Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

So you don't see your hypocrisy? Also nice blog link there. Blacklists cobbled together by accusations are wrong, morally, ethically, practically and strategically wrong, be it communist, liberals, sexual harassers, jews, etc. Both "women telling each other who is dangerous" and who is a communist is slanderous and results in social punishment, harshly so during a moral panic, be it red scare/mccarthism of the 11950's to the #metee sexual harassment hysteria of 12017. I have said this repeatedly now.

Your personal definition of dangerous is a matter of your bias and limited perspective, which is why we have courts of law define "dangerous", you people call me "dangerous", on what grounds? The grounds I'm dangerous are a flimsy as Bell's child pâté.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So it has come to this: https://medium.com/@anonposter/why-should-we-hire-women-7c83a83f30ce

So I don’t have a big problem with the movement itself.

There are however two big problems with the whole situation:

1. Accusations alone kill careers and businesses just through the media attention and absence from any investigation or evidence
2. The narrative of the whole debate is that every claim must be believed — regardless how ridiculous the claim itself is and that any questioning of this or that people want an investigation is automatically anti female.

These two social justice paradigms have made it impossible to defend anybody against accusations — regardless how suspicious or shallow the claims were — and it still continues so we can assume this will stay for way longer than just the next week.

Another problem is that the meaning of sexual harassment was widened to include what most of us would consider normal behavior among adults. This includes but is not limited to: getting invited for a drink, making somebody a compliment or standing in the same room.

This paints almost any interaction at a workplace in a sexualized context which in turn makes it almost impossible to be comfortable with each other. This has a major chilling effect on teamwork, arbitration and general communication.

I think this is best demonstrated by Mr. Terry Crews, who put it in the broadest term possible in his support video for the Time Magazine:

"If you make anybody uncomfortable, in any way — you can’t do that!"

Many media outlets have similar definitions — mostly with the unison chorus “if you make any women in any way uncomfortable” then you are doing something wrong and support harassment…

Whenever you make a decision you will offend people and especially in the workplace you also have to make clear what people’s strengths and weaknesses are so they can improve themselves and their work. Most people that want to progress and grow even welcome that!

But all of that we now have to see through the lens of social justice, we simply can’t offend anybody — and it’s so easy to be offended…

When James Damore was asked for feedback from his supervisor and internally circulated his google memo, it got leaked, he got fired and women stayed at home the next Day because “for emotional reasons”

A ten page summary of data and analysis from Damore was enough to “emotional distress” the women at the company.

I’m not arguing here about the validity of the memo — we can talk about that on a separate occasion — my point here is that a ten-page document with written words that suggested possible gender differences cost multiple sick days!

Clearly, this doesn’t look like the kind of workforce we like to have in any company — at least I don’t know any company except Google that would be okay with this kind of behavior!

But all this is of course because women are winning and living their dream…

Right now the message of #metoo to men is very clear:

• 
  
  
  • As a man, you are automatically a possible rapist
  • As a man, it is automatically harassment if you make women uncomfortable inany way
  • And if you say anything against that then you are just some misogynistic a**hole that doesn’t want women to succeed or have their freedom

ow on the consequences, I think there is a big thing to note here that a lot of people don’t really understand.

The common notion in the media is that now the work field will shift and women will be promoted everywhere because men are the worst people in the world.

What the media doesn’t see are three very important facts:

• 
  
  
  • Most businesses still care more about profit than gender distribution
  • Most businesses don’t share the blatent disregard for men
  • Most businesses are still created, maintained and lead by men — so you can’t put men out of the equation

What also a lot of people don’t want to accept is that men react differently to controversy — because this is a big point of contention, let me show you in real-world examples:

When men get treated unfairly they do complain initially but most of the time they try to find a way out of the situation with things they can do themselves!
(Follow the Links for each example)

Some choose suicide…

Some just put their heads down and remove themselves from interactions…

Some choose to engage in interview to make their views clear…

Some just see how they can avoid this situation altogether…

So when I talked with my friends I wasn’t really surprised about the solution they came up with to the new #metoo problems for the workplace — I mean I was shocked at first but I also immediately understood the reaction and the sense behind it.

