What Spotlighting Harassment In Astronomy Means

StartsWithABang writes: Geoff Marcy. Tim Slater. Christian Ott. And a great many more who are just waiting to be publicly exposed for what they've done (and in many cases, are still doing). Does it mean that astronomy has a harassment problem? Of course it does, but that's not the real story. The real story is that, for the first time, an entire academic field is recognizing a widespread problem, taking steps to change its policies, and is beginning to support the victims, rather than the senior, more famous, more prestigious perpetrators. Astronomy is the just start; hopefully physics, computer science, engineering, philosophy and economics are next.

Comments

Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Popcorn at the ready! :)

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Popcorn at the ready! :)

Simple solution .. castrate everyone who whines about SJWs.

They already act like a bunch of whiny punks with no balls anyway, and this way they won't procreate.

Re:Here we go.

[mschuyler]

"Simple solution .. castrate everyone who thinks they are a SJW.

They already act like a bunch of whiny punks with no balls anyway, and this way they won't procreate."

There. Fixed that for ya,

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple solution .. castrate everyone who whines about SJWs.

I would retort that we need to castrate all SJW's instead. But judging from the way SJW males act, I'd venture to guess that they've already been castrated.

Re:Here we go.

[gstoddart]

So, how does this whole SJW thing work ... the world is divided into raging fanatics who want a nicer world, and assholes who want to preserve their right to act like assholes?

I'm a little unclear on the concept.

Mostly it seems to be a bunch of guys whining they can't act like ignorant douchebags without consequences.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption that people who whine about SJWs have testicles to be castrated is problematic.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows voluntary castration is the only way to atone for being born a white straight male, and has the added benefit of suppressing the male's constant urge to rape women. Especially the fat ones with blue hair and hispter glasses.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it seems to be a bunch of guys whining they can't act like ignorant douchebags without consequences.

Funny, you don't seem unclear about it at all.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it seems to be a bunch of guys whining they can't act like ignorant douchebags without consequences.

If by "ignorant douchebags" you mean "like normal humans" than you're pretty much spot on.

One of the astronomers in that list was punished for realizing he had emotional feelings about a student and telling her to go seek another adviser. You know, because men aren't allowed to have emotions. Also, at the same time, are too emotionless compared to women, and that's why diversity is important. In the world according to the SJW.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, normally we don't blame huge groups of people for the actions of individuals or try to put people into a tribal us vs. them mindset.

But that just marks you as an enemy who should have their career destroyed for the people who believe that vigilantism is a good thing.

Re:Here we go.

[LaurenCates]

Well, you see, son, there's this group that raised a bunch of strawmen, and a group that didn't like being picked on by that one group created strawmen of their own, and every so often one side puts their strawman up in a field and demands highway travelers just passing through to help burn down their strawman, to show those guys over there how awful they are, and they should repent.

And then the other side sees this, flags down the traveler, and says "yeah, their strawman sucks, but here, burn down ours; it'll make you feel better about that strawman since that other strawman there was a commentary about YOU, friendly and possibly disenfranchised traveler."

Said traveler raises brows, alarmed, mutters, "Not my circus, not my monkeys" and promptly floors the pedal.

Both sides are filled with first-world-problem-ridden douchebags that want to act like ignorant assholes without being called on it. Both sides think they're doing the right thing.

Everyone else ain't got time for this shit, until it invades their space.

Oh, look, it's time to gather straw. Anyone got a few extra flannel shirts lying around?

Re:Here we go.

[Linkreincarnate]

No the world is divided into people who stand for their principals and people who hypocritically pay lip service to principals. Anti-sjw people aren't against actual social justice, just the useless posturing and twisting of social justice causes to create a new caste system. A social justice warrior doesn't actually advance the cause of social justice. You simply have been mislead as to the meaning of the word. Look up it's origins sometime. The term was created by the left to call out their hypocrisy.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it seems to be a bunch of guys whining they can't act like ignorant douchebags without consequences

Are those the guys that go around actually raping women, or the group that says that every guy is a rapist, even if they're 40 year old virgins, and therefore should be castrated and/or executed?

Most people are usually fine, upstanding people. It's the rest that give us a bad name.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just here to eat popcorn.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

An SJW is someone who perceives* an injustice, and tries to fix it with more injustice.

*I specifically chose to use "perceive" because it could be imagined, or it could actually be a real injustice that really does need something done about it. Whether or not the injustice is real isn't what makes an SJW, it's their proposed solution that is the deciding factor. Because you don't fix injustice by throwing more injustice at it.

Re:Here we go.

[LaurenCates]

Well, we can make some fresh popcorn for you as soon as we start a fire.

Here, have a match, friendly traveler.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. We're all allowed emotions. Harassment is when you let your emotions affect your actions and disregard the feelings of others.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because the majority of people who are accused of being horrible evil SJW scum are people who see someone else acting like a shit, and saying "hey, that's kinda bad, maybe you shouldn't do that?" and then getting wrapped up in a generalization by angry Mens Rights Assholes (and the dupes that follow them) and are promptly accused of every possible crime ever committed by any person that the MRAs don't like, while those same MRAs also rant about how we shouldn't accuse them of being complicit in the crimes committed by other people who are part of their "movement" in the name of said movement, because hey, everyone's an individual deserving of being judged only on the things you can positively prove they themselves did (unless they're a dirty filthy SJW, in which case burn their house down, they deserve it because someone else you don't like did something else you also didn't like).

Re:Here we go.

[LaurenCates]

Perhaps you are not clear about what harassment is?

If you take a little bit of Google for a moment, you learn that harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation".

Your definition is too broad. Perhaps some people like it that way, but not me. I like words to mean specific and precise things so that when I bring my case to the law, they know exactly how actionable it is, and so that justice is appropriately served, and so that nobody can misuse the law against me with too broad a definition.

I might "disregard" your feelings and call you an ignorant jerk. But that isn't harassment. At least I hope so. I don't know anymore.

Re:Here we go.

[lgw]

Bullshit. We're all allowed emotions. Harassment is when you let your emotions affect your actions and disregard the feelings of others.

Your feelings are no one's problem but your own. Any time you find yourself about to say "you made me feel", stop, and shut up before you proclaim your immaturity to the world.

If you think there's something wrong with a professor realizing he's on dangerous ground, and has either lost objectivity about, or might begin actually sexually harassing a student, and stepping out of the adviser role, WTF? It's exactly the right behavior - better to not fall for the wrong person, but humanity has never found a solution to that problem.

Re: Here we go.

[GrantRobertson]

This!

Of course, this is why it is so hard to argue against SJWs. Their cause may be just, so they can always accuse one of not supporting a just cause when one really just doesn't support the solutions or tactics.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Raging fanatics who want to rage and will always find something to rage about and assholes who want to get work done.

The assholes getting work done are the ones making the world nicer, the raging fanatics get paid to make it impossible to do work.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Let me help!

So, we probably agree that sexism, racism, and sexual harassment are still big problems in 2016. We can observe that the listed professions are predominantly male.

Two options immediately come to me. I'm sure there are more.

#1: Reach out to members of those professions and ask them why they went into it and what they think might interest more women to choose those professions. Work with high schools and middle schools to interest teenage girls in those professions. Work with elementary schools to deal with the complex problem internalized misogyny presents and try to prevent teachers at that stage from subconsciously turning girls off to maths and science. I'm sure there's a lot more work that needs to be done in addition, but I am confident that within two generations, this will be a solved problem.

Silly me. There I am thinking rationally.

(Note: Please do not get your knee jerking. I'm sure there are people engaged in #1. I'm one of them. I'm about to explain the mindset behind several times I've been on the receiving end of sexism and racism from both men and women.)

#2: Sexism, racism, and sexual harassment are bad things. People who have white skin tend to be racist. People who were assigned the male gender at birth engage in sexual harassment. Therefore, all whites assigned the male gender at birth are guilty of sexism, racism, and sexual harassment. Oh, and remember that "two wrongs make a right" is an axiom in this approach.

This is the important part of #2 and how it's guaranteed to solve the problem posthaste! Keep your eyes out! See somebody who's programming? Send over somebody who will be completely hopeless at learning it and have her go "I wanna be a programmer." Then when he fails, call him sexist to his face. Make sure he understand that software wouldn't have bug if filthy men like him weren't keeping women out of the field.

That's one technique. There are many more. Let's explore microaggressions: if somebody is doing something that is making me sufficiently uncomfortable, I might ask them to stop. It's a bit awkward, but usually they do and we move on. What we see here in this article, however, is the internet lynch mob approach. If somebody does something that makes you feel uncomfortable, send an internet lynch mob after them!

Hope that helped. Some people who are sexist merely use "fighting sexism" as an excuse to display their sexism.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Harassment is when you let your emotions affect your actions and disregard the feelings of others.

You're disregarding my feelings. I demand that you be prosecuted for harassment. And possibly persecuted as well.

Re:Here we go.

[Tailhook]

So, how does this whole SJW thing work ...

Ask the women of Cologne. They may have some insight about the workings of social justice.

Re:Here we go.

[myowntrueself]

"Simple solution .. castrate everyone who thinks they are a SJW.

They already act like a bunch of whiny punks with no balls anyway, and this way they won't procreate."

There. Fixed that for ya,

They are all trans anyway so they'll end up doing it to themselves just to fit into their own crowd!

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, how does this whole SJW thing work

Well, here's a little primer.
1. Spend some time perusing various forums, focus on the ones which appear to be mostly filled with Rabid Trolls and general Dipshits.
2. Find some sort of social or political issue which really Grinds Your Gears. Note that this does not actually have to be a REAL issue... in fact it can help your Cause if it's not.
3. Take offense at this issue... not just a little offense, you need it to be a Deeply Personal Offense. You MUST also take offense on behalf of everyone else, this is not an optional item.
4. Spend a great deal of time locating any and every story, article, blog post, etc. which might possibly relate to this issue. Note that such articles do not actually have to have anything at all to do with the issue. In fact, it will help you achieve SJW status if they do not.
5. Proceed to use the same Trolling tactics and posting styles you have observed in Step 1, to saturate as many forums, comment sections, etc. as possible.
6. If anybody even appears to disagree with your position, you MUST immediately launch a barrage of counter-posts. Use of Ad Hominem attacks and construction of Straw Men is an absolutely critical requirement.
7. Defend the Victims at all times. Any attempt to discuss ways to prevent becoming a victim MUST be met with the standard "Don't Blame the Victim" response.

Congratulations, you are now well on your way to becoming a Certified Social Justice Warrior! Just a couple more items to ensure that you reach this Elite status:
- You need to be sure that you don't actually DO anything in real life to advance your cause. Your Cause and your Duty is to fire a steady stream of virtual 'smack-downs' to random people on the Internet.
- Avoid Reasoned discussion at ALL times. Critical thinking, or accepting any position other than a solid Black/White divide on an issue, is absolutely forbidden.
- Remember, You are always right, because your Cause is Just! Anyone who cannot see this is always wrong. If they agree with you, it's a clever ploy to throw you off your stride, do not fall for this deception!
- Women are always Oppressed, and Men are the Evil.
- Fat is Beautiful, anyone who thinks otherwise is Body Shaming and MUST be hit hard. Unless the fat person is a man, in which case that disgusting pig needs to hit the gym instead of his wife.
- The only exception to the last two points is if the person is Transgender. All Transgender people are always the Victims.

Re:Here we go.

[Chas]

Really? Because the majority of people who are accused of being horrible evil SJW scum

Did you, or did you not see his qualification that sometimes the "perception" is actuality and sometimes it's imaginary.

He didn't use a qualifier like "there people always..."

As for your supposition that "the majority of people".

I'd ask you to actually support this claim. So long as it doesn't anger you to the point of starting an SJW movement to persecute people who ask for tangible proof of ass-pull statistics.

Re:Here we go.

[NotInHere]

In what way were the student's feelings disregarded? The adviser wanted to protect her, and eliminate the chance of non-consensual contact between the two. He just wanted to live his life, without having to deal with "you can't have* her" every week.

The biggest thing I hate about SJWs is that they only look at the world from their own (female, and mostly speaking with female victims of sexual harrassment, not with men) perspective. What should he have done if he had such feelings? Quit his job? Ignore his feelings, every week, because men have to be strong? Here, that's a stereotype.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much the same as gamergate. If you want to see how misleading the media is, do a little googlefu on Jace Connors, MillionDollarExtreme, and Jan Rankowski. Do keep in mind this was the ONLY character the media could find in gamergate to fit the narrative, which turned out to be an actor.

Then pretend to not notice the media still uses his actions (or acting) as a real examples of how 'gamergators' act.

You'd think people would be smarter after all the "gates", but they aren't.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "SJW" was coined to describe obnoxious self-appointed Saviors of the Internet. These people are just another form of internet Troll, who have a "cause" to help justify their actions in their own minds.
The SJW's use the term "MRA" (or Men's Rights Assholes) as an Ad Hominem attack on anyone who dares to contradict them or attempt to have a reasoned discussion about an issue.

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

Harassment is everything said, done after you have been told No or stop.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

So long as it doesn't anger you to the point of starting an SJW movement to persecute people who ask for tangible proof of ass-pull statistics.

Thank you for supporting this claim.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

I would like to report that when I reported a gaslighting asshole manager for sexual harassment, I was not wrapped up in a generalization about angry MRAs, even though there are several topics, especially ending male infant genital mutilation, about which I am an angry MRA myself.

Instead what happened was that the company faithfully followed up on the complaint, the gaslighting asshole wratcheted up the psychological abuse, and the talented young female coder who was being harassed quit. :(

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

people who stand for their principals [...] pay lip service to principals.

We call them "School Directors" over here.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

And thereby proving his parent post's point.

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

And therefore proving that you said it so that's you.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Simple solution .. castrate everyone who whines about SJWs.

They already act like a bunch of whiny punks with no balls anyway, and this way they won't procreate.

Can I get medical care finally??? Is this for free and just because I complain about SJWs?

Please! Where do I apply?! Me first!

Or do I need to threaten to procreate first?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

>angry Mens Rights Assholes

It's easy to spot the lunatics online these days. If they see MRAs when someone disagrees with them, then it's safe to assume that person isn't worth listening to. Personally, I find the MRA scene on Twitter and Youtube to be a little off from the 'equality for everyone' ideals I hold, but it's telling by how much hatred you hold for them. I wonder why that is.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have missed the Cancel Colbert movement, by a little 23 year old SJW.

Get ready to get mad at white people, because she's mad at them for a twitter post that uses Satire.
Then you get to learn that Steven Colbert never posted the comment she got mad about in the first place.
Even still she should get an apology because she's too important to admit she was wrong, and damn the white man!

Later she gets her opinions called stupid during a TV interview by a white man!

Or this little nugget of social justice vs the 1st amendment.
I guess if you scream loud enough you must be in the right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/05/a-confrontation-over-race-at-yale-hundreds-of-students-demand-answers-from-the-schools-first-black-dean/

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

I was not wrapped up in a generalization about angry MRAs, even though there are several topics, especially ending male infant genital mutilation, about which I am an angry MRA myself.

Holy crap, that came out wrong. I don't even know what I was going for. Maybe I meant something like:

I was not accused of ridiculous crap by angry MRAs, perhaps because there are several topics, especially ending male infant genital mutilation, about which I am an angry MRA myself.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

and assholes who want to preserve their right to act like assholes?

Those are the SJWs, right? They regularly make it pretty clear that they consider assholishness perfectly OK as long as it's directed towards people they hate.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if we line up all the victimhood complex wannabe tyrants and their apologists and do the same....

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all trans anyway so they'll end up doing it to themselves just to fit into their own crowd!

Not bothering to log in.

In one word: Huh? In more words: just what crowd is for people born a certain way and what does that have to do with the current sexual harassment hysteria?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how a fire is going to produce enough microwave radiation to pop this popcorn.

I think I'll just use the microwave and eat my popcorn.

And before anyone gets hurt, I'll just piss on your match to put out the fire. You'll prefer it to later when I might have to put out a fire on your person.

Re: Here we go.

[jmcvetta]

As far as I can tell, SJW is a doublespeak term meaning "joylessly intolerant finacialist running dog lackey elite stormtrooper of hate".

The clique of people who self-describe as SJW on the Internet rarely espouse anything remotely resembling justice, and are invariably antisocial and aggressive.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think people would be smarter

Hahahahahahaha *sob*

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because the majority of people who are accused of being horrible evil SJW scum are people who see someone else acting like a shit, and saying "hey, that's kinda bad, maybe you shouldn't do that?"

All I did was say what an SJW is. I never claimed that the term SJW is never misused.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's what SJW types want it to mean.

Re:Here we go.

[roc97007]

Harassment is everything said, done after you have been told No or stop.

"I'm sorry , you haven't done any of the work, I have to fail you for this class."

No. Stop.

Re:Here we go.

[epyT-R]

That's the kind of mentality that leads to witchhunts and dark ages. Stable societies depend on free flow of the truth, regardless of how upsetting it might be to some.

Re:Here we go.

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

Which story was this? I skimmed the articles, but didn't see this story described (and am far too lazy to actually read the articles in full).

Also, I don't know about whether punishment is fair, but it's certainly not fair to the student to ask them to find another advisor. An academic advisor isn't something you can change like a pair of shoes, and requiring a change can have an impact on your academic career.

If the man had serious problems with the idea of continuing working with her, that sounds like a mental problem on his part. Maybe the solution is to find the student another advisor, but to simply say "you're too sexy, out of luck" is the wrong way to frame it, even if it leads to the same outcome.

Re:Here we go.

[niftymitch]

Perhaps you are not clear about what harassment is?

If you take a little bit of Google for a moment, you learn that harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation".

....chomp....

Of interest to bystanders is that this is a spectrum issue.
For some "aggressive pressure or intimidation" is "good morning you
are looking good today".

i.e. what was a compliment is now an acknowledgement of other topics not related
to the work at hand.

Other bystanders ponder the astounding permutations of the modern world of LGBT+
where inclusion and exclusion are difficult to quantify for a laundry list of reasons the
least of which is Sex on employment records is binary M/F. It does not even address
the obvious question of Yes vs. No or NO vs. NFW.

Simply discussing the topic is harassing and intimidating to some.

Saying "no" is astoundingly difficult for some and saying no is a
cultural impossibility. In a class room it is no longer effective to ask
if anyone does not understand. "Does every one understand the last
chapter.... " Asking will not discover comprehension. Testing is the
only cultural option for some groups. Testing for sex related topics crosses
the line for some and is harassing for others.

Then there are other agenda... there are many that still go to school for their "Mrs".
Not all but a lot. Success in the Mrs. program often reaches into the rich pool
of proven smart graduate assistants. This is a mind set that even when not
considered in school becomes a biologic clock issue for some again org charts
separate the good, better, best candidates.

