SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Their stories came out slowly, even hesitantly, at first. Then in a rush.
One female entrepreneur recounted how she had been propositioned by a Silicon Valley venture capitalist while seeking a job with him, which she did not land after rebuffing him. Another showed the increasingly suggestive messages she had received from a start-up investor. And one chief executive described how she had faced numerous sexist comments from an investor while raising money for her online community website.
What happened afterward was often just as disturbing, the women told The New York Times. Many times, the investor's firms and colleagues ignored or played down what had happened when the situations were brought to their attention. Saying anything, the women were warned, might lead to ostracism.
Now some of these female entrepreneurs have decided to take that risk. More than two dozen women in the technology start-up industry spoke to The Times in recent days about being sexually harassed. Ten of them named the investors involved, often providing corroborating messages and emails, and pointed to high-profile venture capitalists such as Chris Sacca of Lowercase Capital and Dave McClure of 500 Startups, who did not dispute the accounts.
The disclosures came after the tech news site The Information reported that female entrepreneurs had been preyed upon by a venture capitalist, Justin Caldbeck of Binary Capital. The new accounts underscore how sexual harassment in the tech start-up ecosystem goes beyond one firm and is pervasive and ingrained. Now their speaking out suggests a cultural shift in Silicon Valley, where such predatory behavior had often been murmured about but rarely exposed.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:50AM (21 children)
The actual title of TFA is "Women in tech speak frankly on culture of harassment", and indeed "tech" is mentioned throughout the text. Women in tech. Give me a break.
None of the women mentioned in TFA are "in tech". Doing a non-technical job for a tech company does not make you "tech". Being physically located in Silicon Valley does not make you "tech".
Look at them: Ellen Pao is an attorney. Gesche Haas studied business and operations management. Susan Wu does marketing. Rachel Renock does visual design and communication (i.e., advertising). Claire Humphreys studied business. Kristen Ablamsky does advertising.
So, in reality, TFA is talking about sexual harassment of attorneys, marketing types and business people. This harassment is almost certainly being committed by other attorneys, marketing types and business people. Once we put it in those terms, well:
- One in three women [attorneys] have experienced sexual harassment [pnplegal.com]
- Most women in advertising have experienced sexual harrassment" [adweek.com]
- Sexual harassment horrors of Wall Street" [justiceatwork.com]
Arrogant attorneys, slimy salesmen and rich businessmen looking to get laid, news at 11:00.
I'm not saying all techies are saints, after all, there are assholes everywhere. But I am tired of the drumbeat about how badly the tech world treats women, when most of the cases making the headlines have nothing to do with us.
/rant
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:09AM
But the in-ness of tech-ness is mostly moot-ness. The key as that young start-ups still have old-fashioned views of women.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:26AM (1 child)
Just complaining about women in tech being a thing does not mean you are in tech. Just look at bradley! Ewww, sorry, I didn't know. But this is not about lawyers, managers, tech people or anything else, it is about some people being sexually harassed, just like bradley should be sexually harnessed by every Soylentil, and taken to task for being such an ass. We await your apology, since you are not even in tech, bradley11!
(Score: -1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:39AM
Wow! You utterly decimated that argument! However, it seems that while you were busy constructing that strawman, I accidentally slipped and my cock fell into your asshole and shot out all of my feces-mating liquid. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Too good!
But wait, what is this I see? Could it be the illustrious and illusionary feces soup?!?! Such a thing of legends could not possibly be here, could it?!?!
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:53AM
How the hell is this a troll comment?
From what I remember I think I generally dislike bradley13, but this a factual claim that can be either confirmed or refuted: "these women have nothing to do with technology".
Furthermore, some of the women complain that they are being harassed by investors, and I honestly cannot call a generic investor a "tech worker".
Is there information on the training and working conditions of the women/men involved?
Who among them is working as a programmer/server room monkey etc?
While you can argue with bradley13's definition of "tech worker", there's nothing trollish about his comment.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:36AM (6 children)
To be fair, those guys that harassed them probably aren't 'tech' either, but management making a living off 'tech'. And harassing obviously. They probably think if they do this to a hundred women, surely one or two will 'byte'. They're not concerned about the other 98, those are forgotten immediately after they refuse to play along.
