[Bloomberg] - Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost tl;dr Men aren't socializing/mentoring women at work (in finance sector) due to #MeToo overreaction and its inhibiting professional women's career growth Bloomberg also made a 1-year anniversary article a few months ago about the movement.

Or... don't rape

Yeah, I'm finding it hard to believe that Wall Street has gone Mike Pence-level prudish because of overreaction to MeToo. More likely, sexism, harassment, and rape have been a staple of Wall Street for so long that a huge number of men in the financial industry legitimately have no idea how to treat women as equals and human beings.

I think the headline is every bit as dystopian as the article implies and is probably fairly accurate. This is a micromanagement-centric industry we're talking about. It is absolutely within the realm of possibility that this is the result of some massive crunch of the data, and that the only "winning move" for them is to limit association with women as much as possible. It's like a bizarro form of "the only winning move is not to play." Now, it's totally fucking ridiculous and these people above anyone else need to be held accountable for their culture....but it doesn't shock me one iota to see that this is the effect #MeToo has caused among these total idiots.

There are definitely people bitching about it because they can't get away with copping a feel anymore, but that doesn't mean you can casually dismiss the concerns universally because false accusations do happen. Anyone remember this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/08/11/jury-orders-blogger-to-pay-8-4-million-to-ex-army-colonel-she-accused-of-rape/?utm_term=.9fcb05720c8e And that's 'just' the military. Wall Street can add several zeros to those numbers. It doesn't matter how rare an event like that is; when literally hundreds of millions of dollars of lifetime earnings are at stake, the pros and cons are going to be weighed differently. Sexual discrimination's waters are pretty well charted at this point. The costs of lawsuits are pretty well established, as are the thresholds for what you can and can't generally get away with. Sexual assault claims on the other hand are complete unknowns. Maybe nobody takes it seriously. Maybe it goes viral, your stock price plummets, and a multibillion dollar deal collapses or gets delayed. The court of public opinion is a fickle beast. No board of directors is going to want that mess. It makes total sense for this to be a numbers game in some situations.

It's absolutely the "nuclear option" in dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace and in Wall Street. I don't think this is what people expected to happen, but I don't think people should be shocked is all. It could also be a carefully plotted middle finger to feminists by the bigwigs, taking a "well we'll see how much you like it when we just don't interact with women at all!" It's pretty fuckin' heinous the lengths these people will go to avoid accountability.

Oh god they're becoming MGTOWs.

Wall Street as a whole doesn't give a flying fuck about anything but money. The notion of Wall Street collectively acting this way just to spite women rings a bit hollow me me. I'm sure there are a few joining in on the behavior for this reason, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest to hear about some leak within the next couple of years that show some internal memos with some rough calculations backing a decision like this.

The idea that only men are upwardly mobile sociopaths is laughable and this is wall street where predatory behavior is encouraged and the norm. One of the current EiCs at VICE got her position by sleeping with someone far above her paygrade and then accusing him of sexual harassment via lawsuit and the out of court settlement entailed her basically getting his job or she would go public, so take a guess what would happen in a business where money is both the direct measure of success and the means of measuring the entire point of perpetuating your craft. If you think that kind of thing won't happen in a line of trade where sociopaths make up over 30% of the workforce and people with sociopathic tendencies make up not only a very large chunk of the rest, but a leading majority of senior management and COO/CEO/CFO positions, frankly you're an idiot. Of course they're going to cover their asses, they know how the game works because they've been doing it since wall street became a thing.

Not that I disagree with what you're saying — because to be in Wall Street requires leaving your humanity at the door — but do you have a source for this story?

Google VICE lawsuit and podcasts, JRE have talked about it, and so has Anthony Cumia; I sincerely anyone is going to publish anything on the record.

I would rather you link a direct source than just say "Google it". That's a cop out answer when you can't actually provide a source.

Kinda makes sense when you consider the press and some people on these forums were arguing that an example of sexual misconduct was neil degrasse tyson having dinner with a female colleague. The press and society in general has become ravenous for accusations, and without innocent until proven guilty safeguards in the court of public opinion this is the obvious result.

"Just google it" is almost as bad as citing JRE and Anthony Cumia seriously. That's just bad arguing.

Sure, and to never be falsely charged with murder, always be right next to a security camera. OR... just live your life because being falsely accused is really rare

Who even are these people?

Cumia is a radio shock jock, JRE is an ex wrestler's podcast with a propensity for airing bizarre and unhinged statements from bizarre and unhinged individuals.

