I was once personally on the receiving end of a complete false sexual harassment allegation from a coworker almost at random (someone I had almost no interactions with, ever). There wasn't even a sprinkle of truth in the whole thing. I was saved by pure dumb luck, where against all odds just happened to have irrefutable proof one of their claims was impossible which led to her dropping the whole thing. I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims.
I guess I feel like "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty good model and running a story just amplifying one persons unproven claims kind of goes against that.
The stigma that it “automatically” brings just doesn’t go away. It just doesn’t. You forever become “that” person. And I really don’t know how it can be fixed. That’s just how it is.
The timeline of getting my contract not renewed was actually a chance for me to move across the country, something I had been wanting to do for over a year.
And people's excuse is that men "do the most crime", but it's like: well what about male victims who are left in the dirt, what about the fact that men are also victims of the most crime as well.
There's a new religion of social justice, and this religion is harsher than even the old religions.
The old religions you were at least judged by an omnipotent being who could see the whole picture. This new woke religion have you judged by a dumb mob. Everyone's playing the judge and everyone's responsible to punishing everyone.
As if punishing a bad person is a virtue. And as if there's nothing wrong about lynching an innocent person.
And this is a direct result of lack of religion. The absence of religion isn't lack of oppression, it's oppression by a dumb blind mob. Religion isn't the truly primitive behavior, the truly primitive behavior is this dumb mob social justice that's spreading now.
Even the detail about your bank accounts being closed doesn't add up at all.
However, the judicial system instead of fixing the problem went ahead and created lopsided insane laws which are now being exploited.
I considered getting a lawyer involved because I feared this could blow up, but was talked out of it by my boss, who asked me to apologize and "let's leave it at that".
Imagine the roles were reversed and it were a woman being harassed. What would the response to this comment be?
That's the pattern I normally see online, people tend to be sympathetic to victims.
The problem is that false allegations can be extraordinarily damaging in the short-term, though hopefully the injury evaporates in the long-term as truth takes over.
I am a male who was sexually assaulted by another male. Strictly speaking I was raped, but I prefer not to use that term because of the emotive nature of it.
There is not much you've said I disagree with, but I do want to show that this goes both ways. I have never made a public accusation about the individual involved in my case because I do not have irrefutable evidence that it wasn't consentual. If I was in the jury of his court case I would find him innocent, so how could I reasonably go accuse him of anything?
Really I think we need to have two serious conversations as a society:-
* Individuals should not be able to weaponise sexual assult/harassment claims in public to the extent they do now. If anything, stories like yours make it even more difficult for legitimate victims to tell their story because the idea of destroying the life based off an accusation I cannot prove is really frightening to me. I would like someone to sit him down, privately, and educate him on consent (leading onto my next point) and to never ever do that to another individual again. That isn't an option though, it is a life destroying public circus or nothing.
* Consent, consent, consent. From as early an age we're willing to give children sex education, we should teach them about consent. Certainly in my time at school I was not once taught the legal definitions or importance of it.
Edit: Minor typos
I don't see how this all doesn't end with near total personal surveillance of one's life - audio & video.
Will culture change to accept everyone wearing body-cameras? We've made that step for law enforcement. Will there be next step? I wonder if those in charge of children will be next - teachers, priests, scout leaders etc. Healthcare workers? Politicians? And finally, everyone.
I can imagine encrypted systems that only give access to recordings in response to court orders. I can imagine a lot of people would opt-in without coercion just for self-preservation.
I'm not going to use a throwaway - I am a male who was sexually assaulted by another male. It's happened to me more than once, in very different ways, and quite frankly for all that it's scarred me I consider it good experience that taught me a lot.
Not really. Ever see those "Florida Man" memes? The reason that's a thing isn't because people in Florida are particularly crazy. It's because public records are exceptionally easy to access in Florida, and those include police reports. And anything that's public record is fair game for the media.
In some states (I believe Georgia is one), there are regular publications with mugshots of people who were recently arrested in the local area. Not convicted of anything, just arrested. You can buy them at pretty much any gas station or convenience store. Get arrested for, say, public intoxication, and all your friends and acquaintances may just see your photo in the checkout line the next day.
Media vultures will not hesitate to cash in on your humiliation.
Well, you should be. The reputation of the other party should be completely destroyed. How can you attempt to break someone's life and just get away with that as if nothing happened?
