Beamer wrote on May 20, 2021, 10:58:
So, to Walt, the problem isn't sexual harassers, it's women complaining about sexual harassers.

Check.

There is definitely a disconnect from reality.
Very bizarre.

Kxmode wrote on May 20, 2021, 14:57:
So I see two extremes in the last few comments. On the one hand, we have WaltC essentially stating women shouldn't be in the workforce because it's their fault people in positions of power abuse them, and then Steele advocates for vigilante justice.

What Steele maybe is getting at is this: Imagine a woman sends obvious signals to a guys and the guy sends signals back. Snitching Sally only sees the guy's signals to the woman. The guy will have a hard talk with HR while the woman can't even think straight because she wants to fuck that boy so badly.

It's a fucking retarded world-view to think we need snitches for this stuff. People who think we need this are -- ironically -- the people who think women are so weak that every compliment on their appearance could result in a mental breakdown. I will continue to repeat like a broken record: If I had never complimented one particular woman on her fine looks and character, I wouldn't have my beautiful, perfect 2-year-old daughter Eva today. So at anyone who says a workplace should be completely void of flirtation: go eat shit and for the sake of my daughter's existence, get the fuck out of this debate. Ciao.

PS: An important caveat is that I am not pro-flirtation because a man should be free to express his feelings. Not al all. I am pro-flirtation because I respect women enough to treat them as equals. I compliment men almost as often as women on their fine looks, especially when they give a shit on how they represent themselves in a way that expresses their identity. Why the fuck should I hold back with regards to women? Equality for all, ffs! Ironically, the handful of "woke" idiots in this community are pretty much against equality.

PPS: Second girl on the way, this October. I already feel like my heart is about to explode -- so filled with love for Eva and my partner Ellen it is. I literally cannot even begin to imagine what it would feel like to feel only a sliver of my current love for my second daughter. I'm not a religious or spiritual guy, but once you reach a level of love only fathers experience... your mind does start to wonder wtf this powerful essence actually is.

This comment was edited on May 21, 2021, 20:02.

NKD wrote on May 20, 2021, 20:47:

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2021, 22:54:

NKD wrote on May 19, 2021, 22:11:

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2021, 20:30:

and reiterated the hiring of . . . Raashi Sikka as VP of global diversity and inclusion.

vice president of diversity and inclusion == sexual harassment and abuse

Not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that this person (Raashi Sikka) has been accused of that, or that the position exists because of sexual harrassment and abuse? We already knew that much, and I couldn't find anything on that person being accused of anything, so I'm not sure.

No. I'm saying it looks like a tone-deaf hire. What does "diversity and inclusion" have to do with sexual harassment and abuse? E.g., "We will solve our sexual harassment and abuse problems by giving out club memberships to 24-Hour Fitness." It sounds ridiculous. Well, so does that hire's position in combating the issue at hand. Did that clarify?

Part of 'diversity and inclusion' is making sure your diverse and inclusive hires are not made to feel lesser by a toxic dudebro culture.

It's hard to create a new culture of diversity and inclusion when the "toxic dudebros" still work there. It's like rot. The rot first needs to be removed before the building can be repaired.

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2021, 22:54:

NKD wrote on May 19, 2021, 22:11:

Kxmode wrote on May 19, 2021, 20:30:

and reiterated the hiring of . . . Raashi Sikka as VP of global diversity and inclusion.

vice president of diversity and inclusion == sexual harassment and abuse

Not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that this person (Raashi Sikka) has been accused of that, or that the position exists because of sexual harrassment and abuse? We already knew that much, and I couldn't find anything on that person being accused of anything, so I'm not sure.

No. I'm saying it looks like a tone-deaf hire. What does "diversity and inclusion" have to do with sexual harassment and abuse? E.g., "We will solve our sexual harassment and abuse problems by giving out club memberships to 24-Hour Fitness." It sounds ridiculous. Well, so does that hire's position in combating the issue at hand. Did that clarify?

Part of 'diversity and inclusion' is making sure your diverse and inclusive hires are not made to feel lesser by a toxic dudebro culture.

Steele Johnson wrote on May 20, 2021, 15:22:

Kxmode wrote on May 20, 2021, 14:57:
So I see two extremes in the last few comments. On the one hand, we have WaltC essentially stating women shouldn't be in the workforce because it's their fault people in positions of power abuse them, and then Steele advocates for vigilante justice.

