Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee as a "predator zone" of harassment in a meeting attended by dozens of employees, according to a bombshell report in The Guardian. Other women recalled being catcalled by male employees, feeling unsafe around male managers, and being subjected to sexist comments by their superiors, the report states. For months, The Guardian has been tracking the case of AJ Vandermeyden, a former Tesla engineer who sued the electric automaker for "unwanted and pervasive harassment." In her suit, Vandermeyden alleges that she and other female employees were denied promotions, paid less than their male peers, and retaliated against after making their concerns known to human resources. Several months after making her claims publicly, Vandermeyden was fired by Tesla.
You should see what's going on at SpaceX. Women there are forced to build products shaped like penises. Oh my!
"Several months after making her claims publicly, Vandermeyden was fired by Tesla." ... concluded her complaints were unmerited.
Oh the evil misogynist corporation trying to silence the victim?
No
She was fired because 'a neutral, third-party expert'
I take no position on the merits of the case until more information is forthcoming, and neither should you. But to call any and all claims of harrassment "feminazi" is hateful.
Yes, I know Tesla is kind of a startup, but auto plants can be rough places in general. There's certainly no political correctness going on in the ones I've been in. Companies need to crack down on harassment, but singling out Tesla is hardly fair.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Except labor laws prohibit certain forms of harrassment at work even if they don't constitute criminal behavior.
Elon Musk is a progressive Clinton supporter. So are most Silicon Valley VCs and CEOs. The fact that these people and companies are constantly mired in misogyny and harassment claims neither surprises, nor prompts denials from, conservatives and libertarians. Why should it? It's not surprising to us that progressives and male "feminists" harass women.
So, when you talk about "misogynist scum", you perhaps need to be a bit clearer who you're talking about.
Since recorded history, whenever an attractive lady walked past a construction zone or equivalent, the male workers hooted and hollered like a bunch of monkeys (which humans pretty much are for good or bad).
Multiple times I've rode to lunch with "white collar" workers, and they do the same when an attractive lady crosses the street, usually with the windows closed, which differs from the factory situation in that the lady usually doesn't hear it (or pretends not to).
Males are biologically horny and it would take a lot of effort and resources to outright stop them from showing it. I'm not condoning flirtatious behavior, only saying it's very economically expensive to curtail most of it and there's probably a point of diminishing returns. Society needs to decide how much enforcement and regulation should be applied to curtail it because the cost ain't free: court costs, firing, training, and policing it is a de facto tax on products and services.
I will agree that (uninvited) touching and outright rude remarks should be punished by probation or termination. But there's a lot of "soft" harassment, much of it subjective in terms of offensiveness. For example, there's a lot of middle ground between "You look very nice today", and "You look veeeery nice today."
Another thing is that if a lady doesn't want such attention, dress ugly, or at least non-sexual. It's quite possible to look professional without adding a sexual nature. Wear dark pantsuits or long loose-fitting skirts, mild or no lipstick, light makeup, hair up or a simple ponytail, and simple practical shoes. Of course there are a few exceptional ladies who look hot in anything, but that's rare outside of modelling agencies.
I've asked some attractively-dressed ladies why they dress provocatively and yet complain about harassment. Their answer is often hypocritical: "I'm okay when nice men flirt with me but not creeps". They want the upsides of attention but not the downsides. I have to call them on that: you can't have it both ways. For one, "creep" is subjective (as the election showed).
Society will probably have to compromise: men can tone it down and learn to be more subtle, and women can manage their attire better.
Table-ized A.I.
Yikes, so much wrong with this.
Title says "Tesla Factory Reportedly Described As a 'Predator Zone' By Female Employees", but the first sentence says "Tesla's Fremont factory was described by a female employee...". So which one is it? Plural is quite different from singular.
Then, there's the story (I'm not even gonna touch the Verge crap, we all know it's an identity politics rag at this point). Let's see.
The theme for this year’s International Women’s Day was “be bold for change” in the fight for a “more gender inclusive world” – but some at Tesla had a different plan for the day.
Five seconds in, and we already know the author is an "I know what's best for everyone" type keyboard warrior. This does not bode well for objectivity.
It was an opportunity for women to discover essential oils. A “health and wellness group” at the electric car company invited female staff members to an 8 March “lunch ‘n learn” about oils and how they can help improve people’s “health and happiness”, according to emails seen by the Guardian, which reveal that the proposed event was quickly met with vocal criticism.
Starting off great with some outrage that women were offered a 'lunch 'n learn' about oils. It's a well known fact that women don't like such things, that's why there's no market for female skin care products or wellness products. But hey, don't let a multi-billion dollar market get in the way of your feminism, you know what's best for everyone. Stay strong.
