Holding a knife to someone's throat is far more than harassment... as in that is straight up intent to kill someone. Dude needs a fair trial where all these facts are checked, and if true, needs a life sentence. There is 0 room for that sort of behavior in a civilized society.
I don't want to detract from the cause here, but I think there is an important distinction: Cruz (alleged knife guy), was not a conference attendee. He was "just a guy in the bar":
> At the time, Cruz was working for Reveal, an electronic discovery company. Reveal confirmed to NPR that Cruz was an employee at the company but "was not invited by Reveal to attend Legalweek (not a badged attendee)" nor was Cruz "present at any Legalweek-sanctioned event."
I would put this in the category of low quality reporting unfortunately. I _thought_ this was going to be about male attendees harassing female attendees, which I believe to be the desired focus of female attendees, from what I understand.
Perhaps I'm wrong? I think what happened is a serious issue, but it is miscategorized.
“Cruz now faces misdemeanor charges of harassment, menacing and criminal possession of a weapon, according to a criminal court complaint from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Cruz has pleaded not guilty in this case.”
The headline is a bit of a shame - makes it seem like an article from the past, but it's not. This was also a bit more than harassment - the article says the offender pulled a knife.
The other reports and not just the knife and bar incident are really awful as well and like hidden half way down the article:
> Here's a sampling of stories Fleener shared:
> "'Last night, I was propositioned in the most graphic way I've ever heard. When I turned him down, he tried to convince me to leave with him by telling me his pregnant wife was on bedrest and I was doing her a favor.'"
> "'A leader at a firm showed me a video of 2 girls under 20 in his bedroom naked and and [sic] invited me and the other woman I was with to join him.'"
> Another female executive, Samantha Mather, wrote about the trials of more than 15 years in legal tech, from being physically accosted at a company event to countless inappropriate comments and having to avoid one-on-one meetings with some men in her industry.
> When she recruited two trusted male colleagues to stay close to her as allies, Mather said, some men pestered her anyway — or asked about her relationship with the pair.
> "You literally cannot win," she wrote on LinkedIn.
On the other hand. The headline does leave out details, but is still pretty accurate for that one scene. I guess it could say 1 person assaulted and another harassed at a tech conference. For the article mostly being focused on women being harassed by men, it's easy to miss that it was a man who was assaulted, Shimmy, (hence a different person) who got the knife pulled on him for standing up for Bier (the woman who was harassed by Cruz). I had to reread it to realize that. More people in this world should be like Shimmy (and more companies like Microsoft [atleast in this instance]) that's kind of one of the points that the article is about that it doesn't matter who you are when you see something is wrong you do something to alleviate the problem. I mean you don't need to be a hero like Shimmy necessarily, but anything you find within your power to alleviate is better than nothing. Just like the event holders should have done something about harassment happening at their event.
1. It happened at a midtown bar, not at the conference
2. The person who assaulted them was not a conference attendee
3. The conference wasn't even a tech conference (!!), it was a legal conference
Not to detract from how upsetting I'm sure it was, or the other reports from other women. But, how is this not an incredibly misleading attempt to get clicks by making it tech-related?
1. There seems to be sanctioned and "external events". It happened at an external event. But it seems to have been some event related to the conference.
2. The article didn't say that, as far as I understand. Apparently, he wasn't there on behalf of his employer. In any case, he apparently got invited by an attending former colleague. Again, context of the conference.
3. It was a "legal tech" conference. What?
> But, how is this not an incredibly misleading attempt to get clicks by making it tech-related?
It's NPR, what kind of motives are you suggesting here? Pumping engagement metrics to get government funding?
I think, you intentionally framed the article at least as much, as you lament here.
> 1. There seems to be sanctioned and "external events". It happened at an external event. But it seems to have been some event related to the conference.
"Then they hit up a bar called The Three Monkeys, not far from the Hilton conference hotel in Midtown Manhattan." It sounds like they just went to get drinks at a bar. It being near the conference venue is meaningless, this is midtown Manhattan, there's 10 bars on every block and probably half a dozen conferences going on at any given time.
