America's New Sex Bureaucracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/291105/americas-new-sex-bureaucracy <comment><USER2> >But after a lifetime in service of the feminist cause, she took on the case of a friend whose son she came to believe had been wrongly convicted of rape and won his acquittal on appeal.

This is one of the big ways in which sexism is a much more tractable problem than racism and less potentially explosive. Women and men both have members of the opposite sex that they genuinely love. I have heard that fathers with daughters make for a very tough jury in rape cases. A lot of the opposition to these title ix courts has come from mothers worried about their sons being falsely accused.

With racism, there is a pretty good chance that in some areas, a person of one race has virtually no one of another race that they genuinely love. This allows racial discrimination to last longer, and has the danger that when base emotions get appealed to by demagogues, there is less resistance.

<comment><USER3> How would bias toward gay people fit in with that? A lot of people don't know (or at least aren't aware that they know) anyone gay, but bias toward gay people has dramatically fallen over the last couple of decades.

There was a recent episode of "Hidden Brain" on NPR that talked about this [1].

This part is particularly interesting:

> In a thought experiment, Mahzarin and her colleagues have extended the trend > lines of the data to see how long it would take for bias to be entirely > eliminated. To be clear, this isn't a prediction about what is going to > happen. It just shows you the speed at which different biases are changing.

What they found is that this would have anti-gay bias all but eliminated in 9 more years. By contrast, it's about 60 more years for anti-black biases to be eliminated, 140 years for skin tone biases against darker skin to go away. Biases against the elderly and the disabled and the overweight do not go away within the next 150 years.

Most families include the elderly and the overweight, so the idea that familiarity breeds acceptance would predict that those biases should be going away quicker than biases against gays.

(To reiterate, the timeframes aren't predictions of what will happen. They are just comparisons of the rates that those biases are changing right now).

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709567750/radically-normal- ho...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709567750/radically-normal-how-gay- rights-activists-changed-the-minds-of-their-opponents)

<comment><USER4> >Most families include the elderly and the overweight, so the idea that familiarity breeds acceptance would predict that those biases should be going away quicker than biases against gays.

What I'm about to say is not meant to provide a justification for discriminatory behavior, it's just an armchair-anthropologist's attempt at explaining this discrepancy. We might have a very deep bias against old people; if a group of animals has to decide who gets a split of food, and some of them have a dramtically shorter life expectancy, I could imagine there being a biological tendency to care about the young over the old. A similar calculation might be made about the disabled, since a wounded companion is less helpful than an able-bodied one. Weight, I have a number of ideas about. There's a disease correlation, of course. We also might ostracize overweight people because overweight people were more likely to be hoarding food in our deep past, and sharing with those who don't share back is a bad strategy. Even if the specifics of my armchair-anthropology are utter horseshit, I could see factors similar to these out-weighing the familiarity bias without discounting it.

<comment><USER5> The bias against overweight people is probably less about them hoarding and more about them being unhealthy.

We probably have a bias against unhealthy people because they'd drain the time and resources of a tribe. And they'd be less likely to help with physical activities like hunting, gathering and war.

Obesity is a very new phenomenon but not wanting to include or associate with people who seem sick or unhealthy is probably pretty old.

<comment><USER6> Bias against overweight people isn't about them being unhealthy, plenty of other unhealthy people have public sympathies, the problem is they are mostly "voluntarily" unhealthy - they want accommodations for conditions caused by their unhealthy habit. It's similar to drug addicts' plight in both the cause and reaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How in the world is the conversation not about the lack of ethics of the teachers and faculty who agree to serve as the amateur judges/questioners in these tribunals?

 _Hello, I spent a decade of my life learning just how difficult it is to become an expert in my very narrow field. In fact I spend most of my time helping undergrads refine their rank speculation into tractable problems to potentially guide them to a deeper understanding of even a tiny slice of my narrow specialty.

What's that? You'd like me to serve on a jury for the school? No not on a jury, but instead to serve as a kind of combination panel judge and amateur lawyer? For what may be criminal allegations against a student? And you say there's no actual trained judicial expert to lead and constrain the process, but instead a handbook that will teach me in about an hour how to question a witness?

Sorry, it's my minimal sense of civic and academic integrity calling. I really have to take this..._

<comment><USER8> At Baylor a former investigator described believing that because it was a religious school they expected there wouldn't be much for them to do.

I have to wonder how much life experience someone has who thinks that...

