Social Wall Street Rule for the #MeToo Era: Avoid Women at All Cost

[JonesBones]

I heard that coal mines and lumberjack companies are also looking to hire fewer women because they're scared of being falsely accused of something.

Seriously, anecdotes aside, it's a lock that the next 10 years will see an increase in women being hired by WS firms.

Women in general are better traders than men. Probably has to do with emotional control, risk management and less ego.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Women in general are better traders than men. Probably has to do with emotional control, risk management and less ego.

Could be. But I was just thinking that the baseline is so low that it's way more likely to go up than down. And that's throughout the industry.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Women in general are better traders than men. Probably has to do with emotional control, risk management and less ego.

Could be. But I was just thinking that the baseline is so low that it's way more likely to go up than down. And that's throughout the industry.

i have never seen a stat to support that.

However I have seen stats to say women typcially get higher returns on their own investment portfolios then men do.

the reason being clear and elaborated because women tend to buy and hold and focus on more blue chip known names (Buffet Strategy) whereas men tend to try and time the market more, jumping in and out to grab gains and reduce losses, and also are willing to gamble with more speculative stock. So women are more conservative and risk adverse in their personal investments whereas men tend to be more risk takers and think they can out smart or 'beat' the market.


I can tell you that the top WS firms are not seeking women Traders over men as actively trading and managing portfolios is entirely different than managing your own personal finances.

 

[Jack V Savage]

i have never seen a stat to support that.

However I have seen stats to say women typcially get higher returns on their own investment portfolios then men do.

the reason being clear and elaborated because women tend to buy and hold and focus on more blue chip known names (Buffet Strategy) whereas men tend to try and time the market more, jumping in and out to grab gains and reduce losses, and also are willing to gamble with more speculative stock. So women are more conservative and risk adverse in their personal investments whereas men tend to be more risk takers and think they can out smart or 'beat' the market.

I can tell you that the top WS firms are not seeking women Traders over men as actively trading and managing portfolios is entirely different than managing your own personal finances.

Sounds like junk science either way. However, take an industry that doesn't require physical strength and that has a very small female presence, and you probably have one that is likely to see an increase in that presence over the next 10 years.

 

[panamaican]

I'll reply to the rest after but start here.

You never asked.

So ok you assumed based on the signals and available info/feedback you felt you were getting. Is that right?

If correct, do you believe you are infallible when it comes to women and could never misread a woman's desire or intent?

I literally already said that I was wrong sometimes. Here's the important part - I never acted before I was certain. I never touched anyone that I wasn't certain wanted to be touched. I never escalated an exchange if I wasn't certain that she wanted to escalate. I passed on a decent amount of ass because I couldn't be sure and it wasn't worth the risk.

I was wrong about a woman's desire plenty of times. But I made sure to find out I was wrong before I took a step that I couldn't undo. I've always found women to very open about their desires or lack thereof, given the chance to do so.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Sounds like you don't understand people. The law has principle here called the "Eggshell plaintiff". In short, it says the unexpected frailty of the victim isn't a defense to liability. This means that just because the person you harmed is more susceptible to being hurt than your average person, you can't minimize your penalty based on that. You take them as you find them.

So, the "eggshell plaintiff" rule says exactly what you're arguing against. It says your action is wrong if it harms the person complaining, even if it wouldn't have harmed most people. That's the standard. There is no defense of "It wouldn't have been a problem if I did it to someone else." Because the response is "But you didn't do it to someone else - you did it to that person."

Also, you have applied your fallacy incorrectly. The basic rule is "Don't touch people without knowing that they want to be touched." If Bill Gates breaks the rule and doesn't get #metoo'd, he still broke the rule. Just because he didn't suffer a negative consequence doesn't change that. The only thing that changes is whether or not the other person is going to enforce the rule against Gates. And that's a person by person risk.

Which is how we end up back at the "Eggshell Plaintiff". Bill Gates breaks the rule. He's wrong. It's not a defense to say "Yeah but someone else wouldn't have complained."

The rules themselves are pretty simple:
1) Don't touch people if they don't want to be touched.
2) Don't introduce sexuality into the work environment.
3) Keep your professional dealings strictly professional.

You can break the rules and risk an Eggshell Plaintiff. Or you can follow the rules. Everyone gets to make that choice.

Sorry but you are a lawyer and in my experience they don't understand people OUTSIDE the context of law.

it is undeniable fact that regardless of how the law defines Battery that on dates every day, every where Battery is technically happening each and every time a guy reaches out to touch a gals hand to see if she pulls away or likes it.

A lawyer says 'in 1005 of the cases that guy was wrong and it was battery regardless of whether the woman complained or not'.

I get that is how lawyers think.

it is not how the rest of us think and if you think it is i will start a thread on that exact question:

- if a guy on a first date reaches out and touches a girl hand on the date to see if she is open to it do you consider it wrong and Battery regardless of how the woman receives it'.