I suppose I'm a bit old-school

You and WaltC should get together and hash things out over a tall glass of lemonade. 😀

SlimRam wrote on May 20, 2021, 19:22:
Ubisoft Exec. : "So does this mean 'Friday Night Hookers and Blow Business Meetings' in the conference room are cancelled... or just postponed?"

They are no longer mandatory.

Ubisoft Exec. : "So does this mean 'Friday Night Hookers and Blow Business Meetings' in the conference room are cancelled... or just postponed?"

Kxmode wrote on May 20, 2021, 14:57:
So I see two extremes in the last few comments. On the one hand, we have WaltC essentially stating women shouldn't be in the workforce because it's their fault people in positions of power abuse them, and then Steele advocates for vigilante justice.

I suppose I'm a bit old-school

So I see two extremes in the last few comments. On the one hand, we have WaltC essentially stating women shouldn't be in the workforce because it's their fault people in positions of power abuse them, and then Steele advocates for vigilante justice.

RedEye9 wrote on May 20, 2021, 12:13:
Since they require that you stand up and "snitch", If you choose not to what's the punishment?

There's no punishment because it's not really a requirement. They're implying that it's the proper thing to do, which I disagree. Maybe it's because I'm Italian... snitching is a no no in my family

On the other hand, if I did witness inappropriate actions, harassment, etc, I would stand up for the woman and confront the asshole (i.e. no HR necessary)

Since they require that you stand up and "snitch", If you choose not to what's the punishment?

Steele Johnson wrote on May 20, 2021, 11:49:

El Pit wrote on May 20, 2021, 02:35:

Steele Johnson wrote on May 19, 2021, 23:04:
I took harassment training at work recently. Yes, sounds weird. Shouldn’t it be anti-harassment training? Anyhow, one of the modules said that I should snitch on a co-worker if I see any form of harassment. It was kind of weird because I grew up thinking that adults can generally take care of themselves in these situations. Maybe it’s something new, I don’t know. But honestly, I’d rather confront the co-worker if they did something inappropriate. Snitching just doesn’t seem like a good way to handle it.

Tell the trainer that you did witness harassment. You saw yourself in a mirror snitching on a co-worker. This is harassment. The training has been successful.

I still disagree with the snitching thing. They way I would handle it is if a woman or anyone else seems to be getting harassed, then she should report to HR. If HR asks "were there any witnesses?", and if she says yes and mentions my name, then I would support her if I did witness the harassment.

No snitching for me

El Pit wrote on May 20, 2021, 02:35:

Steele Johnson wrote on May 19, 2021, 23:04:
I took harassment training at work recently. Yes, sounds weird. Shouldn’t it be anti-harassment training? Anyhow, one of the modules said that I should snitch on a co-worker if I see any form of harassment. It was kind of weird because I grew up thinking that adults can generally take care of themselves in these situations. Maybe it’s something new, I don’t know. But honestly, I’d rather confront the co-worker if they did something inappropriate. Snitching just doesn’t seem like a good way to handle it.

Tell the trainer that you did witness harassment. You saw yourself in a mirror snitching on a co-worker. This is harassment. The training has been successful.

I still disagree with the snitching thing. The way I would handle it is if a woman or anyone else seems to be getting harassed, then she should report to HR. If HR asks "were there any witnesses?", and if she says yes and mentions my name, then I would support her if I did witness the harassment.

No snitching for me

This comment was edited on May 20, 2021, 12:39.

So, to Walt, the problem isn't sexual harassers, it's women complaining about sexual harassers.

Check.

It's difficult to understand why more women don't understand how this kind of thing makes companies think twice (or three times) about taking on female employees. It's definitely a real risk for a company today and there is no possibility that women's jobs in the industry are not negatively affected in terms of greatly diminished prospects for employment. Seems really bizarre, to me, that some women (and men!) don't apparently realize how damaging these sorts of highly public, almost nonsensical allegations are to the career prospects of women.