At a large public institution near me they had some lawyers review their processes.

The resulting suggestions were pretty shocking. Things like, educating the accused as to what the process even was. Notifying the accused that there was an appeal (they apparently didn't do that all the time). Allowing all parties legal representation. And more detailed recording of testimony, mostly due to cases that involved concerns from accused students that their testimony that was recorded was inaccurate and had only been recorded by hand written notes taken by another student. In some cases their efforts to correct what they said seemed to be interpreted as lying... because it conflicted with the original notes (but not any factual conflict).

It is mind boggling that any of the suggestions were needed.

In the meantime the folks running the department investigating the reports are also tasked with writing the rules, investigating, judging....and on their own time advocating for various policies surrounding sexual assault.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately, I do not believe these ridiculous university tribunals will come to an end anytime soon. In fact, I think the problem will get much, much worse before it gets better. They are a symptom of a much larger problem.

Without distracting with any specific cases, it's very clear that the modern world is shifting away from the presumption of innocence. This, combined with an internet that remembers forever and a total disregard for free speech, will have predictably disastrous results. The set of punishable behavior is growing wider every day, whilst the standards of evidence are becoming shallower and shallower.

It's infuriating that every major US news site is being flooded with stories about increasing loneliness, plummetting sexual activity, increasing suicides, etc., but seem more than happy to contribute to the new character assassination of the day. Has it clicked for anyone yet that maybe today's youth are becoming shut-in's because they have a brain, and they know one mistake can ruin their entire life?

The commonly repeated reasons for this status-quo are pitiful.

Journalists aren't part of the judicial system, so it's alright if they pick a side without physical evidence --- as if that somehow makes their claims more likely to be true. Does not caring about science make a person's scientific claims more valid? Why even care about the news if the news doesn't care about the facts?

The 1st amendment applies only to the government, not private institutions --- so what? Is having a closed mind now a desirable personality trait? I'd hope that private individuals are working to preserve free speech as well, even if they aren't forced to do so. Besides that, many of the private institutions that this argument is applied to are in fact receiving special government funding / support (universities are a prime example, large payment processors are another). Can the government freely disregard your constitutional rights as long as it uses a private-sector middle-man?

/rant

<comment><USER10> This is amazing, thank you for posting this! I've been thinking along these exact lines for a very long time (especially since I just started at a university), but didn't want to speak up here because I was sure I'd get a chorus of accusations of sexism. But since you put this here, I thought I'd just give you a little encouragement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a very difficult issue. Most sexual assaults happen in private, so there is rarely any evidence a victim can use to convict the perpetrator. Most accusations are real, but some are questionable as to whether a crime was committed, and some accusations are false. Given there is almost never any evidence, victims are at a severe disadvantage in the innocent until proven guilty paradigm. I can understand why some people want to flip the tables and "believe all women" but it's also clear that such a flipped situation has it's own severe problems, and that IMHO there is no good solution. Knowing this I have more empathy for everybody's view on this topic, rather than being in one camp and demonizing the other.

<comment><USER12> > Most accusations are real

See, I want to believe that, but I'm not sure there is a way to know whether or not that is actually true. In much the same way that there is rarely evidence of guilt when an accusation is true there isn't likely to be evidence when an accusation is false. I keep seeing people say some variant of "X% of rape accusations are false" but none of the sources I have ever seen have had a particularly accurate way of gathering data... because one doesn't exist. The proportion of unproven accusations that happen to be false is unknowable in practical terms, and I get frustrated by people variously flat out stating it is high/low.

<comment><USER13> You may borrow priors that are personal but calibrated based on reading statistics: accusations are real at a 3/4 rate, about 1/3 of people have been sexually assaulted ever, and in 9/10 of sexual assaults it is not the assaulter's first time.

I personally would not say that 3/4 is "most", but I don't think any kind of blanket statement can occur below 7/8, and usually I prefer to think in nines or other logarithmic scales very close to certainty or uncertainty.

We need to have evidence before we can make certain reasoned decisions. Without evidence, we need to listen, consider, and keep ourselves open to possibilities.

<comment><USER14> Do you have sources for those numbers?

<comment><USER13> Thanks to Aumann's Agreement, I cannot convince you that the priors are well- calibrated priors without infinite regress. Do you have sources for other numbers that you would prefer be used instead?

<comment><USER14> I'm gonna take that as a no.