So basically it discredits anything he said. It did sound like fake story just to hate on successful women without anything to back it up other than (((the truth))). Even more blatant it's targeting VICE, a liberal news site.

sounds par for the course, unfortunately. the whole "men are scared of interacting because they don't wanna get accused!!!" shit is just a big gross hyperbole made up to make men who feel marginalized react against the progress for women in the workplace even more than they do now.

Or maybe you should do your own research before making abjectly incorrect assumptions : https://www.businessinsider.com/vice-employees-settled-four-lawsuits-sexual-harassment-misconduct-2017-12 Vice Media is sued after employee is assaulted on assignment Vice Suspends Two Top Execs in Wake of Sexual Harassment Allegat.. Those are all separate incidents, btw given your penchant for literally making shit up that's pretty ironic coming from you. In addition, more than two dozen other women, most in their 20s and early 30s, said they had experienced or witnessed sexual misconduct at the company — unwanted kisses, groping, lewd remarks and propositions for sex. After review of said claims two of the above were thrown out and the woman making said claim still worked as an EiC until early this year when she got a job at Universal.

Murder requires a dead body. Sexual assault claims can require nothing but testimony.

It’s so hard to take you seriously when you just fabricate shit

It's not my job to research your claims. I don't even know who that is.

He's the "liberal Harvey Weinstein". There's been a crazy amount of news about the guy tbh, same as Weinstein. He's a liberal, he's a TV exec, and he's a fucking rapist.

I never said liberal = good. I just said that VICE has a liberal bias, so it would be a target for conservative shock jocks. You don't have to be so hostile for not knowing someone.

I am not being hostile. None of what I said, or how I said it, can possibly be constructed as "Hostile" towards you.

I heard there was a similar phenomenon at google

How SHOULD I word what I said to you so as to "not be hostile"? I'll bend over and accommodate you, but point out how it was actually a hostile comment

Whenever it comes to sexual harrassment, sexual misconduct or rape accusations about men it feels like it's "guilty until proven guilty" instead of "innocent until proven guilty". There have been so many false accusations by women during this period of #metoo, I don't blame some companies to take measures to protect themselves. Some don't let a man and a woman talk in a closed room, so they keep a door open. In others, a manager is not allowed to talk with a woman under 4 eyes, there needs to be a (female) witness with them. It's so easy for some men to lose their career goals over a possible sexual joke or a false accusation about anything. And they are branded for life. And this isn't just exclusive to jobs in companies. There have been and still are cases of male students being falsely accused of rape by female students and don't get any way to respond to anything. They get removed from college and universities, registered as sex offenders and will possibly not be able to get a good job in their future. Not to say that every accusation is a lie. But the protection against false accusations is kind of non-existent because it happens so fast. And often the women don't get real punishments for doing such horrible things to certain men. And even when it turns out that it's all made up: The reputation of the man suffers immensely. It's all about hearing/seeing. Even if the woman made a public apology and said that she lied about everything, due to the accusations themselves, other people will never let go and possibly think that said man has done such things or is very capable to do so. Additionally, I think it was California(?) women with children can (and do) look up off-sea military soldiers over a publicly viewable list of stationed soldiers, pick a random name and make that person the legal father. He has 30 days to reply with a DNA probe to testify that he isn't the father or else he becomes the father. The soldier has no way to respond because he isn't even in the country and there have been documented cases of said men returning home to find that their money is gone and them being legal fathers from that point on. #Metoo left out one big portion of people out and only focused on women: The men. The entire movement should have been about both genders. But men were quickly silenced because "lolol, men can't experience sexual harassment, only women can". Of course they can and they do. Both genders can and do experience it. Men can't publicly talk about them as much as women though. Same with depressions. Same with domestic violence where men are the victims. They don't get reported as much because they aren't being taken as serious as they should. The kind of shit some experience by their female CEOs or managers is really bad. Often they can only switch the jobs to escape it. Problems and possible solutions for these should be focused on both genders equally. Just because one party might experience it more often than the other, doesn't mean that the other should be left out entirely.

No offense my guy but the only posts I've seen from you over the last few days have been hostile to whoever you're talking to. Lot's of accusatory, condescending, or overly defensive stuff. I have no interest in tone policing, just something I've picked up on recently. None of those sources are anything near proof for your previous statement that she "got her position by sleeping with" the guy. All of those sources just act to highlight a cultural problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, especially when they reference dozens of women that are discreetly sharing lists with each other of which men to stay away from.