4 ms·

> 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

by 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

"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.