And since you can't tell the good 'un's from the bad un's..
dadudemom made it pretty clear he's strictly talking about covering one's rear against the odd false accusation, and not saying that women regularly make false claims.
Because, let's be honest, false accusations can ruin people. Accusing someone of being a racist is a similar tactic, that a journalist on the infamous leaked "Journo-List" baldly claimed should be wielded like a weapon against conservative media. (There may be no proof of collusion among the liberal press, even if nothing but liberals were invited to the group, but they still chose to entertain the possibility of a false accusation in a press war.)
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Sad thread and article, hopefully these same men avoid women outside the workplace as well, to avoid them from reproducing. 🙁
I somewhat agree. It's sad that the workplace has become so hostile to men and women that women are being held back by hysterical women and liars.
This is even more prudent in the Military. Especially if your combat arms. You have to watch what you say, jokes don’t matter, someone of the wrong kind could be listening and feels offended, report you, and there goes your career if your lucky.
I had this soldier that received a company field grade article 15 because he told a crude joke, and this female 1st lieutenant heard it, got offended and reported the soldier.
So I can understand why some men don’t want to work closely with women when one word from them can ruin their livelihood.
Originally posted by SquallX
This is even more prudent in the Military. Especially if your combat arms. You have to watch what you say, jokes don’t matter, someone of the wrong kind could be listening and feels offended, report you, and there goes your career if your lucky.I had this soldier that received a company field grade article 15 because he told a crude joke, and this female 1st lieutenant heard it, got offended and reported the soldier.
So I can understand why some men don’t want to work closely with women when one word from them can ruin their livelihood.
Same thing happened to a friend of a friend, who I can't stand. He was up for promotion, told a crude joke, and was out of a job.
Kind of karmic tbh, he also completely frabricated his resume.
Originally posted by SquallXYou poor thing. People thought the middle ages were bad but then came MeToo. I wish you the best in your terribly paranoid lifestyle.
This is even more prudent in the Military. Especially if your combat arms. You have to watch what you say, jokes don’t matter, someone of the wrong kind could be listening and feels offended, report you, and there goes your career if your lucky.I had this soldier that received a company field grade article 15 because he told a crude joke, and this female 1st lieutenant heard it, got offended and reported the soldier.
So I can understand why some men don’t want to work closely with women when one word from them can ruin their livelihood.
#yikes daddude
Somehow you managed to get through the entire thread without once considering the risk that women accept by being in a workplace dominated by men. You’re in insurance, right? How could this possibly have escaped your notice? But even on the corporate end of the equation I think that you’re missing a trick:
There’s a base rate for ““”legitimate””” lawsuits and a base rate for frivolous lawsuits. Each of which is driven by a different set of variables. By some (probably nonlinear) process, companies draw from the distribution some set of lawsuits that are each from the set of choices: {“””legitimate”””, devious Feemails}.
Companies can expend effort to change the probability of drawing a “””legitimate””” lawsuit. You seem mostly concerned with the idea that companies can not control the probability of devious female wiles launching a fraudulent lawsuit. Setting aside for a moment the question of how much control companies have over this probability...
UNWANTED RISK IS A FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITY. If this is such a widespread institutional problem for wallstreet, then wallstreet should monetize it. But instead finance bros are more interested in having a narrative that washes their hands of blame. We can be certain that this is a culture war dumpster fire because the sharks of wallstreet care more about preserving their all-boys club to profiting off of the opportunity.
Tl;dr:
If fraudulent lawsuits were a real concern for industry, the finance bros would monetize the firm-specific probability of drawing a lawsuit instead of whining about women.
Originally posted by Zampano
Somehow you managed to get through the entire thread without once considering the risk that women accept by being in a workplace dominated by men.
Yikes. You somehow read this entire thread and didn't see that in the opening post and mentioned 2 more times throughout the thread. But I think you did but just want to make a point.
Originally posted by Zampano
You’re in insurance, right?
Nope.
