4 ms·

Not to take this on a tangent but wait till female interns at VC firms decide to speak up. They put up with abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal

Not to take this on a tangent but wait till female interns at VC firms decide to speak up. They put up with abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal hours.

lettergram 9y ago
To be fair, I too am invited to parties at abnormal hours, or out to bars (and I don't drink), or to the water parks, etc. I think it's important we keep things in perspective and review every case as a unique occurrence (or every person at least). There's a danger in generalizing. There is obvious sexism (perhaps a ton of it), but I also think it's not really helpful to just assume certain requests are sexist. Especially, in the example you just gave, where female interns "abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal hours". I'm sure it happens all the time, there may even be a small sexual component (just like every other industry), however it may be just as sexist not to invite them... Unless it impacts their career, or in some disenfranchises them, I really don't see it as an issue. I can tell you that I turn down literally every event outside of work that isn't 9am - 5pm. It may impact my career (although I don' think so), I think people just feel pressured about it. I can't tell you how pressured I felt turning down our teams offsite to a ski resort. I turned it down because it wasn't in my job description, but also because of the following: (a) I like to spend time with my family (b) I don't like skiing (c) All the women had their own rooms, while the guys had to share (d) I have a fulfilling life outside of work The reason I bring that up, is a lot of people may look at that situation as sexist. It actually did disenfranchise me to not go. Literally, I was told "it's required, you have to go", I still said no. Personally, I view it as a difference in lifestyles and expectations. I'm not offended that they made me feel uncomfortable with the offer (idk if I should, maybe...), I however am upset that I lost something out of it. I think that's what we need to fix, fix the expectation that work leaves the office. It's fairly easy to not make people feel uncomfortable if the expectation that 9am - 5pm it's a "safe space", anything that happens there you put your work hat on and work appropriately. Then when the shift ends, your free to put your fun hat on. Don't mix the two, and you'll have a hell of a lot less problems. Even with your example, that wouldn't occur.
- URSpider94 9y ago
  I feel for you, I do. I feel the same way about extracurricular events. But, I think what you're missing is that gender discrimination isn't black and white. It's a matter of percentages. Let's say bagging out on weekend ski trips impacts 30% of men, and 42% of women, because women bear more responsibility for child care tasks, or because they are wary of spending a beer-fueled weekend snowed in with their male co-workers. Now multiply that by a dozen other independent circumstances where women are disadvantaged, even by a percent or two, and you quickly end up with an immense headwind. Again, that's not to say that you aren't impacted too. But in all likelihood, you come out ahead or even on some of the other dozen issues.
  - Grustaf 9y ago
    If you suffer because of life choices like spending time with your children or not liking binge beer drinking, that may be unfortunate but is not "sexism". Even if it happens that women tend to make different choices. It's like if you have a policy of only hiring people with CS degrees. That's not sexist, just because most CS graduates are men. You can't hold the company responsible for the fact that women on average choose to spend more time with their family and are less inclined to stuy certain subjects. Unless you discriminate against them BECAUSE they are women, it's not sexism.
    - URSpider94 9y ago
      Yes and no. Requiring a computer science degree is a fairly reasonable restriction to place on hiring, since it (at least on its face) correlates strongly with qualification for the job. However, requiring all your employees to go on a bro's ski weekend trip, or serving your free dinner at 8 PM every day when none of the women with families can stay for dinner, may have a disparate impact on employees without any correlation to their work performance. To turn up the contrast and make a semi-absurd argument, one could say, "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, but we ask all applicants to recite the Lord's Prayer from memory in their interview. Strangely, we never seem to hire any Hindu or Muslim applicants." OK, that's absurd, but what if you only recruit at universities that have extremely low female:male graduation ratios in their CS programs, when there are other programs with better balance? That's certainly not discriminatory on its face, but it has the same result as if you had discriminated overtly. Sexism may not be the right word (and I didn't use that word), but I do think it's important to look at the results of your policies and environment in totality to determine if you are treating women equitably. This is certainly the standard that the courts use for evaluating things like voting regulations -- look at the recent rulings on North Carolina's voting laws: actions like curtailing the number of weekend voting days that do not mention race at all are clearly crafted to reduce participation by black voters.