<comment><USER13> Sure. Take a step back and look at this with some perspective:

* Neither of us really know what's going on

* Both of us have done private research

* We came up with some numbers

* I shared my numbers, you didn't share yours

Your complaint is that I'm not delegating the numbers to some authority. My complaint is that, regardless of which authority you choose, you're still choosing an authority.

I'm not saying that I'm right; in fact, part of the point of choosing priors is to be wrong. However, when we publicize the process of selecting priors, we of course embarrass each other: If the priors were already well-known and well-agreed-upon, then by Aumann's Agreement, we would have nothing to discuss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As society reaches a point where the cost of simply being accused of rape leads more and more cases of loss of a degree, job, social relations, imprisonment and that uncertainty over whether it happened or not forces decisions that are not fair or just to either party. We will simply see more and more individuals isolate themselves from the other sex to limit the risk that they will be blamed or look down upon for something.

Folks like the current Vice-President of the US, saying that he will only meet with a woman in the presence of others may become more prevalent and "correct" to limit the risk of liability. In the long run, this may lead us to fall back into segregation of sex similar to Islamic doctrine, where segregation is needed to ensure the protection of families and society.

Most may not be thinking about it, but change can happen slowly, but sometimes it happens abruptly like the changes we have been seen lately. I encourage everyone to use their minds to help build an environment that better suits the current times, before we go back in time and all we have to blame is ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER16> In my junior year of college (very early 2000s), a senior friend was accused of rape by a classmate. Within two days he had to hide out at my girlfriend's house because a large group of large athletes was on the hunt for him to beat him up. Within weeks he was expelled from school. I don't recall the police ever being contacted.

Turns out the girl was ashamed she voluntarily slept with him. She admitted it to friends a couple months later. That was too late, of course. She received zero punishment. He was "lucky" that the police weren't notified on Day 1.

<comment><USER17> We should make the punishment for falsely accusing someone of rape equivalent to the punishment for rape. That's take care of the problem.

<comment><USER18> This assumes the court system is infallible though when we know it is not. Plus, I can see something like this deterring actual victims from coming forward.

<comment><USER19> _something like this deterring actual victims from coming forward_

This is also a possibility, but it's pretty much universally accepted that it's better to let a criminal go than to punish an innocent person.

<comment><USER20> I don't agree. I would argue that the rise of the victims' rights movement suggests that culturally, the United States is beginning to see the few false reports/convictions as an acceptable casualty to the vast majority of truthful reports.

I mean, we have Marsy's Law being added to state constitutions left and right. One of its provisions is that the victim[1] can refuse a deposition before trial. This obviously conflicts with the accused's right to access all the evidence, does it not?

Another provision limits the amount of time a convicted person can seek post- conviction relief. The goal here is to remove stress from the victim, but again, we have seen many convicted people be exonerated due to DNA evidence, or other evidence that arises after the fact. Again, this is a statement of values - that the deprivation of liberty is less important than the desire of the victim to not feel anxious about the perpetrator's possible release.

[1] I would argue that calling a complainant a victim undermines the presumption of innocence. If you're a victim, it follows that the accused is a perpetrator.

<comment><USER17> Innocent until proved guilty is a fundamental principle of American values. I don't at all see why we should throw that out the window and say that "a few people falsly convicted is an acceptable casualty" just so we can catch more perpetrators.

<comment><USER20> I mean, I agree. I'm not in favor of "acceptable casualties", I'm just saying that the mainstream opinion is changing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The way this article conflates sex with sexual assault really creeps me out. The first sentence states:

 _Four feminist law professors at Harvard Law School have been telling some alarming truths about the tribunals that have been adjudicating collegiate sex for the past five years._

No tribunals "adjudicate collegiate sex". They adjudicate sexual assault.

<comment><USER22> One of the professors quoted in the article suggests otherwise:

> The system promulgated a definition of sexual misconduct so expansive that > it "plausibly covers almost all sex students are having today," as Gersen > wrote in an article in the California Law Review.

<comment><USER23> The standard at my college was any alcoholic consumption meant you could no longer consent. If I had a beer and had sex with my girlfriend it was considered sexual misconduct under the definition of consent the school provided.

<comment><USER24> What if you both had beers? You'd both be considered to have committed an offence?

<comment><USER25> Of course not. He would have been the offender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't know how we get there. I'm incredibly frustrated at how much doors remain shut in my face and I can't get traction, real respect and the money that goes with it.

