Having worked in several Chinese tech co's, this is not in the least surprising to me. In one company I worked in, the CEO used the girls in the office like his personal harem. Women are hired based on looks and age, and whether they are married or not.
The one surprising thing, to me, is that the accusations are gaining traction, which is good to hear.
Your example, like all the ones in America, reflects ultimately an abuse of power.
The (sensitive) males who were raised to respect women despite power relations, and do, are in for a rude awakening they’ll be helpless to defend against. Similar males with no power at all will suffer the most.
“One bad apple, get rid of them all” has been the #metoo trend in America; and the apples are the male gender, not abusers of power. Because we are culturally tuned to only reward power, this kind of thinking is all too easy. Wouldn’t this tendency probably be multitudes more engrained in China?
In the end, abuses of power remain king in the abstract, and I am not sure we should be so encouraging.
If the traction is informationally contained to enemies of those in positions of power, that would be pretty insincere, but if they let it happen and managed to create a new standard for how people in power should act in private-- that would be good news.
That was my first reaction as well, that this could end up in line with Xi's crackdown on corruption. As the article mentions, censors are silencing some discussions, but I wouldn't be surprised if censors let through and amplify those speaking out against abusers who also happen to be critical of Xi's government.
You're getting downvoted because you're failing to see the bigger picture here, in much the same way journalists deciding "even if we got handed this by the russians, it's true, so we should publish it" is missing the bigger picture.
Not to say that we shouldn't seek justice against these people, but that blindly making good local decisions may not end up with good global decisions.
Well wouldn't the reverse also be just as bad and exploitable? The classic is 'ignore misconduct because it might help 'the enemy' make us look bad' is in itself failing to see the big picture and one of the oldest ones in the book for the wicked to retain power.
The proper solution morally of course is to reject false-dichotomies and oppose wrong on all sides - especially within 'your own'.
You're right, "ignore misconduct because it might help 'the enemy' make us look bad" has its own downsides, but the answer isn't "who cares who it hurts".
There are many ways to deal with misconduct - letting adversaries weaponize information against your own at a time they choose with no care for the implications is probably not the best way.
It is a weird dynamic, from what I understand to China is pretty far behind (just needed a word here so I chose "behind") socially in that area. Sort of Me 2 meets mid 20th century attitudes in the US?
The US started mass employment of women in the late 1800s. It took until the 2010s for MeToo to be taken seriously. (And by seriously, I mean that there are consequences for such actions.)
Given that China actively destroyed its culture during '49-'79, and then saw the fastest growth spurt of industrialization and services ever seen in human history, it's not surprising that they're playing massive catchup.
The interesting thing would be to compare womens' working conditions in the PRC vs. the ROC, HK, and Singapore, Sinosphere countries of which none of which suffered similar political turmoil and had much less compressed development.
MeToo is far from the first time this stuff has had teeth in the US.
It’s more that you get waves of action, back lash, then build up for the next wave. Really you can trace US legislation back to the 70’s, but social progress is slow.
The pendulum effect. Cultural change typically tends to go first too far in one direction then retreat and go too far in the other direction. Repeat every few decades. And maybe not fair to say it swings equally in both directions. Long-term progress is made but it tends to happen in a series of over-reaches and then pull backs.
It's definitely past the mid-point right now. I'm fortunate to have begun my career just as the excesses of the second wave reached their peak, so I've spent my entire worklife assiduously avoiding any appearance of impropriety. I have never met with a female coworker alone in an office, and have never socialized with women coworkers outside of work. Many have tried to shame me into going out with a group, but I have always declined. It hasn't hurt my career advancement, so no regrets.
Has it hurt the development of some of the women who have been my direct reports over the years? Probably, but it has also protected the women I care about the most, namely my wife and daughter, because it has prevented any kind of accusations from getting traction.
Yes, remarkably, and despite carefully avoiding any sexual talk of any sort at work for over thirty years now, I have been falsely accused of sexual harassment a handful of times over the years, but nothing has ever stuck. I think it is, in large part, because I have been so careful.
This is the consistent counsel I offer to younger men at work. Some listen, most don't. A few have suffered serious career setbacks as a result of fishing off the company pier or other indiscretions, yet it could have been so easily avoided. I'm glad I only have another ten years or so to go. It would be a lot tougher to survive in today's climate as a young man.
