Some men are assholes. Got a problem with that? Some male assholes are violent male assholes. I think that's also obvious. A man harassing a woman is likely an asshole, and has the potential to be a violent asshole. This means that, if a man harasses a woman where there's nobody else around, the woman has to consider how not to get into a violent situation, and survival takes precedence.
Of course, given a man and a woman in a secluded situation, if the man isn't harassing the woman, no problem. And, yes, men should avoid harassing women in secluded places, or non-secluded places for that matter.
Look, what I'm saying is that I have never seen a case where a woman unjustly accused a man of sexual harassment, despite how common other people seem to find it. Your assignment of motives to me is puerile and inaccurate.
Do you have a cite for me saying all men are assholes? I don't remember saying that, and it's not something I'd say. It's conceivable that I said it in sarcasm or irony, although I still don't remember. Some men are assholes, and some women are also, but that's not the same thing.
I do note that most of your cites are of false accusations not in the workplace, which is what we're talking about. Some people seem afraid to deal with women at work, and the concept is foreign to me, after something like forty-plus years in the tech business with employment or long-term contract work at nine different enterprises.
It is the job of the pursuer not to overstep, and not to coerce, even accidentally. The pursuer is the one driving the situation, and has responsibilities. Also, a sufficiently egregious single incident is harassment. As an example, a manager telling a subordinate that promotions might be based on how friendly she is is sexual harassment. Of course, a lot of egregious cases are better considered sexual assault.
In my grad school days, I got into student government. I got to see people at all levels of the hierarchy, so I came away knowing that a system designed to serve students, with people at every level who want to do a good job, can screw them over pretty good.
My knowledge of ship propulsion is outdated and specialized, but the US worked with steam-electric battleships and aircraft carriers in the 1920s. It was found to be economical, but the machinery was heavy. The idea was dropped after the Washington Naval Treaty, because fuel did not count against warship size limits, but heavy machinery did.
Just as well, since the systems turned out to be seriously vulnerable to battle damage.
Working for "move fast and break things" companies can work, provided your superiors are aware that you're going to break things and not blame you for them.
The impression I get from AC is that he's not a good CEO. He managed to get the company into real trouble. The equity group wants impossible profit margins, and they will put a lot of pressure on the company. In the meantime, people who can get another job are likely to, and their positions won't be filled, so the staff will steadily become less effective.
Eliminating R&D can make this quarter's profit margins look better, but it will likely kill or cripple the company in a few years. Most companies rely on being able to produce improved products every so often, and in the tech field you do need to remember that your competitors will be producing improved products.
Presumably he intends to pull the golden ripcord before the effects of his decisions become apparent.
I'd say that common users don't know what IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are, have no idea what DNS does, and either their equipment is preloaded or they're told to enter these characters into their setup screen. It doesn't matter to them whether these odd number-and-period combinations are IP addresses for their ISP or another service.
To be honest, if businesses can run themselves reasonably well, we don't need regulation. If the Heritage Foundation could coerce businesses to run well and pay attention to customers, it would actually be doing a service.
There were government exclusivity contracts for cable; there are, as far as I can tell, none for internet service. I've heard that cable exclusivity has been removed, but as long as two cable companies will tacitly divide their area into "mine" and "theirs" and not bother to compete it doesn't matter.
Your newspaper example is so far out in left field it's in another stadium. Nobody's talking about telling internet providers what they have to do in detail, only that they can't discriminate based on source of packet. It's sort of like allowing every citizen to buy a newspaper.
Presumably Amazon makes more on the student Prime than they lose on people creating new.edu accounts. It's up to them to decide how much effort they put into making sure people don't take advantage of them.
Pro tip: Basing your argument on a quote from Breitbart marks you as a right-wing idiot not worth taking seriously. Particularly when you're maligning a group that Breitbart maligns.
Harassment can be a single incident. You seem to have this delusion that it has to be a pattern.
Prostitutes can say "no". They also face a significant risk of violence if they do so very often. Subordinates can say "no", and will wonder ever after if they missed out on that promotion or got a lesser raise or a less desirable assignment because of it.
It's the job of the pursuer to make sure the pursued feels free to say "no". Otherwise, it's coercion.
I have to ask this. What planet are you living on?
I've been in software for over forty years, working with men and women. I have never, repeat never, seen a man get into trouble because of a false accusation of sexual harassment. (Actually, I've never seen actual sexual harassment either.) I have never worried about saying something innocently and getting called out on it. I've talked freely to men and women and become friendly. It's not like I have social skills worth mentioning either.