But after a lifetime of sorting my baggage in the aftermath of sexual abuse and rape, I'm clear that one thing that must happen is women need public lives on par with what men have and women need career options and earned income on par with men.

A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there.

Which is part of what drives women to claim rape after a drunken hook up: It protects their perceived purity in a world where women are still not entitled to take ownership of their own sexuality and must hoard its use and preserve its value to merit future ownership by some worthy man.

Ie some man who makes enough money.

It's a terrible societal poison that seeps insidiously into far too many bedrooms.

<comment><USER27> >A whole lot of this BS is rooted in the idea that a woman's sexuality is a prize to be won by an "eligible" male -- ie a man who earns enough to take care of her. There is a subtext of ownership there.

Both sides perpetuate this, but I see this coming from women much more than men.

<comment><USER26> Perhaps that's because most women need a man's income to not be dirt poor.

I appear to be the highest ranked woman on HN. I appear to be the only woman to ever have spent time on the leader board.

It has resulted in nearly zero professional connections. When I complain about that, I get blown off and told that's not something I should expect from HN, nevermind that it works that way for plenty of men.

I was homeless for nearly six years. I continue to struggle to make ends meet. I'm currently broke.

This is an ongoing issue for me. And it is shocking and appalling to me that I still get told after all this time that my gender isn't the issue and I'm imagining things. I guess just to add insult to injury while I literally starve. Again.

<comment><USER28> I'm very sorry that you go through hard times but when you take a look at the homelessness statistics you would understand men are having it in comparison statistically speaking much harder.

<comment><USER26> It's really not that simple.

[https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2017/07/g...](https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com/2017/07/gender- and-homelessness.html)

<comment><USER29> According to the article women, I guess, have it harder because:

1) Family tends to want to take care of women. Women get custody more often! 2) Women often are able to find a man willing to take care of them. 3) Peeing in bushes is hard.

With other rich quotes like "women seem this and men seem that". At most it simply proves that women have it easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Honestly I'm just glad to see this being discussed openly and honestly. It's a difficult subject and it's been suppressed on both sides alternatively depending on the time in history (herstory, whatever).

I'm happy that my daughter is doing so well in college and doesn't have to worry about date rape. But I'm terrified of my sons going to college because I know that consensual sex can destroy their lives. And honestly, they're much less likely to even get there or finish in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER31> It is a sad thing to say, but the simple solution to this alarming trend of rescinding consent after having consensual sex is to record the audio of your interactions with the opposite sex. A voice-activated recorder that can store months worth of conversations can be purchased on Amazon quite cheaply.

I've even heard of work situations where male managers refuse one-on-one meetings with female employees due to fear of being falsely accused of sexual impropriety. Again, in these work-related situations, recording the interaction may save your career.

I realise the questionable ethics of recording someone when they don't know they are being recorded. I also understand that there may be legal ramifications for doing this depending on where you live.

However, if you are falsely accused of sexual assault, with an audio recording proving consent, you can avoid the complete destruction of your life. You still may have to face the legal repercussions of recording the conversation, but this will be much smaller than the consequences of not being able to prove consent.

<comment><USER32> This is Richard Nixon level paranoia. I think that your second point is probably occurring quite a lot, especially in tech, where empathy & people skills aren't always high up on the list of priorities. But to walk around with suspicion to the point of carrying around a microphone is just lunacy. It's also an overreaction to such an unlikely outcome of being accused of misconduct with a female employee. It affects such a small segment of the population that your suggestion to walk around wired seems vastly excessive. There's probably something more reasonable that can be done.

<comment><USER33> > But to walk around with suspicion to the point of carrying around a > microphone is just lunacy

you are straw manning heavily here. OP suggested recording high stakes interactions with the potential to turn sour at a later date, not what you've said here about walking around wired.

what are your arguments against saving evidence for high stakes interactions that could turn into socially and career ruining consequences later? you know this is done in non-sexual contexts e.g. police interviews already, right?

<comment><USER32> Conversations in the workplace happen organically. Sometimes the CEO will approach you at the water cooler and say, hey, got a sec? What are you gonna do? Say "brb let me grab my recording device?" Or start filming the encounter like people film the police?

<comment><USER31> I'm not talking about all out surveillance of all human interactions. I'm talking about being in a closed office with a female employee one on one, or when 'going out on the pull'. Basically your workplace, bars/clubs, or other high risk situations or venues especially where alcohol is served.