There is this crime called "false accusation", you could have chased that?
Unfortunately for certain things one the damage is done most people will never notice when it changes. The thing that struck me as odd here is that the news article has photos and names. Not that it would make that much of a difference, but I do remember a time when suspects in the news would be named Ryan O. and Tiffany M. The people directly involved would obviously know who this is about.
In one of the valley startups I worked, I disliked a colleague, because I thought she wasn't good at what she did. I do mumble things(unrelated to people) when I think and I'm a generally distant person to strangers. I kinda knew the feeling was mutual, but what I didn't know until a year after I'd left was that she went around telling people that I talked about her boobs, which was such an odd thing for me to comprehend.
In a statement to The Post, a spokesman for Miller denied the accusations against his client. “This lawsuit is a fictional account of events filled with numerous falsehoods, fabricated by a disgruntled ex-employee, who was senior to Ms. Miller at Google,” the spokesman said. “Ms. Miller never made any ‘advance’ toward Mr. Olohan, which witnesses can readily corroborate.”
Like, that woman literally lied in court, causing you financial, psychological and image damage, couldn't you have sued for this? Theoretically speaking, I'm saying.
Like in my case I have pretty conclusive proof that part of her allegation is a lie. And that makes her look sufficiently bad that she's wiling to drop the whole thing.
But if I now tried to sue her, she'd naturally have to revert to asserting her allegations were true in the first place. But only she made some mistakes when remembering the details (oh sorry, wrong event! Trauma!). And I believe I would look vindictive and aggressive, and my real concrete proof is that one part of her allegation is a lie.
For me, it's 10000x easier to just count my blessings than personally consider anything of the sort. I only once briefly entertained the idea just to tarnish her own reputation to the point she would never be able to falsely accuse anyone again.
Are you proposing that the media should stop covering lawsuits?
Anyway, presented with the actual recording she dropped the entire thing and yet managed to have absolutely zero personal or professional repercussions.
In other stories with other demographic characteristics, though, employers and the press (if it gets to that point) are not nearly so judicious in their evaluations.
This will slide off her like an over-easy egg off a teflon pan.
If we're going to tell male victims that we don't believe them & that they have to prove it we can do the same for female victims; at the moment for female victims, it is treated very seriously from the outset.
However, I almost didn't bother commenting because this distinction between male and female victims will never end, it'll never change and I just have to live knowing that nobody actually really gives a shit about what happens to me; even sitting outside the heterosexual bubble, y'all still reach in with your traditional gender roles BS "men r strong & always do bad things", "women r weak and r always good angels".
This is the most crazy section. Why physical characteristics like gender or ethnicity should be important in the management selection? And if yes, why only those two characteristics and not considering others like body weight or baldness?
To me the craziest part is:
> Olohan was told that he had shown favouritism towards high-performing employees
I don't think that's actually been "shown," it's more of an axiom that's assumed to be true without proof. IIRC, the idea that "[sex/race] diversity leads to better team outcomes" may even just be an idea meant to mainly lend legal cover to diversity efforts (e.g. university affirmative action race-based admissions) that would otherwise be illegal.
To be clear, the below is not taking into account the allegations in the article, but just seeks to explain the thinking without judgement (as I'm frankly not sure which side I fall down on).
There's a school of thought that some degree of weighting helps to redress systemic issues by changing incentives, justified on the basis that there should be an equally capable pool of candidates in the underrepresented demographics.
The thinking then goes that e.g. if promotions at certain levels are biased, the argument for allowing that bias to continue is often that the pool to promote from leaves too few capable candidates of the underrepresented groups.
The problem with that, is that if (to take extreme numbers for simplicity) 100% of people being promoted from VP to SVP in a company are white men, then a lot of women and non-white people will either self-select out or not get promoted at lower level because it's a strong signal they're not valued and have no future there.
That in itself can make it a goal to diversify companies at higher levels irrespective of the current talent available for promotion at the level below.
As a concrete example, in 2006 Norway added a legal requirement for at least 40% of either gender at board level of a public limited company (ASA; usually listed companies as only ASA's can be listed, though they don't have to be) and in some other situations (e.g. companies with significant government ownership), and during the debates over this change, this was part of the arguments:
If there weren't enough qualified candidates, that was itself considered evidence of a systemic bias that making the change was hoped to help address. Both by giving women an incentive to stay on track towards board seats and give companies an incentive to address other biases to ensure there was a capable pool. Over time, it was also hoped that getting women onto boards would further strengthen the pressure from boards on companies to address the, as well as further develop a pool of women with growing board experience.