Someone else already addressed your second point.
> 3. It was a "legal tech" conference. What?
"Legalweek New York is the one week in which thousands of legal professionals gather to explore the Business and Regulatory Trends, Technology and Talent drivers impacting the industry" (from https://www.event.law.com/legalweek/who-we-are)
Any conference in any industry is probably going to involve technology at least a bit, because it's 2024 and technology is everywhere. That doesn't make it a "tech conference".
“At the time, Cruz was working for Reveal, an electronic discovery company. Reveal confirmed to NPR that Cruz was an employee at the company but "was not invited by Reveal to attend Legalweek (not a badged attendee)" nor was Cruz "present at any Legalweek-sanctioned event."”
> In addition to the conference itself, the gathering features off-site events and sponsored parties at luxe locations like the Rainbow Room at Rockefeller Center. Those kinds of outings are important to attend, especially for individuals who are just starting their career, Lord said.
> "We understand that the individual appeared at a nearby venue, as a local, on the invitation of a former colleague who is completely unassociated with Reveal. Moreover, he was not with Reveal employees at the venue and was present completely of his own accord."
I mean we can totally speculate what's considered "at the conference" in its culture all we want, I ended the argument with an "In any case...".
I work in a typical tech company and I was expecting some `tech bro` style harassment. But this event seems indeed far fetched as pointed out by the others
yeah it is a shame when headlines lies about what happened to pretend "tech culture hates women"
>She was harassed at a tech conference
>Bier and a small group of about 10, [...] grabbed dinner together on Jan. 31, during the weeklong conference. Then they hit up a bar called The Three Monkeys, not far from the Hilton conference hotel in Midtown Manhattan.
>Bier was standing at the bar when she was suddenly faced with a man who, she said, seemed very drunk
>Cruz allegedly took out a knife from his pocket, held it to Shimmy's throat and threatened him
>Fed up with what they see as their industry's tolerance of men's transgressions and predatory behavior
wait what? tech "culture" condones drunk dudes at bars who pull knives on people?
>Since the conference ended in early February, many women have taken to social media, detailing precarious and threatening situations they were forced to navigate in between the conference's speeches, vendor events, receptions and private parties. Their consensus is that the problems extend far beyond Legalweek
It's the context of your article quote
>Fed up with what they see as their industry's tolerance of men's transgressions and predatory behavior.
You make it look like it's about the single incident only and not about the experiences of multiple women.
> yeah it is a shame when headlines lies about what happened to pretend "tech culture hates women"
What should the headline say? I don't see any place in the headline that says tech culture hates women. The article goes on to say she was harrased and other people are speaking up as well.
>>Fed up with what they see as their industry's tolerance of men's transgressions and predatory behavior
>wait what? tech "culture" condones drunk dudes at bars who pull knives on people?
Do you really think anyone speaking out about this is based on one incident? I'm not sure what's offending you, but if you've been around conferences, bars, and people enough, none of this is hard to imagine.
According to a strict reading of the headline, no, it's not claiming tech culture hates women. Also according to a strict reading of the article, no harassment took place at the conference venues. I guess all is well with the world, a strict reading supports no other conclusion.
Flag this clickbait unless you think it's relevant somebody had a knife pulled on them at a bar in NYC when there was also a legal conference happening elsewhere.
I don't want to detract from the cause here, but I think there is an important distinction: Cruz (alleged knife guy), was not a conference attendee. He was "just a guy in the bar":
> At the time, Cruz was working for Reveal, an electronic discovery company. Reveal confirmed to NPR that Cruz was an employee at the company but "was not invited by Reveal to attend Legalweek (not a badged attendee)" nor was Cruz "present at any Legalweek-sanctioned event."
I would put this in the category of low quality reporting unfortunately. I _thought_ this was going to be about male attendees harassing female attendees, which I believe to be the desired focus of female attendees, from what I understand.
Perhaps I'm wrong? I think what happened is a serious issue, but it is miscategorized.