Visual clues are cultural.
Growing up "red" shoes" advertised a profession.
Around the world advertising of availability can be subtle and opaque
to those that do not know.. now what does a single ear ring in that
ear tell me? Visible ankle, calf, thigh, tramp stamp, long, short no sleeves.
Head covering is in the news but is unclear....
Yoga pants...

In my personal experience the most troubling abuses of power were
made by the wives of managers. No one pays attention to the power
struggle at home and the collateral damage in the work place.

BONUS: what is the most common matriarchal group in the US?

Re:Here we go.

[jcr]

the world is divided into raging fanatics who want a nicer world,

Fuck you. SJWs don't want a "nicer world", they want a world where they get to jump down anybody's throat, get them fired or ruin their careers for any imagined slight, no matter how trivial or ridiculous it may be.

-jcr

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, some of us are eating real popcorn cooked on top of that tire! You cis het shitlord!

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirming that is exactly what you intended to do.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the sordid descriptions, the adviser in question was already way past the point of appropriate professional conduct already. That he "fired" her because he "liked" her was just the last piece. What male faculty member in their right mind thinks it is okay to message their students at all hours whining about their social problems? Faculty frequently don't understand the power differential between themselves and their graduate students and how easily this facilitates abusive behavior. If the faculty and student are opposite sex, any abusive behavior very easily becomes sexual harassment. And, as it turns out, general abusive behavior is not illegal but specific flavors that fit the definition of sexual harassment are.

Re:Here we go.

[GrumpySteen]

One of the astronomers in that list was punished for realizing he had emotional feelings about a student and telling her to go seek another adviser.

You're leaving out the part where he also harassed a second student. She provided the school with chat logs and other correspondence where he said things like âoeDo you think I am a shady person because I let myself be emotionally involved with my student?â and âoeI think I may actually be prone to this sort of thing.â The guy knew he was in the wrong, but instead of correcting his own behavior, he just moved on to the next student he could harass the same way.

The university barred him from contact with students and forced him undergo rehabilitative training not to punish him, but because he was a lawsuit waiting to happen when he finally went too far.

Re:Here we go.

[tsotha]

I'm a little unclear on the concept.

Clearly. What differentiates the SJWs from normal people is the assumption the accuser is always telling the truth, feelings are more important than facts, and sanctions should be imposed without all that time-consuming due process stuff.

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

So, how does this whole SJW thing work ... the world is divided into raging fanatics who want a nicer world, and assholes who want to preserve their right to act like assholes?

Excluded middle aside, most SJWs want the right to act as much like assholes - or more so - than the people they perceive as assholes and whom they're attacking.

Making a nicer world is largely a cover story.

Re:Here we go.

[mrclevesque]

"The adviser wanted to protect her, and eliminate the chance of non-consensual contact between the two"

If a professor fears losing control and touching people who don't want to be touched then the first thing he should do is go to the emergency and seek medical help.

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

You don't need microwave radiation to make popcorn, you retarded millennial one-chromosome-too-many dungdong.

Any heat source plus a wok/skillet works.

Re:Here we go.

[ArylAkamov]

The "progressive" left. You know, the kind of people that participate in this kind of thing:

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Or will insult/exclude/harass you for being white or male, justified by their tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

So, we probably agree that sexism, racism, and sexual harassment are still big problems in 2016.

Where, specifically?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is pretty much the same as gamergate.

Just couldn't resist turning this around to Gamergate, could you? Well, that didn't take long!

Re:Here we go.

[Lab Rat Jason]

Man... how the hell did this get rated 5, insightful???? Let me see if I understand your definition of normal human being:

An astronomer realizes he has feelings about a student and it's OK to railroad the student out of the program? What does this instructor do the NEXT time he has feelings? And the time after that? The reality is that humans have feelings and the normal ones keep a lid on it when they know it's inappropriate. The abnormal ones act on it even though they know it's wrong. Does it not occur to anyone else that the right thing to do is to walk away from the situation because the problem is YOU rather than assume you are so fucking important that everyone else must get out of the way? I personally know a guy who used to teach high school, and admitted that his students kept looking more and more attractive to him every year. What did he do? He quit teaching and got a sales job. He's still happily married and not a felon because he realized HE was the one who needed to leave.

You are right about one thing though... Ignorant douchebag is the wrong name to call this guy.... Selfish douchebag is much more accurate.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The adviser wanted to protect her, and eliminate the chance of non-consensual contact between the two"

If a professor fears losing control and touching people who don't want to be touched then the first thing he should do is go to the emergency and seek medical help.

Or convert to Islam

Re:Here we go.

[Hognoxious]

Clearly the blue-eyed bitches were insulting the prophet (PBUH) by dressing as decadent western whores.

They should all be sentenced to mandatory sensitivity training. Whose country do these dirty blonde slappers think it is?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, misandry abounds...here's a clue stick for you...if you use the term 'Mens Rights Assholes' you are sexist against men...if you do not think that's the case then substitute 'Women' for 'Men' & see how you feel about the 'sexist' nature of the comment.

Of course if you just said 'assholes' without reference to gender than that's not sexist.

This is really easy too, I use the term all the time & if I'm accused of 'racism/sexism/ and just don't like the person because of it' I respond with "no, I don't like them because their ASSHOLES"...I will freely admit to 'discrimination against assholes' regardless of creed, color, gender, nationality or any other 'attribute' that breaks them in to a group...

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

Please explain fully just what you mean. Or are you one of them guys who thinks no really means yes? I ask a women for a date she says no thanks. I ask her the next day she no thanks and please don't ask me again. I would say sorry for having bothered you and move on..YOU...??

Re:Here we go.

[epyT-R]

Meaning that it must be ok to speak regardless of hurt feelings so that truth can be heard and false statements called out. I never said that no means yes. Of course, you're equating the former with people who think the latter, which is an ad hominem fallacy.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Just WOW! You are so sexist you don't even realize how your #1 is almost as sexist as #2 & it starts right from your basic premise...e.g. 'we probably agree /harassment is a problem in 2016'...

Sorry but NO I do NOT agree with that and I would suggest there are a lot of people who wouldn't...of course the truth/veracity of the statement fundamentally depends on how you define 'problem'...for instance do I believe '/harassment' happens? Yup, certainly. Especially since you are demonstrating it clearly in your message. Is it a 'problem' to the level that is implied by all the attention it gets? Not on your life! Is sexism for instance SO problematic that women as a group can not do whatever they want or are otherwise being held back? Not on your life!

And hell if I believe it is so fundamental embedded in society that we have to have special programs to help women or to invest their time and energy in something that is 'male dominated'...than again when you use a term like 'complex problem internalized misogyny presents' I may need to change my point of view & decide that sexism IS so rampant that it is a problem but not in the way you think...that comment IMPLIES that men are SO stupid and so unable to control their behaviour that they don't even REALIZE when their being sexist & thus require someone else to tell them...O REALLY. If I even attempted to express that there was someone that 'women just don't understand unless we tell them' I'd be attacked for being sexist so fast it would make your head spin...so before you start trying to be 'all reasonable' in your attempt to combat sexism/ism of the day/harassment take a step back & first identify if you believe needs 'special help because some big bad boogie man is holding them down'...if you actually believe that's true then YOUR the problem not the solution...

Re:Here we go.

[J Story]

Funny. The other day someone on TV was saying that in America you still have the right to be obnoxious. Did he and I both miss the memo where Freedom of Speech is still Free, but only as long as you say the right things?"

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

A lot of it is internalized misogyny; that's one that SJWs will never fix.

Misandry is abound when every major news source can trumpet that we need to mutilate men's genitals /at birth/ because of a women's health issue, and simultaneously we were ringing our hands about whether vaccinating teenage girls to prevent that condition was sexualizing them inappropriately.

Kind of a mouth full, but that (in 2012) was just so "I can't even" that I still can't even.

Don't get me wrong. We've made gobs of progress if I can even consider seriously working as a woman in tech (more than likely will be burger flipping by my own choice as I've stated before).

There are no real barriers or glass ceilings anymore. That doesn't mean that the meatspace avatar doesn't matter way more than it should.

As for racism, I just roll my eyes anymore when white people bitch about property values and "there goes the neighborhood" when black people move in. Then there's that whole mess in Europe. Let's give the rapists a brand (the hot metal to the skin kind) or something and banhammer them instead of raving about how it's the fault of religion or skin color.

Hope that helps.

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

When I ask my gf if she wants to talk about something and she says no, I take it as a yes. Turns out she likes it that way. I get in trouble if I just say "oh ok" and move along.

Re:Here we go.

[Megol]

Where? Reality. You should perhaps try to live there?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I stand on a street corner and hold up a sign that says "God Loves Gays", and a Westboro fundamentalist comes up to me and says "stop that", does that now mean I'm harassing them? No it doesn't, so by counterexample this shows your definition to be incomplete.

As for GP's post...

1700's: "She's a witch, for she makes me think lascivious thoughts. Burn her!"
2000's: "He's a harasser, because he made a comment I perceive to be hurtful. Fire him!"

When you let people arbitrarily define the term harassment there's no way to behave correctly as an individual, because someone who wants to be offended will find a way to be offended. When this leads to a spiraling series of accusations, this is the epitome of a witch hunt.

Re:Here we go.

[Darinbob]

I think the poster's name, "StartsWithABang", needs a trigger warning.

Re:Here we go.

[Darinbob]

No there are some levels where it's gone quite far beyond "normal human beings". I knew a professor once that seemed to just hate women. He would tell female graduate students "why are you here and not at home having babies?" That's not normal human behavior. Of course he also berated male students as well, he was an equal opportunity hater. But students were reluctant to call him out or complain to others because this was a senior professor so he got away with it.

Re:Here we go.

[Darinbob]

Except that people who perceive injustice are called SJWs before they've done anything about it, or called that when the only action they took was to point out that the injustice existed. There very act of perceiving injustice offends these anti-SJW-warriors.

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which chromosome? Does make a difference you know.

Re:Here we go.

[Z80a]

SJWs are mostly a "progressive e-penis contest" that spiraled into insanity.
Goes like "i'm complaining on twitter that people should not offend black people!", "oh yeah? i'm complaning on twitter that people should not offend black transsexual people!", "yeah? you two are small fishes, i'm complaning about all the microagressions against black transsexual disabled indian women that happens on campus!" and so forth.

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

You are way off base,and didn't answer my question. Again You were told no,stop. You continue, you are harassing the person. Period end of story. If you don't like that truth too bad really, tell it to the judge and jury. or maybe you need to read just what i was replying to in the manner i did to a statement someone else made..either way, your wrong.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

> An SJW is someone who perceives* an injustice, and tries to fix it with more injustice.

OR, someone who sees an individual's transgression as a systemic problem and concludes that it's society that needs fixing.

Reminds me of the old Monty Python bit:
Man: "It's a fair cop, but society is to blame."
The Church Police: "Agreed. We'll be charging them as well!"

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean if I tell you to stop finding perpetual offense in everything, and you refuse, you're harassing me?

Re:Here we go.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yes, but--to be fair--have you looked at what's actually in the shops these days? It's a bit challenging to buy non-micro popcorn when they're not selling any...

(Just got a new cast-iron wok, never thought to make popcorn in it, though. I'll have to give that a try. But see above.)

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least nobody mentioned Hitler!

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Hey, you're the one flying off the handle assuming I don't think misandry is a huge problem.

Ok, first off, I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing with internalized misogyny. What I'm referring to is the problem that people, men and women both, assume women are weak, frivolous, and inauthentic—basically everything traditional gender roles says men are not—a total, absolute, insane interpretation of gender as absolute negation.

Both men and women have internalized misogyny, but it surfaces in different ways. For example, if a man believes I'm a woman, he may offer to carry heavy things for me. If a woman assumes I'm a man, she may ask me to carry heavy things for her, even when she is clearly physically stronger than I.

Men with internalized misogyny are stupid, though, albeit mostly harmless. I wish they'd knock it off with their white knight stuff but I really don't mind until it turns into full blown SJW crap. However, when women show internalized misogyny, that's where we get into real trouble, because it represents everything that feminism tried (and failed) to change about the world while we're simultaneously unable to do anything about it.

When I was talking about internalized misogyny, I was talking about: women who pass on the "math is hard" and "computers are for boys" memes to impressionable young girls instead of a more Amazonian line of reasoning.

Have you ever tried arguing with a woman deep in internalized misogyny that maths are not hard and that computers are fucking not for boys only? Holy crap, she will get the entire office to hate you, and you'll just get called an all men sexist is you're a man.

That being said, let me point out some areas where we have severe problems with misandry. First, the fucking huge elephant in the room is ritual male genital mutilation. How many men have suffered pain and cannot have children because something went wrong? At least my skin doesn't tear and begin bleeding when I have an erection, but even still, I have no idea how I would live with the physical pain without the escape route of being trans and being on HRT.

Alimony, child support, limited aid for single fathers, losing children and the house in divorce, selective service, rape culture. These are all signs of the pervasive misandry.

This isn't about male vs. female to me. I've experienced first-hand as a man the way this world shits on men, and I continue to experience it every day since I'm legally male and am forced to present as the male gender to get a paycheck. I've experienced second-hand from the stories of trans women and the few west/east cost feminists who have given me a taste of things to come once I've completed transition. As somebody who lives part time as both genders, it's straight in my fucking face every day how the world sucks for both men and women.

It's a first world problem, but the world is sick from sexism and it goes both ways.

I will grant you, if I had been a cisgendered woman, I would likely be vastly more well off than I am now. I might even have a family of my own. I say that as a man.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, we probably agree that sexism, racism, and sexual harassment are still big problems in 2016.

No, we don't. This shit is so far down the scale of "big problems" that it doesn't even register.

Re:Here we go.

[epyT-R]

..and I said that societies that allow such nonsense to infiltrate law and culture are doomed to failure. What's your point?

Re:Here we go.

[arglebargle_xiv]

And that's a real problem with the SJW approach to dealing with what they define as harassment, it's seriously damaging the ability to teach. It's so difficult, meaning risky, for a guy to mentor female students, that some have just given up ("Look at the evil sexist, he won't take female students!"). When you can't ever close your office door for a quiet discussion and have to have a chaperone present at a private research meeting because of what might get said about it later, you're creating a toxic environment for everyone. Sure, there's a problem with harassment (it's present everywhere), but creating the thoughtcrime environment the SJWs want isn't the answer.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're presuming that there were no other advisors, despite him telling her to find another.

Maybe this is the time you should realize you are the one who should change, and leave i.e. stop posting on Slashdot.

Re:Here we go.

[Ol Olsoc]

Perhaps you are not clear about what harassment is?

If you take a little bit of Google for a moment, you learn that harassment is "aggressive pressure or intimidation".

Your definition is too broad.

In a world where many young women believe if a man asks you out and you don't like him, it is sexual harassment, it gets a little hazy as to what sexual harassment is. Sometimes trying to pick up a simple friendship might be harassment. http://www.avvo.com/legal-answ...

My favorite answer to the question is the attorney who answered the question starting with "There should not normally be a problem" Oy. Certainly John Edwards' former blogmaster Amanda Marcotte believes that it is http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...

As she wrote on Gawker after the High School boy asked out "Miss America", which was just a silly trend for a few years of your people asking celebrities to proms: "I really wish people would stop acting like it’s cute when teenage boys sexually harass older women. " http://twitchy.com/2014/04/21/...

And here is the problem. As most of us know - once accused, always guilty in many people's minds. So we can have all of the googling of law we can handle, yet there will always be people with an axe to grind, so why get caught up in that.

Any male that is remotely prudent and is career minded would be insane to get within ten feet of a woman he did not know well. He's playing roulette with his life and career. I wouldn't be too surprised if there were some women who simply don't want to be talked to by a man at all. So a prudent guy simply leaves well alone.

Re:Here we go.

[Ol Olsoc]

You are way off base,and didn't answer my question. Again You were told no,stop. You continue, you are harassing the person. Period end of story. If you don't like that truth too bad really, tell it to the judge and jury. or maybe you need to read just what i was replying to in the manner i did to a statement someone else made..either way, your wrong.

That's why you always have a witness in the room with you. A work or school based one on one meeting with a person of the opposite gender always needs a witness. Then it isn't one on one any more of course.

Re:Here we go.

[aevan]

Not all (few?) trans are SJW, but the seeming majority of SJW compete in an 'Oppression Olympics' where the more 'oppressed groups' they can self-identify (intersectionality, ho!) they can gain more 'oppression points' and thus a higher place in the hierarchy: 'I am more oppressed than you, so my view is more valid'.

Thus was born the 'non-binary gender-fluid, pansexual transracial somethingsomething and a toaster too', fresh off of tumblr.

If you look at them and meet/don't meet their eyes, it was literally rape. And please, never ever ask if they want to have a coffee. That's worse than ISIS.

Re:Here we go.

[serviscope_minor]

Please don't muddy a good rant about how men are so put upon with actual facts.

Re:Here we go.

[serviscope_minor]

Note to anyone reading the parent post:

SJW is basically newspeak for "evil internet bogeyman".

The parent post is now revealed to read "evil internet bogeymen want to make bad things happen".

Re:Here we go.

[jbssm]

So that's what counts has "harassment" in the pro radical feminist society now-a-days. The argument is tired but it doesn't make it less true: If the supervisor was an attractive guy or if she was interested in him, those exact same words would be perfectly acceptable.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

The biggest thing I hate about SJWs is that they only look at the world from their own (female, and mostly speaking with female victims of sexual harrassment, not with men) perspective. What should he have done if he had such feelings? Quit his job? Ignore his feelings, every week, because men have to be strong? Here, that's a stereotype.

Looking at it from both sides made sense, but it doesn't sound yet like you've looked at it from both sides. Isn't it reasonable for women to be able to expect to come to university and study -- to be able to choose a professor to work with on a professional basis -- without having to either a) worry continually that they may fall in love with you, or b) have to switch advisors 2-3 times until you find one that can treat you professionally?

I mean really -- wouldn't you be pissed if you went to work for a company, and after being there 6 months the manager asked you to move to a different department (or to find another job) because they were sexually attracted to you (when you had done nothing but be polite)?

If you are a manager in a company, whether you are male of female, having employees who are both male and female is part of your job. If you are a woman who can't handle having male subordinates without forming an emotional attachment, or a man who can't handle having female subordinates without forming an emotional attachment, then being a manger is not for you.

Same thing with being a professor: mentoring both male and female grad students is a part of your job, just like teaching classes or doing research. If you can mentor students but can't do research, then a normal tenure-track professorship at a Research I institution isn't for you. If you can do research but can't mentor half of the students who come to you, it's not for you either.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

Both men and women have internalized misogyny, but it surfaces in different ways. For example, if a man believes I'm a woman, he may offer to carry heavy things for me. If a woman assumes I'm a man, she may ask me to carry heavy things for her, even when she is clearly physically stronger than I.

