other countries might lump them together, or call them different names. If you're trying to discuss the actual crimes, you'd want to 1) mention what jurisdiction you're talking about and 2) use the actual names of the crimes as per the statute book. But as a practical matter, it's all rape.
  - swatow 12y ago
    You say that rape is a colloquial term for a range of specific crimes and chide me for not being more specific. And yet the person I replied to was making a positive claim that certain actions were rape. So how am I supposed to interpret that claim? Does rape take on a different meaning (e.g. a broader feminist definition) in that context? If rape is defined to be a crime or class of crimes, it's completely unreasonable to selectively ask people to be very specific about which crimes they mean. In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.
golemotron 12y ago
I'm sure that as a heterosexual man, regardless of my financial circumstances, no one could coerce me into giving blowjobs under the threat of losing my job. I'd quit and take my chances. What am I missing here?
- bluehat 12y ago
  Being reasonably sure that wouldn't happen at the next job.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- JohnBooty 12y ago
  From one heterosexual man to another, surely we can see that we're in a different situation than this woman was. Also, > Young associate worked for this partner I don't know how the legal profession works. But: 1. It's quite likely that leaving firm as a young associate carries a huge negative connotation. In other words, her choices might not have been "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job." It might have been more like "give a blowjob" or "quit and find another job, and maybe not find another job because there's this huge negative on her resume." 2. The law profession has a reputation for being quite chummy. If she had quit over this harassment, even if she filed no charges then it's quite possible that this partner would have gone on the offensive to discredit her character to other influential people.
  - graeme 12y ago
    In the US, if she was at Biglaw, then my impression is that leaving is basically unheard of. You're intended to work for a firm for 2-4 years and move on, or stay at the firm on a partner track. Once you're out, it's very hard to get back in. So in practice firms have quite a bit of leverage to demand things like work 100 hours in a week, staying until 2am, cancel plans with family on short notice, etc. Edit: I mean unheard of to leave with no new job and try to get another one in Biglaw.
geofft 12y ago
Your comment reminded me of this story I read about a month back, which was pretty eye-opening to me as a male who's never been in a position to worry about these things: http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1682583526 http://jezebel.com/how-to-make-an-accused-rapist-look-good-1... I'd known, intellectually, that a large fraction of rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows and somewhat trusts. But the story here put concrete details to that and made me think. What do you do if someone you like, who you have been consensually involved with, takes advantage of you? What do you do if they had been, until then, your strongest support at a new school (or in a new job, or something), and social structures are that you're expected to keep working together? Is there even a better response than pretending it didn't happen, at least for a bit? I'm also a little ashamed to say that, if I hadn't heard stories like this one and thought them through, I can see myself being the skeptical cop who says, well, why were you continuing to hang out with him and invite him over. And I'd known intellectually that skeptical cops were a problem that dissuaded reporting, and that it often was naïveté not malice, but never thought through what an actual case would look like.
randyrand 12y ago
Edit: I'm wrong. Apparently coercion implies under threat. I Thought it just meant to convince someone of something. My apologies.
- woofyman 12y ago
  Coercion includes force or threats. The nature of the threat matters in this discussion.
hrktb 12y ago
I think what horrifies me the most in these stories is that, once someone is in a situation where he/she is coerced in a position to have sex, there is basically nothing stopping an escalation in abuse. If her boss found her attractive enough to want a blowjob, why won't he progressively try to get as much as he can get away with ? She was not in position to refuse the first step, she won't be in a better position to refuse further abuse. At the first threat, I have the feeling she already has to choose between her career and getting abused for years.
- peteretep 12y ago
  Slightly more insidiously: she may have given enthusiastic consent to the first step, consent may have dwindled on subsequent steps, and she's still in just as shitty a position regarding refusing further steps, except now she has the problem of being taken seriously by people who think she lost the right to withdraw her consent along the way.
indrx 12y ago
1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence. The definition of rape in California says nothing about "coercion": http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr... It does mention "duress" which implies a threat of violence. If your friend's boss was not threatening violence then it's wrong to call it rape.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Keep reading your own link. Duress includes "retribution" not limited to physical violence. " (b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."
yason 12y ago
That's quite different. She had an option to decline. Maybe it would've a very hard choice indeed, both socially and career-wise but she did have that choice. It might be convenient in some cases to broaden the definition of rape gradually but the bottom line is you can not be raped if you are simply able to walk away. It might be harassment. It might be blackmailing. It might be a lot of nasty, disgusting, and even criminal things. In the above story, the partner was obviously a complete prick. But the scheme is inherently different from a rape. This abusing prick could've asked both men or women under his supervision for a number of completely unreasonable favours, whether sexual or non-sexual, declining of which would've been similarly catastrophic for the career of his staff members because of the power the abusing partner held over the matter. But they could've walked away. Maybe they could have restarted their career elsewhere or had to change careers, I don't know. Life isn't fair. But they could've walked away and from what I understand, so could've this young associate in the law firm. I think the very definition of rape is crossing the very line where the victim is not allowed to leave and forced to be abused instead. A rape is a physical act of violence, regardless of whether what happens is an intercourse or a blowjob or whatever and whether the victim was physically threatened by fists, a knife, or a gun, but the physical nature of the act means if you are able to walk away the rape doesn't happen because it can not happen. And that is for the same reason why a robber with a knife can't kill you unless you're within a few feet of him. A knifeman can't kill you a block away and a rapist can kill you if you're not there. In some jurisdictions coercion might translate to non-physical threats. Then maybe there it could be classified as a rape. It's still as wrong as if it's classified as something else. But the dynamic of that situation is nevertheless different from the dynamic of a rape with the latter interpreted in the traditional sense. There is a line between situations from where you can actually walk away and situations from where you can not.
- rayiner 12y ago
  If you threaten to punch someone in the face if she doesn't sleep with you, that's clearly rape. If you threaten to fire someone if she doesn't sleep with you, some people wouldn't call that rape (and the law wouldn't either). But I'd rather get punched in the face then lose a job I worked really hard to get. So why do we consider the latter not as bad? The belief that physical coercion is worse than economic coercion arises from our deep-seated deference to rich people. A migrant worker has to pull a knife to coerce someone. A law firm partner doesn't have to, but can exercise powers that are just as immorally coercive. Would it be easier if I called it "white collar rape?"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hackuser 12y ago