Most real techs are not even in a position to act like this.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:57PM (5 children)
To be honest, I have mostly tuned out these so-called sexual harassment and unwelcome/unwanted advances complaints. Everything from "He was looking at me wrong" to "I didn't get invited to the after hours drinking party" has become sexual harassment. I once had a female coworker, who knew I was married, walk up to me in my office while I was sitting there on the phone with my wife and straddle my leg while looking into my eyes, smiling. She often tried to get me to drive her home after work. She would tell me whenever she "forgot" to wear any underwear. Did I go whining to managers? Hell no. I took it as a compliment and moved on with my life.
Seriously ladies, if you apply for a job and your prospective boss is a total asshole for ANY reason, do you REALLY want to work there? I've had insecure asshole bosses before and I don't think it would be a great selling point for employment. If your boss makes it clear that you need to sleep with him to keep your job, file a complaint; but if all you got is "He was staring at my boobs" then you better hope I'm not on your jury.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:08PM (4 children)
Your one anecdote about the wiles of women pale by comparison to the volumes of harassment women undergo every day. To paraphrase and slightly misapply comedian Chris Rock, he says women get offered dick every day. 'Can I get that for you? (Would you like some dick?)' Whereas us men are like 'Damn this must be my lucky day' when an invitation falls into our laps.
When the whole effing world is stacked against you because of how you where born you have to make drastic efforts to survive. Since we preach every person for themselves as gospel in this damned country, don't cry foul over the methods some must employ to remain afloat. After all, they show the same concern for you as you do for them. You're just an object to extract money from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:10PM (1 child)
My sympathy will improve when the last woman on Earth for the last time cries her way or bats her eyes to get out of a speeding ticket. Or when the last woman goes on her last date to get a free meal. Life is not fair. Both sexes use their advantages to their own benefit. Whining to the New York Times is just another aspect of it.
And when they cannot politely decline, there is a problem. Otherwise it's a cryfest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:49PM
And do we have any figures on how many white men DON'T get pulled over in the first place precisely because they're white men? How do we know that woman wasn't pulled over because the police officer is actually a creep and hopes one woman will give him a blow job to get out of a ticket? How many men date just for sex? How many stoop to rape drugs? How often do you hear of a gang rape of a man by women? You ignore a vast amount of evidence because it doesn't fit your "life was fine x number of years ago" narrative. Well obviously life wasn't so fine or else we wouldn't be in this situation now.
The one sane thing you've said all thread. Men have used their advantages over millennia to create an environment where women where repressed into baby making machines with no or less rights than the males. So women have had to retaliate in ways that have gotten them labeled as witches and whores to survive in a world that's hostile to them. Welcome to the world YOU want.
You completely ignore the fact that being propositioned in the first place is the problem, not that women aren't just 'manning up' and telling men to go fuck off. Go fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:45PM (1 child)
That sounds an awful lot like conspiratorial nonsense. Present your rigorous scientific evidence that it's actually true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:25PM
I think bradley13 linked a few research papers in the GP of this drivel. Google it yourself, I refuse to spoon feed you that which you won't believe anyway.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by technoid_ on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:40PM (4 children)
Sorry to break this to you, but Tech is an industry and along with that there are support roles.
To run a large business, you need people doing things that are not your direct product. Janitors, receptionists, cafeteria cooks, lawyers, and business people are all needed in a large company to provide the end user with product that is technical in nature. Do you think that the techs do all of those functions at tech companies?
The article wasn't titled "Technical Women speak frankly on culture of harassment" as it is about women in the Tech industry.
Your argument is just a way to say "Not my problem" to the issue of people treating other people badly. I don't care what industry this is in, it isn't right and you are just looking for an excuse to not care because it might taint your view of the world.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:48PM (3 children)
Alright, so you have a tech company. If your janitor hits on your office maid, are you going to call that misbehaviour in tech? I can see the headlines: "Floor buffer tech sexually harasses Lemon Pledge tech!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by technoid_ on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:55PM (2 children)
It is happening in the tech industry, it can be.