Not knowing anything beyond your irrational refusal to have meetings with women and your apparent contempt for their careers, I'm inclined to believe the (multiple?!) sexual harassment complaints against you. It's really not normal to be regularly accused of that kind of behavior.
Three accusations in thirty years hardly qualifies as a "regular occurrence." Having spent part of my career in HR, it is not nearly as rare as you would like to think for people (both men and women) to be accused of sexual harassment.
I do meet with women, regularly, just never alone. My refusal to meet alone with women is hardly irrational. It is one of the safest and sanest choices a man can make in the current environment where a mere accusation is often enough to cause the loss of a job and future prospects.
I sincerely hope it never happens to you, but odds are high that it will if you acquire enough power at work. Not a popular view, I know, but still true.
That's one of the weaker attempts at shaming someone into doing something foolish and unnecessary that I've encountered.
Contrary to popular belief and widespread practice, 1:1s are not essential to developing employees. There are lots of other very effective ways to develop people on a team. (That's right, the men on my teams didn't get 1:1s either. And yet, somehow we got stuff done.)
This is exactly why I don't manage anyone any more. It's so tiresome when people with ten or twenty or thirty years less experience fight you every step of the way. I made enough doing that, now I make enough doing something else.
Obviously you are not up to date with the current state of militant feminism in many parts of the western world. Some women will easily make up accusations for personal reasons and even for career advancement. Not meeting them one-on-one in a professional setting is a perfectly valid protection from this. (Why would you need to meet them one-on-one in a workplace anyway? Do you have secret projects you don't want other co-workers to know about?)
(Not all women do this obviusly, but a small part. Just like not all men harass others. But it takes one to destroy a career.)
No, it's getting quite common. The pence rule, they call it in America.
I've been on the pointy end of a false accusation by a woman in my team who was upset I insisted on supervising and double checking her work (which was extremely poor). Lucky me, the accusation wasn't sexual and double lucky she was a terrible liar. But if you think false accusations are rare you are pretty naive and probably just were never in a position to make an enemy of a woman.
It's not at all common. "The Pence rule" is noteworthy because it's so weird; it's reported as evidence of how out of the mainstream Pence is. If it was common, or becoming increasingly so, it would not be newsworthy when it's discovered that, for instance, he tried to organize an all-male jogging group "because he is married".
If the accusation you were at the other end of "wasn't sexual", I'm not sure what it has to do with this story, this thread, or with the gender of the accuser. I've been falsely accused of things at work by dudes, too. That is a thing that does happen.
> I have never met with a female coworker alone in an office, and have never socialized with women coworkers outside of work.
> Has it hurt the development of some of the women who have been my direct reports over the years? Probably, but it has also protected the women I care about the most, namely my wife and daughter, because it has prevented any kind of accusations from getting traction.
Jesus. You're aware that you could get yourself and your employer sued for admitting this, aren't you?
> Yes, remarkably, and despite carefully avoiding any sexual talk of any sort at work for over thirty years now, I have been falsely accused of sexual harassment a handful of times over the years, but nothing has ever stuck. I think it is, in large part, because I have been so careful.
If you need the Billy Graham rule, then I am entirely sure the accusations against you had more merit than you'd care to admit.
No, I cannot be sued for admitting this, because in my current position no one reports to me. And ironically, the bogeyman of being sued is not that scary. I have been falsely accused three times over the years, and completely exonerated by the EEOC and a court of law in one case. (The other two cases crumbled under the weight of the accusers' accumulated lies before getting to that point, so bad that their lawyers withdrew from representing them.)
But it's easy in today's climate to make a baseless accusation.
And you realize that you could be sued for defamation of character by falsely accusing me of sexual harassment in a public forum, right?
Haha, great answer, I'm impressed at how you aren't backing down on this. Three times with legal action in all cases sounds terrible though, glad you were ok.
Not meeting alone or socializing with female coworkers is a pretty intelligent move these days for men, and will probably become the norm until we have cameras watching and recording our every move as proof nothing happened.
The problem is that most are guilty until proven innocent....and even when proven innocent many still lost their careers and livelihood in the process and companies just don't want the bad press.
It's about as intelligent as women avoiding being alone with men in fear of being attacked.
In some contexts, perhaps? Generally, no. There are dangers in a lot of interactions yet we still engage in this, there's nothing new about that. This is extreme.