Excellent points. I think that's one reason why management must consider this behavior unacceptable and make that abundantly clear to everyone ahead of time. Silentl disapproval isn't enough, because the victims won't trust you to come forward, and the attackers won't be detered. It's also the reason sexist jokes and seemingly harmless behavior is problematic; it sends the the message to attackers and victims alike that nobody takes these issues seriously.
randyrand 12y ago
1) Why is this rape? Because coercion doesn't just take the form of physical violence I was curious if this is technically rape in my home state (Illinois) so I looked it up... edit: Already downvoted? C'mon this is relevant! (720 ILCS 5/11-1.20) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-13) Sec. 11-1.20. Criminal Sexual Assault. (a) A person commits criminal sexual assault if that person commits an act of sexual penetration and: (1) uses force or threat of force; (2) knows that the victim is unable to understand the nature of the act or is unable to give knowing consent; (3) is a family member of the victim, and the victim is under 18 years of age; or (4) is 17 years of age or over and holds a position of trust, authority, or supervision in relation to the victim, and the victim is at least 13 years of age but under 18 years of age.
- pekk 12y ago
  Are you arguing that blackmailing someone into having sex with you, or threatening them with consequences like having your career ended, isn't rape in the state of Illinois? Why?
  - brazzledazzle 12y ago
    If I were a woman I'd want to know where this was illegal or not. I want to know for my daughters when they grow up.
    - pekk 12y ago
      I'm pretty sure it is illegal, but nobody in this thread is a lawyer providing legal advice so that's moot. What is the point of arguing that blackmailing people into sex isn't rape?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - brazzledazzle 12y ago
        I think you may be misconstruing and applying intent that isn't there.
jobposter1234 12y ago
Very serious issue, but your first point is silly. While the absence of coercion does not clear the bar for "not rape", it does not follow that being unable to declare "not rape" equals "rape". In your world view, it it inappropriate for any sexual intercourse to exist between a person of power and a subordinate who might gain from a relationship? Because the conclusion of #2 seems to be that sexual relationships can only exist between social / workplace equals, otherwise it will be M.A.D. Rape is very serious. Sexual relationships are very complex. Every situation is different, and there is nobody (famous) on this forum that knows all the facts and should comment on this case, and should especially not try to draw conclusions from it. This is more of a comment about the thread in general than your response, except where I specifically asked questions.
byEngineer 12y ago
Any evidence that she didn't do it on purpose to destroy the guy after he didn't want to leave wife for her? Remember, male weapon might be brute force, but it's not like Mother Nature didn't empower women in millions of years of the evolution process. Females are masters of social manipulation. And 99% of the time this isn't a bad thing. The same way that 99% of the time this isn't bad that male is physically strong. The problem is 1% of those who abuse. In other words ask your lawyer friend what are the guy chances of she started giving her boss sexual favors then demanded he divorces wife. And as this doesn't happen, she starts her big time drama about being raped. No evidence what so ever. Just her word that she was raped by giving a head CS his that she wanted it. Poor weak sex, hahaha... And you white knights clueless about social manipulators aka women. Grow up!
CodeWriter23 12y ago
> 2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. As a man, I may have a hard time understanding any nuances here, but I think being known as "the woman who called the police on her boss" would be highly advantageous in creating a filter where the only male bosses who would want to hire you are the ones who know they aren't going to rape you. Or try to fuck you "consensually" (air quotes) either.
- throw3024309 12y ago
  The future hiring manager does not know what really happened, and any details is effectively hearsay to them. The person becomes a very risky hire personally to the new boss then, because if the police were called once, they might be called again, even if you did nothing wrong. And your career and future income might be ruined. It's much safer to just hire the other person with no history of police involvement. The general principle can be applied to other crimes too.
joyeuse6701 12y ago
I've been pressured into sexual favors, and I said no, because my dignity was worth more than a job. Been assaulted before by someone with much more power, fought back too. When life shits on you, you have a decision to make, and that decision lies squarely with you the victim. Every question you've asked is based on fear. Doing nothing because of that fear is cowardice. You are defending it. Stop it. Nothing can be borne from it.
abalone 12y ago
I don't mean to split hairs but legally it looks like many or most states draw a distinction between sexual extortion and rape.[1] The difference being that sextortion is a lesser felony. I wonder if that is the case here. Certainly sextortion among engineers/scientists would be an extraordinarily troubling state of affairs. But based on the OP's comments here[2] she is referring to rape and that the enabling factor had something to do with social life being mixed up with professional life. So, not exactly extortion but it would have been costly to avoid the person. This may be pie in the sky but I wonder if a concrete step that startups can take to reduce problems like this is to make a conscious effort to not penalize employees for not attending off-hours social events. Aside from acquaintance rape, obviously, there's also things like not penalizing older employees with kids to go home to or alcoholics who need to avoid enabling environments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextortion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextortion [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168365 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168365
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  I mean, well, you do mean to split legal hairs, clearly. Why are they relevant to the discussion? What do you think it is we're discussing?
  - abalone 12y ago
    Not at all. It's that the strategies startups can adopt to fight sextortion are different from ones to fight being forced to see your rapist in social situations. That's why it's important to understand the specific scenario: solutions are different. Sextortion could happen even without pressure to hang out in social situations, for example. One person simply extorts another, forces them to meet in private. But what the OP is describing seems to be more in the realm of, I don't want to be alone around this person but I have to for professional reasons, and they keep taking advantage of it to rape. That might be something that startups can actually target with policies that ensure unsupervised social contact with colleagues is not necessary for professional advancement. That's not really on anyone's radar, it seems.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>2) Why not report to the police? Because it's mutually assured destruction. Even if you bring the guy down, you'll be known as the woman who called the police on her boss. I feel like this is the kind of brave move we'd want to reward, for helping to clean up the whole firm. Ok, I'm naive. So be it.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
That is absolutely not rape.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bluehat 12y ago