Part of the problem is the culture of the office/industry that allows this to go on. If the company does nothing about the problem, then it is a company problem. If multiple companies in the industry have this problem and do nothing to fix it due to the culture of the industry, it is a problem with the industry.
So yes, it can be a tech industry issue. Part of what your example doesn't take into consideration is that the harassment from the article is serial and affects multiple tech companies, thus the Tech industry and not just a single company.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @03:54PM (1 child)
Your not seeing the forest because of the trees there slugger.
This is rife in EVERY industry. In particular its bad with attorneys and financiers. Blaming that on the "techies" is misplaced.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:37PM
No, it is not! This is the point! We blame the techies because they are not Runaway, and so are susceptible to shaming, being called on their hypocrisy, and they should just fucking know better than to act like this. If you cannot see this, you must not really be a techie, because no true techie would ever discriminate based on gender, or sexually harass anyone. It's just unprofessional.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:54PM (1 child)
Ok, thanks for letting us know that you're still OK with sexual harassment in general.
Focusing on the 'women in *tech*' phrasing of the problem, as opposed to, say, the *problem*, is not illuminating you in what can be called a favorable light.
If this article was about 'women in tech' that somehow made it big and are CFOs or COOs or something -- clearly not tech, like the lady at Facebook -- she's just a suit at a tech company -- I can see your ire being more applicable.
Not in this case, though.
However, if this is a tech site, and the article is about women harassed while working at tech companies, and you are focusing on the wrong issue, even if you are, as a techie on a tech site, technically correct. But those soft skills need work, just like all of those non-techs and techs, wherever they work, sexually harassing women for any reason.
You just don't do that, even if you hear about it in stories and movies and other people get away with it, you are still a jerk if you do it. And a jerk for trying to draw attention away from the problem.
The article even has a line or two about how some guys are wondering when the witch hunt will stop. They just don't understand. Focusing on how this isn't female geeks working in tech is just as much of a problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:49PM
That's a complete straw man. I see nothing wrong with desiring to be correct, and that has absolutely nothing to do with "soft skills." Your priorities are misplaced.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:31PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:14PM
While there are Vulture Capitalists who had their start in tech, most of the aforementioned ones are frat boy and trust fund types, not techies who graduated into VC from actually starting/running/IPOing tech firms then moving on to being venture capitalists or angel investors.
Furthermore, most of these guys qualify as the 'SORT OF SHIT WRONG WITH THE AMERICAN ECONOMY' in general, rather than limited to a specific business sector. The real solution, long since passed as a result of the internet/globalization, would have been to regulate the size of corporations/investment banking firms so that cabals could not overcome compromise the free market economy and keep people from voting with their feet and/or wallets to punish socially unacceptable behavior like that in the marketplace.
But since we don't have a free economy, or even an equal opportunity ecosystem, we have to deal with shit like this, even as the economy for the middle and lower class slowly implodes.
(Score: 2) by tonyPick on Thursday July 06 2017, @05:45AM
So, by that definition, Steve Jobs wasn't in "tech"? (He was, after all, on of the "marketing types and business people")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:07AM (6 children)
Silicon Valley. Spearhead of ultra-progressive California.
It's sexist. Aggressively, exploitatively sexist.
We get it.
It will start to be news when these things stop happening. When women look up and say: "What? No, I guess I heard of that happening once, but never to me."
Until then, this is just more evidence that investor types are exploitative dicks. Something that anyone who's ever dealt with them, male or female, could have told you for free.
Next story.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:37AM
Yes, Google and Facebook preach tolerance and diversity while still being 70% White males and 29.9% Asian (What we Americans call "oriental" to distinguish good workers from Arab scum) males.
Funny thing is, in my part of California, I've seen plenty of Female STEM bosses. Not a majority, but not a minority as they are in Silicon Valley. Huh, the rest of the world ain't like San Francisco and New York City...imagine that!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:38AM (1 child)
"investor types are exploitative dicks"
Speaking from current experience: this is simple truth.