I am confident I will win that by overwhelming margin and your response (in a lawyerly way will be 'i don't care if everyone thinks I am wrong that is the law') and while the law may dictate your view of right and wrong we can feel differently.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Sounds like junk science either way. However, take an industry that doesn't require physical strength and that has a very small female presence, and you probably have one that is likely to see an increase in that presence over the next 10 years.

Definitely. Women are graduating into all the areas of math, science and other at much higher rates than men and that gap is growing. But that is another story.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I literally already said that I was wrong sometimes. Here's the important part - I never acted before I was certain. I never touched anyone that I wasn't certain wanted to be touched. I never escalated an exchange if I wasn't certain that she wanted to escalate. I passed on a decent amount of ass because I couldn't be sure and it wasn't worth the risk.

I was wrong about a woman's desire plenty of times. But I made sure to find out I was wrong before I took a step that I couldn't undo. I've always found women to very open about their desires or lack thereof, given the chance to do so.

You are saying two things that do not reconcile here.

You said prior that you do not always ask before touching. You follow with you are certain first via other info. Then admit you can and have been wrong.

Therefore you have touched wrongly, or at a minimum put yourself at risk of being wrong if you COULD have been mistaken or wrong.

So please elaborate to clear that up. Give a clear example of a situation where you did not ask, established touch, could have been wrong, but knew for fact you were not acting without knowing as those things are logically opposed to one another.

 

[JonesBones]

Sounds like junk science either way. However, take an industry that doesn't require physical strength and that has a very small female presence, and you probably have one that is likely to see an increase in that presence over the next 10 years.

It used to require strength to throw people around. A lot of guys on the floor were former rugby, football and lacrosse players. You have to move bodies around.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/...igures-show-women-make-far-better-traders-men

 

[cincymma79]

In your first scenario, she's saying MeToo after hanging on your shoulder?

In your second scenario, she touches you at work without provocation and you respond how? You pat her on the head? You remove her hand from touching you? You grab a tit and lick her neck?

If you're going to make up scenarios, they need a little more meat before we can debate them. I'm starting to think that these aren't examples of things that actually happen.

Depends
I’ve had women do the shoulder rub thing all the way up to grab a handful of dick
I am a sweet sweet piece of man ass though maybe I’m asking for it in these dockers

The point is if I let a woman do anything in the touch category at all someone else can claim harassment about seeing it. I got pulled into hr for fucking someone outside of work. I threatened to sue and that ended it but I still got pulled there. You can guarantee that if they wanted to they would have just looked for anything to get me on

 

[cincymma79]

I literally already said that I was wrong sometimes. Here's the important part - I never acted before I was certain. I never touched anyone that I wasn't certain wanted to be touched. I never escalated an exchange if I wasn't certain that she wanted to escalate. I passed on a decent amount of ass because I couldn't be sure and it wasn't worth the risk.

I was wrong about a woman's desire plenty of times. But I made sure to find out I was wrong before I took a step that I couldn't undo. I've always found women to very open about their desires or lack thereof, given the chance to do so.

Did you have a video of them asking you to touch them. Do you literally say I’d like to touch your hand.

 

[panamaican]

Sorry but you are a lawyer and in my experience they don't understand people OUTSIDE the context of law.

Long before I was a lawyer, I was talking women into fucking dudes they didn't want to fuck just because I asked. And they'd come away thinking it was their idea in the first place. I understand people, especially women, very well. It's why I am a good lawyer. I know the law but, more importantly, I know what the parties will respond to.

it is undeniable fact that regardless of how the law defines Battery that on dates every day, every where Battery is technically happening each and every time a guy reaches out to touch a gals hand to see if she pulls away or likes it.

A lawyer says 'in 1005 of the cases that guy was wrong and it was battery regardless of whether the woman complained or not'.

I get that is how lawyers think.

it is not how the rest of us think and if you think it is i will start a thread on that exact question:

- if a guy on a first date reaches out and touches a girl hand on the date to see if she is open to it do you consider it wrong and Battery regardless of how the woman receives it'.

I am confident I will win that by overwhelming margin and your response (in a lawyerly way will be 'i don't care if everyone thinks I am wrong that is the law') and while the law may dictate your view of right and wrong we can feel differently.

Battery is an unwanted touching. Period. Unwanted. Why bring up the legal stuff if you're not going to pay attention to the details. If she didn't want the touching, it's battery. That doesn't mean she's going to press criminal charges every time. It's not worth it. But that doesn't change the definition of the crime. THe only thing in flux is how she feels about enforcement.

What you have been repeatedly doing is saying "Because some people do something, it doesn't meet the definition of a bad act." But that's not how it works. People do bad acts and hope that there are no consequences. There are 2 types of people in the world, imo. People who do bad things and acknowledge that they're bad things and do them anyway. And people who do bad things and try to convince themselves those things aren't bad.

Here are rules. Tell me which ones shouldn't be there:
1) Don't touch people if they don't want to be touched.
2) Don't introduce sexuality into the work environment.
3) Keep your professional dealings strictly professional.

There's no point on the back and forth, if we can't get the rules straight.