Legislation happened in the '70s, but I would characterize those earlier movements as countercultural.
MeToo, as far as I'm aware, is the first time where allegations against sexual harassment are with the prevailing winds of modern American culture, and when people other than politicians have suffered actual blowback and consequences from such behavior.
It is far from the first time men have suffered consequences for sexual misconduct at work. MeToo is really just Hollywood and the media being held to the same standard that most of corporate America has had since the late 70s or early 80s.
Christ, you'd think they invented it, even though the vast majority of people have lived under these rules for over two decades.
CEOs and important upper management being pushed out and boards resigning over sexual harassment and fraternization is a relatively new development. And it's more than just media companies.
Yes, I'll admit that the consequences are occurring further up the ladder in some cases. Still, the point stands that the vast majority of people have had to live under these rules for two or three decades. It's nothing new, except that a tiny number of powerful people who were previously exempt from the rules now aren't. For the rest of us, it's business as usual.
That’s more perception than reality. Many powerful men and some women have been removed from upper management in industry or government due to sexual harassment. Add to that many very large monetary payouts resulting in policies and training for decades, the difference is before social media these things have been mostly kept quite.
Hollywood has also been something of a holdout as people hold power without being someone’s supervisor.
The removal of CEOs and boards is a relatively new development; it would be hard, particularly for public companies, to hide such drastic actions, and for it to happen over sexual harassment and similar policies was certainly not very common over the years. Government is a bit of a different case, particularly in the case of elected officials where a lot of times it's more viewed in terms of what it means about the official's morality, and less about what the actual victim's allegations were.
If you compare ‘Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson’ to these cases the trend is much less extreme situations having significant repercussions. Which eventually hits more CEO’s becase their simplicity are fewer CEO’s of major organizations and thus fewer CEO’s committing extreme over the top acts. Aka more cases of comments than inappropriate touching, more touching than grouping, and more grouping than rape.
However the impact of CEO’s vs the 1000’s of lower level managers is less in that they directly impact fewer people even if they have oversight over large organizations.
As to removal over time that’s extremely sensitive when dealing with CEO’s so the bar has been rather high. Still you can find cases 10+ years ago.
The really weird thing for me living here a few years is Mao once said "Women hold up half the sky" but are still accorded second class (non-official) citizenship in many ways to this day.
I have spent a good amount of time in the mainland as a foreigner. The way that men talk about women, particularly in professional settings, is decades behind imho. KTV alone - I have heard some pretty terribls sounding stories there as well although have been lucky to only have gone to the normal ktv. A simple example is booth babes at tech shows. In the US, general consensus is that this is exploitive. In China it seems quite normative.
> In the US, general consensus is that this is exploitive. In China it seems quite normative.
We're not that great about it in the US either. It's still an issue that people are having to fight, repeatedly. The US is definitely getting better, but it's far from solved.
I think the distinction that he's drawing is that in the US, the cultural consensus is that this behavior is not ok, even though it still goes on. There's this in-between space that we get to about things like this where we all (mostly) decide its not ok, but lots of people still do it and/or protect those that do. China seems to still be in the first stage though, of not having culturally come to agreement that this sort of thing isn't just normal and acceptable.
I totally agree with you. Parent comment is completely unreasonable in rallying against parts of another culture that he believes stupid. We must be inclusive of all parts of every culture because each culture has a very different lens, and there is oft little that can be agreed on as a result.
But maybe it has something to do with the evolution of gender equality in China? That is, maybe reaction against the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards has reinforced male dominance?
Baggage aside, the current Chinese government seems more Confucian than Communist.
Isn't it better to see it from the perspective of 'people in power can be sinful', rather than 'because there were some female leaders early on in a (highly propagandistic) movement then they most be on the side of women? Even still, there are many women who harbor men with bad behavior for personal gain.
Of course it's better, but how often does human behavior act in better or more logical ways? Humans are not the rational, well-informed beings of economics.
What I'm wondering is whether the Red Guards -- notwithstanding all the horrible stuff -- were less sexist and more egalitarian than the norm today.
I have no clue. I'm not Chinese, or lived there, or even studied China carefully. And maybe I'm too influenced by Cixin Liu's "Remembrance of Earth's Past" trilogy.