What I find strange is that some of them are so out to screw people that they actually (imho) act counter to their own interests. Present them with a situation where "win-win" is clearly the way to go? Forget it, if the other guy doesn't lose, it's apparently no fun.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:51AM
"Show us on the doll, bradley, where the nasty start-up CEO touched you. It will be alright."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:55AM (1 child)
No, that will never make the news. For the same reason that "Well, I've heard of someone being robbed but it never happened to me" does not make the news.
(Score: 1) by technoid_ on Wednesday July 05 2017, @12:44PM
There is a difference between "being news" and "making the news".
Hoping for it being a language difference issue, but I am unaware of what the native tongue of AC-land is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:24PM
Not sure why you got modded 0. You are too realistic for the mass of Soylent idealists I guess...
You can't change nature. Evolution cares not about justice or moral standards--it only cares about who can survive and procreate. Risk takers fare well by nature and so they will inevitably persist in society, attracted to the regions and industries where favorable conditions for their strategy exist.
Seems perfectly rational to me. Also, not news.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:19AM (1 child)
It's not like they're only 15% of the population. I don't know who's playing whom, but their 'weakness' game is for suckers, and man, we sure have a lot of them these days, trippin' all over themselves to get that pussy. So, I guess I do know who's playing whom.. Men really can be awful stupid..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:25AM
No, this is not off topic! Womens' victimhood is the very basis of this whole damn story. Such much denial!
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:39AM (5 children)
Seriously, you need to look at each case, individually, and judge for yourself.
The guy who hit on an applicant, then didn't give her the job after being shot down? Yeah, that was almost certainly harassment. He thought he would set up a nice cozy relationship with the new girl, and when she shot him down, he gave the job to someone more compliant. Very, very wrong.
An investor hitting on an entrepreneur? Mmmmm - maybe, maybe not. Personally, I wouldn't try to start a relationship with a women who I already have a business relationship. If money is changing hands, that's most definitely business. But, there are stories of stuff like that working out to his and her mutual benefit.
theinformation link is paywalled, I only get to read the first paragraph, second fades into the abyss . . .
My take on the article that I can read, is that Justin Caldbeck is probably a pig, and he won't take subtle or casual "no" for an answer. I'm sure there are plenty of other pigs out there, who believe they are God's gift to women, and that no woman can really mean "No" when she says it.
But, on the other hand, decent men do proposition women from time to time. Decent women have been known to proposition men, for that matter. That's life. As long as the woman can decide for herself, without being financialy (or otherwise) punished for a negative, it isn't anything to even think about.
I, for one, am certainly not going to endorse any over reaction for this stuff. Case by case is how you look at these things. I don't believe we need yet another code of conduct, enforced by some group of women's libbers who hate men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:45AM
Oh, Runaway! You old gentleman whoremonger, you!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mojo chan on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:47AM (3 children)
Is always problematic, because the investor has money that the entrepreneur needs and thus agreeing to a date or whatever is not a completely free choice. In other words, there is coercion.
Yes, but at a time and place where it's acceptable to do so. A business setting is not such a time a place.
Try to imagine you went for a job interview. You prepared and put in maximum effort to get that job. At the end the interviewer asks you out for a drink, you decline and the next day get an email rejection. Would you be okay with being propositioned that way?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:32AM
> A business setting is not such a time a place.
I don't think you realize how many couples met in a business setting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:31PM
I've already stated that the job interview was very much out of line. But, business settings aren't entirely inappropiate, depending on exactly what your business relationship is. Asking my own secretary out is pretty much out of line in any code of ethics I've ever read or heard. Asking a secretary who doesn't work for me is far less out of line. She's not in my chain of command, she's fair game, so long as I don't try to use some form of coercion with her.
My employer has some guidelines on the issue. You MUST not hit on a subordinate. Almost everyone else is fair game - IF you inform the employer that you are establishing a relationship. That is, if I ask a coworker for a date, and she agrees, I have to tell HR about it. At which point, HR will take "appropriate" action. Move one of us to another shift, or to another plant, or to another position, if it appears that one or the other of us might benefit professionally from the relationship. Theoretically, this eliminates nepotism, but in practice, it only eliminates nepotism that HR doesn't approve of.
There are better, and there are worse guidelines to work by. At least my employer is aware of the potential, and has policies in place that protect them from liability. The grossest forms of sexual harassment are dealt with quite well. Lesser cases are dealt with pretty decently. Some shit probably slips between the cracks - in fact, I recall one case that did.