“We will probably not hire women if they have to work together with men” (paraphrased)

And further

“We have to consider gender segregation at the workplace as a next step so we hire women only for positions where we can make a team out of them and where we have to hire a spot in the male-dominated parts we hire additional men” (paraphrased)

One of my colleagues from a US Tech company gave me even a (for me) more horrific answer when I asked him about this notion:
“we are considering to drop our female staffers in the non-support teams, this way we can eliminate the risk and from the outside, it looks like we just have a 90/10 split which is low but not unreasonable for a tech company” (paraphrased)

If you need a minute here — take it, I needed it too, That’s a harsh thing to swallow.

I think of this as a shocking conclusion, but I have to say it makes perfect sense when I heard their reasoning…

Even an unproven or false allegation can cost a company a significant sum of money!
For some businesses it could even mean bankruptcy because clients could drop them, they can’t bear the expensive legal fees or the media outrage kills their reputation.

And I don’t know anyone who is willing to take that kind of risk.

Adding to that the risk of possible pregnancy, that some call for sick leave when they have their period and the whole depiction of women in the mainstream media — and you have the perfect mix for “high risk, high cost, low reward” (actual quote)

“Officially, we will of course never ‘promote’ this — if somebody asks about stuff like that we will just say the teams can work better this way… but we don’t risk our core team that makes money just to fulfill a quota — Google & Co can do that and cripple themselves in legal affairs” (paraphrased).

Now you have to understand here, these are not people that don’t want women to succeed. They are not bigots or misogynistic pigs!
Some what you read was said by women.

These are people that have their own business, they feel responsible for everybody to provide a good work atmosphere, to pay good salaries and they take responsibility for everybody under their roof.

Why should we hire women?
Well, it hurts me to say but maybe we shouldn’t if this is how women behave in today’s world! It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to hire somebody that can potentially cost you more time and money to the addition that you have to create special rules for all other employees.

So in the current climate, I can’t really blame people for thinking that way!

Now, I totally know that not all women are sensitive and take every sexist joke as a reason to make a complaint. Just because women can bear children does not make them less objective or overreact in every situation. I worked with tons of women, some strong, some gentle, some even shy — but nobody was too emotional to come to work like the Google incident suggests.

On the other hand my personal view is not the prominent perception anymore. People in higher positions see liability and an additional cost factor.
They don’t see that the majority of women are actually hard working people — and I can’t actually blame them for that because I also doubt it after all the trouble I read last year.

I always thought most women want to work, to build a career and to be happy just like man do and are perfectly fine with getting their shot and work side by side with man together.

And against the Narrative that the Mainstream Media is promoting… Men actually want women at the workplace — most of us like to work together with the opposite sex and like to joke and laugh with them, to have some good fights and then drink coffee in the break.

But of course, they will not like it if that means they have to take extra precautions just because the new worker is female.

Would you like to work in a place where every word you say can get you literally fired without investigation or proof, even if it was a joke or compliment? — I personally don’t!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That sounds like bs to me.

I don't believe Mr Damore was responding in good faith to a request for "feedback", his little essay was in no way a reasonable or even tolerable example of actual communication, and accounts of his coworkers in that industry catching the faintods from what can have been a surprise, a shock, or an item of news to absolutely none of them are simply not credible.

Who is this "we"?
If you aren't up to job of hiring employees to get your work done, you have no business in that role.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not entirely sure whether that was written in earnest--Mr. "anonposters"'s essay kinda reads as bad satire to to me. Seriously, who says "if this is how women behave?" And this:

That can't possibly be real, right? Also a whole lotta exclamation points and boldface and a lot of nonsense about having to take "extra precautions" and make "new rules" if they're gonna take that bold step and allow women to grace their workplaces.


Edit: On second thought, having read through some of his replies to comments: it ain't no satire, he's just a fucking creep.

Wtf?

 

If I take the moment to remind this is another example of why the only manner in which we can responsibly take people like our neighbor seriously is the danger they present in aiding and abetting sexual violence, then ... er ... ah ... right, there really isn't much to say that hasn't been said before.

There's a cartoon going around Twitter, and it's true, when I saw it my first thought was of the disgust some pretend↑ at the prospect of women struggling against sexual violence, because, you know, how dare she, or something like that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sarah Andersen, 30 December 2017​

 

Not when they are supported by accurate accusations.

There are blacklists maintained by hookers, for example, and shared amongst them, that lists johns who have been violent or abusive towards other prostitutes. Those lists save lives. You can be blacklisted on Uber for hitting on female drivers and not taking "no" for an answer. (Or for vomiting in the car, or for vandalizing it, etc.) These lists are also very helpful, and help protect drivers and their cars.

So your argument is - all women are the same?