I'm also talking about keeping the device in your pocket as you would your wallet or keys... or more like a swiss army knife.

You may never need it, but if you do, you'll be glad it's there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> While this is an interesting counterattack in the ongoing Culture Wars, I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place for it.

</comment><comment><USER35> > It is a story with which the rise of Donald Trump is fatally intertwined, > but it is in fact a story that takes precedence—both temporal and > logical—over the anarchic and pathological rise of the demagogue occupying > the White House.

All of the elements of this story were in full flower during the Obama administration. Trump's role has been to politically capitalize on the resulting resentments. This is a "this is how you got Trump" story, if just another straw on the camel.

<comment><USER36> The line you're quoting literally notes that this all happened before Trumps rise, and is logically prior to it. It claims they were "intertwined", which is implying the relation you're asserting (Trump capitalizing on the fallout from Title IX and other such social trends under Obama). Nothing about this is a "This is how you got Trump" story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> All I want is a world where more people are choosing to have more sex with more people, and as much as I support feminism and liberalism, it makes me sad to see sex become so... formalized and regimented. It's as if people are forgetting that sex feels great and that pleasure is good. I resent the fact that this great country (the US) has one of the lowest rates of sexual encounters per year per person.

</comment><comment><USER38> If you are getting mixed signals on these topics it is because there is no consensus.

<comment><USER39> A lot of the downvotes here are sort of cowardly. I mean, perhaps there is some general consensus to contradict rolltiide if we refer to the status quo in terms of what universities have chosen to adjudicate, but it is in fact more complicated with people with differing ideas. That isn't an attack on your perspective, it's literally just stating an observation that makes no moral judgement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> For the life of me I don't understand why government funded institutions run their own tribunals. Send it through the proper court system, if the accused is guilty you can expel them cleanly.

<comment><USER41> If I run a startup, and one of my employees is making other employees uncomfortable, and he keeps getting accused of harassing other employees, and is generally just making some of my best engineers unhappy, hurting productivity, and ruining our carefully constructed culture...

...I can fire him. I mean, obviously I need to go through the proper HR procedures, follow local employment law, respect the terms of his contract, etc., but I have no obligation to keep him employed if I think he's a net negative to my company. Arguably I have an obligation to _not_ keep him employed. And I certainly have no requirement to wait until he has been convicted of a crime; it's not even clear any of the above _is_ a crime.

Similarly, if I run a resort, and one of the guests is so unpleasant they're driving away other guests, or if I run a restaurant, and one of the guests is making other guests uncomfortable, or I run an apartment building, and one of the tenants is behaving poorly.

A university is a business. People come and pay money in exchange for a service, and if someone is interfering with the ability of other people to receive that service, or making people reluctant to come and pay money, it's perfectly fine for them to be asked to leave. If what they're doing happens to be a crime, then by all means, _also_ report them to the police, but it's kind of odd to suggest that you shouldn't expel students except if they've been convicted of a crime.

That being said, I think universities are doing a terrible job here, and I think that given the _extreme_ importance of a university education in modern life, the disruption that being expelled entails, and the stigma that will follow someone if they are expelled, we need to be very careful about the process here. My local dollar store will ban you from the store if they think you shoplifted, and I assume they get it wrong sometimes, but it's fine, because being unjustly banned from a dollar store does not ruin your life. Being unjustly expelled from university could! Things are broken and need fixing. But a world where you can only be expelled on conviction of a crime makes no sense either. The discussion need to be about the correct amount of protection needed.

<comment><USER42> In the workplace dating coworkers is generally frowned upon.

At a university, dating other students is so commonplace that a large portion of people meet their spouses that way.

Title IX may want to treat dating at universities with the same disdain as in the workplace, but it's not going to be an easy cultural shift.

<comment><USER41> > In the workplace dating coworkers is generally frowned upon.

And at a restaurant, being in a relationship with a fellow patron is quite common. Similarly, no legal or cultural ban against dating your room mate when you rent a house (much to the relief of married couples everywhere).

Students are (mostly) not employees of the university, but they are customers of educational services and (quite often) tenants. A university has a _number_ of relationships to students, and a number of responsibilities, both to the (alleged) predators and to the larger student body.

I mentioned a startup situation in the hopes it would seem relevant to many here (surely we've all had at least one co-worker that was disruptive?), but trying to view this purely through the lens of employment law will get you nowhere.