Not to take this on a tangent but wait till female interns at VC firms decide to speak up. They put up with abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal hours.

lettergram 9y ago

To be fair, I too am invited to parties at abnormal hours, or out to bars (and I don't drink), or to the water parks, etc. I think it's important we keep things in perspective and review every case as a unique occurrence (or every person at least). There's a danger in generalizing. There is obvious sexism (perhaps a ton of it), but I also think it's not really helpful to just assume certain requests are sexist. Especially, in the example you just gave, where female interns "abnormal requests for attending parties at abnormal hours". I'm sure it happens all the time, there may even be a small sexual component (just like every other industry), however it may be just as sexist not to invite them... Unless it impacts their career, or in some disenfranchises them, I really don't see it as an issue. I can tell you that I turn down literally every event outside of work that isn't 9am - 5pm. It may impact my career (although I don' think so), I think people just feel pressured about it. I can't tell you how pressured I felt turning down our teams offsite to a ski resort. I turned it down because it wasn't in my job description, but also because of the following: (a) I like to spend time with my family (b) I don't like skiing (c) All the women had their own rooms, while the guys had to share (d) I have a fulfilling life outside of work The reason I bring that up, is a lot of people may look at that situation as sexist. It actually did disenfranchise me to not go. Literally, I was told "it's required, you have to go", I still said no. Personally, I view it as a difference in lifestyles and expectations. I'm not offended that they made me feel uncomfortable with the offer (idk if I should, maybe...), I however am upset that I lost something out of it. I think that's what we need to fix, fix the expectation that work leaves the office. It's fairly easy to not make people feel uncomfortable if the expectation that 9am - 5pm it's a "safe space", anything that happens there you put your work hat on and work appropriately. Then when the shift ends, your free to put your fun hat on. Don't mix the two, and you'll have a hell of a lot less problems. Even with your example, that wouldn't occur.

URSpider94 9y ago
I feel for you, I do. I feel the same way about extracurricular events. But, I think what you're missing is that gender discrimination isn't black and white. It's a matter of percentages. Let's say bagging out on weekend ski trips impacts 30% of men, and 42% of women, because women bear more responsibility for child care tasks, or because they are wary of spending a beer-fueled weekend snowed in with their male co-workers. Now multiply that by a dozen other independent circumstances where women are disadvantaged, even by a percent or two, and you quickly end up with an immense headwind. Again, that's not to say that you aren't impacted too. But in all likelihood, you come out ahead or even on some of the other dozen issues.
- Grustaf 9y ago
  If you suffer because of life choices like spending time with your children or not liking binge beer drinking, that may be unfortunate but is not "sexism". Even if it happens that women tend to make different choices. It's like if you have a policy of only hiring people with CS degrees. That's not sexist, just because most CS graduates are men. You can't hold the company responsible for the fact that women on average choose to spend more time with their family and are less inclined to stuy certain subjects. Unless you discriminate against them BECAUSE they are women, it's not sexism.
  - URSpider94 9y ago
    Yes and no. Requiring a computer science degree is a fairly reasonable restriction to place on hiring, since it (at least on its face) correlates strongly with qualification for the job. However, requiring all your employees to go on a bro's ski weekend trip, or serving your free dinner at 8 PM every day when none of the women with families can stay for dinner, may have a disparate impact on employees without any correlation to their work performance. To turn up the contrast and make a semi-absurd argument, one could say, "We don't discriminate on the basis of religion, but we ask all applicants to recite the Lord's Prayer from memory in their interview. Strangely, we never seem to hire any Hindu or Muslim applicants." OK, that's absurd, but what if you only recruit at universities that have extremely low female:male graduation ratios in their CS programs, when there are other programs with better balance? That's certainly not discriminatory on its face, but it has the same result as if you had discriminated overtly. Sexism may not be the right word (and I didn't use that word), but I do think it's important to look at the results of your policies and environment in totality to determine if you are treating women equitably. This is certainly the standard that the courts use for evaluating things like voting regulations -- look at the recent rulings on North Carolina's voting laws: actions like curtailing the number of weekend voting days that do not mention race at all are clearly crafted to reduce participation by black voters.