But I take that as a compliment. 🙂
Originally posted by Zampano
There’s a base rate for ““”legitimate””” lawsuits and a base rate for frivolous lawsuits. Each of which is driven by a different set of variables. By some (probably nonlinear) process, companies draw from the distribution some set of lawsuits that are each from the set of choices: {“””legitimate”””, devious Feemails}.
And yet, some of these lawsuits exceed policy payouts and the organization experiences litigation ruin. Hence the entire purpose of this thread and the fear of working with women from people (more than on Wall Street).
Originally posted by Zampano
Companies can expend effort to change the probability of drawing a “””legitimate””” lawsuit.
Another thing you're missing is I put down small to medium business. Large businesses can afford these amazing policies to handle all sorts of litigation and they have entire legal teams on payroll. Unlike small businesses where they contract legal on a case by case basis.
[redacted] ended up in financial ruin due to litigation like this. It's not about margins at that size, it's about the actual revenue.
What larger organizations do to prevent litigation ruin is they have large HR and Legal teams to help create PPPs (policies, procedures, and processes) to mitigate as much financial risk around HRM as possible. The cost of having humans, as it were.
Originally posted by Zampano
UNWANTED RISK IS A FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITY. If this is such a widespread institutional problem for wallstreet, then wallstreet should monetize it. But instead finance bros are more interested in having a narrative that washes their hands of blame. We can be certain that this is a culture war dumpster fire because the sharks of wallstreet care more about preserving their all-boys club to profiting off of the opportunity.Tl;dr:
If fraudulent lawsuits were a real concern for industry, the finance bros would monetize the firm-specific probability of drawing a lawsuit instead of whining about women.
Seems like you missed another major point: there's also the issue of anything the men say or do being taken out of context or the wrong way. And that ending up in litigation hell. It's not necessarily fraudulent but it is not a solid case, either: it's a "he said she said" scenario.
And another thing you don't seem to understand: creating probable loss magnitudes in a factor analysis quantitative risk management framework also represents 2 cost overheads:
1. Administrative costs
2. Margin costs on those policies
Why cut into any of your margins with overly complicated quantitative risk management when you can just throw your hands up in the air and exclaim "to hell with it. I'd rather not take on the financial burden of women." ?
And, lastly, what you also seem to have missed is a point I made two times in thread: they can't do that either because that's a violation of the American Civil Rights act, article 6.
Regardless of whatever your perspective is, regardless of what you think is right or wrong: what is taking place in the real world differs from your opinion. They are not doing what you think they should do. 🙂
Of you think your ideas are so clever and well-thought out, why don't you try and get your ideas to take traction in some of those small to medium Wall Street firms? If you think you've legitimately solved the female-risk problem for Wall Street, why just post about it on a message board? You'd make millions if you had a legit solution. You could write books, make book deals, show up on talk shows, etc. So what's holding you back if you think you have the answer? This is a serious question. Don't bother arguing with someone like me who is a naysayer and who understands risk management. Those kinds of people say no to everything because they choose to avoid risks by nature. I am not mocking you or talking down to you. I am not being sarcastic. If you truly ad honestly believe your ideas are clever and well-thought out, execute.
Yikes. You somehow read this entire thread and didn't see that in the opening post and mentioned 2 more times throughout the thread. But I think you did but just want to make a point.
Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to quote from the opening post anything that looks like you’re considering the difficulties faced by women in the workplace. I don’t want to get into a line-by line quote war, but I do want to convince you that I’m paying attention to your arguments. So here we go:
Women are disadvantaged by the measures men take to avoid lawsuits:
This presents a problem for women in the workplace. How are they supposed to move up in the financial industry if their male colleagues avoid them to prevent the harassment debauchery?
[…]
Now women are being alienated because they are, rightfully and correctly, being viewed as negative financial liabilities.
And the damn good women in the workplace are negatively impacted by these biases and problems. It sucks. I know some of these women. They are badass. But they are being held back.