It was explicitly acknowledged by many proponents that there was a chance that it'd be hard to find suitable candidates initially, but that was seen as a sufficiently temporary problem to be addressed by companies through training and mentoring, not a justification for not changing the incentives.
If we were actually concerned about tipping the scales properly based on actual income data, white men would not be the primary targets. We would be going after Brahmin Indians, Taiwanese-Americans, Jewish-Americans, men over 6 feet in height, men with facial features that are shown by studies to be associated with "leadership", men born to well-connected families, and any number of other by-birth associations that are actually demonstrated by the data to have high correlations to income level.
"White men" are fairly average when it comes to income in the United States, yet we are gunning for them far more for income equity than we are for their obvious statistical superiors.
This, alone, demonstrates the lie underpinning equity efforts.
2006 is 17 years ago. There should be some results by now. What was the failure criteria for the legislation? Did it fail/succeed according to the criteria? Did anything change at lower positions?
*Do we say OP for the top level comment?
I think given modern technology, companies can and should be extremely regulated and monitored on their hiring and firing decisions. At-will should be federally banned. If they define objective, auditable and specific merit based criteria, they should send that information along with every applicant and every decision to look at a resume, interview, call and hire/reject to the EEOC which can look for patterns and investigate on its own to validate the reasons being given in those decisions. I think with that, there could be a path to meritocratic hiring/firing.
But make no mistake, discrimination based on gender, race,etc... is rampant. I am even all for expanding that to cover any arbitrary criteria. If I decide to wear a clown costume to work, the work has to justify why the clown costume materially prevents me from performing profitably.
That said, this is a pretty wild turn of events. From the initial and continued sexual harassment/assault to the racism, and subsequent retaliation. More curious is the very direct "your team is too male" and the encouragement to fire someone. I've heard this hinted at before, but never said out loud for obvious reasons. If all of those claims can be proven I'm pretty sure this guy won't work another day in his life if his lawyer can read sentences and make it to court on time.
I would like to hear Google and Mrs Miller's side of the story before I cast any judgement though. I don't suspect we'll get that until court.
My friend who still lives in the Valley says this kind of sentiment is incredibly common there nowadays, e.g. advertising an open position and having discussions internally that a man won't be hired for the role.
It's pretty surprising to me, because statistics show that most major careers have a gender imbalance in one direction or the other:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/E...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/software-deve...
Yet the gender imbalance in software engineering receives unique attention, to the point where people are willing to violate ethical rules in order to try & even out the genders in that particular career.
Why is this? What is the ethical justification for why addressing the gender imbalance in STEM/software engineering should be such an urgent moral priority?
My suspicion is that there is no good justification that holds up under scrutiny, and it's all just a moral panic fueled by social media.
Probably just because $$$. Have you ever seen someone advocate for more female coal miners or truck drivers?
My conspiracy theory is that software engineering is the last real, single, meritocratic, growing career path that costs a lot of money for employers and they'd rather tank the market by making sure the other 50% of sex is able to participate to wreck wages.
Nobody cares that nurses and teachers are majority female dominated fields ripe with discrimination and harassment because they don't make enough money. They're overstressed, understaffed, and underpaid and society needs more of both yet the bar is so low and so biased against men that nobody is even trying to fix it.
Your friend (and your friend's HR organization) should be aware that this is extremely illegal.
So there's (IMO) historical evidence that it's not inherently a "male" field; which I see as evidence that the imbalance is unexpected and undesirable.
(That said, I can't speak to why it's an "urgent" priority)
[1] Babbage invented the mechanical calculator. Ada realized you could do calculations on something other than numbers. IMO that makes Babbage the first computer engineer, and Ada the first computer scientist.
[2] one article of many on this: https://digitalfuturesociety.com/programming-when-did-womens...
I think that even just five years ago I would’ve agreed with you on this, but when the attacks on elderly Asians began to happen during the pandemic, it was one of those painful things that it was the NY Post that could be counted on to make those visible.
As I’ve gotten older, I haven’t become more conservative. But I’ve realized that the left side of the spectrum is a lot sicker than I realized when I was younger, and to not automatically discount everything that goes on in the right, wince-worthy as it may often be.