The 'mis' in misogyny and misandry means 'hate'. (See also, 'misanthrope'.) I fail to see how "expecting an average man to be stronger than the average woman" counts as hating women. Shooting up a bunch of random women because nobody will have sex with you is misogyny.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this wasn't a case where the manager told them to move to a different department.

This is no different from a Judge recusing themselves because of a conflict of interest.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

In a world where many young women believe if a man asks you out and you don't like him, it is sexual harassment, it gets a little hazy as to what sexual harassment is. Sometimes trying to pick up a simple friendship might be harassment.

Have you ever been given unwanted romantic / sexual attention? Or seen it happening? Isn't it uncomfortable? And shouldn't people be able to work without it?

I'm a heterosexual man, and I've got a male coworker who is bisexual, who once when (in a group of coworkers) discussing a particularly smart outfit I was wearing, said "You're making me hot just looking at you." He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but given that we had never had more than a professional relationship, it was inappropriate.

Now he hasn't really made any further comments, so it hasn't been much of an issue (although I am much more circumspect about how I interact with him now). But suppose he said something like that once a month. Or that he kept asking me over to his place or to go see movies 1-1. That would make me pretty uncomfortable -- and I shouldn't have to put up with that at work.

That's not to say you can never ask anyone out at work. It's to say that you should be aware that the other person is unusually constrained. It's not like a party where they can just mingle somewhere else: they're stuck working with you unless one of you finds a new job. You should always be reasonably sure that the question itself will not be unwelcome, even in a merely social situation; at work, the level of "how sure should I be" is higher -- not because of the risk of being fired, but because of how much more constrained the other person is in how they can respond if they're not interested.

Doesn't that make sense? This seems like basic human consideration to me.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

So that's what counts has "harassment" in the pro radical feminist society now-a-days. The argument is tired but it doesn't make it less true: If the supervisor was an attractive guy or if she was interested in him, those exact same words would be perfectly acceptable.

Um, no it wouldn't? If you're forced to throw away your research and start over again because your advisor isn't able to do his job, it sucks no matter what they look like. Even if there were mutual romantic attraction, it's never acceptable for a manager to have a romantic relationship with an employee (or an advisor with a student, for similar reasons). This has nothing to do with the gender of either party.

Re:Here we go.

[jbssm]

Funny my PhD supervisor was a woman and I was actually forced to throw me research away (almost 2 years) and get a better supervisor.

Now, it was not due to harassment but due to her incompetence. But we can already see how the story would play out if the genders were inverted.

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

So now the definition of "harassment" in your mind is touching and not just asking someone out or complementing them?

Good guys that care about feelings these days pretty much have to completely avoid women at work for fear they will I inadvertently do something they will take as "harassment" like smiling at them.

A very few, very loud women, and guilted men, are making interaction far more complicated than it needs to be.

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference when it is a real injustice is that a normal person says "let's punishment person that did that."

The SJW says "let's punish every member of their gender/social group/racial group"

Re: Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Confirming that I know you are, but what am I?

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha... Seriously? The fact that this is modded up is so stereotypical of the underlying problem... You don't see anything wrong with that situation? In academia, telling someone to find a new adviser is the equivalent of telling someone to find a new job or find a new thesis topic. The student shouldn't have to do that just because the professor can't be professional. It's not the student's fault. Men are allowed to have feelings. It's a fact of life that we all occasionally have feelings towards people that are not reciprocated or in circumstances where it will never work out. Learn to deal with it like every other adult and get it into your head that there is a time and place for taking romantic risks and usually that's not in the workplace.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The workplace is suppose to be an environment where people get shit done, not a place for people to air their bullshit to the world. People who try to get romantically involved with co-workers usually end up being a distraction to themselves and other people, preventing people from getting shit done.

Re:Here we go.

[NotInHere]

He told her the truth, that he was sexually attracted. I think his is much better than if he had thought of a fake reason for her to leave his courses, e.g. to give her bad grades so that she chooses another department to specialize later on.

We live in a world with the principle that anybody should be able to become nearly anything, independent of how they live, whom they love, how attractive they are or how revealing they clothe.

In the past they said that the university isn't the place for women. We now got to the point to say that this is wrong.

You say that the university isn't the place for men who occasionally fall in love with one of the students of their sexual preference? Isn't that similar thinking to above?

Yes, I do agree that we should close university's doors for people who get emotional with every woman and can't hold it back, but there really should be a reasonable compromise.

Re:Here we go.

[Ol Olsoc]

Have you ever been given unwanted romantic / sexual attention? Or seen it happening? Isn't it uncomfortable? And shouldn't people be able to work without it?

So now it isn't just a matter of sex, its a concept that being made uncomfortable at work consists of harassment? And why would someone asking you out make you uncomfortable anyhow? What is the metric that makes a person uncomfortable when they might otherwise be flattered?

What if just being around men made you uncomfortable? I suppose the best option would be to take up a career in Veternary medicine or as a schoolteacher, where the workplace is pretty much manless now - which would indicate no sexual harassment or any other sex based problems, eh? We have to at some point, stop being at fault for everything. We have to at some level, stop catering to the lowest level. I keep having little fantasies about a nation trying to eradicate peanuts from the face of the earth because a few people are allergic.

I'm a heterosexual man, and I've got a male coworker who is bisexual, who once when (in a group of coworkers) discussing a particularly smart outfit I was wearing, said "You're making me hot just looking at you." He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but given that we had never had more than a professional relationship, it was inappropriate.

Have you joined a support group yet? That had to be completely devastating. Sorry for the sarcam, but sheesh.

Now he hasn't really made any further comments, so it hasn't been much of an issue (although I am much more circumspect about how I interact with him now).

First thing they do is compliment you, then they rape you, then you're found in a dumpster the next morning. More sarcasm. You ever consider that the guy might be mortified that he made you uncomfortable with his remark? I'd suggest talking with him about it, because your reactio was a little over the top.

But suppose he said something like that once a month. Or that he kept asking me over to his place or to go see movies 1-1. That would make me pretty uncomfortable -- and I shouldn't have to put up with that at work.

And that isn't even what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that a fair number of women think that asking them out exactly 1 time is harassment, with a caveat of whether they liked the guy or not.

This ain't rocket surgery. That gay guy figured out you were uncomfortable with his compliment, so he stopped. It still appears that you are sensitive enough that you haven't recovered from it yet.

You might want to look into why you are overly sensitive to what was supposed to be a compliment. (my opinion) Perhaps you're just not used to openly gay people?

You should always be reasonably sure that the question itself will not be unwelcome, even in a merely social situation;

Here's the problem. Define "reasonably" for me. Let's take an example. A female coworker of mine, and a friend by the way, when I asked her what she thought sexual harassment was, replied, "It really depends on the mood I'm in."

When I asked how the hell a person would know, she said "Don't worry, you're safe."

This from a person who found it cute to goose me when I was working with my hands stuck in a glove box. Whatever, we were friends, and I didn't find it as hilarious as she did, but still funny.

Was being goosed - her sexually harassing me?

Another example, same person, was there was a fellow who brought work in some times, and managed to "accidentally" touch her butt a number of times. and it was definitely unwanted attention. He always said "Ohh, I'm sorry". So she said something to me, and asked me to check in discretely when he came in next. Sure enough, there was the unwanted attention. When I asked her if she wanted to complain to HR, she said if I could just show up when he came in. So I did, and planted myself between the two whenever he was there. He

Re:Here we go.

[mrclevesque]

:)

Re: Here we go.

[mrclevesque]

"So now the definition of "harassment" in your mind is touching and not just asking someone out or complementing them?" :)

I meant touch, like as in physical contact with his hand, and I suppose what he seems to be saying is that he feared he would not be able to stop touching her once he started, even if she said stop it.

"Good guys that care about feelings these days pretty much have to completely avoid women at work for fear they will I inadvertently do something they will take as "harassment" like smiling at them"

If that is what he really feared then he would have to stop coming into contact with all woman because if he didn't avoid all women then the women he did avoid and who repeatedly noticed it could accuse him harassment.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

But we can already see how the story would play out if the genders were inverted.

Things that have only happened in your mind are not data points. :-)

Your model of the universe looks very different than mine; in my model, "advisor forces PhD student to move because of their incompetence" doesn't generally involve sexual harassment lawsuits (which is what you seem to imply), regardless of the gender of the advisor or student, unless some sort of harassment actually took place.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

He told her the truth, that he was sexually attracted. I think his is much better than if he had thought of a fake reason for her to leave his courses, e.g. to give her bad grades so that she chooses another department to specialize later on.

You still haven't given me indication that you've tried to look at things from a woman's perspective. As I asked -- wouldn't you be pissed if you went to work for a company, and after being there 6 months the manager asked you to move to a different department (or to find another job) because they were sexually attracted to you (when you had done nothing but be polite)?

In the past they said that the university isn't the place for women. We now got to the point to say that this is wrong. You say that the university isn't the place for men who occasionally fall in love with one of the students of their sexual preference? Isn't that similar thinking to above? Yes, I do agree that we should close university's doors for people who get emotional with every woman and can't hold it back, but there really should be a reasonable compromise.

So yes, we he have two exclusive options here:

• 1. Allow men who cannot maintain professional conduct with female students to work as professors, and make the women work around the problem by moving around to different advisors until they find one that can. This is good for men who have that problem, and bad for all women.
• 2. Insist that only men who can maintain professional conduct with female students work as professors, and make men who have difficulty doing so find another job. This is bad for men who have that problem, but good for all women.

On the whole I think #1 is both more fair and more desirable than #2.

Do note that it's "maintain professional conduct", not "never experience emotional or physical attraction".

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

we agree to disagree.

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

i wasnt talking about witnesses,wasnt talking about proving a case. when a person that you make any kinda advance too no matter where you are tells you no thanks ,please stop,stop.no and you continue that,s Harassment plain and simple. I wasn't talking about what it wold take to prove the case in a court of law im talking morals.

Re:Here we go.

[martyros]

And that isn't even what I'm talking about.

But it is what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are be circumstances under which "asking someone out" actually is harassment (morally, not legally), and why "there should not normally be a problem" is a reasonable answer from a lawyer: because actions never exist in a vacuum. Most of the time guys only ask a girl out if they've been given social cues to indicate that the answer may be "yes"; some of the time guys are a bit clueless and ask even though they've not been given any cues, or if they've been given "no" cues; but there are circumstances in which a guy asking is just one instance of a pattern of obnoxious behavior.

Another example, same person, was there was a fellow who brought work in some times, and managed to "accidentally" touch her butt a number of times.

I can understand why your coworker didn't want to report it to HR. But seriously, that guy was in the wrong. Your coworker managed to deal with the situation (by calling in another guy to help), but she shouldn't have had to deal with it at all. Don't you agree?

Re:Here we go.

[NotInHere]

wouldn't you be pissed if you went to work for a company, and after being there 6 months the manager asked you to move to a different department (or to find another job) because they were sexually attracted to you (when you had done nothing but be polite)?

If it there had been situations in the past that were uncomfortable for me as well perhaps I'd agree to it, but if they hid it well enough so that I didn't knew it, I would be suprised at least. The thing of course is that if we worked together for 6 months, then switching might be a setback, so it would cause problems, yes.

If asking female students to switch courses is the exception and not the rule, then I don't think its a problem.

To the options listed by you: Men who can't maintain professional conduct with female students at all shouldn't go to a facility where students get teached, there are other ways they can do research as well. But the question remains what not being able to maintain professional conduct means.

Re:Here we go.

[Sir Holo]

Mostly it seems to be a bunch of guys whining they can't act like ignorant douchebags without consequences.

If by "ignorant douchebags" you mean "like normal humans" than you're pretty much spot on.

One of the astronomers in that list was punished for realizing he had emotional feelings about a student and telling her to go seek another adviser. You know, because men aren't allowed to have emotions. Also, at the same time, are too emotionless compared to women, and that's why diversity is important. In the world according to the SJW.

BS. I've had many female students, or workers I managed, "have feelings for me." Unrequited and uninvited. I just ignore it, and get on with business. They have not gone to seek other managers or advisors.

But I was describing the reverse of your point...

I have also had women above me "have feelings for me." They did not embarrass me by pointing it out and telling me to get lost. I just ignored it, and they behaved themselves (with only a single exception).

Re:Here we go.

[Sir Holo]

Harassment is everything said, done after you have been told No or stop.

"I'm sorry , you haven't done any of the work, I have to fail you for this class."

No. Stop.

Why is this modded up? As "Funny", maybe, but not really even that.

Re:Here we go.

[TrekkieGod]

Please explain fully just what you mean. Or are you one of them guys who thinks no really means yes? I ask a women for a date she says no thanks. I ask her the next day she no thanks and please don't ask me again. I would say sorry for having bothered you and move on..YOU...??

Personally, I wouldn't even have asked the second time. It's called respecting boundaries and it leads to less conflicts in the workspace. However, there's a huge (and there should be) gap between social and cultural norms and legally actionable harassment.

I think asking said woman out every single day she comes in to work is incredibly crass, annoying, and makes you look like a pathetic loser. It's not harassment until you imply she may face consequences if she continues to say no. That she'll be fired, looked over for promotion. Or until you physically touch her. Or you start stalking her instead of just taking opportunity of being at the same place at the same time because you both work at the same place at the same time.

The law isn't a way of enforcing etiquette.

Re:Here we go.

[hucker75]

And pathetic is when you get all upset and overreact because someone makes you feel bad. Grow a pair!

Re:Here we go.

[jcr]

The cunt who tried to destroy Tim Hunt's career wasn't some "evil internet bogeyman", smart-ass.

Read and learn: http://reason.com/archives/201...

-jcr

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your feelings are no one's problem but your own. Any time you find yourself about to say "you made me feel", stop, and shut up before you proclaim your immaturity to the world.

He was making me feel uncomfortable.

He was making me feel really creeped-out, and he wouldn't stop being creepy.

I felt like he wasn't taking me seriously.

It's just, I could feel their gaze on me, you know? It was really unwelcome and made me want to fight or get the hell out of there, and I'm not the first girl who's said this so I don't think they should be allowed to keep harassing people like this.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no problem with "you made me feel" as an accusation. It works perfectly, so long as you use the right code-phrases and don't swap the genders.

Re:Here we go.

[kmoser]

He told her the truth, that he was sexually attracted. I think his is much better than if he had thought of a fake reason for her to leave his courses, e.g. to give her bad grades so that she chooses another department to specialize later on.

Being sexually attracted to somebody doesn't mean you will automatically harass them or become a douchebag. He should have sucked it up and done his job. OTOH if he felt he was unable to do his job, he should have sought counseling or gotten another job, i.e. the same thing he would have done if he was unable to do his job for any other reason, like a broken back or nervous breakdown or anything else.

Re:Here we go.

[NotInHere]

Being sexually attracted to somebody doesn't mean you will automatically harass them or become a douchebag.

And he didn't want to become one. Is that illegal?

Re:Here we go.

[Ol Olsoc]

i wasnt talking about witnesses,wasnt talking about proving a case. when a person that you make any kinda advance too no matter where you are tells you no thanks ,please stop,stop.no and you continue that,s Harassment plain and simple. I wasn't talking about what it wold take to prove the case in a court of law im talking morals.

Define Morals.

What I'm saying is we are now entering a different age, where the act of asking once is what constitutes harassment. And witnesses aren't necessarily need for a civil court case. They might be handy in responding to HR if someone decides that you asking her out once constitutes harassment. And yes, there are those out there who believe just that.

Which is my point. We are entering an age where your definition is irrelevant.

Which is why, unless cooler heads prevail, third wave sex negative feminists might find themselves an unexpected ally in fundamentalist islam. where women are separated from men, because anything related to sex, or anything determined to be related to sex becomes something so damaging to the offended party that there is no recourse but separation from men.

Re:Here we go.

[lgw]

Own your feelings. No one makes you feel anything. Realize your feelings are only important to you, and don't expect strangers or co-workers to care about them. It's not about your feelings.

Someone acting unprofessionally in a professional workplace, in concrete ways you can document? You might have something. Someone making your job vaguely unpleasant? Work sucks for most people, get used to it. If you've never had a job where you sit in the parking lot, crying, for half an hour before you can summon the courage to go in, but you do because your family needs the money and it's the only job in town, you're doing OK.

Re:Here we go.

[west]

Well, if there was a compromise, I'd say it would be the professor recusing himself from the course with all the long-term career damage caused by the incident accruing to the professor, not the student.

But the reality is pretty damn simple.

We expect people in power to be able to maintain professional conduct in *all* circumstances, regardless of their personal feelings.

The punishment for failing to do so tends to vary heavily by its consequences on others. Someone makes you angry and you slug them? Very bad. Someone makes you uncomfortable, and you fail them or make drop a course, affecting their academic career (and quite possibly their long-term career aspirations)? Pretty bad. Someone bursts into tears in the front of the lecture hall because some personal trauma? Pretty awkward, but probably not causing long-term difficulty for the students, so not so bad.

Re:Here we go.

[serviscope_minor]

That doesn't make use of the phrase "SJW" less of an indicator of an idiot though. It's a handy standin for evil boogeymen on the internet.

Intellectually dishonest people such as yourself also love it because it allows the rhetorical trick of rapidly switching between the general and the specific but without having to specifying anything in advance that you might be held to.

The people you and others are referring to in this article are not the people who ruined his career. But you have essentially said they are without the slightest shred of evidence. But then again I guess evidence and reason are not the strong points of someone who uses the phrase "SJW" without irony.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Exactly. Everybody on both sites knows I tend to have an active love life. I even fell for one of the students I was mentoring, which surprised me because normally I'm not attracted to women. It didn't change a fucking thing. I don't know what's up with this adviser who couldn't keep it in his pants, but I guess I don't find it difficult.

If I want to date somebody, I'll date them. Wanting is a question of a.) what will happen to them if I date them (I've had to turn dates down on this ground) b.) what will happen to me if I date them (generally lightly considered lol) c.) what will happen to us if I date them. #c is more complex. d.) what will happen to people around us if I date them.

If I have a professional relationship with somebody I've fallen for, then dating is out of the question. It's that damned simple.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Pedantically, you're correct. This gets down to the usage of the term hate. It also aligns with usage of the term fear.

For example, I've encountered what they call transphobia. Is it a fear? Is it hate? I'd argue that based on the physical intimidation I've witnessed against trans women who don't "pass" so well, that it's hate and the desire to destroy. (This is a big part of the reason I'm wondering whether I need a concealed revolver on me at all times.) At any rate, it's completely irrational.

(All though, my desire to be able to disable somebody who has become physically violent against somebody I care about because s/he thought that person was trying to make Christmas illegal is a rational response to the growing problem of irrationality and desire for violence.)