<comment><USER43> Universities are paid largely by federal student loans and tax dollars. This is not a standard business/patron agreement. Expelling a student $50K in debt can ruin their life. The university owes them a fair trial. And there is no excuse for the overt discrimination or other shenanigans we're seeing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think it's pretty clear that Title IX courts could do a much better job of protecting the due process rights of the accused. I think it's possible to take a nuanced position that advocates for better due process rights _while still fundamentally respecting the advances we 've made in protecting the interests of women and other underrepresented groups_.

...but without that last part, the position I just outlined sounds very much like that of conservatives opposed to the whole program of social reform. The author of this article gives the game away in his concluding paragraphs where he throws the term "social justice" into scare quotes. He has a bigger agenda than just protecting the due process rights of college students. And (even assuming the facts are exactly as he portrays them) I'm not surprised that the professors described in the article got such a frosty reception to their position - it's a difficult one to describe without coming off as another stealth reactionary.

<comment><USER45> In your comment you seem to value who someone "is" (i.e. what their label is) more than you value what they have to say.

Your reasoning for why the non-italicized portion is not good enough is "conservatives say that". The reason you offer for why the professors get a frosty reaction is "they could be mistaken for stealth reactionaries". Perhaps it's less important to consider what label you can assign to someone and more important to just consider what they're saying.

<comment><USER44> _Didn 't I just say_ that I agreed with the core argument of the article? I just wanted to make sure we all understood that this isn't a case of a "woke" (for lack of a better term) person concerned about moderating the worst excesses of the movement, it's a case of someone who wants to dismantle the whole thing.

And it's absolutely relevant what a person "is." If NRA TV uploaded a special report on gun control, it _matters_ that you know it was produced by NRA TV. I can't believe I'm even having to argue this point.

Finally, I didn't defend students/academia reacting incorrectly to the professors, I just said I understood. A lot of people are (rightfully, I think) sick of neoliberalism's "free marketplace of ideas" approach to permitting right-wing toxicity, and can get carried away when they think that's what a speaker is relying on. That doesn't make them automatically right.

<comment><USER45> I don't necessarily disagree that it _matters_, but why does it matter, and how much? Why can't you believe that you're having to defend the point? What bearing does who someone is have on the actual _substance_ of an argument?

Personally I think that who someone is is absolutely useful information because it can contextualize the intent of an argument and provide a hint as to the biases of the person making the argument, which is a useful tool for thinking critically about the argument. However, when weighing the merit of the argument, it doesn't matter who is making the argument.

That's why I took issue - you said that the reason the italicized portion was needed was because without it you sound a lot like a conservative. That's weighing the merit of the argument based on what kind of person makes it rather than the substance of the argument itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Flagged as irrelevant to Hacker News' core purpose, and somewhat inflammatory to boot for those not marinating in campus culture wars all the time.

<comment><USER47> This is much less irrelevant to HN's core purpose than the plethora of other random articles that can be found at any given time.

Personally, I fail to see how the article was inflammatory. The author clearly took pains to avoid demonizing either side of the discussion that was being highlighted, something which is markedly rarer in the current day and age.

<comment><USER48> > HN's core purpose

You can only read about new backend frameworks so often, this is interesting..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Three generations ago, we had a framework in place which minimized these gray areas where, while a reasonable person would infer there was consent to have sex, the partner actually was not consenting to sex.

The framework was this: If the relationship was not a lifetime monogamous commitment, then the sex was not OK.

I have observed, in the majority of these cases (Caleb Warner, etc.), the issue was that two people had sex with each other without first having an established relationship with each other. It's a simple observation that one can generally avoid a false rape accusation by making sure to only have sex in a monogamous committed relationship.

<comment><USER50> You do realize that sexual assault and rape can occur even within the framework of marriage, right?

This framework only "minimizes grey areas" in the sense that a patriarchal society assumes sex to be the the duty of the wife to the husband, and that, therefore a womans' right to deny consent is nullified under the contract of marriage. But this isn't actually the case. A relationship is not a guarantee of perpetual sexual consent.

<comment><USER49> That's a real strawman there. There is a difference between "a majority" and "all"; I did not at any point say that there is "never marital rape", nor did I say that there is "never rape in an established relationship". I certainly did _not_ say that "martial rape is OK".

However, in all of the campus sexual assault accusations I have seen, not a single one was one where the two people were married to each other.

In the real world, not everything is black and white. There are gray areas. It's _much less likely_ a sexual assault accusation will happen in a marriage. This does not mean it will never happen; don't pretend that I said something I never said.