We hired a bunch of r̶e̶t̶a̶r̶d̶s̶ challenged for the summer. One of those challenged people was kinda insistent that one of the women should go out with him. He was pretty damned crude about it too - and HR was poised to pounce. Then, the chick in question decided that she LIKED this challenged individual, and agreed to go out with him. And, for whatever reason, HR allowed the two of them to work together on the same shift, on the same line all summer long.
Go figure . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:52PM
Agreed, if it had been attend interview, next day get an emailed rejection.
"I'm sorry that with the slew of qualified candidates we had, that we went with another option. However, I did find you personally very interesting and would be excited to go for drinks sometime."
That gets back to the more "probably okay" as the coercive factor is off the table, but really, these should be two separate conversations.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:43AM (27 children)
She was a lawyer turned investment partner. She had absolutely 0 to do with tech other than the fact that she worked at a venture capital company based in Silicon Valley. And she indeed brought her case to court - with numerous charges. A jury of her peers determined all charges were completely without merit and she lost on every count. Undeterred she then threatened her former employer saying she would appeal if they didn't get her millions of dollars. They didn't budge an inch and she later withdrew her intent to appeal and agreed to pay all her former employer's legal fees.
The really interesting thing is that the judge in that case actually reduced the amount Pao had to pay simply because she was broke and could not afford to pay for the expenses she had inflicted on the company defending themselves. Now the thing is she knew this would happen if she lost. And she knew her former employer also knew this. They would have saved money by simply agreeing to pay her off. They lost money defending themselves, but did so on principle. I think that shows exactly how much of a case they felt she had. It was a completely frivolous lawsuit that seems to have been primarily about trying to extort payment. As an aside I would also mention that I'm also just speaking in terms of direct economic cost. The media, predictably, not only sided with Pao but held her up as a borderline saint. This case, even though it was shown to have absolutely no merit whatsoever, undoubtedly did some damage to the reputation of the company in question - damage that likely far exceeded the money they also lost defending themselves.
That the NYT continues to hold her up as an example in spite of well... reality... is something that I think strongly undermines everything else they say.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:58AM (26 children)
Would that be a venture capital company that ventured to invest capital in TECH? Are you complaining that Ellen was not a web designer, and could not "do" Javascript? Put yer red pillar back in yer pants, boy. This is neither the time nor the place for you to mouth off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:38AM (25 children)
An investment firm that is headquartered in Silicon Valley is an investment firm head quartered in Silicon Valley, not a tech company. None of the allegations in this article are in any way directed at tech companies or individuals inside of tech companies. They're literally all targeted at investors, lawyers, and other such types.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:50AM (24 children)
You are aware, Oh deleterious AC, that what you say is wrong? That is, it is incorrect, not true, factually false, bogus? You should investigate a bit before you make such claims, because saying false things tends to make you look like a very stupid person.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/03/employee-email-claims-500-startups-leadership-delayed-acknowledging-mcclures-harassment-as-new-allegations-surface/ [techcrunch.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:13AM (23 children)
I say, as you literally quoted, None of the allegations in this article are in any way directed at tech companies or individuals inside of tech companies... and you link to a new article. That alone is rather silly, but on top of it the new article also seems to provide 0 allegations of wrongdoing towards tech companies or individuals inside of tech companies. It's the same investment/lawyer types as usual.
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @09:37AM (22 children)
Doubling down on the not-true things you have said not only makes you look even more incredibly stupid, but it seems to imply that you think that Soylentils are stupid as well. And it is so easily proven that it is the former.
See that, right there? "Working in the tech industry". Do you understand that this contradicts explicitly what you have said?
Again, evidently "The Information", which seems to be a tech journal, thinks that these are people in tech companies and in the tech industry, so why are you calling them liars, you stupid AC!! Huh? You exhaust the patience of Soylentils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:52AM
I'm not sure if you're being ironic. Poe's law makings interpreting meaning pretty hard now a days! I'm going to assume you're being serious. Disregard and +1 if your comment was humor that I'm missing. Assuming you're being serious, you're now engaging in circular logic. The whole conversation was in the inappropriate and unjustified usage of phrase tech industry. You're now circularly arguing that they're in the tech industry because the article says they're in the tech industry. This is not an argument. It's circular logic. Green is blue. What why would you say that? Because green is blue.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:23AM (1 child)
Aristarchus Read my first comment. TFA is flat-out wrong, or worse, deliberately lying.