Fear and hate are greatly intertwined. We fear losing something we have, so we hate what we perceive is stealing it from us.

So, for the construction of misandry and misogyny, we have to keep this in mind. What will that woman lose if I tell her to lift it herself, because she's physically stronger than me? She'll lose her femininity. What will that man lose if I tell him that I'm damned capable myself to carry the thing? He'll lose his masculinity.

Therefore, we introduce hate to describe the reaction when I do either. If that woman hears, "No, I'm not going to fucking carry that for you, because reasons" (certainly not what I said), then she will hate me for taking away a thing that's valuable to her. If that man hears, "No, I'm going to fucking carry that myself, because reasons" (certainly not what I said), then he will hate me for taking away a thing that's valuable to him.

These are all nebulous concepts. You may call me feministphobic now.

To get to your point: the insidious nature of internalized misogyny is that she hates. She hates the idea that somebody might masculinize her. What does masculinization mean? In the misguided sense that leads to internalized misogyny, it means that by being good at maths, programming, science, etc, that she would be masculinized and lose her identity as a woman.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Hi, serviscope!

I've encountered the "SJW" phenomenon in real life multiple times. SJW is a poor term to describe this phenomenon of "two wrongs make a right" thinking.

Basically, it boils down to an application of another loaded term reverse discrimination.

I've said before that one of the reasons I'm at cold war with feminism at the moment is because I like to eat and have a roof over my head, I've been involved in various situations that appear to a naive observer to constitute hatred of women on my part.

"I've" "shut down" a women's health initiative, thus "I want to control women's bodies." I mean, WTF. I did the maths with cisgendered women at my company attempting to mislead me even to get the greatest number of women mammograms despite a shrinking budget and Obamacare obviating the program. Yet I'm blamed for ending it, because I'm the convenient person who was assigned the male gender at birth that said that we couldn't provide the number of mammograms that Susan G. Komen wanted with the presented budget. It simply wasn't financially possible. The program ended, in budget, and I get blamed for things beyond my control by sexists.

"I'm" responsible for the sexual harassment (is there an anti-scare quote I can use? this was a very serious incident, and personally i'd like to have the balls of the man responsible for it mounted above my fireplace) of a bright young woman who was becoming an excellent programmer. Why? I'm the convenient assigned male who was involved. I didn't sexually harass her. A-- H-- did, and he drove her out of her position as backup programmer as retaliation when I reported his sexual harassment. Yet, I'm to blame, because I'm all men.

"I'm" responsible for a piece of shit software made my Amtelco, out of Wisconsin, and all its stupid fucking bugs and O(n^3) algorithms. That's because I'm the convenient assigned male who wanted to eat and have a roof over her head and perhaps progress in transition to full time.

Thus, the cold war with feminism. The "SJWs" exist. They're out there. And they Always. Miss. The. Fucking. Target.

Re:Here we go.

[Ol Olsoc]

I can understand why your coworker didn't want to report it to HR. But seriously, that guy was in the wrong. Your coworker managed to deal with the situation (by calling in another guy to help), but she shouldn't have had to deal with it at all. Don't you agree?

Of course she didn't deserve any of that treatment. No one should be doing that sort of crap, and I am quite sensitive to men taking liberties in the workplace, I just note that we have to be careful what we do, because we might not like what we get.

There are many voices out there. We can choose who we listen to Seldom are the extreme voices appropriate.

Re:Here we go.

[vel-ex-tech]

Please ask me to have a coffee with you some time. All though, I might prefer a green tea, so I hope you won't be offended at that. As far as coffee goes, I prefer Colombian beans.

Please also note the low rank of trans women in the Oppression Olympics.

Consider Brianna Wu. In order for her victimization skit to work, she had to reject her nature as a trans person who has lived as both genders.

We hate trans women. It doesn't matter if you're an MRA or a feminist, we fucking hate trans women and want them to die.

Thus was born the 'non-binary gender-fluid, pansexual transracial somethingsomething and a toaster too', fresh off of tumblr.

Your problem is that you're reading tumblr. Remember when /b used to be good?

Please also note the status of otherkin being in the Special Oppression Olympics. That's not to diss the real Special Olympics. I enjoy a healthy and capable body, and if I weren't busy drinking myself to death, I'd probably be training to compete in the Iron Mountain (100 mile) Marathon. I really do feel for those who have disabilities. I wish they could run like the wind with me. Perhaps in the Summerland.

I get the threat from "SJWs." I want to ally to crush them, because they are morally and ethically deleterious. Yet, because I'm trans, you've already targeted me as an assassination target in the war with SJWs.

Warning: any Michigan Militia who sets foot on my property, despite the fact that I stand for what you stand for and want a revolution, will be fatally shot on sight. This is the nature of war. War never changes. You've declared war on me. It's a cold war at the moment, but I wasn't born yesterday. I hate that I am at war with you. Yet, you declared it, and my reaction is necessary to ensure the safety of those I care about.

Re:Here we go.

[jcr]

Intellectually dishonest people such as yourself

Fuck you, snowflake.

-jcr

Re:Here we go.

[serviscope_minor]

Fuck you, snowflake.

Hahaha. Wow touchy! The nutjob doth protest too much!

-Ed

Re:Here we go.

[jcr]

What kind of response do you expect to a gratuitous insult? Did you think I'd give you a participation trophy? Fuck you for calling me a liar.

-jcr

Re:Here we go.

[Stan92057]

Guess we will be reading about guys like you more often then. You think its only harassment after shes been sexually blackmailed??wow just wow. I dare you to say what you printed here to your mom.

Re:Here we go.

[KGIII]

If I tell you to leave me alone and you fail to do so, I'm not harassing you?

Re: Here we go.

[TrekkieGod]

I showed it to her, she agrees with me 100%. Also, not just blackmail. Unwelcome physical contact, or anything that would make a woman *reasonably* feel unsafe, like stalking was also mentioned in that post.

Re:Here we go.

[serviscope_minor]

The nutjob doth protest even more! So very very touchy!

Did you think I'd give you a participation trophy?

You already did :) :) :)

Fuck you for calling me a liar.

I didn't call you a liar, I called you intellectually dishonest. It's quite possible that you're being intellectually dishonest in good faith---i.e. you have no awareness that you're using empty rhetorical tricks rather than reason. So, liar would be the wrong word.

I gave my reasons for why. I like how you ignored then, then accused me of doing something I never did, then got very, very cross about it. By the way, that's another intellectually dishonest trick: misunderstand, then get "offended".

By the way do you often try to use weaponised offence?, and isn't that exactly the sort of thing you accuse evil pedoterroristboogeymen er, I mean "SJWs" of doing?

Do you appreciate the irony?

Re:Here we go.

[roc97007]

Was not intended to be funny. I was attempting to point out that under those criteria, practically anything with which the subject disagrees could be defined as harassment.

Re: Here we go.

[Stan92057]

lol,ok....

Re:Here we go.

[Rakarra]

This is pretty much the same as gamergate.

Just couldn't resist turning this around to Gamergate, could you? Well, that didn't take long!

Well at least this time it was appropriate, since we're talking about SJWs. GamerGate was was the greatest collision of SJWs and anti-SJWs ever.

Re:Here we go.

[jcr]

I didn't call you a liar, I called you intellectually dishonest.

What a thoroughly weasely excuse. Are you a lawyer, or a less specialized asshole?

Fuck you, and the bitch that whelped you, too.

-jcr

Re:Here we go.

[beastofburdon]

If that comment bothered you at all then you are pathetic. If it was a constant campaign that lasted for weeks or months after you asked them to stop, then you have a right to be offended by it. Not until then. That goes for men and women, quit being pansy-assed little bitches who are perpetually offended that someone who you are not interested in finds you attractive.

Re: Here we go.

[beastofburdon]

And that is why everything is a damn minefield when dealing with women. When they are mad about something it doesn't matter what you say or do, you are saying or doing the wrong thing, even if you say and do nothing.

Re:Here we go.

[beastofburdon]

The treatment of men and women in Islam is the conclusion of radical feminist ideals https://youtu.be/5eqYEVYZgdo

Re:Here we go.

[beastofburdon]

And the most important part here is:

don't swap the genders

The vast majority of so called "sexual harassment" endured by women in the workplace would make a man the laughing stock of the company if he reported it.
How about we as a species decide that if it wouldn't be harassment if done to a man then it isn't harassment when done to a woman?
Equality is the only answer.

Re:Here we go.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's what it already means, and what SJW-types *don't* want it to mean. They want to see a world where people can be excluded for "harassment" without ever having been told that what they are doing is unwelcome.

Of course it does

[NotDrWho]

Was this summary written in some sort of SJW distortion field?

Re:Of course it does

[NotDrWho]

From one of the articles cited:

"harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information."

That's not how most sane, non-SJW's define it. "Unwelcome conduct" can be literally ANY conduct, is purely subjective, and is completely out of the control of the "perpetrator."

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

As demonstrated by some of your moderation, analysis and intellectual response is unwelcome conduct in the field of social justice.

Re: Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you know what to do next time someone tells you to check your privilege -- by which they mean "shut up, independent white male". That kind of aggression is primarily based on race, sex, and ability.

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the gravitational gravitational lensing created by Ethan's ego

Re:Of course it does

[NotDrWho]

Yes, for the the snowflakes who consider the sentence "I disagree with you" to be hate speech, I must be a monster.

Re: Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

They forgot to add:

"harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information (unless it's directed against a white heterosexual male, who it's impossible to discriminate against)."

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's not quite right.

"Unwelcome conduct" is unidirectional. If you are anything than a white male, you are good to go. I'm uncertain of this weeks' iteration of the progressive stack, so some groups have more standing in this regard, but the claims only move along the stack.

I mean if a transgendered midget lesbian black woman had made the same comments as Tim Hunt, there wouldn't have been even close to the same degree of scrutiny.

But a white male? Now we have a harassment problem in the sciences.

Re:Of course it does

[tomhath]

That's not how most sane, non-SJW's define it.

That's how it's been defined in private industry for decades (although it has eased off a bit in recent years).

If a member of a protected class feels threatened or uncomfortable, they were harassed. Period. Should I tell a woman I like her new haircut? Nope - that can be taken as a sexual advance - lawsuit time.

Re:Of course it does

[NotDrWho]

I tell a woman I like her new haircut? Nope - that can be taken as a sexual advance - lawsuit time.

Yeah, but if you don't talk to her, then you're excluding her--which is also harassment.

Re:Of course it does

[Brett Buck]

At the very least, it was written in a "clarity, logic, and grammar are optional" field of some sort.

Re:Of course it does

[lgw]

That's not how most sane, non-SJW's define it.

That's how it's been defined in private industry for decades (although it has eased off a bit in recent years).

If a member of a protected class feels threatened or uncomfortable, they were harassed. Period. Should I tell a woman I like her new haircut? Nope - that can be taken as a sexual advance - lawsuit time.

You're not making any argument that this is a sane definition. But maybe you knew that.

Re: Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

But SJWs only care about micro-aggressions.

Re:Of course it does

[pr0fessor]

When a woman tells me she likes my hair, I don't usually take it as a sexual advance unless she is trying to touch it in which case I find this awkward and a little uncomfortable. Most times it turns into a conversation about hair care products although not always.

I have long hair and have no problem talking about how I keep it or what unmanly products I have to use to make it shiny. I've never complained that a woman sexually harassed me but probably should have on a couple occasions.

Re:Of course it does

[vel-ex-tech]

Disclaimer: I also restrain from giving female co-workers compliments for the same reason. I previously had great respect for one of the women who's called me sexist to my face and thought she was an intelligent, rational, worldly person. They're out there. It's a minefield. I'm hoping after I complete gender transition I will be able to compliment other women on their hair or dress (hint: a good way to do this is to ask where she bought a certain item).

Also, feminism at present seems to have declared war on me. Keep that in mind the next time you think feminism is on the side of trans folks. AmiMoJo will tell you differently, but it's definitely different where s/he is than it is here. I live within a day's drive of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival.

Anyway! On to the point.

Sometimes, bald-faced gender discrimination does happen. Guess where it comes from? Gaslighting asshole managers. Companies who employ and are directed by those gaslighting asshole managers need to be held accountable so they're less inclined to hire gaslighting asshole sexists.

Long story short, best hacker I knew got "outed" (she wasn't deep stealth and was open about it, just a certain gaslighting asshole manager hadn't heard about it yet) and then promptly fired. I'll bet the gaslighting asshole thought "What! A liberal SJW feminist tranny? In my business? He's really a man anyway, so no discrimination here. B&!" (She's also anything but SJW.)

Heh, I'll bet he crapped his pants when the letter from the lawyer noted that not only is being a woman a protected class, but in the jurisdiction there, gender identity is also protected.

Let me cast "Circle of Protection: MRAs, feminists, SJWs, and anti-SJWs" on my friend. It was my idea to start the lawsuit, and another one of her friends and I talked her into it.

So, in summary, the true tragedy of all this SJW Gish galloping is that cases of real, provable, illegal discrimination do happen but get lost in the noise and then swept up in a stereotype that these lawsuits are people just looking for an easy payday. Also, real, disgusting, creepy as fuck sexual harassment does happen, but it gets lost in the noise of microaggressions. The only way to deal with this is to find cases where it's actually happening, prosecute, and be prepared to blame the real culprits instead of nerds and geeks: gaslighting asshole managers.

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

or worse.. "I think you are wrong."

Re: Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a severe yet mostly invisible disability from an injury and find most discrimination complaints insulting. I would give everything I have to trade places with most people. I'm offended that people are offended at such tricial crap when half of my day is sent vomiting or knotted up in a whole body cramp. People don't care about me because this is too rare to matter. People are all hypocrites.

Re: Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone labeled as privileged, such as white males, ironically are denied the privilege of being free from harassment or "unwelcome conduct".

Re: Of course it does

[qbast]

Ye gods! Put a trigger warning next time, will ya?

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you *any* idea how hard it would be to turn something like that into a lawsuit? Have you any idea how often men do *entirely* inappropriate things to women that go unreported?

Re:Of course it does

[ArylAkamov]

Considering your posts are rated at -1, troll, it seems that they have proven you right.

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

Gaslighting asshole managers...gaslighting asshole managers...gaslighting asshole sexists...gaslighting asshole manager...gaslighting asshole...gaslighting asshole managers....

In the future, could you please define your terms? I have no idea what you mean by a "gas lighting manager". Is this some new slang amongst the gender studies folks?

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Unwelcome conduct" can be literally ANY conduct, is purely subjective, and is completely out of the control of the "perpetrator."

Ask any woman if she's ever been sexually harassed by an attractive man. The answer is always 'no.'

Re: Of course it does

[vel-ex-tech]

I don't know your condition, but if it helps, your symptoms indicate cannabis flower. If you have a medical marijuana law available, I'd highly recommend at least giving it a shot. Some people are allergic, however. For others, cannabis flower can be the only thing that lets them regain their lives. I hope you're in the latter group.

Re:Of course it does

[vel-ex-tech]

My apologies. Gaslighting derives from the title of the movie The Gas Lights. In a nutshell, it's a psychological abuse tactic that causes the victim to question their perception of reality and their sanity. Would you like to know more?

Re:Of course it does

[vel-ex-tech]

*raises hand*

Well, it was an honest mistake. I was presenting as male and he was trying to be buddy-buddy cums with me. For some reason it just creeped me the hell out. So I asked him to stop, and he did. Problem solved!

Re:Of course it does

[zapadnik]

Ah, but when you agree with the Borg you must not clap as that is 'triggering' The Borg are sensitive to clapping. You must use 'jazz hands':
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

And when a SJW tells you that disagreeing with them is rape, but you are a racist if you oppose traditional Muslim gang rape (Taharrush gamea) of 'infidel' girls, then you must also use jazz hands to show you are one with the SJW Borg Collective:
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

#GamerGate invictus ! down with all Orwellian Thought Police SJWs !

Re:Of course it does

[Zontar The Mindless]

Here ya go.

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to look up the definition of 'sexual harassment.' Hitting on someone is not it.

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

> I was presenting as male and he was trying to be buddy-buddy cums with me.

Best. Freudian slip. Evar!

Re: Of course it does

[Sir Holo]

Well, you know what to do next time someone tells you to check your privilege -- by which they mean "shut up, independent white male". That kind of aggression is primarily based on race, sex, and ability.

Saying "Check your privilege" is harassment. Report it. (Unless you're being a jerk, in which case, also re-think what you might be doing to evoke such responses—you are aware of whether you do this or not.)

This is just like when a manager's secretary would frequently tell me (presumably others not of her genetic background), "You're goin' to the back o' the bus." That was harassment, racist in this case. Such racist comments do nothing to help people get along. BTW, I left before reporting, but had reported some other, bigger issue already (whistle-blowing).

Re: Of course it does

[Sir Holo]

They forgot to add:

"harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information (unless it's directed against a white heterosexual male, who it's impossible to discriminate against)."

Well, that is only if you are dumb enough to expect HR to do anything about it. They won't. Then, you report to higher authorities (government, the press, etc.) and possibly use the courts. This is one reason that courts exist – to address such issues.

Re:Of course it does

[vel-ex-tech]

Er... that's not a Freudian slip.

Of course, all things gender and sexuality become confused with my current absurd situation. I am attracted to men, and I have a female mind and soul and a male reproductive system. Thus, I, from time to time, become attracted to men I know through my roles obtained by playing the feminist game and presenting as male for business purposes.

Yes, it was a "homosexual" attraction I felt. I think perhaps that the reason I felt creeped out is that I was running my male simulation program one might say. That program is not sufficient to install in me male sexuality. Thus, the conflict.

(Why am I at cold war with feminism? Ask them. I don't know. I don't even fucking understand it. They're the ones who called me and every other trans woman out there a rapist and an impostor, and they're the ones who mesmerized the rest of you into believing their lies with economic consequences for anyone with a clitoris two millimeters too big. Why are lesbians screaming at my friends in public that they're not real women because their breasts aren't large enough and because they've been poisoned by testosterone? I don't fucking know. We should be allies, but they've declared war with you as an ally and there's nothing else to do.)

Re:Of course it does

[Anonymous Coward]

> Er... that's not a Freudian slip.

I thought you meant to type "chums" not "cums," was I mistaken?

Have you upset someone in the victim demographic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here come the false accusations and public opinion trials where your guilt is presumed.

Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an astrologer and I frequently encounter harassment from mainstream astronomers and academics, so it swings both ways.

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just call astrology a science? This is a joke, right? Please let it be a joke.

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[suutar]

No, just that astrology gets dissed and that's unwelcome.

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

All my work with voodoo and goats blood enemas gets dissed too, where's my angry group of SJW to the rescue?

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[tsstahl]

Well, if you're good at it, you should see it coming before it happens....