Now, it could be that my superior spiritual state causes people to behave themselves within a hundred meters of me. It could be that I'm not very observant. It could be that all you women feeling harassed should move to the Twin Cities in Minnesota. There's all sorts of possible reasons. However, it feels downright weird to read about all the problems you guys claim to have. It's like people were talking about occasionally being bitten by levitating sharks - I've never seen it.
Let's get real. The average man is considerably larger and stronger than the average woman. The average man is also more likely to be in a position of power, having power or influence over the woman's job or other affairs. (That second one is going away, fortunately.) FWIW, the average man currently has more fighting experience and training.
That means that, when a man is alone with a woman, who can't get away, the man can overcome physical resistance and do what he likes. A few men will do that, not many, but enough that women can't automatically assume a man is harmless. A few men with power will sexually harass women and implicitly suggest that their job prospects depend on what they do. Women know from general experience that they will be expected to accept a certain amount of harassment, so complaints are very likely not to do any good.
The female engineers you knew were capable of giving as good as they got provided the man did not get physically aggressive. There was one occasion on which I stayed in a room with a man and a woman, pretending to read the bulletin board and ignoring them. She was doing perfectly well telling him off, and didn't need any help there. On the other hand, the man had occasionally talked about violence against women in a somewhat favorable way, and he could have wiped the floor with her. I stayed to provide a deterrent and, if things went bad, physical intervention.
It's biology mixed with sociology. Given an unknown man, a woman doesn't know what might set the man off enough to be violent. Very probably, nothing will, but men have started violence enough times to make betting on that iffy.
MRAs started popping up for the same reason Christians claim persecution: the crybabies can't do what they want any more. It can be pathetic watching members of a formerly dominant group as they lose their asshole licenses.
What happened with Franken shows that all politicians, when confronted with sexual abuse accusations, should deny everything. They should not apologize. They should call the accusers liars and try to destroy their reputation. We've seen what happens if you try acknowledging and apologizing.
I'm going to guess this isn't the exact outcome that the people denouncing him wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Some men are assholes. Got a problem with that? Some male assholes are violent male assholes. I think that's also obvious. A man harassing a woman is likely an asshole, and has the potential to be a violent asshole. This means that, if a man harasses a woman where there's nobody else around, the woman has to consider how not to get into a violent situation, and survival takes precedence.
Of course, given a man and a woman in a secluded situation, if the man isn't harassing the woman, no problem. And, yes, men should avoid harassing women in secluded places, or non-secluded places for that matter.
Look, what I'm saying is that I have never seen a case where a woman unjustly accused a man of sexual harassment, despite how common other people seem to find it. Your assignment of motives to me is puerile and inaccurate.
Do you have a cite for me saying all men are assholes? I don't remember saying that, and it's not something I'd say. It's conceivable that I said it in sarcasm or irony, although I still don't remember. Some men are assholes, and some women are also, but that's not the same thing.
I do note that most of your cites are of false accusations not in the workplace, which is what we're talking about. Some people seem afraid to deal with women at work, and the concept is foreign to me, after something like forty-plus years in the tech business with employment or long-term contract work at nine different enterprises.
It is the job of the pursuer not to overstep, and not to coerce, even accidentally. The pursuer is the one driving the situation, and has responsibilities. Also, a sufficiently egregious single incident is harassment. As an example, a manager telling a subordinate that promotions might be based on how friendly she is is sexual harassment. Of course, a lot of egregious cases are better considered sexual assault.
Very likely. Sometimes I've had to add DNS servers, sometimes not.
In my grad school days, I got into student government. I got to see people at all levels of the hierarchy, so I came away knowing that a system designed to serve students, with people at every level who want to do a good job, can screw them over pretty good.
My knowledge of ship propulsion is outdated and specialized, but the US worked with steam-electric battleships and aircraft carriers in the 1920s. It was found to be economical, but the machinery was heavy. The idea was dropped after the Washington Naval Treaty, because fuel did not count against warship size limits, but heavy machinery did.
Just as well, since the systems turned out to be seriously vulnerable to battle damage.
Working for "move fast and break things" companies can work, provided your superiors are aware that you're going to break things and not blame you for them.
The impression I get from AC is that he's not a good CEO. He managed to get the company into real trouble. The equity group wants impossible profit margins, and they will put a lot of pressure on the company. In the meantime, people who can get another job are likely to, and their positions won't be filled, so the staff will steadily become less effective.
Eliminating R&D can make this quarter's profit margins look better, but it will likely kill or cripple the company in a few years. Most companies rely on being able to produce improved products every so often, and in the tech field you do need to remember that your competitors will be producing improved products.
Presumably he intends to pull the golden ripcord before the effects of his decisions become apparent.