Frankly, I read this article this morning when it broke on the NYP. The NYP stays in my feed but when I read their stuff I almost always cross it with other sources. There are none though because all that exists of this story right now is the docket. Miller, Google, and Olahan aren't talking.
How victims are portrayed in the media matters a great deal. Media can skewer a case by either poking holes in it or by flatly not investigating. The latter is what I feel is going on here. They could've interviewed potential witnesses at these NYC events, they could've interviewed some Googlers to find out if this "your team is too male" attitude actually exists in any contingent. They didn't do that though, instead, they plugged the hottest claims of the docket which all come from the plaintiff.
My statement was ambiguous on purpose. It says two things simultaneously:
1. If you don't believe this article, wait for better reporting.
2. If you believe this article, wait for better reporting.
I was hoping that might remind some people to temper their expectations until more information is known, which is why the last sentence is the way it is, and why I cited each of the allegations.
Changing perception is usually exactly how one would become more political.
Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle, please describe how the paper's political leanings could bias its reporting here.
At face value, it's workplace sexual assault allegations with a power imbalance.
"In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credible to 39% credible).[65]
The Post commonly publishes news reports based entirely on reporting from other sources without independent corroboration. In January 2021, the paper forbade the use of CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and The New York Times as sole sources for such stories.[66]"
65: Jonathan Trichter (June 16, 2004). "Tabloids, Broadsheets, and Broadcast News" (PDF). Pace Poll Survey Research Study. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 23, 2004. Retrieved June 7, 2007. 66: Robertson, Katie (January 13, 2021). "New York Post to Staff: Stay Away From CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 1, 2021.
I don't think that's what "dogwhistle" means. IIUC, dog-whistling is surreptitiously sending a message to some readers, but having plausible deniability and/or non-recognition for the rest of the readers.
I’ll would add he was referring to the positioning of paper’s history of being more “low street”, sensationalist with lower journalistic standards as opposed to the high standards gold standard harbinger of Truth publications like the NYT. The reason this description looks so out of place now, it’s because the others suck so much and the Post continues being the Post.
Everyone in tech knows this is happening, and it's illegal, but nobody will do anything about it. Similar to ageism back in the 2000s.
do you believe ageism "solved", or do you mean it's something people talk about openly these days? I thought it was discussed in the 00s too.
https://www.businessinsider.com/laid-off-engineer-says-googl...
Totally admirable intention, for sure (if only viewed from the lens of strict equality). But I’m sure the 90% of applicants that were male wouldn’t see it that way. So, poor execution.
Edit: clarified some incendiary phrasing
Is this a Western/US thing? Woman STEM graduates outnumber man in a number of countries. Mine and Iran for example but most Muslim countries have strong woman numbers.
I don't think STEM in the west is discriminatory to women, out of the blue. It can't be more discriminatory than Iran? Unless, there is data and research that suggests otherwise.
So that women prefer to pick other fields is STEM's fault?
What? That’s not admirable at all. That’s blatant sexism.
“(STEM is 100% historically discriminatory to women)”
Lol no, if anything it’s clearly discriminatory towards men in the false assumption that low female population isn’t an internal cause
>Olohan said he reported the issue to Google’s human resources department the following week, but nothing ever came of the complaint.
The HR rep “openly admitted … that if the complaint was ‘in reverse’ — a female accusing a white male of harassment — the complaint would certainly be escalated,” according to the lawsuit.
That's the sad truth. Can't go to anyone and even if I did, they likely won't believe me, whereas she could retaliate and say I was the one that did the touching and she'd be believed with ludicrous immediacy. Life sucks, man.
This belief hasn’t permeated our culture, it is the rock on which the very idea of what sexual crimes are [1]. The cultural shift is the other direction thanks to people fighting for it but we’re a long way from the end of the tunnel.
[1] Which is damage to property of a husband or father sooo that’s uhh something. The laws changed on paper but the spirit lived on.
I’m not so sure it’s America vs Google. One has to wonder how inclusive and diverse the HR department is
it would be a big media storm if that aforementioned reverse thing happened.
I kind of get annoyed when this statement is bandied about. Not because it's false, but because it's brought up in cases like this one where if HR were actually doing their job well, they would have protected the company by doing a real investigation.