The three women in the cover photo - not tech. Look up their company, Wethos [angel.co]: "Wethos allows nonprofits to create and post their creative freelance needs.". Now, that company will have to have a website, but just about every company in the world has that. Beyond that, calling Wethos "tech" is stretching the definition beyond all recognition. Near as I can tell, the company is located in New York, not Silicon Valley.
So...what part of the article is actually about tech? Or even Silicon Valley? Why is it so important to them to hang the "tech" label onto these women?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @07:09PM
Oh, I see the problem, you cannot read and you only looked at the photo?
From the FA in question:
(emphasis added)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:33AM (4 children)
Oh, thou pompous and disingenuous ass, please go away. Far away. Please?
Trolling couched in flowery verbosity and irrelevant links is still trolling.
Away, foul troll, and the broken wind thou bring.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:54PM (3 children)
FTFY! Are you chicken, AC! Are you a pathetic misogynist tech ubermensch? Do you work out?
No, this is a serious problem, and some here seem to be incapable of perceiving it. It is like when the dog shits on the carpet, you have to rub their nose in it until they get the idea it is not ok. Not trolling at all, my dear mellifluous AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:03PM (2 children)
So.. We need to smack you with a rolled up news paper and rub your nose in your own waste?
Cause YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CANT GET WHAT OTHERS ARE SAYING.
We understand what your saying, but it doesn't make any sense champ.
Calm down, reread the thread and apologize.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:27PM (1 child)
Evidently not! Because I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be an Anonymous misogynist who does not grok contractions.
Tu quoque, amicus meus!
The problem with being in the MRA, Red Pillar, "women are mean to me" camp is that it is just so far away from understanding what it is like to be the other gender that real communication is impossible. Usually it is not until a man has a wife (as a friend and equal) that he even gets some idea, but especially when he has one or more daughters, and suddenly his entire point of view shifts. That is, unless he is an asshole AC with a reading comprehension problem who cannot do contractions.
Yoor Velcomen, AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:46PM
WTF are contractions? I mean I know of several definitions for that word but your use of it in the post above does not provide the proper context for any of them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:09PM (8 children)
Can't you at least come up with a troll that isn't so stupid? I think what I find most obnoxious here is the sheer juvenile and amateur nature of the posts. Here, you combine a painful leading question (no one has accused "The Information" of lying) with a ridiculous argument from authority fallacy (we must accept "The Information" definition of "tech company" because they "seem to be a tech journal"). Is your life really so empty that you can only find entertainment by trolling people with empty insults and arguments so bad, they wouldn't hold up in a high school debate club? Don't you have some computer game to play or bar to get drunk at?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @06:16PM (7 children)
How many times did you actually fail informal logic, khallow? bradley says that what the FA says is not true. Does he mean that they do not know what they are talking about, or, as usual, as the craven misogynist he is, is he trying to change the subject from the fact of sexual harassment being rife in tech companies to the precise definition of "tech"? Actually, this does resemble a typical khallow move, and the obvious rebuttal is that bradleyXIII is mendcious, is in fact accusing "The Information" of lying, and probably has personal issues that motivate him to undertake this entire line of dissemblance.
I hope you feel more adult now, khallow, now that you really understand what is going on. Sexism is a culture, and it is the denying that your "industry" is affected by it is to defend sexism. I am rather disgusted by bradley13, but then I think, maybe he is not "the 13th Bradley", but instead "Bradley who is 13". At that age, well, understandable behavior, if nonetheless still unacceptable.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:35PM (3 children)
Undeniably.
No.
Here's the problem. We're not talking about technical professionals, e.g. server admins, programmers, etc. You absolutely are confusing the issue by continuing to attempt to draw attention back to the technical professions. We're talking about investment bankers and managers. Those are different professions.