 

[panamaican]

Depends
I’ve had women do the shoulder rub thing all the way up to grab a handful of dick
I am a sweet sweet piece of man ass though maybe I’m asking for it in these dockers

I understand. I've been there. Being irresistible to women is a heavy burden.

The point is if I let a woman do anything in the touch category at all someone else can claim harassment about seeing it. I got pulled into hr for fucking someone outside of work. I threatened to sue and that ended it but I still got pulled there. You can guarantee that if they wanted to they would have just looked for anything to get me on

Fucking a co-worker outside of work? Or something/someone else. Because if it's a co-worker, there are potential HR issues in play. Not always of course but sometimes depending on the details. Obviously, if it's just 2 co-workers fucking on their own time, there's no issue without some kind of strict no fraternizing rule.

But that's also a lot more than just one person touching another person and a 3rd party calling it sexual harassment or something.

 

[panamaican]

Did you have a video of them asking you to touch them. Do you literally say I’d like to touch your hand.

Sorry, no video. Suffice to say, I had my own style, it was built around making girls take the steps that guys usually take. Force them to be proactive, not simply reactive. Convince them to chase you, not the other way around. Therefore everything feels like their decision, not yours.

We're getting into the weeds but I would never take a girl's hand. It's too passive on her part. Instead put your hand down palm up next to hers, waggle the fingers, look at her, look at her hand, look at your hand, look back at her and 90% of the time, they take your hand. Same result except she feels like she made the decision. Makes the next steps easier.

 

[panamaican]

You are saying two things that do not reconcile here.

You said prior that you do not always ask before touching. You follow with you are certain first via other info. Then admit you can and have been wrong.

Therefore you have touched wrongly, or at a minimum put yourself at risk of being wrong if you COULD have been mistaken or wrong.

So please elaborate to clear that up. Give a clear example of a situation where you did not ask, established touch, could have been wrong, but knew for fact you were not acting without knowing as those things are logically opposed to one another.

Go back and re-read what I said. I said I have been wrong about desire and intent but I always find out before I touch anyone.

 

[Amerikuracana]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings.

In fact, as a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.” What if she took something he said the wrong way?

Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women.

The money's strategy is working. They have divided men and women further. Love is shrinking day by day, as well.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Long before I was a lawyer, I was talking women into fucking dudes they didn't want to fuck just because I asked. And they'd come away thinking it was their idea in the first place. I understand people, especially women, very well. It's why I am a good lawyer. I know the law but, more importantly, I know what the parties will respond to.



Battery is an unwanted touching. Period. Unwanted. Why bring up the legal stuff if you're not going to pay attention to the details. If she didn't want the touching, it's battery. That doesn't mean she's going to press criminal charges every time. It's not worth it. But that doesn't change the definition of the crime. THe only thing in flux is how she feels about enforcement.

What you have been repeatedly doing is saying "Because some people do something, it doesn't meet the definition of a bad act." But that's not how it works. People do bad acts and hope that there are no consequences. There are 2 types of people in the world, imo. People who do bad things and acknowledge that they're bad things and do them anyway. And people who do bad things and try to convince themselves those things aren't bad.

Here are rules. Tell me which ones shouldn't be there:
1) Don't touch people if they don't want to be touched.
2) Don't introduce sexuality into the work environment.
3) Keep your professional dealings strictly professional.

There's no point on the back and forth, if we can't get the rules straight.

We just have to agree to disagree as I know the legal definitions but they ARE NOT applicable in a meaningful way to normal relations.

You POV that every single instance of a guy reaching across to touch a girls hand is battery if he did not know first she wanted him to and she may not have liked it after is simply silly in real world context. That does not mean I do not understand the strict and literal reading of the law.

I still want the answer to this...


You are saying two things that do not reconcile here.

You said prior that you do not always ask before touching. You follow with you are certain first via other info. Then admit you can and have been wrong.

Therefore you have touched wrongly, or at a minimum put yourself at risk of being wrong if you COULD have been mistaken or wrong.

So please elaborate to clear that up. Give a clear example of a situation where you did not ask, established touch, could have been wrong, but knew for fact you were not acting without knowing as those things are logically opposed to one another.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Go back and re-read what I said. I said I have been wrong about desire and intent but I always find out before I touch anyone.

No answer there unless I am missing something which I am asking you to clarify.

You have said you don't always ask first.

So the question is how then 'do you always know before touching' in a way that it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to ever be wrong?

 

[Nooob]

Title should be renamed to American women because nearly every metoo cases happen to be Americans.

 

[Prefect]

I heard that coal mines and lumberjack companies are also looking to hire fewer women because they're scared of being falsely accused of something.

Seriously, anecdotes aside, it's a lock that the next 10 years will see an increase in women being hired by WS firms.

Falsely accused? There is a whole world of people who have been grinning and bearing it. A sales rep in the petroleum industry here in Houston would talk about needing to drag along a partner to not be alone and having guys sticking their hands up her skirt when meeting up. I would gather that 95% of the accusations are real.