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Chris Mattern]

I bet people running Three-Card Monte games don't welcome being "dissed" either.

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

That's BS. I've never ripped anyone off. I've *never charged* anyone for my services. Even for complex astrology and tarot readings. Anyone who asks for my services will be taken care of.

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

Gets dissed for a reason

Re:Lots of harassment in science

[Anonymous Coward]

Since astrology is a pile of crap and is a con game by the astrologers like you, it should be dissed. It's crap from bottom to top.

Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are these people? Why did you separate a list of names with periods?
What did they (allegedly) do? How do you know there are "a great many more" who have done, and are still doing, the same?

For bonus points:
When were these things done?
Where were they done?
Why? How?

FUCK!

Re:Who? What?

[Falos]

This may be causing the demagogue flop: Trying to vaguely synthesize a "problem" may work in other circles, but hard science doesn't want to hear that there's "some kind of thing going on, maybe", it wants facts, places, numbers, reproducible events, documentation, data, something real, something tangible. Not posturing and implied semissertions.

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists may want those things, but the universities and businesses that employ them only care that they might get bad PR, lawsuits, and protesters if they don't immediately cave to every harassment claim.

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're white men. Because of privilege, they're automatically guilty based on their race and sex.

Re:Who? What?

[GrumpySteen]

What is a summary? Why does it not contain every detail about a story?

For bonus points, use a dictionary to find out what a summary is and use Google to find out what those people did along with when, where, why and how.

\

Re:Who? What?

[Mr. Shotgun]

Trying to vaguely synthesize a "problem" may work in other circles, but hard science doesn't want to hear that there's "some kind of thing going on, maybe", it wants facts, places, numbers, reproducible events, documentation, data, something real, something tangible.

Hell I would settle for some correlation at least:

Is the rate of sexual harassment higher for $field than it is for the general population?

If it is then maybe there is more research to be done to discover why and try to correct it.
If not then there is not a problem in $field, there is an asshole problem. And you deal with the asshole problem by getting rid of the assholes and not blaming the field the assholes happen to work in.
(disclaimer: I am not calling anyone from TFA an asshole, just stating in general)

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Summaries usually contain 1) a concise background of the story in question, 2) a brief update on the news relating to the story, and 3) what the hell they're talking about.

This summary fails on all counts. For starters, what kind of harassment they're talking about would help.

Re:Who? What?

[nytes]

For bonus points:
When were these things done?
Where were they done?
Why? How?

Are you looking for DIY instructions?

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen and believe, buddy boy.

Listen and believe.

CAPTCHA: terrify

Re:Who? What?

[NicknameUnavailable]

Are you expecting an SJW to clear up their strawomen?

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a summary? Why does it not contain every detail about a story?

For bonus points, use a dictionary to find out what a summary is and use Google to find out what those people did along with when, where, why and how.

\

The summary certainly failed at doing it's job of getting people to want to read the full article.

Re:Who? What?

[serviscope_minor]

But never, ever read TFA. This is slashdot, after all and you'll lose your karma if you're caught.

Re:Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Astronomers are basically physicists, and having been a physicist and having met a great many physicists and some astronomers as well, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they're all assholes. Having worked among them I know that these are not nice people by nature to begin with, and most of them are unhappy (many clinically depressed) and/or overworked and take their revenge on everyone they meet (who is lower on the academic ladder -- they may be mean and spiteful, but they're also frightfully intelligent.) Maybe if you're a woman some of this behaviour may take sexist forms, but trust me, life is no better for male physicists.

This isn't related to a specific field.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shall we just call it human nature?

And oh, what a Captcha: playboy

the earth is self cleaning?

[Anonymous Coward]

everything in space is exactly what & where it should be... spirit of creation provides more than enough of all we need... truth+mercy=justice

What do you hope for?

[irrational_design]

"hopefully physics, computer science, engineering, philosophy and economics are next."
Don't you really mean, "hopefully this is only a problem with astronomy and no matter how deep we dig we will not find this issue in any other field"? Do you really hope this issue is widespread?

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

" Do you really hope this issue is widespread?"

For SJWs, the worse the problem, the better for them. An SJW would commit suicide in a world without a white/christian/male/heterosexual/capitalist/non-transgender patriarchy to oppress them to death every single day.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

"astronomy, physics, computer science, engineering, philosophy and economics"
because harassment never happens in construction, military, college and pro sports, marketing, retail.
oh wait, lets just pound the nerds down, because girls still like the bad boy jocks and musicians

Re: What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

SJWs will invent problems in those field if they don't find any.

What "spotlighting harassment in astronomy" really means: the same old tedious oversensitivity and manufactured controversy that you've seen in a dozen other venues.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

"hopefully physics, computer science, engineering, philosophy and economics are next."
Don't you really mean, "hopefully this is only a problem with astronomy and no matter how deep we dig we will not find this issue in any other field"? Do you really hope this issue is widespread?

Um. Sorry. I read the article, we're not supposed to do that I know, but it says, in the last article that it's a problem across academia.

So, yes, it's a widespread problem where a lead scientist or teacher controls the lives of those underneath them and takes advantage (sexually or otherwise). You never knew someone in college who did the teacher's job for them without pay? We called them grad students.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a guy and I know that hitting on females because a guy needs a penis receptacle remains widespread. It's basis is male chauvinism. That doesn't mean every man does it, but it is very widespread and needs to be exposed and stopped. What we are seeing is women feeling empowered enough to talk about dermaning stuff that has been going on literally for hundreds of years with little recourse. Remember less than a hundred years ago women couldn't vote and before that were considered the property of the husband they had to marry to avoid ridicule for being an undesireable spinster.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Coren22]

in the last article that it's assumed to be a problem across academia.

There, FTFY.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where you see a problem the SJW sees an opportunity for a very profitable kickstarter.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You never knew someone in college who did the teacher's job for them without pay? We called them grad students.

AThere is a huge difference between low paid work (like an internship) which is part of the learning process, and being sexually taken advantage of. Making the two the same is stupid.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Locke2005]

I've seen it too, when the cute 20 year old Mormon software developer in the cubicle next to me had to put up with an older, married, marketing droid chatting her up for hours at a time when they had no business reason for interaction at all. Not sure who is doing the harrasing, but I doubt it is us soldiers in the field that are actually doing all the work. More likely the extroverts with big egos than us humble introverts... in other words, more likely the bosses.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or lawsuit.

Re:What do you hope for?

[110010001000]

Maybe he was just interested in the magic underwear that Mormons wear.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because clearly construction, military, college, and pro sports, marketing, retail are all sciences too, and **WHOOSH** there goes the point you deliberately missed so you could pretend people were picking on you.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, a majority of men had to vote to give women the right to vote.

Nobody cares about the majority of men, they only want to concentrate on whatever minority they can get away with (and to stop it being persecution of a minority, claim it's the majority: problematic!).

When will feminists ever than the majority of men for giving them the right to vote.

And not very long after the men being given the right to vote, too!

Remember, most men could not vote, even in democracies, only a select few could vote. And, frequently, the select few INCLUDED WOMEN.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww, did a SJW hurt your widdle white male fee-fees?

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's because women can get others, (men that want to fuck them), to go along with whatever crazy crap they're doing, especially bullying nerds.

Re:What do you hope for?

[nitehawk214]

They have already decided the issue is widespread before they even do any research into it.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there, quoting a quip at the end instead of the whole post.

This ended predictably.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because clearly, one can't choose to focus on the problems within a specific industry while other people focus on other industries.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I quoted the part I wanted to talk about. I have nothing interesting to say about the prevalence of sexual harassment in academia. I mean, I've seen anecdotal evidence,but nothing interesting on a largescale (interesting stories on the other hand...)

But I can talk about the idiocy of comparing grad students doing shit work that someone has to do (which seems fine) and sexual harassment.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

hitting on females because a guy needs a penis receptacle remains widespread. It's basis is male chauvinism.

Yay, straight-bashing!

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

An SJW would commit suicide in a world without a white/christian/male/heterosexual/capitalist/non-transgender patriarchy to oppress them to death every single day.

That's "CISgender", you insensitive clod.

Re: What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a nigger robbed me and fuckwads like you suck his dead cock when the police finally got him.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

or at least getting into a pair.

Re:What do you hope for?

[thesupraman]

More to the point, hopefully TEACHING will be next.

You know, that profession critical to the development of our children, where men are being actively
excluded, at a systemic level, with the support of both parents and schools?

But no, why would we want male teachers? After all, as is well proven all males are rapists, who
cannot actually function above a level where they continually need to molest children, and after
all also have nothing to contribute to the education, either intellectually or socially of our children!

And for those blind idiots who deny this problem, have a look here:
http://www.menteach.org/resources/data_about_men_teachers

If a group has ever been actively excluded in a systematic way from a profession, it is men in teaching.

Re:What do you hope for?

[nytes]

I think they mean they hope that Physics, Computer Science, Engineering, Philosophy and Economics are the next ones to be sexually harassed.

Those must be the names of some women the submitter doesn't like.

Re:What do you hope for?

[vel-ex-tech]

Yep, gaslighting asshole managers, sales-types, and pretty much everyone in a suit.

That's why I find this Narrative so personally offensive. Geeks and nerds are some of the most accepting people I know. We don't care what one is as long as one knows his/her/xir/etc shit.

Why are geeks and nerds under fire here? It's simple: the assholes who bullied us during high school and college and got all the attractive people have become journalists, PR idiots, salespeople, and gaslighting asshole managers. So, the bullying continues but on a grander scale.

Note: I did not use gender neutral terms to be PC. Women can be bullies, too, and they make vicious ones.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Men should stop hitting on women? Okay pal. It is probably for the best if you keep right on admiring them from afar. Meanwhile, if you're absurd notion ever became a reality, humanity would go extinct.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop calling anyone who disagrees with you for a SJW.
A typical SJW is just driven by being offended on behalf of others. Your list addresses the group that femenazis are against, that is not the same thing as being a SJW.
When you are offended on behalf of others it is easy to just jump on to the next thing. As long as there is something to be offended about you can just pick up the good fight.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like a bunch of autistics got together, decided the rest of the society (which they call "patriarchy") isn't just crazy but EVIL, and that everything will be better if everyone follows the rules for social interaction that they've deemed to be less problematic.

Note - problematic just means "has a downside". Unless your life is blander than a padded cell, everything in it will have a downside. But they want to take those dangerous bits away, so everyone is safe and comfy.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, this is a crusade.

A crusader is nothing more than a church-sponsored thug without an infidel. The more infidels and the more heinous their perceived crimes, the more (self-) righteous the cause is.

A decent human being on the other hand, would not be labelling the people outside their little religious group infidels to begin with.

Re:What do you hope for?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, if you're absurd notion ever became a reality, humanity would go extinct.

These days I sometimes think that might not be a bad thing.

Re:What do you hope for?

[serviscope_minor]

I love these threads. It seems the key to getting modded up is to make incredibly wild claims about SJW, and then the hugbox comes out and mods them up.

Yay let's all rail against boogeymen and pat each other on the back!

Next up, terrorist, paedophiles and criminals.

Worst summary in history.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen so many incomplete sentences in one paragraph before. This is crazy. Poor quality topic, poor quality summary.

Is soulskill posting these angrily while coming down between crack cocaine hits? I guess slashdot is too annoying for him to remotely try, but it does pay for the cocaine...

Re:Worst summary in history.

[Coren22]

Is soulskill posting these angrily while coming down between crack cocaine hits?

No, the problem is that StartsWithABang was foaming at the mouth when he typed it, which caused his keyboard to malfunction and spew all this garbage into the text box.

Re:Worst summary in history.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the problem is that StartsWithABang was foaming at the mouth when he typed it, which caused his keyboard to malfunction and spew all this garbage into the text box.

Remember, kids, Ethan "Spamswithablog" Siegel is a scientist. Slashdot greens all his Forbes-hosted malware-spewing blogspam because it's somehow related to astronomy - even though this greenlight is straight-up politics with the string "in astronomy" appended to the headline.

We were mercifully without his blogspam for a few days. Time once again to remind users to go into the Firehose at http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl and keep an eye out for his spam, and to downvote it accordingly.

There are better science bloggers out there. There are better political bloggers out there. We can do better than Jon Katz 2.0.

Re:Worst summary in history.

[Anonymous Coward]

He hasn't done anything for physics or astronomy for years. I first remember him as an (fairly) early adopter of Google Plus, where he "shaped opinions", "managed digital strategies", "hacked growth" with his trivial stuff. He was the first on my block list.

Re:Have you upset someone in the victim demographi

[NotDrWho]

His conduct was unwelcome to me! BURN THE WITCH!!

Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Trax3001BBS]

Published on Jun 22, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Coren22]

That's sexist!

Re:Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

I also like "The Power to create":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ8_81Qy9kg

Re:Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

That gave me cancer.

Re:Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what academic field is closest to curing cancer?

gender studies.

Re:Science: It's a Girl Thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't get it

Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the last link is for the Starts With A Bang blog, which is on forbes.com. They have their silly "turn off adblock" policy, so I don't get to read it because I use Ghostery. Not reading this particular blog is not a huge loss for me, after all it's a speck of dust in an infinite internet universe of interesting stuff. When enough feel like I do, it'll be a much bigger loss for the blog, and indeed for Forbes.

It's kind of sad when smart people implement dumb solutions.

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also notice we have a new submitter for Forbes.com as well as "Forbes.com" is not shown in the front page banner like other sites.

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes is blocked in my hosts files, in case I accidentally click on one of their articles. Several other sites are there, also.

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

smart people

[citation needed]

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[jmcvetta]

Use uBlock Origin instead, it somehow evades their "turn off adblock" policy.

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

For anyone thinking of turning off adblocker to see the article, DON'T. From last week:
Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers then immediately served them pop-under malware.
http://www.engadget.com/2016/01/08/you-say-advertising-i-say-block-that-malware/

Re:Forbes -- adblock -- no read. Your loss.

[Anonymous Coward]

Management tends to be exactly that.

I'm a computer engineer. I left the IT world because I was sick of implementing stupidly over-complicated. over-priced solutions to simple problems, simply because some manager wanted to be able to put "managed project with X, Y, and Z technologies": on his CV.

If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jupiter cries they get fat shamed, Uranus is the butt of every joke, Mars is offended because people refer to it by the color of its atmosphere, Venus has gender issues and insists it was born a male planet, Pluto has a size complex, and everything orbits your mom.

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[Coren22]

Mars' surface is red, not the atmosphere which is practically invisible since it is so low pressure.

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[pla]

Atmospherist!

/ Triggered

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[Anonymous Coward]

You transparentist!

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally correct I just had no way to edit or reply due to the way slashdot handles anon posts.

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Mars really red?

More importantly, is it really angry?

Re:If celestial bodies were Triggered like SJWs...

[hawk]

Jupiter is just claiming that after harassing all ofthdeose asteroids, and keeping the from reaching better orbits . . . no-one wants to talk about this, but this "gas ceiling" is a real problem.

hawk

Can you not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you not turn slashdot into a fucking cesspool of faux-masculine, overcompensating, closeted homoerotic, self-labeled-as-alpha, hose-the-decks-down-with-cum, my dad can beat up your dad, flat-brim hat wearing, ass-slapping, sports-culture-vore douchebags? They have a reddit for that.

Mod parent down.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Mod parent down.

Re:Mod parent down.

[serviscope_minor]

Why? Do you not like hearing what it says? Perhaps there's something in TFA you object to or think is wrong?

Or do you simply desperately want to believe everything is fine?

Re:Mod parent down.

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Several reasons, really.

First, I'm generally opposed to the 'social justice warrior' mentality that seems to be gaining popularity in American culture. I question the implied notion that social injustice is always the most important issue at hand. If you're about to respond saying that this notion isn't really implied anywhere, then I move to my second point.

Let's assume that, as the summary claims, there is indeed a "harassment problem" in astronomy. And let's assume that, as the summary claims, an entire academic field is recognizing a widespread problem, taking steps to change its policies, and is beginning to support the victims, rather than the senior, more famous, more prestigious perpetrators. There is an undeniable implication here that this is a good thing, and I question the basis for this implication. While we can all agree that fixing a "harassment problem" is, in a vacuum, a good thing, it is not logically necessary that the good from fixing this "harassment problem" outweighs the negative impact of opposing (or, fine, "holding accountable") the "more prestigious perpetrators". While one may hold an opinion that the value of social justice is greater than the value of amassing astronomical knowledge, it is just that -- an opinion.

It is my opinion that too many people unquestioningly accept the premise that the social justice is of utmost importance, and that achieving social justice is worth any price. I acknowledge that this may certainly be the case, but that such claims are unsupported by any factual evidence or logical argument.

Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Does harassment exist? Sure they do. So do sociopaths, thieves and other lowlife scum. However, I remain unconvinced that this is any sort of widespread problem. More than thirty years in tech, and I have yet to see first-hand, or hear second-hand, of one, single harassment case. I read about incidents in the news, but like weird accidents, they seem to make the news precisely because they are unusual.

The people pushing this stuff claim to be helping women. In actual fact, they couldn't hurt women more if they tried. In a professional context, men actively avoid meeting one-on-one with women. Two people need to talk about a project? If it's a man and a woman, the man (if he has a brain) will refuse to meet anywhere but a public space. No man will mentor a women, for fear of being accused of ulterior motives. Male-dominated teams actively avoid hiring women, because doing so risks unfounded harassment complaints, gender discrimination lawsuits, etc..

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't see harassment you're probably the one with the responsibility to put a stop to it. That's how harassment works. If you're not looking for it: you won't find it. Most people don't want to find it so they don't.

Re:Bah, humbug

[avandesande]

Same story here- 20 years in the business and one time a co-worker said a vaguely sexual comment to another. She reported him and he was sent home for a week.

Re:Bah, humbug

[dskoll]

I am guessing you're a male? Try asking women you know. I think you'll be surprised (if not shocked) by the crap women have to deal with on a fairly regular basis.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

We have no harassment issues at work. The boss only hires arrogant men.

Re:Bah, humbug

[avandesande]

In 20 years as a developer every place I have worked has had 50/50 balance male female. I would say that females might be somewhat more represented as managers and business analysts but have had at least 30% female developers. Hardly a sausage fest.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

I am guessing you're a male? Try asking women you know. I think you'll be surprised (if not shocked) by the crap women have to deal with on a fairly regular basis.

Ask a man and you will get the same response. People like to complain about that one time twenty years ago someone pissed them off.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Lucky you. Where I work, there are 3 women TOTAL in a company of 80 including programmers, managers, etc.

Re:Bah, humbug

[avandesande]

Wow! I feel for you- my sense is that an even mix keeps things civil and working efficiently. Must suck there.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a universal experience though. My wife got her Ph.D. in computer science and doesn't recognize the view some other women have shared about harassment as it doesn't match her experience. She's had a few awkward interactions over the years at conferences with someone flirting or propositioning, but then so have I!