<comment><USER50> It's not a strawman. Marriage has no effect whatsoever on consent.

>It's much less likely a sexual assault accusation will happen in a marriage.

Do you have data to back this up?

<comment><USER49> Two out of three sexual assault allegations involve incidents when the person was not in an established intimate relationship with the person: [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sexual-assault- victims/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/sexual-assault-victims/)

Again, when did I ever say that "marital rape is OK"? I did not, and it's a strawman to claim that I did.

<comment><USER50> I didn't think you were claiming marital rape was OK, I thought you were claiming it didn't exist, which is an unfortunately common belief. I misinterpreted your intent and I apologize.

<comment><USER49> Thank you for the apology. This is a complex topic which a Ycombinator thread can not do justice to, so I present this link: [https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/victims-and- perpetrators](https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/victims-and-perpetrators)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Meh. This is the second sexual revolution. The first go around resulted in rules and around causal sex in college that favor men and encode male expectations. Women are making clear that those rules don't work for them and are demanding a change. If you don't push the line on consent you have nothing to worry about.

<comment><USER52> I get what you're saying. But the "second sexual revolution" actually happened in the 80s-90s. I remember it distinctly. You always paused, and clearly asked, at each stage.

But this is different. Now there is no such thing as "consent". Or rather, consent can be withdrawn _retroactively_.

I've never been accused of rape, as far as I know. But many years ago, one girlfriend told me that she had thought I was wealthy. With the implication that we wouldn't be having sex, if she had known that I wasn't. Today, that might well become an accusation of rape. In that I had tricked her.

<comment><USER42> One way to prevent these things from going too far is to make the standards gender neutral. If men start accusing women of rape by trickery too, I imagine feminists will very quickly back down.

The main problem is when it's all in one direction: when people think that defining more things as rape makes them more feminist, more supportive of women, and more deserving of social brownie points, then they have incentive to keep going well beyond the borders of common sense.

<comment><USER52> I don't have any direct (or indirect) experience. So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. And I don't think the standards will become gender-neutral any faster than they'll become just.

I do wonder, though, whether young men are becoming more cautious about who they have sex with. And if there's any way to protect oneself against future rape accusations. Perhaps some sort of witnessed contractual agreement? Maybe something like Islamic "temporary marriage"? With penalties for changing ones mind later.

Edit: Another thread cites an article about a guy who, paranoid after a "drunken hookup", filed a Title IX complaint.[0] So maybe that's the workable strategy. Have sex, and then be first to file. And research the process ahead of time, so there's no delay.

0) [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title- ix-i...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/title-ix-is-too- easy-to-abuse/561650/)

<comment><USER53> " So what happens now if a man accuses a woman of "raping" him? I'm guessing that he'd be ignored. "

I do think there is currently a double standard, and I think that misogyny and the view of women as "passive" participants in sex contributes to that. The CDC estimates that 1 in 71 men will be raped in their lifetime, and an analysis by Scientific American found that 79 percent of male victims of rape reported it to police, but unfortunately I cannot find information on how many of those reports led to a trial and potentially a conviction.

I think that while some men are likely ignored, and we definitely have a problem with the way we imagine sexual assault as a society, the relatively high reporting rate suggests that many cases are also taken seriously.

I'm also not really sure what "strategy" you're referring to; a strategy to protect yourself from Title IX complaints? I really think that what rayiner said is all you need to do: "Don't take advantage of marginal situations; don't toe the line. Don't do anything you can't defend later."

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual- victimizat...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual- victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/)

<comment><USER54> My experience relating being raped to friends was generally not a positive one. I found women tended to be more open to believing my story. Men were pretty skeptical. Of course, sharing my experience didn't happen for many years. In the mid 1980s the idea that men even could be raped by a woman was a bit farfetched both socially and legally.

<comment><USER52> As a guy, I can't quite imagine being raped by a woman. Unless she was wielding a suitable device, anyway.

But I have, after wild parties, found myself in bed with women who, in retrospect, I didn't find all that appealing. And yes, I know, that's a cliché.

Even so, I'd never make a big deal about it. We all do stupid things when we're intoxicated. "Así fue ... son las cosas de la vida".

<comment><USER52> Sorry. I am dense. Maybe you were raped by a man.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Strings are untyped - <AUTHOR> http://blog.existentialize.com/strings-are-untyped.html

<comment><USER3> Integers are untyped too.