You list four “problems with women in the workplace” that give rise to the biases and problems:
1. Take off of work too much.
2. Have babies and quit their job.
3. Too much sexual harassment fear in the workplace due to all the crap happening.
4. Go through extreme emotional ups and downs significantly more so than men, according to both men and women surveyed. Citation
To your credit, you admit later on the first page that:
There ARE men who still harass. And they should pay the price for it. But more often than not, it's stupid crap...
…On the other hand, if it *is* your belief that most lawsuits are trivial then you’re left with kind of a dilemma. You rightly observe that an insurance market to hedge against harassment lawsuits would raise the cost of female employees, and thereby reduce the number of female hires on the margin. On the other hand, women earn less than their male colleagues with similar qualifications so one could argue that in the absence of gender bias women should be more attractive as employees. Given that there is no insurance market for sexual harassment, there are not competing effects. Instead we see only a) women work at a discount and b) women are hired less often. Inference to the simplest explanation suggests that gender bias might play a part in the disparity in employment at these firms.
In the interest of de-escalating the thread (I came in a little hot) let me pose a question: if women are a liability in the workplace, why are they hired in the first place? My answer is that women are not liabilities; that’s just an excuse used by misogynists to avoid including women in the boys’ club. My answer explains why there’s no market for harassment insurance (it’s a non-issue). But maybe you have a better answer.
Originally posted by Zamp
Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to quote from the opening post anything that looks like you’re considering the difficulties faced by women in the workplace. I don’t want to get into a line-by line quote war, but I do want to convince you that I’m paying attention to your arguments. So here we go:Women are disadvantaged by the measures men take to avoid lawsuits:
You list four “problems with women in the workplace” that give rise to the biases and problems:
(Emphasis mine, citation link omitted.) Notably, these four problems are problems faced by men, which seem to be justifications for why male employees avoid their female colleagues.
To your credit, you admit later on the first page that:
(Emphasis mine.) If I have been unfair about your beliefs regarding the prevalence of workplace harassment, it is because the phrase “more often than not” is ambiguous but lends itself to an interpretation where you believe most workplace complaints are frivolous. I’ll happily admit that I’ve misinterpreted you if that’s not your belief. From the first page of discussion, I did not find any remarks from you that suggest a you considered the damage incurred by women who experience harassment. Your discussion of how women in the workplace are impacted by these problems refers specifically to the problem of being ostracized, but ignores the more damaging problem of being sexually harassed or coerced.
…On the other hand, if it *is* your belief that most lawsuits are trivial then you’re left with kind of a dilemma. You rightly observe that an insurance market to hedge against harassment lawsuits would raise the cost of female employees, and thereby reduce the number of female hires on the margin. On the other hand, women earn less than their male colleagues with similar qualifications so one could argue that in the absence of gender bias women should be more attractive as employees. Given that there is no insurance market for sexual harassment, there are not competing effects. Instead we see only a) women work at a discount and b) women are hired less often. Inference to the simplest explanation suggests that gender bias might play a part in the disparity in employment at these firms.
In the interest of de-escalating the thread (I came in a little hot) let me pose a question: if women are a liability in the workplace, why are they hired in the first place? My answer is that women are [b]not
liabilities; that’s just an excuse used by misogynists to avoid including women in the boys’ club. My answer explains why there’s no market for harassment insurance (it’s a non-issue). But maybe you have a better answer. [/B]
So here's what you did: you just systematically took apart my opening post just to prove yourself wrong multiple times?
Why? That's just weird, dude. Did you experience any problems at all after realizing you were wrong? Any uncomfortable feelings trying to reconcile your wrong statement with the facts? I can't edit the OP. It's too late. Anyone can read it and see you were wrong.