Ironically, the closest she might have experienced was when we first met on the job and started dating. She was a graduate student and I was research staff, but we both arrived in the group the same year and did not have any kind of real power imbalance. But, I guess there was a brief period while we discovered whether we really liked each other or had a big mess to deal with.

Re:Bah, humbug

[irrational_design]

We once needed to hire another developer, but we were short on space. There was a woman that we really wanted to hire, but she would have had to share my cube with me. I told my boss no way no how. I would never harass a woman or do or say anything even close to harassment, but the chance of some sort of harassment complaint would go so high with us working in such close proximity (what if I accidentally backed my chair into hers? Obviously that was an unwanted advance) so I flat out refused. We hired a man instead. I felt bad for the woman, but the environment is so toxic for men working in close proximity to women that we couldn't chance it.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Counter to that. I used to share an office with 2 female sysadmins (very good ones too). Both had worked in the IT world for 30+ years.

One day one of those generic email announcements came through from HR concerning sexual harassment not being tolerated in the work place.

One of the woman said: If you ask me, there isn't enough sexual harassment in the work place! Bring it on! The other immediately agreed. Another female colleague from another office later also agreed.

Naturally it was a joke (did I even have to state that? Probably), but the discussion went on about their experiences and both agreed that they had never encountered it - or at least nothing that they knew wasn't said in jest (and there is a lot of that in my office - given and taken by all).

Yes, harassment happens and should be stamped out fast, but I also agree that it is rare.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

Or harassment is not nearly as prevalent as you think it is. Or your definition of harassment is whackado.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

We once needed to hire another developer, but we were short on space. There was a woman that we really wanted to hire, but she would have had to share my cube with me. I told my boss no way no how. I would never harass a woman or do or say anything even close to harassment, but the chance of some sort of harassment complaint would go so high with us working in such close proximity (what if I accidentally backed my chair into hers? Obviously that was an unwanted advance) so I flat out refused. We hired a man instead. I felt bad for the woman, but the environment is so toxic for men working in close proximity to women that we couldn't chance it.

So, in other words you got your male boss to hire a less qualified male employee instead of the more qualified woman on the basis that you didn't want to work with a woman, and you think this story is an example of how women don't get harassed in the workplace?

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

No it is a case of the situation that people are so worried and paranoid of the consequences of being falsey accused that Women then dont even get to gain a foothold in the workplace!

Re:Bah, humbug

[nytes]

Really? In 36 years as a developer I have worked with exactly one female developer, and never had a female manager.

I maintain some code written by a female (it's brilliant), but I never met her. She was long gone by the time I got here.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

yup, but it's not all from men... just this afternoon, i heard this exchange a few cubes away:

coworker A: i'll ask if she knows him...
coworker C: she probably did him...
coworker A: yeah, she did pretty much every body...

now, one of {A,C} is a woman, who claims {B} as a friend (with whom she meets for lunch on a regular basis).

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

You know... having been in exactly this situation - it never even occurred to me that it was a risk? And it wasn't a problem (and yes, I'm sure of that!).

In what world do you live that a single, ambiguous act like bumping chairs would be viewed as harassment, or that anyone raising it as a complaint would be taken particularly seriously? In most jurisdictions, the legal definition of harassment includes terms like "ongoing" or "repeated" - and even for organisations who take a stricter view, the HR response is invariably some form of mediation, or a quiet chat with the alleged offender.

And the more ambiguous the act, the more true that is.

But I'm really at a loss as to how someone, acting in a professional manner, could trigger a harassment claim, or the kind of ire in an individual that would cause someone to make a false claim?

What do I mean by professional?
* Avoid personal comments. In general, unless the other party starts talking about themselves, it's easiest to just avoid talking about them too.
* Respect their personal space - and stay out of it if you can. If you can't, apologize, and where possible telegraph your moves or even state them out loud. A nod of the head in the direction you're planning to go can be very effective here.
* Don't touch. Ever. If you do by accident, apologize.
* Avoid jokes about sex, race, politics or religion.
* Be polite.

These don't seem like hard guidelines to follow in any kind of institutional environment? By following all of these, all the time, HR/Management are far, far less likely to take any claim against you seriously anyway, nor are other likely to support a claim.

While the above might make me sound like my office is a rather dull place to work - actually the reverse is true. I've actually had people (men and women) tell me how much fun our team is - and even that they stayed with the company for longer than they otherwise would have because of that. We laugh *a lot*, which is so much easier to do when no one is feeling threatened or uncomfortable!

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing you're a female?
Try asking any man you know.
I think you'll be surprised (if not shocked) by the crap men have to deal with on a regular basis.

1. Doing women's work for them.
2. Job assignments that managers would never even CONSIDER burdening women with.
3. Doing women's work for them?
4. Doing all of the heavy work, because the "We're equal except for when we're better" set always trots out the "but I'm a girl" excuse any time any physical labor is involved
5. Did I mention having to do women's work for them?

When women decided, collectively, that they weren't going to do anything beyond standing around yacking and bossing people around like the children they never had, guess what... the only usefulness you have left is ... SEX OBJECT.

You don't want to be a sex object ? Then start making yourself useful in other ways.

Re:Bah, humbug

[Anonymous Coward]

My point was: if you aren't responsible for putting a stop to it then you shouldn't have to look for it. Those are the only people that it get's hidden from. It's plainly obvious to everyone else because it's out in the open. The problem is: they aren't responsible for stopping it, and they don't want the conflict so they predictably do nothing to stop it and say "better them than me."

New Shill?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a new shill for Forbes.com

StartsWithABang: Pushing pro-malware Forbes, again

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember: StartsWithABang submits articles for the sole purpose of driving traffic to his own articles on FORBES. Forbes is unworthy both for supporting content like this, and for their aggressive pro-malware stance for adblock suppression.

Poor summary as per usual

[p0p0]

What harassment? Sexual? Physical? Racial?
You can't just go on about something you haven't even told us about yet.

It's gender discrimination the editor was talking about by the way. You have to be clear in these situations because every special snowflake is being "discriminated against" in some way either because the way someone fucking sits or because someone doesn't automatically know they are a genderfluid, cross horse/dragonkin from Planet Zarblox X and are only attracted to slightly rounded triangles.
It's a good thing that problems like this are being tackled, but nowadays I'm always skeptic when people start trying to make a deal of it because most of the time it's someone being over sensitive because they wore cat ears and a tail to a job interview and yell "DISCRIMINATION" or "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE" when they don't get the job.
That's what SJW's have done to actual battles for equality: they've bastardized it and made it less than it actually is by yelling louder than the people who experience the ass slaps or slurs or unprofessional jokes.

Everyone's so eager to be offended.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotlight harassment. It's a serious issue when your college spotlights some bugs in your code during review. It's also a serious issue when the light hits the too strong assumptions you have made in your experiment in order to write a required publication and results as a continual of the severe economical hardship. Spotlight are bad, philosophically speaking, mmok?

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate it when people I'm harassing harass me about it about, don't they know harassment is wrong?

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[prunus.avium]

I was involved as a witness to exactly one sexual harassment law suit. The woman who accused her boss of harassment was the Indian version of Phyllis from The Office.

She claimed her boss would play with himself when talking to her.

Her boss had a nervous tic: he jingled the coins in his pocket.

Nowadays this would be a shit-storm on social media.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA (or one of them, I hate multi-link stories), you'd see that this is your classic 1950s, hand up the skirt, sexual harrassment. You wanna defend that? Fascinating.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Gravis Zero]

are only attracted to slightly rounded triangles.

well i would like to point out that pie chart sections are being a total teases! i mean, why would you be outside of the rest of the pie if you weren't asking for it?! ;)

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters, but as a man, I'd find that behavior incredibly disturbing myself. And if you've got loose enough pants that you can jingle anything inside the pockets, the guy may have been playing with himself.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[p0p0]

Well I like my triangles sharp and pointy and that's the way they should be!

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that it matters, but as a man, I'd find that behavior incredibly disturbing myself. And if you've got loose enough pants that you can jingle anything inside the pockets, the guy may have been playing with himself.

Not everybody is a skinny-jeaned panty waste you know.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't RTFA because they are blocking us for using ad-block.

Are you one of those people that still "surf the interwebs" without one?

Do us all a favor and Go Educate Yourself.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Which article? The first one on nytimes.com? Or cnn.com?

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA (or one of them, I hate multi-link stories), you'd see that this is your classic 1950s, hand up the skirt, sexual harrassment. You wanna defend that? Fascinating.

I won't defend it, but surely of it happened in the 1950s it's time to move on. The guys and girls are probably all drawing their pensions now anyway.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Megol]

Right, most people aren't like you.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well I like my triangles sharp and pointy and that's the way they should be!

Pervert.

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I hate multi-links too but I did click on all of them & even some of the links at the links...so a reference to a 'hand up the skirt' example of harassment but no actual link to someone found guilty of that & punished for it & THAT's your take away as to what is being 'defended'.

And by-the-by NOONE is 'defending' anything...we are claiming that the level of discourse & reporting over sexual harassment is entirely out of order to the actual level of '1950s sexual harassment' that is occurring (or even '2016 levels that reasonable people would agree is sexual harassment').

The point being that when you define harassment as 'if its unwanted its harassment' (repeated in all the links I believe) than ANYTHING can be harassment and thus actual 'sexual harassment' loses all meaning!

Re:Poor summary as per usual

[serviscope_minor]

I love posts like yours:

1. Ignore TFA
2. Ignore TFS
3. Make up a bunch a random shit which is not in either
4. Rant about SJW
5. Modded up!

You seem incredibly emotionally invested in the idea that nothing is happening. You also, given a couple of the things, you also seem somewhat obsessed with furries. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I kind of wonder what it has to do with TFA.

please stop fanning the flames of the war on nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot, can we focus on stuff that matters to nerds and dispense with the SJW fridays, please??

thank you.

Sounds like something interesting

[Crashmarik]

Too bad it's on Forbes and there is no way I will turn off my adblockers to view the page.

Re:Sounds like something interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Just came back to comment: links are forbeslocked.

Re:Sounds like something interesting

[UnknownSoldier]

Exactly. Fuck you Forbes.

Oh, it's "StartsWithAShit" -- and nothing of value was lost.

Re:Sounds like something interesting

[penguinoid]

Just improve your adblocker. Add the Adblock Warning Removal List to AdBlock, and Forbes is once again viewable. Of course, you can also boycott them.

Re:Sounds like something interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Forbes has become more about tabloid reporting anyway. They suck a big fat dick.

What about Archeology?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be investigated in all scientific disciplines. The more theoretic a field is, the greater the chances of "appealing to authority".

Re:What about Archeology?

[110010001000]

Yeah but Indiana Jones is a hunk, so harassment is OK.

Click here

[110010001000]

Click here to find out what happens next! The answers will shock you! -Ethan

a terrible pratice

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that in this day and age people are harassing astronomers with spotlights. It's not only anoying in that it constricts the astroner's pupils and allows them to see less light and fewer stars, but if the spotlight is biright enough and the magnification of the telescope is strong enough, that bright light could cause blindness.

First it was lasers aimed at airplanes, now it's spotlights aimed at astronomers. What's next? Shooting bottle-rockets at cattle ranchers?

Not that the rags reporting have credibility

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the mashable article and of the 6 panel ad at the bottom, 2 of the panels had a picture of a mostly naked woman. And I browse with self-destructing cookies, so this was their random ads for an unknown pageviewer.

Uh-oh...

[Locke2005]

You mean the comment to your coworker that "The view of Uranus is lovely tonight!" is no longer considered appropriate? Kill joys!

Re:Uh-oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fine and appropriate if the coworker's answer to the comment is "Care to share your telescope?"

Re:Uh-oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your comment inept-une...

Fuck you, Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Just so you know, the relentless barrage of articles about alleged rampant harassment in science and technology is harassment of your main audience. If you want Slashdot to be a feminist blog, just say so. I think the appropriate warning is: Careful what you wish for. I have cancelled decade-long subscriptions to magazines which thought it wise to "expand" their audience by sucking up to the feminist agenda.

Re:Fuck you, Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

In Slashdot's defense, their offices are located in Silicon Valley. So if they don't do at least a weekly "All white heterosexual males are EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!!!!" article, they risk getting sent to reeducation camp.

Re:Fuck you, Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out whiny loser.

Re:Fuck you, Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if the area you are in is named after the cleavage of fake boobs, you gotta expect that sort of thing.

Re:Fuck you, Dice

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think he is alone? If this shit continues, you can have slashdot all for yourself and the feminists.

Please help raise awareness!

[Orgasmatron]

If we all get together, we can end this deplorable practice in a few months. There is no reason why we have to allow this harassment to go on! It really pisses me off that most victims have to face this alone and afraid.

If you know anyone who might be a victim of this pernicious evil, or who falls into one of the demographics likely to be exploited by it, please make sure that they get a copy of the Survival Guide ASAP. It can literally change his life.

The rest of the book is pretty good too.

Re:Please help raise awareness!

[serviscope_minor]

If you know anyone who might be a victim of this pernicious evil, or who falls into one of the demographics likely to be exploited by it, please make sure that they get a copy of the Survival Guide ASAP.

Ah yes: "American women (mostly) suck". That's the title of the blog you're linking to. Is that because they mostly won't shag you? Is that why they mostly suck?

Do way you're part of the problem automatically dismissing nearly half the problem simply based on gender.

Re:Please help raise awareness!

[Orgasmatron]

It was the first search result that included the material and didn't spoil the punchline in the URL preview. I've never read that site beyond making sure the page I linked was what I expected.

Oh, and the "American women suck" meme is most commonly heard from the PUA community, generally from guys with hundreds of notches. I'm sure the site's owner, or any random PUA, can fill you in on the details.

Re:Please help raise awareness!

[serviscope_minor]

It was the first search result that included the material and didn't spoil the punchline in the URL preview. I've never read that site beyond making sure the page I linked was what I expected.

It was a huge banner image across the top of the page you linked to.

Oh, and the "American women suck" meme is most commonly heard from the PUA community, generally from guys with hundreds of notches. I'm sure the site's owner, or any random PUA, can fill you in on the details.

Hard to follow your reasoning there. Are you saying it's reasonable to dismiss the half the population just based on gender because the people in question have had sex with lots of women? That's kind of implies that you think that whether or not you can have sex with them has some bearing on whether they suck (presumably as people).

Either way that kind of reasoning is indicative of some extremely broken thought processes

Re:Please help raise awareness!

[Orgasmatron]

You missed something important.

Read the article. That is the part of the webpage below the banner. Then go back to my first post, and ask yourself which harassment I'm concerned with. With that in mind, ponder how likely I am to be triggered by "zomg! sexism!".

Re:Please help raise awareness!

[serviscope_minor]

You missed something important.

Reprinted with permission of Vox Day.

You're right, I did miss something important. It's far worse than I originally imagined.

Read the article.

The first two lines are enough to know I have no need or desire to read further.

If you're linking to that without irony, frankly something is wring in your head because you have lost all ability to reason and be objective.

Re:please stop fanning the flames of the war on ne

[LaurenCates]

Yeah, but how else would Slashdot get clicks for internet drama?

Bingo

[Anonymous Coward]

Friday (check)
SJW stock (check)
StartsWithABang (check)

Yeah, let's bring a Beowulf clusterfuck of this!

Re:StartsWithABang: Pushing pro-malware Forbes, ag

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually a step up from his usual posts which only include a link to his blog. Unfortunately he's missed the memo that many if not most Slashdot readers are tired of the gender/race in STEM posts.

get out of IT, get into making tasty burgers

[vel-ex-tech]

Astronomy is the just start; hopefully physics, computer science, engineering, philosophy and economics are next.

Fuck you, Dice.

Just who harassed the person I was mentoring until she quit? Me? Another programmer?

No. It was a gaslighting asshole manager, probably not too different from the asshole managers in control at Dice. Literally the only reason that guy was even hired was because of how skilled of a confidence man he was. And holy fucking shit, sexual harassment was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to him.

What do I get for it? I get a fucking SJW airhead babysitting my mentoring sessions with the next one until he realized that truth tables were way too far over his fucking head to even understand while my student grasped the concepts instantly.

Also, why is one of the best hackers I know out of work, and why did she get outright *fired* from a software company by a gaslighting asshole manager? If she wins the lawsuit, I had better see the news on Dicedot's front page!

So there, if I include myself, you can have 3 skilled and experienced female programmers right now, this instant, two of whom are not in IT jobs because of gaslighting asshole managers.

This is the reason why you should get out of IT as fast as you can. How long until your name is going to be on SJWdot's front page because some airhead used your assigned gender at birth and profession as conclusive evidence that you must be sexually harassing somebody somehow and that your field is filled with pro-rape misogynerds who are all sexual harassers and think women shouldn't be in the field?

Isn't there a poll about fallacies around here somewhere?

Also, how did philosophy and economics wind up in that list? Are there no professions that are immune to this hysteria? Well, I guess burger flipping is immune. Nobody's ever called me a sexist for being good at flipping burgers or insinuated in the slighted that I didn't think women could flip burgers. I just have to keep my sanity together for a little more now, and I can go back to flipping burgers, having positive relationships with my colleagues, satisfied customers, and meaningful work.

Re:get out of IT, get into making tasty burgers

[110010001000]

Wow. Weird. Why would someone quit after being mentored by you?

Re:get out of IT, get into making tasty burgers

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno about that. I worked a menial factory job and had my ass grabbed and hand put down my pants at work.

Thankfully, they fired the jerk who did that and it was the end of the story. No front page stories, no media, no anything, because nobody is trying to make a narrative out of manufacturing not being sufficiently political, so there's no incentive to create 5 minute hates every week and rage if someone doesn't want to participate.

Re:get out of IT, get into making tasty burgers

[Anonymous Coward]

You're really pushing that "gaslighting" meme hard! You've mentioned it in a ton of posts... almost like it's your job. Shill much?

Re:get out of IT, get into making tasty burgers

[Megol]

Are you on drugs? Incoherent shit about something with gaslights and other crap including not understanding a simple fucking sentence?

Worst headline, too.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I read "What Spotlighting Harassment in Astronomy Means" to say they were going to explain some harassment of astronomers by people with spotlights.

The headline should have said something about Sexual harassment, and "Implications of ..." rather than "What ... Means".

Is the headline's author not a native speaker of English?

Re:Worst headline, too.

[thegarbz]

Is the headline's author not a native speaker of English?

You expected something better from StartsWithABang?

Of course it doesN'T

[wonkey_monkey]

Does it mean that astronomy has a harassment problem? Of course it does

Does it?

Or does it just mean that some people have a "harassment problem" and that by the law of averages some of them will work in astronomy, or engineering, or botany...