I don't really want to be the one to speak authoritatively on this topic because I can only speak about a very personal subject that happened to me and about what a colleague of mine told me under very strict confidence. I'd rather see serious scientific study on the topic, so we can refine our efforts to most effectively cut out this problem at the root cause. We know rape is statistically a problem and we know it isn't well-studied. We are scientists. The next thing to do is not to listen to panic and get reactionary, it is to dedicate the resources necessary to pursue a proper understanding of it. We're also engineers and entrepreneurs. I'd like to think we know well enough that to start with the lowest hanging fruit when trying to make positive change. These are the reasons I'm not really ready to march in here with a "how to fix rape: the article." I would be really excited to see what other people have written as far as possible solutions to this. I'm trying to read through scholarly criminology journals when I have time. They're doing some good work. I wish more smart people were paying attention. In the meanwhile, what I am for sure is needed is for people to look out a little bit for each other, so if there is somebody in your life who has reason to feel afraid and alone (or afraid of being alone), they know they aren't going to be.

abalone 12y ago
But I'm not asking for an authoritative proposal to fix rape. That would be great, and take years. I just want to understand the specific scenario that led to a series of repeat rapes by a colleague over several month, also experienced by another female colleague. Isn't there a way to describe it generically without revealing any identities? For example, is it after work parties involving alcohol? Does it involve professional blackmail? If so, was there no way to gather evidence that could be used for prosecution, such as a clandestine recording? It seems to me like there could be an opportunity to speak to the startup community here and now and implement a policy that targets these specific circumstances, and make a difference in the near term.
- bluehat 12y ago
  It involved people I couldn't cut out of my social circles without dramatic sacrifice. Even getting rid of of him as much as I did without calling him a rapist cost me a great deal.