You are being mendacious by creating confusion about the profession that has the culture of sexism. Your mendacity enables those people to continue abusing women.
If management and HR are unresponsive when we call out sexual harassment that we see, all we can do is leave. How does that solve the problem? The sexual harassers remain, more warm bodies take our places. You are attempting to hold people who are powerless accountable for the actions of those with power. Do you not see the problem?
Let me point out another problem in TFA.
Note how this passage creates the same confusion you are attempting to create. This passage directly confuses the lack of womyn-born-womyn in technical careers with the sexual harassment perpetrated by these investment bankers and managers. Why are there no womyn-born-womyn in tech? Well, the media has done a pretty good job convincing them that they'll just be sexually harassed by those misogynerds! So they go into banking and management, where they are then sexually harassed!
Both you and the media are being stunningly disingenuous about this issue. It would almost seem as though you want more women to be victimized and driven out by sexual harassment. Are you in management by chance? Are you an investment banker on the side, perhaps a hobby you've taken up in your 2,400 years on this planet? Do you like sexually harassing women, and is it convenient for you every time technical professionals take the blame for your sleazy behavior around women? What else could motivate you to be complicit in this confusion? Just asking after all….
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 05 2017, @11:25PM
Different professions, but not a different industry. Why do you defend bradley13's attempted equivocation?
I enjoy your rants, kurenai, but you really need to look up "mendacious". I am not defending sexism anywhere, especially that experienced by yourself. I am just saying that trying to say this is not about tech companies does do exactly that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 06 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)
He's not mendacious. He's just a pedantic idiot.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 06 2017, @03:00PM
Fair enough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:18AM (2 children)
And once again, a complete waste of time. How many wives have you beaten? And will you ever stop?
Holy logic, Batman! Maybe you should have inquired first before saying something stupid?
I get that you're trolling. I just would like you to do something else instead rather than shitting on articles that otherwise have interesting commentary.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday July 06 2017, @04:13AM (1 child)
Perhaps you missed this gem:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=20392&page=1&cid=535136#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
That is our Anti-social Patriachial Warrior, or APW, bradley of the slightly more than a dozen, as he is known around the docks.
khallow, once again, you are in over your head. Your tribalism is leading you down a path to destruction. It is eating your mind, destroying your ability to reason, and asking you out because you might be a good addition to our coding team! (Wink, wink, say no more, say no more!)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 06 2017, @12:33PM
No, but apparently you did. There are two choices there not one. "Flat-out wrong" is given as the first choice which you completely ignored. The AC you replied to hadn't "called them liars". Neither did bradley13 in your quote.
Further, let us note that you made the claim before bradley13's post. It was then and now unfounded.
You're wasting my time once again. Your post is just noise. It reminds me of the sophists who would show up occasionally in Plato's treatises as ignorant buffoons. Too bad we don't have a Socrates to more effectively deal with the noise you bring.
Once again, we see you bringing the same problems you've brought for the past few years. You might have a valid point in that mess somewhere, but it's so concealed in a ridiculous pile of fallacies that it's not worth the bother to care. You clearly aren't stupid as a person. Why can't you just reason rather than being a dick?
(Score: 2, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 05 2017, @04:05PM (4 children)
You are being Completely. Fucking. Disingenuous. From TFA:
I think you're just too chickenshit to challenge gaslighting asshole managers themselves, the individuals who are wronging these women.
When somebody is being sexually harassed, you report it to the boss of the individual perpetrating the sexual harassment. That is what you do with sexual harassment. In my experience, that is what needs to be done in order to see justice. If the gaslighting asshole manager continues his unacceptable behavior, he will be fired in any company with competent management. Consistently in these cases that are used as examples of how all assigned males in technical careers are engaging in sexual harassment in order to prevent womyn-born-womyn from learning technical skills, it is management, HR, CxOs, all completely non-technical staff, who are complicit in enabling the culture of sexual harassment in these places.
What you do not do is seek to blame an entire gender for the actions of one or two individuals. If you're too dense to understand why, here is why. If you blame an entire gender for the actions of individuals, those individuals will never be brought to justice. You are missing the target badly!