The scientific approach

[Anonymous Coward]

In the course of eight years as a professional astronomer, I've seen significantly more female-on-male abuse than male-on-female. However, if I remove the vocal feminists from the sample, the correlation disappears. My tentative conclusion: neither men nor women are especially more likely to be abusers, but feminists are.

Since the US seems to be host to a large contingent of feminists, I'm mildly inclined to avoid it in my future career.

Why am I still reading this shit?

[Movi]

Ok, that's it, I'm done. Where's the delete account button? In the olden days I'd probably ask if someone wasn't my ID, but nowadays that's ableism or some kind of crap like that, right? Because no fun allowed.

Fake

[Anonymous Coward]

This "harassment is everywhere" trope is just like the "you're all rapists" trope: 100% made up and fake.

Did anyone actually read the articles?

[dskoll]

Did anyone read this article?. "Geoff Marcy, a leader in the field of exoplanet research, has resigned from his position as a professor of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, following an investigation that found he violated the school's sexual harassment policies."

Or how about this one? "Results from a recent AAS survey were reported at the last week's plenary session on harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. Some 82% of astronomers have heard sexist remarks from their peers; 44% heard sexist remarks from supervisors; 9% experienced physical harassment from peers or supervisors."

Those articles do not read like SJWs and the do seem to indicate some sort of a problem.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[oh_my_080980980]

No they didn't. That's the problem. Given this is largely a CS crowd, they don't think sexual harassment is a problem. Lot of nerds in need of a swirly.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, because they read exactly like the kind of feminst/SJW organised smear campaigns (anonymous allegations, unprovable claims), press gossiping, and witch-hunting used to take over genres/hobbies/fields.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

While the second article you mention sounds bad, it should be kept in mind that the percentages are based on a self-selected sample, and so are not really valid since there is probably a very strong bias.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're media articles. They're sensational SJW nerd-shaming by default.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Orgasmatron]

Pressuring the victim to resign is the SJW tactic of choice. It allows them to maintain the pretense that this wasn't really all their fault

Until we mandate that kid start memorizing the survival guide's key points in elementary school, specifically "6: Do Not Resign!", a resignation is the marker of a successful victimization, not an admission of guilt.

As to the investigation, I think that pretty much everyone pictures the same Australian marsupial when they close their eyes and try to imagine what kind of hearing the guy was getting in the People's Republic of Berkeley.

Last, the survey is self-refuting. Mind reading technology sufficiently advanced to detect the motives of people performing "unwelcome conduct", whatever the hell that is, would make a survey pointless.

Bonus points: SJWs have stretched the word "sexist" to the point that it now means anything or nothing at all, but only when men say it, so the only way to interpret "sexist remarks" is as "words from a man".

Note to slashdot editors: Please keep the SJW stories coming. Each one turns a few more people to the alt-right, and inoculates dozens more.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Found he violated the school's sexual harrassment policies." That is incredibly vague -- what specific things did he do? A reader can't judge whether he actually did anything wrong without knowing the specifics.

Given the incredibly male-hostile atmosphere on today's university campuses, I can imagine that it would be very easy for any man to be found to have violated a university's sexual harrassment policies, even if his actions were innocent -- and well-nigh impossible for a woman to be found to have violated the same policies.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only presume that you are thinking about yourself in your sweeping statement above. After all, here you are, posting as part of the "crowd" as you put it.

Personally, I refuse to be painted by your brush and I would kindly ask you to fuck off with your generalizations.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

You fucking idiot, please shut off the god damn consoles and computer games and step outside. You aren't even human right now.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Marcy case shows that one man broke the rules against sexual harassment and was fired. What, precisely, is the problem here? Not punishment enough???

"harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct" well, that would require knowing a priori what the other person would think of your conduct before you do it. Since neither time travel nor mindreading are human abilities, what is the problem here, other than a too-wide definition of harassment?

A strict and devout Christian would find women just by being women in education, unwelcome conduct. So he's being harassed?

A strict and devout Muslim may find women not wearing full covering unwelcome conduct. So they (note: men and women can think this) are being harassed?

So you have two very glaring loopholes to that definition. Some forms of unwelcome conduct are protected from being harassing. E.g. two gay men kissing. Or a gay parade.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[serviscope_minor]

I love how you're so incredibly invested in teh idea that nothing could possibly be wrong ever. What I wonder is, why? You don't know Geoff Marcy, you've never met him and I doubt you even know anyone who knows him? Why are you defending him so heavily?

Pressuring the victim to resign

Organisations often give people the opportunity to resign when firing is inevitable because it's easier all round. Before he "resigned", UCB released a statement stating: "we believe that Geoff Marcy cannot perform the functions of a faculty member."

If someone is unable to perform their job, firing is in the pipeline. Allowing him to resign is easier.

But sure, blame SJW for something that's common across all industries. It helps identify you as a frothing nutcase.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Anonymous Coward]

omg brilliant retort!
u must be da SUPER GENIUS!

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Until we mandate that kid start memorizing the survival guide's key points in elementary school, specifically "6: Do Not Resign!", a resignation is the marker of a successful victimization, not an admission of guilt.

Did you read TFA as GP said? Did you read anything about this situation? The guy wasn't just accused by one questionable person and then forced to resign. It was a pattern of behavior involving lots of cases over the course of at least a decade, and he was originally asked by the university to sign away his right to keep tenure if he committed any future offenses. That doesn't generally happen unless there's some SERIOUS pressure from not only the administration, but the rest of the faculty at a university (which usually have pretty strict rules about keeping tenure and only violating it in the most extreme cases). And eventually that punishment wasn't seen as strong enough, so the rest of the faculty in his own department teamed up on him and pressured him to resign. That sort of thing just doesn't happen to an established tenured scholar unless something pretty egregious has occurred.

Bonus points: SJWs have stretched the word "sexist" to the point that it now means anything or nothing at all, but only when men say it, so the only way to interpret "sexist remarks" is as "words from a man".

Well, I don't know about "sexist," but "harassment" is pretty easy to define. It often really only comes down to one guideline: Don't be creepy.

Since you clearly don't have a sense of what that means, let me explain it. In general, it means don't treat people like "sex objects." Things like -- Don't touch people without their explicit permission and encouragement. Don't comment on people's appearance unless you are explicitly asked. Don't engage in sexual banter, pervasive innuendo, or other lewd conversation unless invited. Etc. Oh, and if the other person in question is your subordinate, generally just don't ever do any of this stuff, because power relationships usually make it problematic even if it seems like the subordinate is "open to it."

Believe it or not, this really isn't that hard to do if you're a professional person who is capable of not being a complete jerk. Just treat people around you like people rather than potential sex partners. If you act professional, it's really unlikely to be accused of "harassment."

Note to slashdot editors: Please keep the SJW stories coming. Each one turns a few more people to the alt-right, and inoculates dozens more.

It's posts like yours which make me wonder if I should abandon Slashdot. I remember when I was younger and went through a phase where I thought the world was out to get males and how you had to be "extra careful" around all women to avoid getting some trumped up charge. But later when I "grew up" and saw what it's like to interact with women in real workplaces, I realized that that's mostly either paranoia or excuses guys who tend to be creepy jerks give to try to justify their behavior or lament the fact that they can't "play grabass" in the office anymore.

And yes those latter guys are still around -- I've seen inappropriate things happen to women around me with my own eyes. It's more common among men who are over 50 or so, and it does seem less common with younger guys, but it's still there. I've heard even more stories from women about men who clearly come across as "creepy" and say/do inappropriate things. Meanwhile, the number of "oversensitive" women I've met who seem the type who would complain about nothing or trump up charges I can count on one hand -- and mostly everybody knows who they are and complains about them... both men and women tend to avoid them and distance themselves from their idiocy.

So, with all this in mind, and given your low ID number, you should be old enough to know better. Thus, I'm forced to conclude you likely fit into one of these categories:

(

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[nbauman]

Or how about this one? "Results from a recent AAS survey were reported at the last week's plenary session on harassment, defined as unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information. Some 82% of astronomers have heard sexist remarks from their peers; 44% heard sexist remarks from supervisors; 9% experienced physical harassment from peers or supervisors."

Those articles do not read like SJWs and the do seem to indicate some sort of a problem.

I read that bullet-point summary cited in the article and they didn't define unwelcome conduct. That can be as innocuous as inviting someone to have dinner after a conference. Or striking up an unwelcome conversation. Or criticizing a scientist's paper. Or anything that anyone subjectively decided was unwelcome conduct.

Anything could wind up in that survey as unwelcome conduct, whether it was reasonable conduct or not.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[dskoll]

Except Geoff Marcy admitted he'd behaved inappropriately and apologized for it. Oh right, he was "pressured" by SJWs. I forgot that's the asshole Defence of Choice.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[dskoll]

The school's sexual harrassment policies are here (PDF) and do not look vague to me. Presumably, the specific details of the case have not been made public because (I imagine) that neither Geoff Marcy nor his accusers particularly want the sordid details floating around the web.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[dskoll]

A guiding principal in law is that rules should be interpreted the way a "reasonable person" would interpret them.

So a guy asking a female coworker out on a date is not harassment. If she says "no, thanks, and please don't ask me again because I'm not interested in you" and he keeps on going with unwanted invitations, then it's harassment.

You also need to look at power structure: A manager asking a subordinate out is a completely different dynamic than two equal-level coworkers. Again, the overriding principal when interpreting these rules has to be reasonableness, and I do not see much of that in these comments. I just see knee-jerk emotional reactions.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[russotto]

Well, I don't know about "sexist," but "harassment" is pretty easy to define. It often really only comes down to one guideline: Don't be creepy.

Ah, "creepy". That word for which the central example is what teenaged girls call unattractive guys who try to talk to them. Might as well stick with the SNL Rules

1: Be handsome
2: Be attractive
3: Don't be unattractive

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[thegarbz]

Did anyone actually read the articles?

No. Given the submitter, I actually feel smarter and specifically more knowledgeable about the subject for NOT having clicked on any of his shit.

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[Orgasmatron]

You think I like the spew of SJW that slashdot has become?

I'm like you, I don't want to see that shit on slashdot, and I, like you, longed for the day when they would pack it up and let /. be about computers and technology again.

But I grew up. Every one of these bullshit articles is an opportunity. An opportunity to stand up and be seen, showing the undecideds that Cultural Marxism isn't inevitable. An opportunity to spread the counterculture, to give people the vocabulary to understand and fight back against the crybullies. An opportunity to remind the silent majority that they aren't alone, but are, in fact, the majority.

I'm not here to argue the merits of any particular case. This guy might be a total dickwad that deserves a public execution. I don't care, other people can deal with that. Some of these incidents surely are bad, but others are imaginary, and (most importantly) all of them are being used to push an agenda. I'm here to fight against that agenda. I'm here to shine the light of day on the opponent, to expose their goals, to provide them with the ridicule they so richly deserve.

The Soviets broke the ties of community in the countries they ruled. They convinced the Polish that everyone had abandoned God. The Poles hadn't, of course, but each one was convinced that they were alone, that their neighbors would shun them if they admitted it. Pope John Paul the second was Polish himself, and he asked for permission to visit his homeland. The Soviets couldn't exactly say no. They actually thought it was an opportunity. They bullied the people into silence, and took that silence as a proof that the hearts of the country were empty. They expected the Pope to be get a chilly reception; a couple of crazies and a lot of empty space, proof of their victory over the souls of Poland.

They were wrong. Karol was greeted by huge, excited crowds. Catholics in Poland were amazed to see that the country still had faith, and emboldened by the crowds, they came out of the closet and talked to their neighbors. That marked the turning point for Poland, the grip of fear was shattered, the control faded and eventually the whole evil empire collapsed into dust.

I am the pope here, and so can you! Yes, you! Join the fight. Speak your mind. Post anonymously if you need to. Use your moderator and meta-moderator points to support your values. (The SJWs sure do.)

Re:Did anyone actually read the articles?

[c6gunner]

Did anyone read this article? [space.com]. "Geoff Marcy ....

Yep. Summary: famous astronomer resigns because a few people accused him of stuff. Like one guy says he saw him rubbing a girls shoulders. Scary stuff.

Or how about this one? [cnn.com] "Results from a recent AAS survey ...

Yep. Summary: Incredibly low number of people in astronomy say that at some point in their lives they've heard a co-worker or superior say something sexist. Actual rates of sexual harassment remain unknown because the survey focused on compiling superficially scary sounding numbers rather than useful information.

What does it mean?

[jdavidb]

I read the whole story summary and I still don't know what "spotlighting harassment" means, in astronomy or anywhere else. I assumed it meant preventing people from engaging in astronomy by shining bright lights or something, but then other fields are mentioned.

Maybe the linked articles explain it, but from the summary it doesn't sound like they do.

Re:What does it mean?

[oh_my_080980980]

Really? FTA:

"This week’s all-AAS town hall was the first since Marcygate. Hundreds of members attended the meeting, which was intended to address sexual harassment, with a view toward fixing the culture in astronomy, but also science more broadly, and society at large. It was an ambitious goal for a town hall, but astronomers like to dream big." http://www.theatlantic.com/sci...

It's rather obvious.

Re:What does it mean?

[Chris Mattern]

I assumed it meant preventing people from engaging in astronomy by shining bright lights or something,

I thought that's what it was too.

can we all grow a pair...people aren't nice.boohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking whiny cry babies. stick up for YOURSELVES or get the fuck out.

Wait, I've got it

[roc97007]

"I demand a safe space where I can act like an asshole."

Watch people's head explode.

Agreed, we should stop harassment

[russotto]

First of all, we should stop the harassment of astronomers and astrophysicists just because they wore tacky shirts in a press conference. Once we're satisfied that's been settled (say, 5 years with no incidents), we can start working on the rest.

Re:Agreed, we should stop harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself.

Re:Agreed, we should stop harassment

[Anonymous Coward]

oh look, an SJewW. Die in a gas chamber.

Feelings are part of being human.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feelings are part of being human.

Just as important as any other aspect of humanity like traditional intelligence, other talents (that some call intelligences), personality, physical body aspects, sexuality, genetic makeup, etc.

Just as with any other offense, some actions against feelings are minor and others are outrageous, even rising to the level of violence. Violence is not just physical - it can be mental or emotional, or take any other form that can affect the complex being with multi sensory inputs and multi-state processing that human beings are.

It is inhuman to completely ignore others' feelings when checking your own behavior. Please try to be human, even if you have to fake it.

Re:Feelings are part of being human.

[epyT-R]

Sorry, but when it comes to truth, no one should expect exemption from it at others' expense. The more we enable these hugboxes, the less society is capable of dealing with reality.

Speak their language

[Anonymous Coward]

Accusations require proof. Blanket, widespread accusations require remarkable proof. This listen and believe guilt-by-accusation campaign is problematic, toxic, widespread, and needs to stop.

Geoff Marcy turned me into a newt.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it got better. WITCH! WITCH!

Geoff Marcy was set up ..

[tetraverse]

I read somewhere that the sexual harassment investigation was instigated by a fellow facility member at Berkeley. The head of some women's group who actively sought out students to make a complaint against Marcy. Yet another case of political correctness gone insane.

"The 15 April 2011 complaint, the first in the documents, involves a witness report from someone who described Marcy rubbing the bare shoulder of a female undergraduate student"

"On 18 March 2014, someone writing from outside Berkeley .. asked Oldham whether the university was doing all it could to address allegations involving sexual harassment of students by a faculty member" ref

“There is a concern that protecting the campus may be a higher priority than addressing the problems” ref

Literal spotlighting

[GuB-42]

Reading the title, I thought that "spotlighting harassment" literally meant shining bright spotlights where astronomers use their telescopes. Which is, I guess, an effective way to piss them off.

Why am I not surprised?

[westlake]

More than thirty years in tech, and I have yet to see first-hand, or hear second-hand, of one, single harassment case.

There is safety in posting as an anonymous coward. ---

But, to my ears, you describe a male-dominated workforce that has circled the wagons and s profoundly hostile and suspicious of women:

men actively avoid meeting one-on-one with women. Two people need to talk about a project? If it's a man and a woman, the man (if he has a brain) will refuse to meet anywhere but a public space. No man will mentor a women, for fear of being accused of ulterior motives. Male-dominated teams actively avoid hiring women, because doing so risks unfounded harassment complaints, gender discrimination lawsuits, etc..

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...AC or not does not invalidate any points made.

When the definition used for harassment is 'if its unwanted its harassment' (check the links) than the only valid & logical response is to try to avoid any contact with women so as to avoid ANY misunderstandings as to what is 'wanted' or not. Especially when it is clear that the environment is now gearing up to ensure that the 'victim' is automatically believed & erring on the side of caution will be the norm. When suspending someone for 9 months without pay is not sufficient 'punishment' for a real or 'imagined' (e.g. 'misunderstanding') 'sexual harassment' claim so that the only 'acceptable' punishment is immediately being fired & black balled (via laws passed in congress) such that you will never, ever get another job in your chosen field again then just maybe it is the only sane choice to avoid all contact or at least minimize it.

And then guess what that leads to cries of 'sexual discrimination' (the proof is self-evident & unassailable since its clear that the man is actively treating women differently)...see how that is self-perpetuating?

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Mashiki]

There is safety in posting as an anonymous coward. ---

But, to my ears, you describe a male-dominated workforce that has circled the wagons and s profoundly hostile and suspicious of women:

They're likely more afraid that SJW's would dox them, and try to get them fired for having an opinion that doesn't sit with them.

Seems to me, it's just like when the usual flappy headed idiots said "we're not going to take your games away from you..." Queue censoring DOXA, Xenoblade, and this latest bit...

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all wish to work in a workforce dominated by females, but that is not reality. Do you ever wonder why that is?

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[whodunit]

But, to my ears, you describe a male-dominated workforce that has circled the wagons and s profoundly hostile and suspicious of women.

So lack of evidence is, itself, evidence. Heads I win, tails you lose.

Fuck off.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[serviscope_minor]

So lack of evidence

THE OP listed a whole bunch of things they did which constitute being hostile and suspicious. You want more evidence of some guy's company being hostile and suspicious than him listing all the things they do?

That's not even rationalising away evidence that's flat out ignoring it.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't harassment, though. So where's the stuff showing that there's harassment?

And as to the hostility and suspicion, if Gary Glitter or that dude from Subway were to apply to become a junior school teacher, would the teachers AND EVERYONE ELSE circle wagons and show hostility and suspicion of their motives in being involved with kids? You betcha. Now, for the scenario, what's WRONG with it? If accusation is guilt, then those who have the power position MUST be dealt with suspicion: it's the corollary to unchecked power. Hence your constitution, another case of hostility and suspicion for a group that you feel justified in being suspicious about.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

List the things he said that you interpret as evidence.
So far all you've said is "nuh-uh" and "a whole bunch of things", you never actually listed anything.