I'd say that common users don't know what IPv4 and IPv6 addresses are, have no idea what DNS does, and either their equipment is preloaded or they're told to enter these characters into their setup screen. It doesn't matter to them whether these odd number-and-period combinations are IP addresses for their ISP or another service.
To be honest, if businesses can run themselves reasonably well, we don't need regulation. If the Heritage Foundation could coerce businesses to run well and pay attention to customers, it would actually be doing a service.
Do you really want anyone to be able to put what they want on utility poles? Have you thought this through?
There were government exclusivity contracts for cable; there are, as far as I can tell, none for internet service. I've heard that cable exclusivity has been removed, but as long as two cable companies will tacitly divide their area into "mine" and "theirs" and not bother to compete it doesn't matter.
Your newspaper example is so far out in left field it's in another stadium. Nobody's talking about telling internet providers what they have to do in detail, only that they can't discriminate based on source of packet. It's sort of like allowing every citizen to buy a newspaper.
I've found that "Sure, I don't know anything about it, but I'll give it a try" has worked pretty well over my career.
Didn't Dilbert's PHB announce that they made a mistake, employees were actually the twenty-third most important asset, right behind carbon paper?
I got hired here after 50. I did need to start dying my hair.
Presumably Amazon makes more on the student Prime than they lose on people creating new .edu accounts. It's up to them to decide how much effort they put into making sure people don't take advantage of them.
Pro tip: Basing your argument on a quote from Breitbart marks you as a right-wing idiot not worth taking seriously. Particularly when you're maligning a group that Breitbart maligns.
Harassment can be a single incident. You seem to have this delusion that it has to be a pattern.
Prostitutes can say "no". They also face a significant risk of violence if they do so very often. Subordinates can say "no", and will wonder ever after if they missed out on that promotion or got a lesser raise or a less desirable assignment because of it.
It's the job of the pursuer to make sure the pursued feels free to say "no". Otherwise, it's coercion.
As one of your moral betters, I have to tell you that you've got our agenda all wrong. Sheesh.
I have to ask this. What planet are you living on?
I've been in software for over forty years, working with men and women. I have never, repeat never, seen a man get into trouble because of a false accusation of sexual harassment. (Actually, I've never seen actual sexual harassment either.) I have never worried about saying something innocently and getting called out on it. I've talked freely to men and women and become friendly. It's not like I have social skills worth mentioning either.
Now, it could be that my superior spiritual state causes people to behave themselves within a hundred meters of me. It could be that I'm not very observant. It could be that all you women feeling harassed should move to the Twin Cities in Minnesota. There's all sorts of possible reasons. However, it feels downright weird to read about all the problems you guys claim to have. It's like people were talking about occasionally being bitten by levitating sharks - I've never seen it.
That's not safe to do in a secluded location. The woman already knows the man is an asshole, and doesn't know if he might be a violent asshole.
Let's get real. The average man is considerably larger and stronger than the average woman. The average man is also more likely to be in a position of power, having power or influence over the woman's job or other affairs. (That second one is going away, fortunately.) FWIW, the average man currently has more fighting experience and training.
That means that, when a man is alone with a woman, who can't get away, the man can overcome physical resistance and do what he likes. A few men will do that, not many, but enough that women can't automatically assume a man is harmless. A few men with power will sexually harass women and implicitly suggest that their job prospects depend on what they do. Women know from general experience that they will be expected to accept a certain amount of harassment, so complaints are very likely not to do any good.
The female engineers you knew were capable of giving as good as they got provided the man did not get physically aggressive. There was one occasion on which I stayed in a room with a man and a woman, pretending to read the bulletin board and ignoring them. She was doing perfectly well telling him off, and didn't need any help there. On the other hand, the man had occasionally talked about violence against women in a somewhat favorable way, and he could have wiped the floor with her. I stayed to provide a deterrent and, if things went bad, physical intervention.
It's biology mixed with sociology. Given an unknown man, a woman doesn't know what might set the man off enough to be violent. Very probably, nothing will, but men have started violence enough times to make betting on that iffy.
MRAs started popping up for the same reason Christians claim persecution: the crybabies can't do what they want any more. It can be pathetic watching members of a formerly dominant group as they lose their asshole licenses.
Done that. Been there. Talked a lot with women. Never had a problem. Never saw someone else have a problem that wasn't their fault.
If you keep getting in trouble with HR, you might want to rethink what you're doing.
What happened with Franken shows that all politicians, when confronted with sexual abuse accusations, should deny everything. They should not apologize. They should call the accusers liars and try to destroy their reputation. We've seen what happens if you try acknowledging and apologizing.
I'm going to guess this isn't the exact outcome that the people denouncing him wanted.