Hacker News Reader

Comment by manfredo | Hacker News Reader

How could they make that judgement when no context about the advances were provided?

Say I sought VC funding, and met a single investor. In the end, I decide to accept funding from another firm. Afterwards said single investor congratulates me on getting funded and asks me out on a date now that we no longer have a conflict of interest. I decline because I'm not interested in this investor.

Did I receive an unwanted romantic advance from an investor? Absolutely. I was asked out on a date when I didn't want one.

But was I harassed? It seems dubious to say so. At the time of the advance I had no business relationship with this investor. If the questionnaire specifically said unwanted advances _during_ the search for funding that would be a different situation. But that context isn't given, hence the confusion.

View on HN

All of the reported incidents were "unwanted sexual contact" or "sexual coercion" or "sexual badgering." I would propose that asking someone on a date should be considered none of those things, unless you're doing it wrong.

The exact phrase was, "experienced unwanted sexual overtures", not "unwanted sexual contact". If we consider asking someone out on a date to be a sexual overture, then asking someone out on a date and they decline is indeed an instance of "unwanted sexual overtures". Someone made a sexual overture, and it was not wanted.

Since YC has not provided how these terms were defined in the questionnaire, we're left to speculate - hence the confusion and contention exhibited in this thread.

The fact that a legalistic definition is required for you to understand how an unprofessional gesture is perceived by women is striking.

Do you think it would be helpful to have a rule book for men that exactly stipulates what kind of interactions with women are professional, respectful, and friendly?

Are men that stupid? (I’m saying this as a man myself).

In no way is asking for greater clarification about how this question was asked in the survey indicative of an inability to recognize harassment. Not-so-subtly accusing other comments of being incapable of distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable advances and denigrating half the population in response to someone asking for this clarification about the survey is absolutely uncalled for, and it makes me question whether you're interested in a good faith discussion.

With that out of the way, the important thing is that injecting one's own assumptions into a survey question risks making vast misinterpretations of the results. The survey merely listed "unwanted sexual overtures". You seem to assume that every reader of this question shares your interpretation as "unwanted and unprofessional sexual overtures" or "unwanted sexual overtures received while seeking funding from an investor" or similar. In practice, many people actually try to answer survey questions honestly. The result of relying on unstated assumptions about the interpretation of survey questions is highly dubious survey results, as I illustrate in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18225907. And not to mention it risks trivializing the impact of sexual harassment, because plenty of people may look at broad definitions like this and think that the majority of cases of harassment identified by studies like these aren't harassment at all.

Looks like we have a category mismatch.

You seem to care about the classification and definitions of questions present in the survey.

I care about finding ways for men (myself included) to understand and think about their blind spots regarding sexual harassment.

I am not saying that you are wrong within your chosen frame of what you care about. I am saying is that your frame is not very relevant to my frame.

I am also saying that focusing on the survey question is indicative of how you rank the importance about these issues.

It’s like the house is on fire, half of the residents of the house are saying “let’s get outside right now”, and you’re saying “hold on, let’s stay inside and figure out whether the fire’s origin is an electrical fire or a wood fire?”

This is childish argument. Just because some people put their energy in one topic or issue does not imply that they don't care about others. Case in point, "you're debating strangers on the internet while the Rohingya are being subject to genocide - clearly you think people debating studies is more important that an entire culture getting eradicated." It is unwarranted to say that people asking for greater clarifications of these terms don't care about reducing sexual harassment.

Regardless, I wasn't even the original commenter that pointed out the ambiguity of this item in the survey. I only responded after roenxi asked for greater context, and other commenters replied with the unqualified assumption that this item was universally interpreted by respondents as only referring to coercive advances. I merely pointed out the fact that, as it was worded in the original document, it was not exclusive to coercive advances and potentially included non-harassment examples that would fit under the terms used (and provided an example).

Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place?

> Also, if my frame of discussion isn't relevant to you then why did you respond in the first place?

You know, you’re so right. Why waste my time with someone who clearly doesn’t care about the core issue at hand?

I'm starting to think maybe we should collectively subject the men who are using the correct wording/behavior to positive reinforcement. Such as if someone tells you "The intern is really hot, but I would never ask out an intern" you would smile and go "Great guy, Bart! I also would never ask out an intern, nor would any other guy I know.". A number of men on the intellectual side of things seem to have what comes across as out-of-proportion anxiety that everything they think, do, or are is somehow sexually harassing, even when they don't even smile at women. Maybe the men that have the anxiety issue had inadequate reinforcement as children or something.

I'm not sure how calling an intern hot (even if subsequently followed by stating that one wouldn't pursue the intern romantically) is supposed to be used as a positive example of socially acceptable workplace interaction.

Neither "men" or "women" form a homogenous group with complete agreement on these issues, and further, not everyone in either group will even be able to read the social cues that govern such social interactions.

If anything, our industry has more of of these sorts of people, so yes, some people actually do need a rule book. A survey providing meaningful data on what is and isn't wanted would thus be incredibly useful not only to help these people navigate the workplace, but to women who have to suffer social ineptitude.

Considering your interest seems to be in reducing women's suffering in this regard, I honestly don't know why you're being so difficult about clarifying the meaning of the data.

This is such a bizarre request.

What you're basically saying is, because 5% of people don't understand the common norms that are blindingly obvious to everyone, the 95% must go out of their way to explain and accommodate the minority.

Why is the onus on the 95% to do that, as opposed to the 5% to have the recognition that their lack of grace in this context is an issue and instead choose to find a different playground?

I'm going to be cold about this: if you do not have the ability to navigate the social norms within a professional working environment, you ethically should not be allowed to pursue romantic interests there. Bottom line. Accommodating to that inability should never come at the cost of someone else's discomfort, nor are you entitled to pursue any possible interest just because you happen to work there.

> What you're basically saying is, because 5% of people don't understand the common norms that are blindingly obvious to everyone, the 95% must go out of their way to explain and accommodate the minority.

Yes. Why is that bizarre? Do you think we should accommodate blind people? Should we install ramps in buildings so the physically disabled can access them?

> Accommodating to that inability should never come at the cost of someone else's discomfort

There's no such thing as a right to comfort. I could just as easily turn it around and say that someone's comfort should never come at the expense of another's ability to work so they can put food on the table. Ideally, we should endeavour to support both goals, not sneer at people because we think we're better than them.

> I'm going to be cold about this: if you do not have the ability to navigate the social norms within a professional working environment, you ethically should not be allowed to pursue romantic interests there.

Let's rephrase: "I'm going to be cold about this: if you do not have the ability to navigate the physical spaces of a professional environment, you should not be allowed to work there."

Just so I'm 100% clear: you believe that being blind, and being unable to read social cues to such an extent that you are considered a sexual harasser for pursuing a relationship are equivalent disabilities?

"Stop being such a creep" and "stop being blind" don't really feel all that equivalent to me.

> "Stop being such a creep" and "stop being blind" don't really feel all that equivalent to me.

A creep doesn't understand what makes him creepy, that's the whole point. So it seems like the "advice" is both cases is equally unhelpful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com