Try listing them out with numbers, because the rest of us can't read your mind.
Otherwise you're just some shill that likes to argue, and badly I might add.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder why?

Ever hear of Brandon Eich? Kicked out of his own company. There are hundreds of other similarly stupid cases.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Sir Holo]

men actively avoid meeting one-on-one with women. Two people need to talk about a project? If it's a man and a woman, the man (if he has a brain) will refuse to meet anywhere but a public space. No man will mentor a women, for fear of being accused of ulterior motives. Male-dominated teams actively avoid hiring women, because doing so risks unfounded harassment complaints, gender discrimination lawsuits, etc..

BS. I advise & teach women and men (of the whole array world cultures, countries, or religions) at the graduate level in the physical sciences. I don't take notice of their gender—it is not relevant to the topic of discussion/work.

We can talk in the classroom, hallway, my office, or I can provide one-on-one instruction in a small room on a highly specialized scientific instrument (=$M's). I insist that everyone brings their chair around to my side of the desk when I live-edit their manuscripts, discussing my reasons as I go along, and also me forcing them to 'do it the hard way' if they are missing a concept. I only care that they pay attention, actively engage, and learn.

The response? Popularity. Although during editing they might hate me (I'm tough), they always learn from interactions, which is the reason they are pursuing an advanced degree. Students talk to one another, as do professionals, and everyone else in a given grouping. Word gets around.

What have I witnessed? A couple of decades ago, say, well, harassment: A million unwanted (continuing after a 'no thanks') advances, vengeance for a 'no', off-color jokes irrespective of whether there was a woman in the discussion or not, and all else this article discusses. Often, the source is a superior (manager, advisor, instructor). And today, I don't notice it, but that is because those that engage in this behavior have learned to keep it quiet. The women that have made it to the post-graduate, professor, or staff-scientist level have run this gantlet for years, and have dealt with it in their own ways (others left the field). That is, presumably non-reporting, but people do talk.

Slightly OT: I am culturally curious, and it soon becomes apparent which international students are willing, or even looking for opportunities to discuss cultural/religious/etc. differences among peoples of the world – always in a neutral manner without showing one's own position on a topic. It's one reason students go to another country!

• To any woman on the receiving end of harassment:

Do not ever go to HR! HR exists to keep the university/company/organization from being sued. They are not your friend. They work for the institution. I don't know how one should best respond, but understand that it is a tightrope, career-wise.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

But, to my ears, you describe a male-dominated workforce that has circled the wagons and s profoundly hostile and suspicious of women:

Yes, sounds right. Let's rake this sentence:
  - male-dominated workforce. True. Count the numbers of men and women. The men are more numerous, which is one definition of "dominated". In harassment complaints they have less power, but they are more numerous.
  - has circled the wagons. True, they are defending themselves from known forms of surprise attack. They don't seem to be cooperating to do it, just making individual decisions, but the defensive aspect is the same. It's also exclusionary, hurting attackers and non-attackers' careers, which was the GP's point.
  - profoundly. Meaningless flavouring word
  - hostile. Yes, an attacker's perception of a defender could be "hostile."
  - suspicious. Yes, the men suspect that women will attack them unfairly.

so, I agree with almost every word. The problem is, you're making it sound like men's deepest desire is to continue their ancient practice of harassing women. They can't do this if there are few women around, and they avoid all contact with the ones that are there.

Here are the important questions: What are the men doing? Why are they doing it? What is the result? How can we get a better result?

GP's description suggests these answers: They're cutting off all contact with women to avoid arbitrary punishment. The result is damage to womens' careers and workplace stress for men and women. Almost anything else than SJW approach would get a better result, even limited to the results SJW care about.

Your description suggests these answers: They're being bad. They're doing it because they're men. They are hurting women. We can get a better result by punishing and shaming them relentlessly and raising awareness about how bad they are.

Look in the mirror, westlake. You are part of the problem.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it never happened to you, therefore it never happened?

Most people are sane, balanced adults, and you've been lucky to have been running into those. Problem is, all it takes is one crazy cunt who gets bored, or wants to show off her dominance and exercise the power that today's society grants to anyone who has certain genitals, and your career will be over and nothing, not even all those students you're popular with, will be able to save you. I don't with this on you, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss the experiences of people like Tim Hunt who had this happen to them.

Captcha: denial. Ha.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[whodunit]

The OP

You mean cherrypicked samples given the "spotlight" treatment and used to imply a much greater "harassment problem" than has been statistically proven to exist? To say nothing of my comment having nothing to do with OP, and rather everything to do with the poster's reply to the other person's personal observation based on "thirty years in tech."

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Sir Holo]

So, it never happened to you, therefore it never happened?

Most people are sane, balanced adults, and you've been lucky to have been running into those. Problem is, all it takes is one crazy cunt who gets bored, or wants to show off her dominance and exercise the power that today's society grants to anyone who has certain genitals, and your career will be over and nothing, not even all those students you're popular with, will be able to save you. I don't with this on you, but maybe you shouldn't dismiss the experiences of people like Tim Hunt who had this happen to them.

I have indeed seen-happen what you describe.

It happened to a tenured Professor I knew. Other grad students (female) would tell me that he didn't deserve the 'Inquisition' that he got as a result of the (probably) false allegations. That is, he was popular, mainly because he was fair and amicable. It made for a very bad two years for him, but he made it through by persevering and remaining himself. The student, in this case, did lie. (She wasn't grad-school material, I guess.)

Whether I am popular, bland, or a sexist jerk in professional behavior – it does not matter in instances like you described, or the one I just did. Those are anomalies. Harassment really does happen, all the time, and in ways that many males don't understand while they are in school. It is only with the perspective of time that anyone can really see the degree to which bias is a part of the fabric of our society.

I'm still finding things – biases that go one way, and some the other.

-1 Self-Refuting

[werepants]

You can't claim that all of this stuff is so unusual that it is newsworthy and then a paragraph afterwards say that it's so common that men everywhere are actively avoiding women. Pick a story and stick to it.

My own anecdote, btw, says that mild forms of discrimination happen relatively often in male-dominated professions (jokes, phrases, or inappropriate conversation) but that serious harassment is relatively rare (I've never seen it). On the other hand, most women I've worked with have been competent and reasonable - and a number of them tell dirtier jokes than the guys and nobody minds. The main rule seems to be Don't Be an Asshole and things will most likely work out fine unless you're fantastically unlucky.

Re:-1 Self-Refuting

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't claim that all of this stuff is so unusual that it is newsworthy and then a paragraph afterwards say that it's so common that men everywhere are actively avoiding women. Pick a story and stick to it.

That's not at all what he's saying, idiot. Actual harassment is what's rare, accusations and hysteria are what lead to men avoiding women.

Re:-1 Self-Refuting

[LaurenCates]

Bah. It's just that women-on-women harassment isn't an interesting story that fits the narrative.

I can tell you, though, the harassment I've gotten from women (and yes, when four of my co-workers come to me and tell me that one woman has been talking about me to them behind my back) has been, I think, probably more insidious than anything I've gotten out of men.

Men have approached me for sex (I think they thought more that I had low self-esteem as opposed to "stupid girls can't engineer", which is why I don't call it a "sexism" problem as much as a "well, what do you want, there are assholes in every environment" problem). When I've been told about the women in my vicinity sneering at me, it was in that "you clearly don't know how many people she told that to before it got to you" way.

So, I see your male-dominated professions and raise you asshole women wherever asshole women may be found.

Re:-1 Self-Refuting

[c6gunner]

You can't claim that all of this stuff is so unusual that it is newsworthy and then a paragraph afterwards say that it's so common that men everywhere are actively avoiding women. Pick a story and stick to it.

He didn't say it was common, and it doesn't have to be common. Our fear of something is a combination of both the likelihood of occurrence and the extent of possible harm were it to occur. Parents are constantly telling their children not to talk to strangers, and we have a whole system of procedures which kick in when a child goes missing, even though actual kidnappings by strangers are incredibly rare.

Employees know that a harassment complaint can ruin a good working environment, as well as result in the termination of an otherwise promising career. Employers know it can cost them millions of dollars. Everyone is worried about it, even if it's not particularly common. Basically, at this point, having female employees is an unnecessary risk with severe repercussions and no tangible benefits.

Re:-1 Self-Refuting

[werepants]

Basically, at this point, having asshole employees is an unnecessary risk with severe repercussions and no tangible benefits.

Fixed that for you. Because surely you aren't implying that ~50% of the work force is worthless?

And, really, it's about the assholes. Asshole women that falsely accuse men of harassment and asshole men that actually do harass women. The gender doesn't really matter, it just adds an extra and particularly charged dimension for asshole-ism to occur.

WTH is Spotlighting Harassment?

[guruevi]

Does it involve shining spotlights at astronomers? Wouldn't the perpetrators simply be fired?

Or you mean just "harassment". That is fairly well defined legally and is generally a crime, if you are the victim of harassment, then you should collect evidence and talk to the police.

And why the hell are the only sources between Forbes and CNN? Since when do they do anything scientific or actual news?

Re:WTH is Spotlighting Harassment?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Does it involve shining spotlights at astronomers?

No, it involves shining spotlights on walking skyrockets, distracting them so they end up in the emergency room!

weekly SOCJUS

[Lehk228]

more social justice bullshit.

clickbait sjw bull

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, I'm going to call sjw shenanigans on this one. I used to believe we had a problem with things like this... until exposed to sjw's. Now I'm a cynic. Garbage, garbage, garbage. crawl back into your hole, sjw's, we don't need your witch hunts.

Must be Friday

[Anonymous Coward]

And let the games begin....I guess this is our own fault given that these types of articles always read hundreds if not thousands of comments implying that they are of more interest to the Slashdot community than other articles with substance.

So WTF I guess I'll do my part...when you click on any of the links & the fundamental message is 'If its unwanted its harassment" than you know there is an 'agenda' with a problem. I want someone/anyone to tell me how anyone is supposed to know with 100% accuracy prior to saying or doing something if it is 'unwanted'...and NO I'm not talking about grabbing someone's breasts or ass (assault) , I'm talking about making a comment that someone "doesn't want"...I have personally told someone at a bar 'you look yummy tonight' and I can truthfully say it wasn't meant 'as a line'...it happened to be a woman I knew in University, and saw a fair amount...an 'acquaintance' more than a 'friend', knew she had a boyfriend & simply was a way to say she was looking good (e.g. I was simply trying to complement her)...lo & behold she asked me back to her apartment when the night 'broke up'. therefore I have to assume my comment was 'wanted'..in today's environment I could EASILY see how a woman could claim that it was 'unwanted' & that I therefore 'harassed' her...

Re: please stop fanning the flames of the war on n

[Anonymous Coward]

/.: Clickbait for SJWs. Stuff that shouldn't matter.

what did you expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who buys their first telescope to look at stars? Bunch of peeping Tom's is what they are I tell ya.

Yeah I know...

[Camel Pilot]

I initially thought "Spotlighting" was as an adjective here qualifying harassment. So I was wondering if some group was harassing astronomers with spotlights clipping their sensors or something and being a nuisance.

Normal human sexual

[Anonymous Coward]

he said things like âoeDo you think I am a shady person because I let myself be emotionally involved with my student?â and âoeI think I may actually be prone to this sort of thing.â The guy knew he was in the wrong, but instead of correcting his own behavior, he just moved on to the next student he could harass the same way.

All he did was express normal human sexual attraction. Many of the modern-day claims of sexual harassment and misogyny really are just complaints about typical human sexual behavior. I will gladly defend this individual and say that he did nothing wrong. The individuals who complain about this sort of 'harassment' are trying to use sexual mores and taboos to their advantage in an attempt to gain greater social status.

Re:Normal human sexual

[JonnyCalcutta]

The 50's called, they'd like their sexual attitudes back.

Female privilege

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for stopping harassment. The problem is there's no definition of harassment. Anything a male says or does can be labeled harassment by any female for her convenience or entertainment. The accused male is then promptly crucified by both his employer and by society at large, usually (read 99% of the time) without the legal definition of harassment being met.

Women can destroy men's lives with a sob story to HR or the police even when the male has done nothing at all. Pointing this out will inevitably lead to accusations that I'm a "fat neckbeard basement dwelling virgin misogynist" instead of debating what I've written.

Punish or cure? Your choice is your measure.

[dsmatthews9379]

The almost violent manner in which this pogrom against perverts is being prosecuted has caused some zealots to overlook the fact that even the perpetrators need help more than they need to be punished. However they do need to be controlled if they cannot control themselves.

Sure our entire society has an issue with how people interact, that is obvious, but a social maturing process should be achieved in a nurturing rather than a punitive manner. Not only do we need to educate potential perpetrators (which means, everyone) as to their responsibilities and where they can seek help with behavioural, control, issues, we also need to educate potential victims (again everyone) as to best cope with other people's conduct and how to seek help in correcting it before incidents progress to the point where the solution becomes destructive. The third part of this strategy is to ensure that the required support structures and processes are in place, that everyone is able to access them, and that they are comprehensive enough to ensure that nobody falls through the cracks and that all behavioural aberrations are identified and corrected as quickly and subtly as possible,

Re:Punish or cure? Your choice is your measure.

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had some reeducation camps...

... and then they came for the astronomers

[frrrp]

They're gonna start running out of wells to poison pretty soon. I don't blame SJWs for this - they are just exploiting the environment - an environment is created by "moderates" and fence sitters that credulously give the benefit of the doubt to any loser with a wolf story - and enthusiastically dog-pile on any voices that dare to express skepticism. And these 'moderates" are for the most part stupid, well-meaning white males - that most demonised and despised of social demographics.

Old ways were best ways.

[Anonymous Coward]

>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.

Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)

Imagine marrying a nice cute 7 yr old girl or two.
She would be pretty for a long time.

Fuck The SJWs

[NicknameUnavailable]

No seriously, fuck them all until they die of anal bleeding.

STEM is the last place that has people who are intelligent. Keep the retards that are into political correctness out of it.

I've been triggered!

[7-Vodka]

Fuck you slashdot. The great amount of poo in this article has triggered me and now I need a safe room with kiddy toys, low lights, soft music, hookers and blow to get through it. I'll send you the bill.

Re:StartsWithABang: Pushing pro-malware Forbes, ag

[Anonymous Coward]

Ablock is literally internet rape culture you obnoxious shitlord!

A sweeping generalisation and a social problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

The sweeping generalisation is this: There is harassment in almost every field of human activity. The majority is done by men. It appears to be the way we are made.

The problem is what we should do when an extreme aberration (let us say child-molester) creates something useful. The science is sound, but the person is abhorrent. What happens at the moment? Do they get credited?

Re:StartsWithABang: Pushing pro-malware Forbes, ag

[serviscope_minor]

I don't run Adblock, but I do run with noscript. It doesn't work with that either. No the hell way I'm going to allow a bunch of scripts to read that article.

Re:please stop fanning the flames of the war on ne

[serviscope_minor]

slashdot, can we focus on stuff that matters to nerds and dispense with the SJW fridays, please??

Yeah you're right. We should just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist lest our precious little feelings get dented. Oooh us nerds are such special little snowflakes we can't bear to believe that there may be some bad apples among us.

Harassment == The SJW's favorite smear.

[sethstorm]

The SJW ideology defines harassment as something that can only can happen to them, never caused by them.

If there are universities that reject the SJW ideology, let them thrive.

just a thought

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I don't know if these people have done anything or not; you might think that people that intelligent would not stoop that low. I will offer this though.

One of the persistent and compelling illusions I had in life was that somewhere, there existed a self-selected group of people for whom a primary concern was to just be decent to each other.

I am not sure where I got this idea from, but if you have it, if you think that *this* group of people united by *this* purpose or POV or goal or whatever is going to be some kind of refuge from Assholedom, then you owe it to yourself before you waste any more of your life looking for such a group to just stop. Put it down and walk away.

My first pursuit of this mythological beast was with a community of artists and counter-cultural types. I thought without jocks or grades or the pursuit of money or even fame people would have nothing but each others fellowship to rely on and that would be a kind of uniting force, or something. How very young and wrong I was .

After some years spent pursuing that ghost, I next chased another another idea I had always had in my head- that academics, university types, were just naturally a cut above in terms of decency and non-aggression. In my imagination they were people to whom the stated ideals of a university- diversity, the pursuit of truth, respect for excellence,

valuing of curiosity and the impartial unbiased pursuit of knowledge - were real living things. The university was THEIR place which abided by THEIR values and stood as a bastion against Assholedom.

So I went to university and I did meet people as described- a couple. And the rest were sort of Super Assholes - people who nourished grudges, pursued revenge via administrative back-channeling and complaint processes, for any perceived slight or offense, advanced themselves through undermining others, sincerely worked to

undermine others simply because they didn't like them, and worked the system as best they could to horde time, reputation, money and power. It was one of the worst

environments I've been in. At one point a recent-hire prof confided in me that "they" - the other professors in the department- "had taken him into a room and gone to town on him for spending time preparing for his classes. If he wanted them to recommend him for tenure, it was going to stop. The gist f it was that there was no reward for teaching,

only for publishing and grant getting- things that brought the university prestige and money. Nothing else mattered and the degree to which nothing else mattered was total. I

asked him who "they" were, exactly, and his reply was "all of them. Every one of them." Of course the teaching is what you'd expect given the above. And that's not even the

worst dirty trick- and that's what it was- I saw there. Not by a long shot .

After that I got it into my head that business, corporation, out of necessity, would be a place where the reality principle reigned supreme. Even if it wasn't friendly per se, at least it would be grounded in some kind of market discipline and that discipline would realize itself in the relations between people within the company.

I know, but in my defense, this was around 2000.

Here's the thing. If it's true, -but then harassment charges are just another arrow in the quiver or these types - this is not surprising , because *that's what people are*. If for some reason that actually doesn't describe you and you know it,then know with certainty: you're on your own There is no *good* group of people united by any property or purpose out there. The best you can hope for is a occasional light from someone you are completely removed from, say whose books you read. If you really want to swing for the wall, the trifecta is your mother, your spouse and your dog. If you can trust all three of those , then know you're luckier than most .

oblig. Far Side

[PJ6]

Larson knew about this.

Shite summary

[Anonymous Coward]

TFS shows exactly what is wrong with these topics and discussions. It is presented in a biased and inflammatory manner. It is also void of pertinent information, either because they expect everyone is already aware of these cases, unlikely, or will just assume the posters explanation that the situations are outrageous is true.

Terrible.

Such nonsense...

[iq145]

It's like creating problems where there are none

Harassment == The SJW's favorite smear.

[sethstorm]

The SJW ideology defines harassment as something that can only can happen to them, never caused by them.

If there are universities that reject the SJW ideology, let them thrive, and all others fail.