How about we do it on a case by case basis. We just avoid the bigots and enablers (such as yourself) no matter what their sex, religion, skin color or sexual preference.

 

​

I was gonna post a few more of Mr. Don'tHireWomen's responses to comments, but then I was... well, it was making my head hurt and I don't even know why I was forcing myself to read that crap in that first place. Anyways, he's pro-segregated (by gender, of course) workplace. Seriously.

So I'll just post this bit:

OK. He kinda writes like someone else I know, so it's a bit of a challenge to suss out the meaning, but I think what he's saying is essentially this:

He--some random nobody--posted a crap essay somewhere--on the internets--and two days later hardly any feminists have reacted negatively. Yet he was expecting a massive backlash (I think?). So maybe feminists are also for segregated workplaces?

Someone who "reasons" thusly I would frankly expect to face a serious challenge when changing a lightbulb. Yet he, supposedly, runs a business.

The notion of "taking seriously" can mean a lot of things, and it's really difficult in this instance, but... yeah.

 

I don't see anything there about the cultural Marxist jews are destroying the white race by encouraging women to abort and blur the lines between gender.

Well this goes back to my point early that if they are saying 2+2=4 and you are saying no they are wrong, well then you have a problem. You have ignored everything they have said, to the likely horrible consequences that the #metoo hysteria will have with female employeement, how it is counter productive and only empowers the right and alt-right, and your response to all that is 'this is rightwing talk!'?

Yeah and? I think what was being spoken about was BEFORE he was fired. Perhaps even before the memo was leaked outside of Google. Female employees were complaining and not going to work for "emotional reasons" because of the meme, later on after the memo became public and after he was fired trolls harassed female Google employees and they had to "cancelled a company-wide meeting". See your conflating two different events, or claimed events.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/nov/16/james-damore-google-memo-interview-autism-regrets

Leaked posts from Google’s internal message boards show that some of Damore’s most vocal critics were mid-ranking managers. “It has cost me at least two days of productivity and anger, and I am not even the target of its bigoted attacks,” said one manager, declaring he would never work with Damore again. Another said: “I intend to silence these views. They are violently offensive.”


Many women who work elsewhere in tech were appalled by Damore’s memo, written from the heart of an industry that is notoriously male dominated. It came amid a cascade of reports about sexual harassment in Silicon Valley and a class-action lawsuit brought by women employed at Google alleging the company systematically pays women less than men for similar work.


Damore’s girlfriend was overseas on 5 August, the day she received text messages from friends urging her to click on a link to the tech website Gizmodo, where the memo had been leaked under the headline “Here’s The Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating Internally at Google”.


Damore had not told her about his document, and her initial impression was that it was horrible. But after reading it a few times, and discussing it with him, her position mellowed; she even came to agree with one or two of his points. She maintains Damore was, for the most part, naive and wrong, but in the process of defending him she lost friends. She believes there was no need for Google to fire him; they could just as easily have taken corrective action.​

Lets say a memo is spread internally in my company that Jews are on average conniving and here are some studies that back that, I'm not going to take the next day off for "emotional reasons" or even attack the author. Even if Jews were on average conniving I don't think that has anything to do with me as a individual, I would though want to make sure my employer understand that though, I would want to have a frank but cordial discussion with the author, determine the details of his thinking and ideology and make sure it is a threat or not. Only after all that, only after I know for sure the author want to exterminate the jews would I go the management to make demands, in private, perhaps a law suite.

Why are you mischaracterizing the issue?

Look if someone says "#metoo is probably going to lead to a lot of women not getting hired or segregate careers even more" do you think that will or will not happen? It does not matter if that is a "right wing" belief, I don't support that outcome but I believe that is a likely consequence, the logic is sound, the outcome is not good, but probable. The author also states he does not want that to happen, none the less that is likely what is going to happen. This is like saying "If we elect fascists they will exterminate the jews" and your reply is 'that right wing propaganda!' yeah so, does not change the fact that is what they will do.

be specific, what "misogynistic bullshit"? Name me an argument made there and how it is "misogynistic bullshit" and then state how it is incorrect.

 

Are hookers a legal profesion protected by the law and police? If not then anything goes really.

and you can sue. Uber can say we got complaints and you are banished, sure, that not a blacklist.

I quoting someone else argument, that employers will make the conclusion that women are too costly, to dangerous, it not about all, it is about running risk and if women are precieved as an extra risk, then they will be hired less specifically for simply being women.

