Just to get an idea of where your solution stands on the market, what tools are you competing with and what "CSPM/CIEM tools that fall short in cleaning up AWS IAM" do you imply?
Continuing to appreciate a person's art after you came know that this person behaves really badly means normalizing, legitimizing and promoting such behavior. Which is harmful in every sense.
Women having it harder and sexism are small and very personal problems? It's just not true, things are right the opposite. If there was enough support the described situations would not be the norm. It is not enough support until it completely stops. And even then, women will not be compensated for huge damage already done to them, and will still need support due to this fact.
It's very unlikely to get blamed for polite respectful attention to females if you don't confuse it with any shades of sexist moves. You don't apply this logic to men, which is sexist, even considering that male jerks are a far more often thing than female ones. So why you just dont't stop contacting them first?
I think the point they're trying to make is that the risk is close to zero for this for a straight male approaching other men, and that what you call "unlikely" is still likely enough with such a severe degree that the positive upside on such interactions is dwindling.
Why bother about side effects that are unavoidable but statistically insignificant? You can say it about any type of cryme that you can be wrongfully accused of it. So what do you suggest, gust stop punishing any crimes because of it and go back to chaos? These cases are just not a valid argument. Sexism should be punished and should be stopped, side effects shouldn't stay in the way of measures against it. Our whole legal system works like that, why is it suddenly a problem exclusively when it comes to dealing with sexism.
The issue isnt that the group is jerks (which is easy, you just stop and move on) but that they may bring down career ending social attacks on you. Unlikely with males even if superjerks.
It's not #MeToo causing problems for sure since it attempts to battle sexism by raising awareness. It is sexism which causes all types of problems that you mention. Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.
Avoiding women in workplace is essentially sexist. And for non-sexists there is no reason to do so.
I disagree with you that there is no reason to do so for “non-sexists”. Because no one knows how a given person may interpret a given conversation or activity, combined with the severe consequences from the social media mob that even something as simple as an unsubstantiated tweet can inflict on one’s career or an entire company these days, the only way to avoid liability is to minimize interaction between opposite sexes in the workplace. In this environment, it’s the only rational thing to do.
We have unleashed a virtual lynch mob, ready to instantly torch the life of anyone that stands accused of even moderately inappropriate or questionable behavior. Worse, there is no statute of limitations or standard of proof required to activate the mob - a tweet is enough. That is wrong and creates a toxic environment for everyone.
You dont't apply this logic to men somehow, despite the fact that male jerks can equally destroy you career. How about stopping your interactions with men as well then? essentially you suggest to ignore and reinforce a huge problem of sexism instead of learning how to behave correctly. This approach is harmful and stinks in both moral and professional sence. Sexism and discrimination create toxic environment, not people and actions attempting to battle it.
To quote Nietzsche, "Those who fight Monsters should look to it that they do not become Monsters themselves".
In other words, people who "battle sexism and discrimination" can very well tip over and become sexist and discriminatory in the attempt to fix those exact issues.
They can become Monsters too.
The second part of this quote applies to. "If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you".
If you fight sexism and discrimination long enough, you yourself will go under the spotlight and you'll eventually be judged for what you did. Whether good or evil.
A recent reading of Nietzsche made me view what is currently going on socially through the lens of his master/slave morality...it makes watching the "Oppression Olympics" more entertaining anyway...you can really see the "resentment" play out in full view.
"Ressentiment is a reassignment of the pain that accompanies a sense of one's own inferiority/failure onto an external scapegoat. The ego creates the illusion of an enemy, a cause that can be 'blamed' for one's own inferiority/failure. Thus, one was thwarted not by a failure in oneself, but rather by an external 'evil'...Ressentiment comes from reactiveness: the weaker someone is, the less their capability to suppress reaction. According to Nietzsche, the more a person is active, strong-willed, and dynamic, the less place and time is left for contemplating all that is done to them, and their reactions (like imagining they are actually better) become less compulsive. The reaction of a strong-willed person (a "wild beast"), when it happens, is ideally a short action: it is not a prolonged filling of their intellect." [1]
It's impossible to tip over fighting against institutionalized injustice. The whole history of fighting sexism, racism, discrimination didn't lead to getting rid of these problems yet and there is still a very long way to go.
It is certainly possible to "tip over fighting", as you describe it.
History is filled with people who fought for a just cause, only to then turn around and become unjust themselves (IIRC from history, the french were really good at it).
It doesn't matter how much of the way you got and how much of it has yet to be walked, it's completely irrelevant to "becoming the monster".
>How about stopping your interactions with men as well then?
If a man accuses me of sexual harassment, that would be pretty easy to disprove (I’m straight) and most people would believe me. If a woman accuses me of that, in a MeToo world, my career is over, even if there is no evidence and I didn’t do it (being that we are living in the MeToo world, I guess I should say that for the record I have not ever knowingly sexually harassed anyone, and have never been accused of it).
It's quite impressive how completely you miss the point.
What downandout meant was that it is dangerously easy for a woman, if she were so inclined, to destroy a man's career with unsubstantiated claims of sexual harassment. It is much harder for a man to do that to another man, if both are straight.