That is, one of the primary purposes of HR is "keep the company from getting sued." But, in many cases, that goal aligns with someone who has a valid, verifiable complaint. For example, if you are being sexually harassed and want it to stop, a good HR team will absolutely do their best to make that happen, because if they don't they are opening the company up to huge liability.
Not saying everything is always 100% cut and dry (particularly when the accused is somewhere very high up and the company thinks it would cause great disruption to fire them), but reading through the details on this case, that doesn't really appear to be true. I'm certainly not making a judgement since we've only read one side of the story, but I do push back strongly against the idea that HR didn't intervene because they wanted to protect the company.
This honestly makes me think that a lot of the story is heavily exaggerated. Why would HR entertain a hypothetical that could only get them in trouble?
While I have no difficulty in believing that, in practice, a similar complaint with reversed genders would be taken more seriously in some|many|most|all (?) HR departments, I cannot believe that any HR rep would openly admit to that fact, let alone to an affected party. It may indeed have happened, but such extreme clumsiness on the part of Google's HR beggars belief.
It is so scary and damaging to be accused of moral misconduct of this type. I cannot imagine how many people (independent of the gender) are going through this kind of abuse and not daring to bring it up because of the way it is approached and the whole complexity of proving it.
I have a similar experience:
I used to work at a big tech with +100,000 employees, and had a female co-worker a few years older than me. I was groped, kissed and basically harassed to the point that I left the job that I liked the most and ended up with depression. Note that we are both software engineers.
As a guy in my 30s when I asked for advice from friends outside the company I got the advice to leave with an good excuse because if she decide to she can ruin my career and steal years of my life. I never told my partner about it nor have I spoken about it with anyone else.
I mean in dance, you hear about higher-level male dancers getting unwanted attention despite being in long-term monogamous relationships.
Maybe in a hundred years, we’ll realize that people are people, and will weaponize / abuse sexuality according to their role / gender.
What does this mean exactly? That you hope that in a hundred years people will still abuse each other sexually but due to a social role based view of gender?
But in management you've spent years at the company building up to your current role, and you're just kinda stuck with people. Can't imagine how stressful it would be to be in that person's position.
They are, but then there's this other thing called DEI...
Why should you leave your job because a criminal chose to sexually assault you?
Yes, you could find a new job, but what if you're months away from a major stock grant, a bonus, completing an important project?
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean there's no penalty to quitting suddenly because someone victimized you.
Lawsuits follow you. Once employers do a background checks they will know about any lawsuit you are involved in any way. They are publicly available for anyone to find.
What? How can favoriting high-performing employees ever be a valid reason?
We had some sort of combined activity with some 6th grade students. I dropped my pencil and crawled under the table to get it, and got back to work and didn't think anything of it. A 6th grade girl at the table got up and left the classroom, and 15 minutes later I was called up to the principal's office. They told me I was in big trouble for looking up girls' skirts and if I had anything to say for myself. I just got really confused and started crying, I told them I had no idea what they were talking about. Fortunately they believed me, but the fact that they took things that far in the first place left a very bad impression on me regarding both school administrators and sexual harassment claims.
Edit: this was in the early 90's, by the way. I'm sure it's only gotten worse.
Not great for Google executives to be doing this.
Obviously, the federal govt or the state of CA wouldn't support that approach if it were to make its way into a courtroom, but it's accepted as a "necessary evil" in the more elevated and sophisticated circles.
A past suit by a recruiter had emails filed as evidence to the court where recruiters were told to cancel all interviews with candidates who were not women or Black. [1]
And yet if you mention this, you're the racist. You're the White nationalist (even though the media celebrates Black nationalism).
Even so--they also have lawsuits alleging discrimination against promoting Black employees.
There's really nothing contradictory about this. Different individuals can be racist in different ways.
[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/01/google-job-quotas-fav... [2] https://www.cspicenter.com/p/what-diversity-and-inclusion-me...
This is the same company that kept Vic Gundotra until Google+ itself proved unworkable.
It's not ok no matter the gender of the individuals involved. That woman needs to be fired.
> When he asked why he was non-inclusive, Olohan was told that he had shown favouritism towards high-performing employees and that he was “ableist” for commenting on other employees’ “walking pace.”
Sounds like satire...
Wait, what...?
"Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense."
I envision a world with millions of 1-10 person remote companies working together. All this crap would simply evaporate.
Why is this seen as exclusion? If you are bad at your job then you need to improve or suffer the consequences.