Name me why I'm a bigot and enabler? I would love a case by case basis, but employers don't always do that and there are ways that make it very hard to stop them from not doing that.

I don't think you understand what I cited, I'm talking about the consequences of the Metoo hysteria, I don't want those consequences any more then you do, but you turn it around to attack me instead of the problem of airing unproven accusations via social media to utilize public harassment as social justice weapon.

Complete misrepresentation of my argument and projection on your part. If someone is struggling against sexual violence, they should go to the police, or lawyers, not social media. Social media rallies a witch hunt that only damages progressive causes and electability, There I am quoting an argument on how the #Metoo hysteria can actually end up hurting female employment.

Well that your beliefs then.

Well I'm not an employer but I assume that what employers are considering, they want work to get done, not damaging public accusations that damages their work and profits.

 

Why yes, those are my beliefs.
And they are based on considerable evidence, reasoning from the actual events, and a lifetime of experience with similar situations and controversies.

And if they can't hire accordingly, they should find someone who can.
For example, if they think refusing to hire women is some kind of strategy that will help them avoid damaging public accusations and get the work done better and boost profits, they clearly need to outsource their hiring to competent business executives, who can handle the job.

 

and that evidence is? I mean there is "considerable evidence" Jews are conniving nepotists, but I rightfully question how that evidence is derived and interpreted. As for experience on reading the thoughts and minds of others: pretty sure you are not psychic.

That would all depend on if they get sued for not hiring women or not.

Everything is about real world consequence: what is morally right is supplanted by what is practically right. If practically they can get away with silently reducing their intake of women, they will, if that keeps them from the public fiasco of a productive but creepy autistic employee saying something that offends female employees, so be it.

Looking into the evidence closer on the goggle leaks it appears the most offended were male feminist: I see no leaked internal memos from women demanding his head. Now this is a matter of my belief based on considerable evidence: male feminist are usually compensating overly for being perverted harassing rapey sexists, a wolf in sheep's clothing so the speak.

 

Which would be why I claimed experience with physical situations and events, and reading what people write.

Everything depends on something. Anyone who can't avoid bad hiring should outsource the task - no shame in that, all businessmen have their incompetencies.

Some employer who can't see any way to avoid these troubles except excluding women from his business altogether is clearly not able to hire competently, and should outsource that task to someone more capable, is all.

 

And so you concluded what from Damore writings?

Well that your opinion, but if it turns out profitable, from the business's perspective it is a good decision made by a competent employee. I think you're missing the logic here: Imagine we have two potential employees, a man and a woman, either would get the job done well, but the employer after seeing the results of #Metoo now has the perception that the woman is a higher risk candidate than the man. Now you can say what you will about the employer's incompetence but at the end of the day someone gets that job and someone does it well.

 

In places, yes.

Oh, OK. Then nothing is a blacklist, because you can always sue. Problem solved.

Bigot - you repost (and apparently support) people who claim that perhaps women shouldn't be in the workforce because they're women.
Enabler - you enable abuse of women by attacking women who do not immediately report such abuse.

They should go wherever they can to get help in their struggle. Police, lawyers and social media (and newspapers, and other journalists, and support groups, and doctors as needed.)

Well, better not hire any blacks then, either! They might go all social media on you if you have a company policy that says blacks can't use the company cars because they're such terrible drivers. (And they can prove it, because a black employee got into an accident once.) The company just wants to get work done, not spend their money defending themselves against damaging public accusations!

 

Not here. And if they were legal the prostitutes could bannish any customer from their establishment and announce that publicly.

No a blacklist is a ILLEGAL secret list saying we can't hire or provide services to a person because of some reason that would not be legal to say publicly.

You did not read the article did you? He does not support that. The article specifically calls out this as problem, as a unwanted and immoral consequence of the #metoo hysteria.

How am I attacking? How is telling women to go to the police and prosecute their abusers is enabling abuse? I guess it enables the guy that will be rapeing the abusers in prison.

So can a lynch mob "help in their struggle"?

Once again it is clear your confusing the conclusion and premise of the argument. Again this is a unwanted consequences, like racism against blacks inhibits their ability to get jobs, sexism against women does the same, and #Metoo ENABLES SEXISM AGAINST WOMEN, it portrays women as emotionally weak and prone to costly complaints.

 

That he was an asshole who needed to be fired for the good of company morale. Just my opinion.
I've worked in places that failed to shitcan assholes, usually because management was just trying to avoid the work, and it never worked out very well - the price of keeping them around is always much higher than it appears at first.