I'm really not sure where the sexism comes in. Perhaps you could enlighten everyone.
Your knee-jerk reactions, calling people names ("sexist", "disgusting", "wrong and harmful" etc.) are the problem, not downandout's measured observation, and in fact it is exactly what he is talking about. When there's so many people like you, where is the debate? It's just pitchforks and lynching.
No, it's you who is missing the fact that ability to destroy someone's career is not gender related, but sexism is. You also don't bother to find that statistically cases of false accusations are very rare while numbers of ppl who perform all kinds of discrimination and harassment and get away with it are huge, and exactly this is the main and many times more important problem than statistically small cases of side effects like you describe. Again, learn something about the problem first, you get it backwards and ignore the most important facts.
This assessment naively assumes that only sexists can possibly become targets of #MeToo. Since #MeToo exists purely on a social level and without due process, the above is not the case.
Isn't a person who refuses to acknowledge and change his toxic behavior despite all warning signs a definition of a bad person (which also often transitions to monster)?
I wouldn't, because his learning time means his victims's time in hell. It also doesn't work like this legally, in case of committing a crime, not fully realizing one's own problematic behavior is not quite an argument.
It still applies, although on a smaller scale. Some person will feel uncomfortable because of another person's learning process. It's obvious that learning will take place, but it should happen as an established and guided process like training or curation, this kind of learning is ok.
Why do you think that women who forced to constantly experience all kinds of problems and overload because of their gender, should be concerned about well being of groups and institutions (that tend to force them into these problems) at the expense of their own safety? Maybe you imply some ideal situation in which it is totally safe for an average woman to communicate openly like you suggest, but how often is it really the case given a huge problem of sexism we are discussing here and multiple evidence of which you were just presented?
Agree
Let's face facts, it's stupid to care for some random company morally in that case. And let's face some more facts, even if you don't believe in morals or agree with that one, it's way more important at the societal level for women to be able to have children then for some rando company to be guaranteed a profit
That "rando company" you're talking about is most probably an ordinary citizen just like you (most businesses are sole entrepreneurs and SMBs) and that "profit" is their living, they pay their food, shelter and healthcare for their kids and themselves with that. How would you feel like if someone said these things about women? Are you aware there are woman business owners as well and how would you feel if a woman-owned small business would go under because of this; what if the woman owner is pregnant and/or recently had a child and/or is single mother? Do you realize that you're literally surrounded by businesspeople on this site - do you think they're something less? How did you get the impression that businesses are not primarily humans? How can you say these awful things about others?
There of course are some "faceless corporations", I agree, but I'm not talking about these - the cost of an employee going on a leave is a fraction of their monthly budget. But most of businesses are small and can get into serious trouble easily.
And lastly, no one is talking about guaranteeing a profit at all.
Well as I said in another comment, I live in Europe, so it's definitely very different here.
I have several points. Let's not blame organizations for the actions of individuals (given that the organization properly deals with said individual). Let's not blame the whole industry or the whole society for the actions of individuals. If something happened to me at a conference, I won't blame my manager who is not connected to the individual that did it in any way for that - and I won't make them suffer because of that.
Of course there might be a reason to not communicate that and that's completely alright, it's business after all, but let's not make it a default choice, please - let's stay human and be nice to each other.
It is sad to see that even after many good explanations by other users you're in complete denial of facts that 1) normally it is dangerous for women to report openly 2) they have right to not do so 3) they are not responsible for companies's mismanagement of this possibility 4) given all this, what matters significantly more here is a woman's safety and not awareness of a company.
It is sad that after so many good explanations by me you're in complete denial of facts that
1) normally it isn't (in Europe at least), but I said that I definitely can see situations when it is (in Europe as well as elsewhere) and I never suggested nor said that there aren't any such situations or that it's negligible
2) I'm not talking about them not having a right to do so nor I'm suggesting they shouldn't; I'm saying that using this right should be properly considered before doing so instead of taking it as a default
3) Most companies (again, in Europe, but I'm pretty sure that in the USA as well) don't have any way to do anything about this mismanagement, most companies are small businesses that don't have enough money for that. Not telling them information like this will mean that they will prefer men or risk going under (because the risk of being catched illegally preferring men could be smaller than that). Do you realise that this directly contributes to pay inequality because hiring woman is more riskful than hiring a man (and no, the risk is not the maternal leave itself, the risk lies in being in a situation that you couldn't properly plan for beforehand)?
4) the business is owned by people, possibly women with exactly the same issues as well, but you suggest they don't have the same rights for safety?
I'm sorry to be rude, but did you read what I wrote? Maybe do it again, more carefully? You sound like I suggest depriving women of that right, but I explicitly said that this is not something I want to suggest.
Seems like people completely forgot that having millions of dollars in investments is not common.
There are no countries where the problem of sexism is solved. Maybe it is better in Europe, but it still exists everywhere and still huge. And in the most countries it is times worse. It is reasonable to protect oneself from that behavior with all legal means and it would be strange to expect anything else of a person facing high probability of being discriminated against.