Another idea was to store the type information in the name of the variable, like in the Hungarian notation. [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Strings are strings.

What you described, sounds a lot like good ol' typedef.

It solves one problem while introducing a bigger problem which is - <USER2> now needs to understand your 'new' type system.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why not use named arguments instead of adding type annotations?</comment>


Ask HN: Would you play this game? - <AUTHOR> Every few days, you are given questions related to topics you are interested in.
For example: Politics => "who will win the 2020 US presidential election?"
Economics => "will the SP500 close above 3500 on July 31, 2020?"
Sports => "who will win the 2020 UEFA champions league finals?"
Etc.
The questions will be indisputably answerable after a certain date. Players can submit their predictions in varying forms such as "yes/no", "Trump", "Trump 30% / Biden 70%", etc. Predictions can be updated until a preset deadline.
Players can wager points and receive payout points for each question. Players will be ranked according to their predictive ability. Rewards will be given out every quarter to the best performers in each topic.
Anyone is welcome to play including casual news junkies, hardcore sports fans, and data modelers.
I believe this game can become a fun way to encourage accountability and transparency for predictions. <comment><USER2> If players would be able to see how other players predicted, this would be similar to a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market), except that it might force all players to partake in all predictions (would it? If not, some players might choose to wait for the few almost sure bets to pass by)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good points. Other players' predictions won't be revealed until deadline has passed. And the ranking system will take into account the number of predictions made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It would be an interesting test of group intelligence as well.

Most people here probably would not believe mass will and focus alone can manifest things spontaneously, but an app like this would be pretty definitive on that front. It's also potentially a good hook to get people to try it, and might lend itself easily to gamification that isn't technically a prediction market.

</comment><comment><USER4> isn't this prediction market? some did this using block chain and crypto currency.

[https://predictioncoins.com/](https://predictioncoins.com/)

[https://www.augur.net/](https://www.augur.net/)

[https://www.predictious.com/](https://www.predictious.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is very similar to a prediction market. But ideally, the experience would be more casual and "contest-like" as opposed to focusing on trades and rewards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Be advised that betting on elections in the US is illegal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the insight. I meant game points and rewards, not actual currency.</comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg Finally Speaks About Cambridge Analytica - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180321/17312239474/mark-zuckerberg-finally-speaks-about-cambridge-analytica-it-wont-be-enough.shtml <comment><AUTHOR> Ben Thompson mentioned this article in this morning's Stratechery. It raises an interesting point that Facebook (and Zuckerberg in particular) may be using the Cambridge Analytica public backlash to justify locking down their data even more, which could establish a deeper moat for them.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get an engineering position with CV showing product experience? - <AUTHOR> So COVID-19 sucks, and it's time to start looking for a new position. I started at a startup 9 years ago as an engineer and I was either the best engineer or one of the best for the first 5-6 years, back when I was doing engineering work full-time. Designed and implemented large systems from scratch, that are doing well in production nowadays: great uptime, still meeting functional requirements, and flexible enough to support new features easily.
I don't regret this personally, but it might have been wrong for my engineering career: I then had several roles that aren't hands-on engineering. I was a technical product manager for a cool product that I helped create and launch. I had a team of 4-5 engineers, but I personally wrote a major component myself because it was really sensitive and had to be implemented using tech that the team wasn't familiar with. They were over time introduced to it, and today they maintain it successfully, even if I sometimes help with code reviews - but for the initial launch it was much faster for me to write the first version. After that I moved into a people management role managing several product managers and some architects, which taught me a lot and I did it really well.
So now my CV shows for the past 3+ years that I have management and product experience, and I get rejection notices from Greenhouse almost immediately for positions that I apply for. I don't want to lie and remove these product roles. I also think my varied experience makes me a better engineer: one who understands the customers, the business, the sales process, and the complexities of team work, better.
Other than reaching out to anyone I know on LinkedIn and hope to skip the initial HR barrier, what can I do to get my next job?
I'm in the US, in a top-five city. <comment><USER2> You have a strong background, clearly can bring a lot of value into a technical team in a PM role or an engineering role,

I would consider getting a professional to look over your resume with you if you feel you aren't getting passed recruiter stage, I like to think 10/100 applications evoke a serious call back, so make sure to apply to jobs every day 10-25,

Contribute to an open source project/build an app and throw it in your github to show you can still code, best of luck!</comment>