mynameishere 12y ago

this can happen Yeah, it can happen by the Golden Horde, the Red Army in Berlin circa 1945, or Rotherdam/Oxfordshire imports. But in realistic contexts is it possible? Is it possible that a woman can be raped at work? Sure. And not report it to the police? I guess. And continue working with her rapist? Umm... And then get raped again? And then not report it again? And then keep working there again? And then get raped again? Etc. Etc. It's bullshit. Even Hollywood executives, island-owning venture capitalists, NFL players, and 1970s-era rock groups can't actually get away with this degree of abuse. But to credit such abuse with beta male code jockeys? Bull.

eveningcoffee 12y ago

"A second colleague at a different institution held me against a wall against my objections and struggles and hit me with objects for his own amusement." Now this sounds rather as an assault, a sick power play, but I would accept it called rape when it involved was sexual amusement but probably sexual assault would be a better term as it would not dilute the meanings confusingly. Nonetheless this kind of behaviour is sickening and not acceptable by any means but it would explain why it was possible to tolerate it multiple times and how hard it was to do anything to prove that it happened. Edit: I think that it would be much easier to fight with such behaviour by calling it by actual names. For example "Stop sexual assaults at work" would be in my opinion much more convincing and believable slogan than the exaggerated wording. This would make the fight with the problem easier as it would not create that much confusion and opposition from it. Using strong words creates opposition as people would find it by their own experience rather not believable but perhaps they have seen, heard something that would fit sexual assault definition or sexual harassment definition. I believe that it would be much easier to define and establish the definition of sexual assault in peoples minds and educate them to see it than trying to redefine the established definition of rape in the society. For clarification, I consider here acts that are described by "A second colleague at a different institution held me against a wall against my objections and struggles and hit me with objects for his own amusement." Now again, we should not tolerate this kind of behaviour and we should fight against it but I think it would be easier when we do not call it by too strong names as it would be then easier to establish this as wrongful and not acceptable behaviour in peoples minds. I think that it is easier to fight with concrete problems individually rather than stretching the definitions.

pron 12y ago
> I think that it would be much easier to fight with such behaviour by calling it by actual names. No, it won't, and let me explain why. One of the well known forms of sexism is what I like to call (I wonder if there's an academic name for this) "everyone's a lawyer". You'll find that often when men report wrongdoings, there's a simple expression of outrage, but when women do, everyone's a lawyer who says "of course that's horrible, but let's call it by the right name". Leave the precise naming of offenses to the courts; these are legal definitions, after all, and we are not judges and not bound by the rules of evidence. The best way to fight it is to express outrage, period. No caveats, no "right names", and no legal maneuvering that is not our job anyway.