Tesla postponed the oils session. The company organized a town hall meeting on diversity for that day, which included six male executives and one woman, according to multiple attendees.
Note that there weren't 7 women executives attending, which is how a correctly diversified workplace should look. If they're all black, that's even more diverse. Diversity means fewer dicks in well-paid positions (but screw coal mining and construction, those places are dangerous!). Also note that this point is according to multiple attendees, but doesn't mention if Vandermeyden is included.
At the crowded meeting at the Fremont factory, women took the microphone one-by-one and shared stories of sexual harassment, mistreatment by male managers, unfair promotion decisions and more, sources said.
Now suddenly, "sources said". It's no longer Vandermeyden? The author doesn't mention other people coming forward here...
Vandermeyden, who attended the meeting, thought the outpouring of comments validated her own story.
Oh, I guess we're back to Vandermeyden.
Testimony from the town hall – along with internal emails from Musk, and Vandermeyden’s first interview since her termination – paint a picture of a company that has struggled to respond to mounting complaints about gender discrimination and has aggressively attempted to discredit a woman who publicly criticized it .
Testimony from the Town Hall... according to Vandermeyden? This is starting to sound very fishy. Almost as if there's only a single source for the "sky is falling" claims.
Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee.
Ahh, so there it is. Vandermeyden and another attendee. Wait, why is the other attendee only mentioned now? Does that mean that the other attendee only validated this one thing? That there were "more than 20" women attending?
One woman described parts of the factory as a “predator zone” for harassment. When the moderator asked women in the room if they had ever been catcalled, a significant number of women raised their hands, according to Vander
"Musk was not at the meeting, which was attended by roughly 70-100 people, and featured comments from more than 20 women, according to Vandermeyden and another attendee. "
So no one could independently verify that 20 women actually made comments at this meeting, other than a Woman who is trying to sue Tesla over supposed discrimination, and some random, unnamed person? Those are what pass for sources enough to write an inflammatory article saying "DOZENS OF WOMEN CLAIM HARASSMENT" ?
Sigh. I hate it when I have to do this.
I celebrate the contribution women made to the war effort, but it is a downright lie to say they "by and large ran the massive industrial development necessary during WWII when the US was putting out a ship a day."
Women, at their peak, during the war, comprised 37% of the workforce. Which is awesome- and a *massive* increase from before the war. And they did it for less money. But don't rewrite history to make it prettier than it was.
The other problem is that offense is in the eye of the beholder. A man can genuinely not mean to be offensive - legitimately just asking a pretty girl out on a date, and it can be (mis)interpreted as offensive behavior. Now you end up putting management in the position of trying to armchair quarterback male/female interactions - was this really harmful, demeaning, threatening behavior or is she just overreacting? Since there's usually very little disincentive to err on the side of believing the accuser, you end up with men who tread VERY carefully around female coworkers - which is itself considered a different form of sexism, since the women end up finding themselves excluded.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Males are biologically horny
So are women. The idea that it's men is a construct of this society. Others, such as ancient Greece considered women to be the uncontrollably horny ones.
Society needs to decide how much enforcement and regulation should be applied to curtail it because the cost ain't free: court costs, firing, training, and policing it is a de facto tax on products and services.
Unless it has the opposite effect of more women in productive jobs (i.e. larger overall pool of workers) in which case the tax will be negative.
Another thing is that if a lady doesn't want such attention, dress ugly, or at least non-sexual. It's quite possible to look professional without adding a sexual nature. Wear dark pantsuits or long loose-fitting skirts, mild or no lipstick, light makeup, hair up or a simple ponytail, and simple practical shoes.
Guys: wear a sharp suit. Feemales uglify yourself because it's YOUR fault if horndogs can't control their actions like civilised people. Oh and tough on you if dressing well tends to help with career advancement. Double tough if the dress code requires high heels.
I've asked some attractively-dressed ladies why they dress provocatively and yet complain about harassment. Their answer is often hypocritical: "I'm okay when nice men flirt with me but not creeps".
I'd say that kind of puts you into the creep end of things: what's really creepy is those people who can see other people's boundaries but willfully violate them. These ladies it seems would rather people like that didn't (for example) keep pushing the flirting after being shut down. You are basically saying it's not OK, and just fine for those creepy guys to keep pushing.
Society will probably have to compromise: men can tone it down and learn to be more subtle, and women can manage their attire better.
Maybe you should just beat off on the regular so you don't get a boner whenever you atch a glimpse of ankle.
SJW n. One who posts facts.