I think the general consensus is that the Communist movement (50s and 60s) actually did a lot for gender equality, given that that was one of the explicit precepts of the new society. China was coming from way, way behind, though, so even if a huge amount of progress was made, it ain't no UC Berkeley. But observing other "psuedo-Confucian" societies like Korea or Japan, it often seems like China's actually comparatively relaxed about gender.
Years of living in China left me with the impression that women themselves have come a long way: there are a lot of "tough women" in China, and many of them are very independent minded. Sure, there's also a lot of anxiety about being 26 and unmarried (the horror!), but at this point that anxiety comes as much or more from family pressure, the women themselves are often very "modern-minded".
The men, on the other hand, are mostly still in the stone age. The goal of life is to amass money and power, and one of the first things you do when you've got that is get a mistress. Having pretty young things in the office is a must. One of the main perks of authority is that you can screw who you like. The typical university environment, for example, is absolutely disgusting, the male professors are shooting fish in a barrel.
And because political and social power is held by men, the government comes down hard on feminism. I always had a hard time getting my head around the way feminism is treated like a political sin, and is censored as such.
> maybe it has something to do with the evolution of gender equality in China?
Women played prominent roles in many revolutions. That didn’t stop the resulting societies from developing depraved sexism. This is a problem many civilisations have faced and solved. Looking for uniquely Chinese causes is a goose chase.
One could probably find mid-century American housewives who would bind their feet if it meant their husbands would stop legally raping them. Point is, we outlawed that behaviour and allowed it to be debated. China’s dictatorship doesn’t seem to be doing that.
Stupid American think that world thinks like them.
Nobody gives a fuck about you cucks. Chong women are there so men feel better and not have to bear sjws and curry indian women.
If so, it is understandable that they would not see this as any serious matter, because in the west, the maximum that such a system is worth of is a Black Mirror episode. In China, this is now an everyday reality for many people.
That would be fine, I'm just pointing out the rape gangs dwarf the magnitude of harm MeToo uncovered, yet public exposure of MeToo dwarfs the public exposure of the rape gangs
Don't you think that the amount of people being victims in #metoo are just louder because they can be on twitter and tweet #metoo? Silencing them wouldn't bring your topic up because it's doing a bad job at promoting itself already (how could they?). It would just bring up other topics that promote them self.
Of course being a dick about it, doesn't help the issue either.
Sure, the victims in Rotherham can't actually amplify it themselves, but typically, it's the media, who amplify such causes, not the victims. Consider the pedophilia plague in the Catholic church, that absolutely did not become world famous due to Twitter. The left notably also justifiably kicks up a ruckus over less, but were oddly silent on the rape gangs, as documented by a leftist himself here:
Only because "the left media" is able to push something doesn't mean that they are necessary. Weinstein was a topic but it was nothing and would have been dead within the usual 2-3 weeks cycle the media usually creates if it hadn't been for one influential twitter user (in this case: Alyssa Milano). The Media then followed up on this hype not the other way around.
I don't know where you think left/right politics comes into your issue. Only because some lefty thinks they could get some attention from that but fails to generate it because he has not the same reach as Alyssa Milano? Where is the right then? The only thing you get from them regarding those topics is: "burn them!". You may generate attention with that within some closed UKIP facebook group maybe.
Left politics was a big part of the issue of why Rotherham even happened to begin with. It was documented that police and city councils were afraid to go after perpetrators for fear of being seen as racist.
>Some leftist... Alyssa Milano
This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years. Just imagine the outrage if the perpetrators had been the EDL, and the victims immigrants.
>Where is the right then? The only thing you get from them regarding those topics is: "burn them!". You may generate attention with that within some closed UKIP facebook group maybe.
This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.
To summarize, the reason I'm mad about the left's, and by extension, the mainstreams, reaction to Rotherham, is that:
a) The left typically deals with this. There's tons of examples of activism in reaction to women being victimized, but for this one case, unlike any of the other ones it's crickets.
b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if the perpetators had been someone in the leftists outgroup (say, the far-right, or the church). These sorts of groups after all, get worse reputations over lesser offenses.
c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.
> It was documented that police and city councils were afraid to go after perpetrators for fear of being seen as racist.
So you really think that "the left" would rather take that then investigate such a hot issue? Seriously?
Do you have a source on that documentation?
> This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years.
So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault? Maybe it's no racism conspiracy but something completely different? Whatever it is, it's completely different then what goes on in #metoo or #metwo where many people try. Many of them being affected themselves and so on.