It's clear that what this article and ones like it seek to do is to paint an entire gender caste (gender assigned at birth regardless of lived gender, body parts, or current legal gender) in an entire profession, and not the profession of either the perpetrator or victim, as a stereotype.
The entire article is talking about “entrepreneurs” being sexually harassed by other “entrepreneurs.” You are warping the fact that these are companies whose primary product is tech to imply that it is assigned males in a technical profession who are using the weapon of sexual harassment against women.
That is wrong, and you know it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:55PM (3 children)
So will you stop blaming all cisgender women for your problems now, Kurenai? :D :D :D :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 06 2017, @01:19PM (2 children)
I'm glad you asked! The answer is: I will around the time feminism stops holding all assigned males collectively and severally accountable for the actions of some asshole investment bankers! :D :D :D :D
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 06 2017, @05:39PM (1 child)
Well, this feminist doesn't, so there's a nice hole in your stuffed shirt there. This one's also on board with reducing the harm the patriarchy does to our boys and men, everything from circumcision to the toxic sanity-eroding bullshit they get told about never asking for help or showing emotion.
But do go on with your blanket hatred of the lot of us. Obviously we're all man-hating TERFs with battle axes mounted over our fireplaces, lined with trophies of severed scrotums and foreskins. 9_9
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 06 2017, @07:05PM
I think it goes like this: if the lifeguard at a pool yells “No running on the deck!” and you're not running, s/he's not talking to you! :)
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:07AM
With #GamerGate we had second-rate whores getting game reviews and promotion in exchange for sexual favors. With #SiliconGate we have second-rate whores getting investment and promotion in exchange for sexual favors.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AnonTechie on Wednesday July 05 2017, @08:13AM
'I'm a creep': Tech boss Dave McClure resigns after harassment claims [bbc.com]
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @10:24AM (1 child)
There's no such thing as a woman, let alone a "woman in tech," It's a ridiculous myth bandied about by subversive liberals looking for unfair advantages over diligent patriots. Every time they find themselves on the receiving end of some red-blooded right-wing right-thinking manly patriotic banter and, dare I say it, flattering attention, they shout WOOOMMMAAANNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Man up guys, you're not women. You're patriots. Just like Fake President Pull My Finger of the People's Democratic Republic of America.
Don't forget to take your meds.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @01:10PM
They prefer to be called Vagino-Americans.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:09PM (1 child)
Just to cut through some of the crap ... this is horrible, disgusting behaviour and I hope the guys responsible are punished appropriately.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:29PM
... while women just like to bitch.
(Score: 2, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:26PM (1 child)
Here are a few other things that are sexual harassment. All of these have happened to me, all in retaliation for my perceived membership in a conspiracy of 3.5 billion people preventing womyn-born-womyn from learning programming and my refusal to be a sex object and bank account for womyn-born-womyn.
Feminism: Pot. Kettle. Black.
Feminism needs to stop its own use of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is not about fun times. Sexual harassment is a weapon. Sexual harassment is wrong. Full stop.
¹ Yep, this has happened to me. I now need to drive 300 miles away to see a regular doctor in retaliation for circumstances beyond my control, circumstances that were not anywhere close to being part of my job responsibilities while being intimidated into a role that was not part of my job description.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @05:13PM
Refreshing as always.
Regardless, there are stupid things people do that can be seen as harassment, and there are people who take someone's misinterpretation as malice. Either way I feel that there are people who will try to assign the most vicious label to the most benign things. And as such create no distinction between things that are very granular. KILL ALL RAPISTS type a crowd.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 05 2017, @02:37PM
How does this compare with generalized sexual harassment statistics in non-"tech" fields? To be a cynical asshat: I can find a couple dozen people who will swear to anything if given enough time.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 05 2017, @03:46PM
fucking propagandist whores. i'm not clicking on their BS link to find out that their characterization doesn't match the evidence. This is just another angle on the whole 'not enough women in tech' bs. i guess blacks and browns weren't enough victims for them to create and use, now they need something broader like sex to create useful idiots from. nytimes, eventually people will tire of your existence and hunt you down like the rat's you are. until then, Arthur T Knackerbracket needs a "establishment whore" filter.