And did you answer my question in your post about making your idea to help Wall Street? Sorry, I stopped reading your post when you clearly proved yourself wrong by quoting my post. Couldn't make it any further because my smug sense of self-satisfaction was too high. I was smiling so hard my eyes become narrow slits and I could barely see the rest of what you posted.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So here's what you did: you just systematically took apart my opening post just to prove yourself wrong multiple times?Why? That's just weird, dude. Did you experience any problems at all after realizing you were wrong? Any uncomfortable feelings trying to reconcile your wrong statement with the facts? I can't edit the OP. It's too late. Anyone can read it and see you were wrong.
And did you answer my question in your post about making your idea to help Wall Street? Sorry, I stopped reading your post when you clearly proved yourself wrong by quoting my post. Couldn't make it any further because my smug sense of self-satisfaction was too high. I was smiling so hard my eyes become narrow slits and I could barely see the rest of what you posted.
and not even a single consideration for the damage to career and personal life of a woman who is actually harassed.
like, does it even occur to you that women are people too and their interests should be weighed equally to the interests of men in this discussion?
Your opening post is empty of redeeming qualities. It doesn't seem to occur to you that women are punished relentlessly for reporting harassment. It's almost like you don't care about women at all
Edit: (Sorry for the double post - whenever i click the "quote" button my entire post disappears so im hesitant to use any of the forum functions anymore)
Edit Edit: quick quote works fine, and editing seems to be ok as well.
RE: selling insurance - the lack of an insurance market is evidence that this is a fake trend. The efficient market hypothesis says if it was profitable it would exist already. Since it's not profitable, the companies actually don't give a flying fu ck about the "false reports" that these MRAs are complaining about.
Originally posted by cdtm
How could one possibly monetize lawsuits?Unless one's a law firm, and suing themselves...?
Most companies don't get sued, but DDM is arguing that all companies are afraid of being sued, even after taking aims to reduce that chance (such as mandatory anti sexual harassment training).
I'm saying that if DDM is right, then there's a profit opportunity by selling insurance. Companies pay a little money every month, and then if they get sued the judgment comes from that pool of money. Most companies won't get sued, so the pool becomes self sustaining.
The fact that no such insurance plan exists is evidence that companies don't actually fear frivolous lawsuits as described by DDM
Originally posted by Zamp
Most companies don't get sued, but DDM is arguing that all companies are afraid of being sued, even after taking aims to reduce that chance (such as mandatory anti sexual harassment training).
Originally posted by Zamp
Your opening post is empty of redeeming qualities. It doesn't seem to occur to you that women are punished relentlessly for reporting harassment. It's almost like you don't care about women at allEdit: (Sorry for the double post - whenever i click the "quote" button my entire post disappears so im hesitant to use any of the forum functions anymore)
Edit Edit: quick quote works fine, and editing seems to be ok as well.
RE: selling insurance - the lack of an insurance market is evidence that this is a fake trend. The efficient market hypothesis says if it was profitable it would exist already. Since it's not profitable, the companies actually don't give a flying fu ck about the "false reports" that these MRAs are complaining about.
Originally posted by Zamp
lol. every single "problem with women" is something that bothers men about being near women who might falsely claim that she was harassed...and not even a single consideration for the damage to career and personal life of a woman who is actually harassed.
like, does it even occur to you that women are people too and their interests should be weighed equally to the interests of men in this discussion?
Try harder.
Originally posted by Zamp
I'm saying that if DDM is right, then there's a profit opportunity by selling insurance. Companies pay a little money every month, and then if they get sued the judgment comes from that pool of money. Most companies won't get sued, so the pool becomes self sustaining.The fact that no such insurance plan exists is evidence that companies don't actually fear frivolous lawsuits as described by DDM
lol, that specific type of insurance exists and is included in most Business Insurance packages:
haermm
It's such a common problem that it is a core-element in Business Insurance packages. haermm
Okay, so now what? Where do we go from here?
haermm
Originally posted by dadudemon
Try harder.lol, that specific type of insurance exists and is included in most Business Insurance packages:
haermm
It's such a common problem that it is a core-element in Business Insurance packages. haermm
Okay, so now what? Where do we go from here?
haermm