And if it doesn't, then it would be a bad decision whoever made it. And that's far more likely. The odds against admitted incompetence and incapability at that basic a level making good hiring decisions by chance are pretty long - hiring is not that easy.

 

That is the core of there belief yes.

Who president now? Now this may come and a surprise but not everyone the voted for trump is "ultra right wing and misogynists". even a few percent of them flipping their vote would change everything. As long as you have the outlook that everyone that is not with you is your moral enemy, then you will not have enough allies to win.

What propaganda? Be specific.

Of course not! What a ridiculous question! Do you think it is acceptable to eat children?

Your argument is not supported by what you cited. More so this is not about truth, this is about perception, things like #metoo and an how some women publicly handle Damore makes the perception that women are an overly sensitive liability

A self hating bigot? I providing an analogy,

no he wrote a memo that women on average do not prefer to be modern computer programmers and that biology may be some of the reason why that is and that a 50/50 gender ratio in any career is unrealistic, and it is ideologically close minded to deny any other reason for the lack of 50/50 distribution other then sexism. He repeatedly throughout the memo expressed that individuals vary and that women can do that, only not to equal ratios as men.

Now bells, are women on average shorter then men? Does that make women "sub-par biologically"?

Complete projection on your part.

Did you read what he said? I don't think you did.

And yes saying that maybe some of the reasons for non-equal job distributions is biological has merit, it means nothing for the individual though.

I am not all jews, any accusation made against all jews may are may not have anything to do against me, rather how that accusation is utilized is what is important, if it is a bunch of trolls just being edgy I can live with that, if it is to be used to oppressed me or others, well that there is a problem. See the problem here is people like you Bells, and I mean ideologues of your ilk, not all women or even women in general, tend to see any statement as being "about all" and that you are somehow representative of all, and you see any statement about generalizations or averages or norms as a slander against you. Your ideology automatically assume any such generalization leads to oppression and therefor anyone that dares to suggest that generalization is correct is evil.

Of course not! What a ridiculous question! Do you think it is acceptable to eat children?

Of course not! What a ridiculous question! Do you think it is acceptable to eat children?

Anyways you ignored my original point that you are talking about a separate event then what was claimed, that the claim was BEFORE he was fired, even BEFORE it became public, women inside google supposedly 'flipped a table' over it. From what has leaked it looks like only male feminist were flipping tables, so I have no proof on that claim, that does not give you a right to bring in a red haring of an completely alternate event that happened later.

What right-wing propaganda, be specific. My answer will depend

1. If it is factual, then I'm spreading facts, regardless if the right wing believe it or not.
2. If it is a mischaracterization on your part, i'm spreading a claim that you are mischaracterizing as rightwing.

The author is stating the logic of employers, he is not saying it is right, only that is how they think and that #metoo adds into that thinking. Do you understand the concept of perceptions? No of course not, you thought Hillary Clinton was electable, clearly you have no clue.

No he says the #Metoo movement makes women appear/precieved to be prone to making costly accusations, sometimes out of nothing, and will added to sexist hiring practices, that he specifically disagrees with, he specifically states that he does not believe women are that weak and that he wants female employment and co-ed work environments and you are projecting all these claims that he is anti-women, misogynistic and right wing because your ideology requires you do so.

We already do that, as you have noticed, he saying that the perception of its failure, that to #metoo will result in employers taking the worse option of not hiring women, which he does not want. The correct alternative is not the have hysterias like metoo because the end result harms women, harms progressive causes.

ok once again how well did that public outing work out for Donald Trump? I means sure I can see their was good intent with #metoo, only it is antithetical to reality and results in exactly what it is trying to stop.

So I ask again, be specific. So for what you have presented is you mischaracterizing an argument.

No you mean the headline triggered you and you hate read it (if you did read it at all!) seeing only what you wanted to see.

What is the premise, because so far you mischaracterized the premise completely. Everyone whines about mainstream media. I have comments above whining about youtube, which is mainstream to me and millions of others. That like saying Nazis whined about smoking, ergo anti-smoking is fascists propaganda.

Why are you making this accusations? What relevance does it have to the topic?

 

Well then I will ignore that.

I think it is likely to be profitable for a business, not so much for society, now you can hope businesses will have direct repercussions, but that is just you hoping, the real world is not so kind to wishes and hopes. It is like slavery, which was very profitable for thousands of years.