> This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.
Well, they managed #Brexit pretty well. That was 2 years ago.
> a) The left typically deals with this.
So let's wrap this up: not even the right cares about it even though it falls perfectly in their spectrum (as being the opposite of the left AND something with child abuse which is what they love to scream for death penalty), but the it's nonetheless the lefts fault...
> b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
> c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.
Where I come from, the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter. While you think it's the opposite and not only this, the left took the role of the justice system which has to be abolished if it doesn't do what you want.
I don't know man. It all sounds like the usual right wing madness argumentation which usually does not come from anywhere near reality ;)
By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire
period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how
best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem,
which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the
ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction
from their managers not to do so.
> So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault?
Nobody in the left tried is what I mean, not nobody in general. Parts of the right did try, but they get dismissed as far-right loonies (apparently the rational thing to do about this is to not care, and memory-hole it?).
> the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter.
This would be ideal, but the justice system dealt with it only after decades, thousands of victims, and even some murders. This was a massive government failure that has been memory-holed, and you seem to believe it's some kind of non-event.
This isn't really true. Child separations on the US border got a lot more play than Rotherham, any of the other towns affected, or the current scandal in Telford.
That really cuts directly at the business cultural in China and China is very passionate about ridged reasoning and rebuking things they don’t like as not being Chinese. MeToo in China goes for the jugular of these attitudes, good for them.
One thought that crossed my mind is the extent to which Xi's government can ride this wave and use it to eliminate political enemies. The old way was to accuse political enemies of corruption and have them jailed. I wonder if the new way is to get them accused of sex crimes, or just ruin their reputation in China so that they become radioactive to work with.
I think whether or not these posts are censored will tell you what's likely. If they are taken down quickly, it's probably not government instigated, but if they're not removed, then it leads to the suspicion that the government wants these published.
87 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadThe one surprising thing, to me, is that the accusations are gaining traction, which is good to hear.
The (sensitive) males who were raised to respect women despite power relations, and do, are in for a rude awakening they’ll be helpless to defend against. Similar males with no power at all will suffer the most.
“One bad apple, get rid of them all” has been the #metoo trend in America; and the apples are the male gender, not abusers of power. Because we are culturally tuned to only reward power, this kind of thinking is all too easy. Wouldn’t this tendency probably be multitudes more engrained in China?
In the end, abuses of power remain king in the abstract, and I am not sure we should be so encouraging.
The injustice would be that OTHER people aren't being brought to justice, not that one group IS.
Not to say that we shouldn't seek justice against these people, but that blindly making good local decisions may not end up with good global decisions.
The proper solution morally of course is to reject false-dichotomies and oppose wrong on all sides - especially within 'your own'.
There are many ways to deal with misconduct - letting adversaries weaponize information against your own at a time they choose with no care for the implications is probably not the best way.
Given that China actively destroyed its culture during '49-'79, and then saw the fastest growth spurt of industrialization and services ever seen in human history, it's not surprising that they're playing massive catchup.
The interesting thing would be to compare womens' working conditions in the PRC vs. the ROC, HK, and Singapore, Sinosphere countries of which none of which suffered similar political turmoil and had much less compressed development.
It’s more that you get waves of action, back lash, then build up for the next wave. Really you can trace US legislation back to the 70’s, but social progress is slow.
Has it hurt the development of some of the women who have been my direct reports over the years? Probably, but it has also protected the women I care about the most, namely my wife and daughter, because it has prevented any kind of accusations from getting traction.
Yes, remarkably, and despite carefully avoiding any sexual talk of any sort at work for over thirty years now, I have been falsely accused of sexual harassment a handful of times over the years, but nothing has ever stuck. I think it is, in large part, because I have been so careful.
This is the consistent counsel I offer to younger men at work. Some listen, most don't. A few have suffered serious career setbacks as a result of fishing off the company pier or other indiscretions, yet it could have been so easily avoided. I'm glad I only have another ten years or so to go. It would be a lot tougher to survive in today's climate as a young man.
I do meet with women, regularly, just never alone. My refusal to meet alone with women is hardly irrational. It is one of the safest and sanest choices a man can make in the current environment where a mere accusation is often enough to cause the loss of a job and future prospects.
