3 ms·

Can somebody explain me why the situation described in the tweet is an example of sexism? The person wants to donate, and wants to speak with some other person

by smsm42 8y ago

Can somebody explain me why the situation described in the tweet is an example of sexism? The person wants to donate, and wants to speak with some other person about it with which he is comfortable dealing. That person happens to be male and his boss (the author of the tweet) happens to be female. Why does it make the situation sexist? Is there an obligation that if I contact somebody in the organization to make a donation, I must speak to a person of an opposite gender or I will appear sexist? Is there something else in the situation that did not fit in a tweet? How this situation is a no-win for Karen Sandler - isn't she getting the donation her organization needs, and having her employee do the work that is his job? Maybe she wanted to speak with that person instead, so maybe that is not all-win, but it doesn't seem to be no-win. What am I missing here?

eesmith 8y ago
There are many ways it can be sexist. Let's start with "which he is comfortable dealing". There can be many reasons why a person could be uncomfortable. One could be that he does not believe women are not authority figures, and that Sandler's role as director is a figurehead. So, if he is "comfortable" dealing with Kuhn, but not with Sandler, simply because Sandler is a women, then actions which make him more comfortable is supporting a form of sexual discrimination. You ask "Is there an obligation that ..." The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do. In the case of making a donation to the Conservancy, it seems the most appropriate thing is to talk with the current Executive Director. Who happens to be a woman. I see no need to posit there is an implied obligation to "speak to a person of an opposite gender or I will appear sexist". You write "isn't she getting the donation her organization needs, and having her employee do the work that is his job?" An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole. As an example of a no-win situation, suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation. On the other hand, Kuhn and others might decided they don't want to work in that sort of environment, and leave. Thus, it's not always the case that "getting a donation" is something that an organization needs. Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job?
- smsm42 8y ago
  > The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate? I.e. if I think person A is the most appropriate and somebody thinks it's person B, is my opinion sexist if A is male and B is female? I.e., is there a place for reasonable disagreement which is not sexist? I mean, if the sole reason he prefers Kuhn to Sandler is because of her gender, this is obviously sexist, by definition, but why the assumption is it's the sole reason? Is there anything indicating it is so? > An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole. How donating after speaking with her employee undermines the organization? From my experience, that's how a lot of donations happen - people speak to the employees of the NGO, understand that the mission of the org is the one they want to support and donate. Many times it's not the CEO - the CEO can't possibly meet with all donors. And sometimes donors meet with specific people doing things, just to understand that things that are being done are those they indeed want to support. > suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation. "Pressuring" anyone might be a wrong move, no doubt, but even if it happened - which I don't see any indication it did - how it is sexist? > Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job? I didn't know. I assumed it is since otherwise it'd be very weird from the side of the donor to request it and I prefer not to assume bad behavior without evidence. And since he has the CEO job before, which means he met with a lot of people and had established old relationships. In case it is not his job, it's indeed weird, but still doesn't answer why it is sexist.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    "What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate?" The people who are receiving the funding usually get to decide what they consider to be the appropriate mechanism. That's pretty objective, yes? "how it is sexist?" Unwelcome sexual advances are covered under EEOC guidelines regarding hostile workplaces, under US civil rights laws. In this case, the pressure to go on a date would be described as an implicit term or condition of an individual's employment. I enjoyed reading the EEOC guidelines on sexual harassment, some years back. It was a real eye-opener to have relatively objective descriptions of what sexual harassment in the workplace means, and to read case stories of what was judged to be sexual harassment.

by smsm42 8y ago

eesmith 8y ago

There are many ways it can be sexist. Let's start with "which he is comfortable dealing". There can be many reasons why a person could be uncomfortable. One could be that he does not believe women are not authority figures, and that Sandler's role as director is a figurehead. So, if he is "comfortable" dealing with Kuhn, but not with Sandler, simply because Sandler is a women, then actions which make him more comfortable is supporting a form of sexual discrimination. You ask "Is there an obligation that ..." The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do. In the case of making a donation to the Conservancy, it seems the most appropriate thing is to talk with the current Executive Director. Who happens to be a woman. I see no need to posit there is an implied obligation to "speak to a person of an opposite gender or I will appear sexist". You write "isn't she getting the donation her organization needs, and having her employee do the work that is his job?" An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole. As an example of a no-win situation, suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation. On the other hand, Kuhn and others might decided they don't want to work in that sort of environment, and leave. Thus, it's not always the case that "getting a donation" is something that an organization needs. Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job?

smsm42 8y ago
> The obligation is to speak with the person who is most appropriate for what you want to do What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate? I.e. if I think person A is the most appropriate and somebody thinks it's person B, is my opinion sexist if A is male and B is female? I.e., is there a place for reasonable disagreement which is not sexist? I mean, if the sole reason he prefers Kuhn to Sandler is because of her gender, this is obviously sexist, by definition, but why the assumption is it's the sole reason? Is there anything indicating it is so? > An organization depends on a long-term continuity of structure. If that structure is undermined by doing whatever is necessary for the short-term gain of a single donation, then it risks the organization as whole. How donating after speaking with her employee undermines the organization? From my experience, that's how a lot of donations happen - people speak to the employees of the NGO, understand that the mission of the org is the one they want to support and donate. Many times it's not the CEO - the CEO can't possibly meet with all donors. And sometimes donors meet with specific people doing things, just to understand that things that are being done are those they indeed want to support. > suppose I were to offer $10M to the Conservancy, but gate it on having a date with Kuhn, then one view is that Sandler should pressure Kuhn to go on a date with me, because it will result in a donation. "Pressuring" anyone might be a wrong move, no doubt, but even if it happened - which I don't see any indication it did - how it is sexist? > Also, regarding "that is his job" - how do you know that private meeting with a potential donor is part of Kuhn's job? I didn't know. I assumed it is since otherwise it'd be very weird from the side of the donor to request it and I prefer not to assume bad behavior without evidence. And since he has the CEO job before, which means he met with a lot of people and had established old relationships. In case it is not his job, it's indeed weird, but still doesn't answer why it is sexist.
- eesmith 8y ago
  "What is the objective criteria of who is the most appropriate?" The people who are receiving the funding usually get to decide what they consider to be the appropriate mechanism. That's pretty objective, yes? "how it is sexist?" Unwelcome sexual advances are covered under EEOC guidelines regarding hostile workplaces, under US civil rights laws. In this case, the pressure to go on a date would be described as an implicit term or condition of an individual's employment. I enjoyed reading the EEOC guidelines on sexual harassment, some years back. It was a real eye-opener to have relatively objective descriptions of what sexual harassment in the workplace means, and to read case stories of what was judged to be sexual harassment.