Despite the strange appearance of some men who think of themselves as White Knights out to save the trembling damsels in distress from the dastardly evil males prowling the halls with nothing better to do than to tell dirty jokes and obscenely leer at every woman they pass while using their hands to mimic "nasty" physical acts, we aren't talking about rape or any sort of actual and physical sexual abuse involving the fondling of genitals or other organs of the body even peripherally tied to normal sexual intercourse of the reproductive kind. We aren't even speaking of crimes of any kind, regardless of how they are portrayed by lawyers seeking big paydays.

Not even remotely are we even talking about crime at all. If these issues were crimes, in fact, Ubisoft employees would not be in civil court--the venue would be criminal court. But the lawyers in this case and in other cases just like it are seeking a payday, not the kind of justice they might expect in a criminal court.

But the basics never change: lawyers who pursue these kinds of paydays are not helping their clients in either the short or the long run--aside from the immediate payout, of course, which can easily find the lawyers receiving a bigger slice of the financial payday than their clients. (Page 27, para #3, in "All You Need to Know About Litigating Attorneys and Why They Do It.")

I don't have a horse in this race...;) Perhaps that is why I can see what it will do to women's job prospects in the any industry so clearly. Are men tasked with running companies going to prostrate themselves at the feet of their female employees out of fear of somehow offending them in some mysterious way and being sued because of it? Heck, no. These people didn't achieve their positions because they were stupid, after all. What's going to happen is that female prospects will be looked at very, very critically in terms of whether they are likely to disrupt the company with lawyer-backed allegations at a future date. But the bottom line will inevitably be that fewer women will be hired within these companies. That will be the outcome. So, in cases like this Ubisoft case, the battle for women will be won but the War for Women in the workplace will be lost. No other outcome can result.

I'll close with the recap of Anita Hill and SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas. Hill got a great job clerking for Thomas--a real peach of a job--the sort of job that makes people envious--high pay, high prestige, great hours, the works. She repaid the position he gave her (his list of applicants was a mile long) by taking part in the (D)-party's attempt to keep Thomas off of the Supreme Court (mainly because he was black, with Mr. Senility Biden leading the charge to deny Thomas the SCOTUS Justice slot! What irony! I remember it well.) What did Anita Hill believe disqualified her former boss from becoming a SCOTUS Justice? He told her a joke about a pubic hair on a Coke can....;) It made her feel "uncomfortable," she said. But not, of course, uncomfortable enough to quit...;) As an aside, I never thought the joke was very good, myself...!

OddballFlinch wrote on May 20, 2021, 04:00:
Yet another pussy-whipped company. In fact, nowadays, it's like that for almost the entire gaming industry.

So, to you, companies either sexually harass their female employees or they're "pussy whipped."

Do you guys realize what caricatures you are?

roguebanshee wrote on May 20, 2021, 05:17:

Quinn wrote on May 19, 2021, 19:16:
What must Ubisoft do to regain trust? Fire those who were accused of harrasment? Set fire upon themselves? Not a rhetoric question.

They must prove that they have actually changed their ways and are not just speweing hot air. This means actual and persistent change in management style and corporate culture, not just shuffling a couple of people around.

So that means that no further harassments should occur for an X amount of time before all is forgiven, I guess? That's fair. It also means we maybe should stop harassing Ubisoft now and see if they can keep that promise?

Quinn wrote on May 19, 2021, 19:16:
What must Ubisoft do to regain trust? Fire those who were accused of harrasment? Set fire upon themselves? Not a rhetoric question.

They must prove that they have actually changed their ways and are not just speweing hot air. This means actual and persistent change in management style and corporate culture, not just shuffling a couple of people around.

Yet another pussy-whipped company. In fact, nowadays, it's like that for almost the entire gaming industry.

Steele Johnson wrote on May 19, 2021, 23:04:
I took harassment training at work recently. Yes, sounds weird. Shouldn’t it be anti-harassment training? Anyhow, one of the modules said that I should snitch on a co-worker if I see any form of harassment. It was kind of weird because I grew up thinking that adults can generally take care of themselves in these situations. Maybe it’s something new, I don’t know. But honestly, I’d rather confront the co-worker if they did something inappropriate. Snitching just doesn’t seem like a good way to handle it.

Tell the trainer that you did witness harassment. You saw yourself in a mirror snitching on a co-worker. This is harassment. The training has been successful.