I sincerely hope it never happens to you, but odds are high that it will if you acquire enough power at work. Not a popular view, I know, but still true.
Contrary to popular belief and widespread practice, 1:1s are not essential to developing employees. There are lots of other very effective ways to develop people on a team. (That's right, the men on my teams didn't get 1:1s either. And yet, somehow we got stuff done.)
This is exactly why I don't manage anyone any more. It's so tiresome when people with ten or twenty or thirty years less experience fight you every step of the way. I made enough doing that, now I make enough doing something else.
I've been on the pointy end of a false accusation by a woman in my team who was upset I insisted on supervising and double checking her work (which was extremely poor). Lucky me, the accusation wasn't sexual and double lucky she was a terrible liar. But if you think false accusations are rare you are pretty naive and probably just were never in a position to make an enemy of a woman.
If the accusation you were at the other end of "wasn't sexual", I'm not sure what it has to do with this story, this thread, or with the gender of the accuser. I've been falsely accused of things at work by dudes, too. That is a thing that does happen.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/linus_torvalds_targ...
> Has it hurt the development of some of the women who have been my direct reports over the years? Probably, but it has also protected the women I care about the most, namely my wife and daughter, because it has prevented any kind of accusations from getting traction.
Jesus. You're aware that you could get yourself and your employer sued for admitting this, aren't you?
> Yes, remarkably, and despite carefully avoiding any sexual talk of any sort at work for over thirty years now, I have been falsely accused of sexual harassment a handful of times over the years, but nothing has ever stuck. I think it is, in large part, because I have been so careful.
If you need the Billy Graham rule, then I am entirely sure the accusations against you had more merit than you'd care to admit.
But it's easy in today's climate to make a baseless accusation.
And you realize that you could be sued for defamation of character by falsely accusing me of sexual harassment in a public forum, right?
The problem is that most are guilty until proven innocent....and even when proven innocent many still lost their careers and livelihood in the process and companies just don't want the bad press.
In some contexts, perhaps? Generally, no. There are dangers in a lot of interactions yet we still engage in this, there's nothing new about that. This is extreme.
MeToo, as far as I'm aware, is the first time where allegations against sexual harassment are with the prevailing winds of modern American culture, and when people other than politicians have suffered actual blowback and consequences from such behavior.
Christ, you'd think they invented it, even though the vast majority of people have lived under these rules for over two decades.
Barnes and Noble: https://www.retaildive.com/news/barnes-noble-axes-ceo-over-m...
Humane Society: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/us/humane-society-ceo-sex...
Social Finance: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/technology/sofi-cagney-sc...
Black Parent Initiative: http://www.wweek.com/news/2018/02/20/entire-black-parent-ini...
Urban League: https://kdvr.com/2018/03/01/urban-league-president-ceo-resig...
Wynn Resorts: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/02/steve-wynn-casin...
Fidelity Investments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2017/11...
WPP: https://www.adweek.com/agencies/wpp-parts-with-former-jwt-ce...
Silicon Valley Community Foundation: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/26/silicon-valley-commun...
Intel: http://fortune.com/2018/06/22/intel-ceo-brian-krzanich-sexua...
Tronc: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-ferro-retires-...
Hollywood has also been something of a holdout as people hold power without being someone’s supervisor.
A non-exhaustive list of changes in CEOs and boards and upper management in recent times: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635067
However the impact of CEO’s vs the 1000’s of lower level managers is less in that they directly impact fewer people even if they have oversight over large organizations.
As to removal over time that’s extremely sensitive when dealing with CEO’s so the bar has been rather high. Still you can find cases 10+ years ago.
We're not that great about it in the US either. It's still an issue that people are having to fight, repeatedly. The US is definitely getting better, but it's far from solved.
Is your stance, “all cultures are good, unless the culture is different from mine?”
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
But maybe it has something to do with the evolution of gender equality in China? That is, maybe reaction against the Cultural Revolution and the Red Guards has reinforced male dominance?
Baggage aside, the current Chinese government seems more Confucian than Communist.
I have no clue. I'm not Chinese, or lived there, or even studied China carefully. And maybe I'm too influenced by Cixin Liu's "Remembrance of Earth's Past" trilogy.
Years of living in China left me with the impression that women themselves have come a long way: there are a lot of "tough women" in China, and many of them are very independent minded. Sure, there's also a lot of anxiety about being 26 and unmarried (the horror!), but at this point that anxiety comes as much or more from family pressure, the women themselves are often very "modern-minded".