datashovel 12y ago

I can imagine at least one likely useful, but probably extremely invasive policy. But if, based on all of these recent blog posts, this is as pervasive as we're lead to believe then I would argue that invasive policies are the least of your concerns. For all company events pair people up and make each persons' well-being the other person's responsibility. In the sense that they will share the responsiblity for reporting issues about things that happen to either of the pair, and not that they would be somehow liable for the other person's well-being. You could give people an option to anonymously "blacklist" certain partners if they don't feel safe around them, or anonymously "whitelist" certain pairings with people who they know they are comfortable around. Bottom line, if it's not good enough to make a person's well-being their own responsibility then distribute the workload across at least one, and perhaps many other people within the organization.

datashovel 12y ago
as an addendum to that: If your partner didn't see it, it didn't happen. This would force the pair to stick together at all times if they were at all concerned for their well-being.
- bluehat 12y ago
  This sounds pretty shitty to live. I would like to think we can do better.
  - datashovel 12y ago
    I completely agree. It's not ideal. I wish all people respected one another and understood social and personal boundaries. The comments here reflect my attempt to reconcile the fact that that's obviously not something we can count on. But in terms of the big picture I agree that "awareness" is an important hurdle. So the reasoning goes: It appears there needs to be some mechanism in place to hold people accountable for their actions. Not that we don't want the overarching goal to teach people how to respect others, but that's a life lesson, and not necessarily something that you can put a definitive timeline on in terms of when you're going to achieve your goal. I think a real-world solution needs to recognize that you can't guarantee that all employees will understand or follow your guidelines for how to behave in the workplace. So it follows that part of the plan needs to incorporate accountability. It's far more difficult to hold someone accountable when all you have is hearsay. With 3rd party testimony, however, a company is going to have more data to use when trying to figure out / arbitrate a dispute or investigate a claim of harassment. So, in principle I like the idea that people have mentioned where everyone should be responsible for everyone else. In theory this looks like it's a great idea, but in practice if this is your only rule / policy, it makes it very difficult for people to gauge whether progress is being made, or if they'll ever accomplish their goal. When you have a specific responsibility I find it's going to be far easier for the person to comprehend and observe whether or not they're accomplishing or are on the path to accomplish their objectives of keeping the workplace safe for everyone. Imagine if one day Larry Page sends out a memo to all Google employees, and says that he's decided to change how they operate. From today forward, "There are no longer specific jobs or goals. Instead we're all just going to concentrate on our one overarching goal. All employees are now in charge of making sure the company makes money". And that's the only direction that is given. It's one big overarching goal and everyone just needs to make sure that happens. No specific tasks are laid out for any one individual in order to make that happen. Now consider this scenario in contrast to the world at Google today where I imagine everyone, though in spirit are all working toward the single overarching goal of the company, each "cog in the wheel" has their own specific responsibilities to make that happen.

needacig 12y ago

She explains that she could not have reported the rape without destroying most of her personal and professional relationships, because the perpetrator was someone who was central in her social circles (possibly even considered a friend before that). See her comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9168542 I think this is pretty common and is why many rapes go un-reported. Reporting some criminal stranger on the street who jumps you seems like a no brainer to me, but reporting someone you thought was a friend and who is friends with most of your friends? I bet a lot of people decide it's not worth upending their lives and starting over for.

runamok 12y ago

Rape doesn't have to be violent. The person could have decided she was into it even though she was saying no, no, no and just proceeded. Presumably she didn't report the rape for her own reasons. I can only imagine how painful it is to revisit this without going into the gory details and be cross examined by the internet. The sum of all the things she has dealt with are incredibly saddening to me. I have met Katy before and seen how much she did for Hacker Dojo and have a lot of respect for her. I think the focal point for change is exactly what she is saying regarding "whistle blowers". Someone that comes forward to reveal crimes whether it be Snowden or a woman sexually harassed or raped by a colleague should be respected and not pilloried and made persona non-grata. Bring this bullshit into the light.

imaginenore 12y ago

And, more importantly, why nobody ever calls the police and sues the guy for physical and emotional damages. That part of the story sounds made up.