> If we are to work with women, we really need this hysteria to calm down. I don't know if you are familiar with where the term "hysteria" originated, but it i

> If we are to work with women, we really need this hysteria to calm down. I don't know if you are familiar with where the term "hysteria" originated, but it is about as appropriate in this context as the word "uppity" is in discussing race relations. I'd reject the idea that this was "hysteria" out of hand, in any case. The context strongly suggests women being treated as perks, and people are naturally going to be suspicious of an industry that throws up instances like this: http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-startup-class-5-notes-essay http://blakemasters.com/post/21437840885/peter-thiels-cs183-... (CTRL+F "hoops") That doesn't mean I think the guy is definitely a bigot (there is a good chance he is merely terrible at communication and worryingly naive), but his defence is not doing himself many favours (mostly relying on the "it's just a joke guys! Gawhd, can't I just make a joke?" approach). It does mean that I think the reaction is valid. If you say something that means something very specific, you don't get to call everyone irrational hysterics when they interpret your statement in that very specific way.