Goodness me.
Just playing the devil's advocate here, but let's assume for a minute we could reorganize things a little to avoid matters like this becoming a problem.
Like say, we could make women stronger than men, or we could give people a switch to turn their libido off, or we could invent a drug that when people intoxicate with it they want to speak about math instead of having sex. Any ideas?
I just want to deliver fast code and good user experience, not worry about "politics" and completely subverted safety nets that are now weaponized against men, not even mentioning presumption of innocence flying out the window long ago.
In my case it didn’t bother me at all, but I just find it funny how little they have to worry about their actions being seen as too far.
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/josi....
How often do you expect to hear about it when all the complaints are officially dismissed and the victim is told to shut up?
I hate the level of politicisation over this, it's a shitty thing to do no matter who does it.
Similar too, "white people are shot by cops". Similar to "white people are discriminated against in colleges".
The point is true it is shitty no matter. Though, now the conversation is shifted if a person were to focus on root causes of either problem. Overall, false equivalence.
men victims have almost no statistics, because they are not collected
the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absence, this guy tried reporting it and the complaint was tossed in a dusty chamber like a chicago rape kit
Also, reporting rate is probably different for males vs females.
I've certainly been groped and also kissed when in the middle of a crowd.
Why do people put themselves in these situations at work? I'm nervous having even 1 drink with work colleagues in todays day and age, let alone getting plastered 3 times with the same people after an incident.
There are some positions that require you to follow set of unspoken rules just to belong. It’s both proof of inclusion and signaling.
Depending on place there might be different factors. It can be as simple as attendance, but it might also be about attire, jewelry, watches, presence during cultural events, who knows who etc. etc.
American Psycho’s business card scene is a nice if overdrawn example. Seemingly unimportant object is fetishized. In reality those behaviors are usually much more subtle and can take form of: don’t attend when invited, you won’t be invited ever again.
Sadly for many other fields (especially sales/marketing) or for management positions, social events are essentially mandatory. Sure you can skip one every once in a while, but if you start skipping too many your career prospects in the company will be impacted.
*obviously this is company/industry dependent.
I always expected capitalism to eat itself, but not like this... not like this.
> In response to Olohan’s request during the call for specifics as to why Google believed he was not inclusive, Google’s Employee Investigations team explained that he had shown favoritism towards high performers, which it considered “non-inclusive,” and commented on employees’ walking pace and hustle, which it considered “ableist.”
This is one side of a two-sided story.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is not capitalism.
"Capitalism" most certainly doesn't value equality or diversity.
The factors included:
- How attractive was he vs. the woman?
- I noticed he has 7 kids, and went to Providence College. So I'm guessing a devout Roman Catholic, which would mean he (publicly, at least) has a world view that values marital fidelity.
- In his LinkedIn profile [0], he claims that his family started basically a charity ice-cream shop. And the start date is 5 months before the first alleged sexual harassment. I guessed that a family with a distressed marriage would probably be unable to pull that off.
- On the other hand, IIUC, it seems like he's in marketing, which would mean he's got experience managing his companies' brand as well as his personal brand. So that raised my guard a little.
It's always horrifying to make the wrong call on this, so it's just best avoided until evidence on either side solidifies. We also want to create an environment safe for victims to speak up, even if that means false positives every now and then.
Attraction is personal. Someone can, for example, be biased for and against certain ways people look, and so, their selection don't match the supposed attractiveness. And also, attraction is not just looks. A beautiful person can reek of body odor, for example.
Being religious can't just imply morality, it can imply hypocrisy too. People sometimes lead a very different personal life, compared to their public life, and religion works well for that.
Similar thing applies to the charity ice-cream shop. People take on all kinds of projects in a distressed situation. For one thing, it can be an excellent way to not care about the original problems. It's a thing for example that troubled couples try for children, in order to better their relationship.
The only thing that's worthy of consideration is the marketing angle. But even then, there are a lot of shitty marketers in the world. And many people who can build a certain image, and yet they don't work in marketing.
Only those will lots of vested RSU will downvote lol. Gotta get that money at any cost
Women can become extremely vindictive after getting rejected. A-type females with narcissistic tendencies who usually climb the corporate ladder extremely well are known for that.
Asian girls absolutely love European guys, and his sexual market value appears to be higher than hers (judging from the pictures).
If it all turns out to be true, I hope she gets prison time.