The men, on the other hand, are mostly still in the stone age. The goal of life is to amass money and power, and one of the first things you do when you've got that is get a mistress. Having pretty young things in the office is a must. One of the main perks of authority is that you can screw who you like. The typical university environment, for example, is absolutely disgusting, the male professors are shooting fish in a barrel.
And because political and social power is held by men, the government comes down hard on feminism. I always had a hard time getting my head around the way feminism is treated like a political sin, and is censored as such.
Women played prominent roles in many revolutions. That didn’t stop the resulting societies from developing depraved sexism. This is a problem many civilisations have faced and solved. Looking for uniquely Chinese causes is a goose chase.
Edit: My point is that perhaps evolution of gender equality since the 1949 Chinese Revolution got derailed somehow.
One could probably find mid-century American housewives who would bind their feet if it meant their husbands would stop legally raping them. Point is, we outlawed that behaviour and allowed it to be debated. China’s dictatorship doesn’t seem to be doing that.
If so, it is understandable that they would not see this as any serious matter, because in the west, the maximum that such a system is worth of is a Black Mirror episode. In China, this is now an everyday reality for many people.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-43385049
Of course being a dick about it, doesn't help the issue either.
https://medium.com/@TheWakeful/the-uk-street-grooming-scanda...
I don't know where you think left/right politics comes into your issue. Only because some lefty thinks they could get some attention from that but fails to generate it because he has not the same reach as Alyssa Milano? Where is the right then? The only thing you get from them regarding those topics is: "burn them!". You may generate attention with that within some closed UKIP facebook group maybe.
>Some leftist... Alyssa Milano
This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years. Just imagine the outrage if the perpetrators had been the EDL, and the victims immigrants.
>Where is the right then? The only thing you get from them regarding those topics is: "burn them!". You may generate attention with that within some closed UKIP facebook group maybe.
This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.
To summarize, the reason I'm mad about the left's, and by extension, the mainstreams, reaction to Rotherham, is that:
a) The left typically deals with this. There's tons of examples of activism in reaction to women being victimized, but for this one case, unlike any of the other ones it's crickets.
b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if the perpetators had been someone in the leftists outgroup (say, the far-right, or the church). These sorts of groups after all, get worse reputations over lesser offenses.
c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.
So you really think that "the left" would rather take that then investigate such a hot issue? Seriously? Do you have a source on that documentation?
> This isn't about some leftist trying and failing to popularize, it's about nobody even trying to, over the course of 4 years.
So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault? Maybe it's no racism conspiracy but something completely different? Whatever it is, it's completely different then what goes on in #metoo or #metwo where many people try. Many of them being affected themselves and so on.
> This is not suprising, the right has practically no cultural power.
Well, they managed #Brexit pretty well. That was 2 years ago.
> a) The left typically deals with this.
So let's wrap this up: not even the right cares about it even though it falls perfectly in their spectrum (as being the opposite of the left AND something with child abuse which is what they love to scream for death penalty), but the it's nonetheless the lefts fault...
> b) It would have been a massive deal no one forgot about if
Yeah, maybe. Maybe not.
> c) If the left doesn't come up with an answer to these issues, then only the far-right does, which dramatically increases their grassroots power, since they're actually responding to reality.
Where I come from, the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter. While you think it's the opposite and not only this, the left took the role of the justice system which has to be abolished if it doesn't do what you want.
I don't know man. It all sounds like the usual right wing madness argumentation which usually does not come from anywhere near reality ;)
By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.
> So if "nobody" even tried, why is the left at fault? Wouldn't be "everybody" at fault?
Nobody in the left tried is what I mean, not nobody in general. Parts of the right did try, but they get dismissed as far-right loonies (apparently the rational thing to do about this is to not care, and memory-hole it?).
> the justice system deals with such things. Not politics or the media or twitter.
This would be ideal, but the justice system dealt with it only after decades, thousands of victims, and even some murders. This was a massive government failure that has been memory-holed, and you seem to believe it's some kind of non-event.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000005795093/chines...
I think whether or not these posts are censored will tell you what's likely. If they are taken down quickly, it's probably not government instigated, but if they're not removed, then it leads to the suspicion that the government wants these published.