6 ms·

I'm not rich or single so I am really not the target market here. But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was allowed. I've los

I'm not rich or single so I am really not the target market here. But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was allowed. I've lost all sense of what is and isn't acceptable these days. It seems to change daily. It feels like not too long ago a couple guys lost their job for making a joke about dongles and forking. I fail to see how that was worse than this.

Dewie 12y ago
Maybe this is a dynamic that tends to emerge anyway, the only difference in this case being that it is direct and not subtle?
argumentum 12y ago
> I can't figure out how this was allowed Why wouldn't this "be allowed"? More importantly, what is the entity that would or would not be doing the "allowing"?
- sciguy77 12y ago
  I think he means "tolerated by the public/any reasonable readership." Several articles come to mind (particularly an op ed about gender roles from Fox News some two years ago) in which readers become outraged by something they've read. This is usually followed by a flurry of other articles in which the offensive piece in question is condemned. I think he means "how are people not more disturbed by this piece." Though perhaps OP can weigh in and explain it better.
  - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
    Yes. I didn't mean "allowed" as in some governing body handed down a decision to allow it. I've seen huge uproar over (what I see as) pretty minor things compared to this. Yet this seems to have rolled on happy without that. I don't like to use the F-word (feminist) but how are they managing to not explode in anger over this. I truly don't get it.
    - larrys 12y ago
      Two possibilities. They either don't know about it or they don't care. For further thought by someone "who doesn't see the problem" (me) read my other comment. Feel free to reply to that and let me know what you think about what I have said. I think it's a practical solution to a problem.
    - argumentum 12y ago
      What specifically do you find offensive about this? All the participants (male & female, consumers and company) are willing and eager. I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken. There is no analog here ..
rayiner 12y ago
> But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was allowed. I've lost all sense of what is and isn't acceptable these days. My slow path to conservatism.
- dctoedt 12y ago
  > My slow path to conservatism. If you mean conservatism of the political kind, come live in Texas for awhile to get a taste of life in a conservative state; you're likely to reconsider how far you want to go down that path. I'm a lifelong Republican and always thought of myself as fairly conservative; in recent years, though, mainly because of the Tea Party -- and the life lessons learned from the challenges of, e.g., raising two kids to adulthood -- I've probably voted for Democrats almost as often as for Republicans. I have Republican friends who are so disenchanted that they've talked about switching parties.
- mikeash 12y ago
  Solve the problem by making the list of acceptable behavior so small that you can remember it?
  - pooper 12y ago
    I can't tell if you are being serious but it can't be a white list. We'll have too many false positives.
  - MarkPNeyer 12y ago
    maybe he means this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I thought you were joking (and maybe you are) but now that I think about it, that's a really good life philosophy. Tolerate behavior in others beyond what you would engage in yourself. Of course, this works better for social conventions like "call me by my last name" or "pay for your date's dinner" than for stuff like "don't be gay", which is sadly what's more associated with conservatism in this country.
sciguy77 12y ago
I wish I could give this more up votes. I felt exactly the same way (though you put it more eloquently than I could).
jobu 12y ago
This sounds more like the plot of a reality TV show than a y-combinator company. It's definitely exploiting people, and reading the article made me feel dirty and a little sad for society.
- RichardFord 12y ago
  Really? It makes me a little sad when people that "aren't single and aren't the target market" think that things should be banned. Society is really becoming very intolerant because people don't conform to their little bubbles.
  - sciguy77 12y ago
    I don't think he's saying, "I'm not the target market, therefore ban articles that aren't relevant to me." It seems far more likely that saying he wasn't the target market was more of a disclaimer. I would disagree that his post is "intolerant." OP believes the piece is sexist, which you may or many not agree with, but taking issues with perceived sexism doesn't strike me as intolerant. Out of curiosity, are you affiliated with the article? I couldn't help but notice your account was made a few minutes ago (HN highlights new accounts).
    - RichardFord 12y ago
      He wants the practice to not be allowed, not the article. My point is just because he's not single and not the target market, he shouldn't be asking for a ban on a dating scheme. I'm single and find the whole idea of "flying in women to meet geeks" to be a bit strange, but this idea that it should be banned is ludicrous. There's too much "I don't like this" or "I don't understand this" so let's have some entity ban it. I have nothing to do with whatever these people are doing.
      - sharpasand 12y ago
        where do you see the demand or even asking that this practice be banned or even disallowed ?
Torgo 12y ago
This didn't happen in a "professional" setting like PyCon, for one thing.
- Dewie 12y ago
  It's weird that people are punished for talking about dongles in a professional setting when dongles are a technical term relevant to their profession, and the context of the word is not a joke or innuendo unless there is some insinuating tone of voice to accompany that otherwise pretty innocuous comment.
  - harryh 12y ago
    That's not weird at all cupcake. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanzug/13982071359/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanzug/13982071359/
    - Dewie 12y ago
      Explain to me how that relates to dongle-gate?
      - harryh 12y ago
        Words aren't just words. They have context. Sometimes a dongle as an adapter. Sometimes it's a dick. It's not hard to tell the difference.
        Dewie 12y ago
        Well that's my point. According to what I've heard about 'the incident', the statement could be interpreted to really just be about dongles in the relevant technical sense. And it was such a perfectly normal sentence that there were no clear signs of having deliberately tried to make a pun or something like that. So then you're just left with how the sentence was said, which we don't know much about (I think). > It's not hard to tell the difference. Perhaps, if you know that "dongle" is a technical term, and you don't take the sentence out of context (like overhearing only one sentence). Besides, many catch themselves in making unintentional puns and innuendos, only noticing after-the-fact that the sentence could be interpreted in another way. It surely isn't so unlikely that one can justify firing people point-blank when they do make such a mistake!
parennoob 12y ago
> It feels like not too long ago a couple guys lost their job for making a joke about dongles and forking. I fail to see how that was worse than this. That was Joe Schmoe male developer, who it is acceptable to fire for the slightest of reasons, including making an innocuous joke that wouldn't be out of place in a K-12 classroom. The men who are the customers of this startup are the rich guys in Silicon Valley who are awash in cash and cannot be fired. The two are worlds apart, don't be under any impression that they mix in any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, the first group (Joe Schmoe) is squeezed to the max by policing by interest groups like "Geek Feminism" and suchlike. Notably, Geek Feminism seems to have a neutral/positive approach to this Dating Ring thing (http://geekfeminism.org/2013/12/30/happy-new-linkspam-30-december-2013/ http://geekfeminism.org/2013/12/30/happy-new-linkspam-30-dec...) -- the company is referred to as "Y Combinator's first all-female company", and no negative comments.
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > The men who are the customers of this startup are the rich guys in Silicon Valley who are awash in cash and cannot be fired. I'm guessing you missed the news over the last couple months of GitHub[1] and Rap Genius[2] each letting a co-founder go? [1] https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-results https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-... [2] http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-fired/ http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-...
  - parennoob 12y ago
    This doesn't change the fact that those two are still awash in cash. They could easily be part of the rich guys in this program and this Dating Ring thing would welcome them with open arms. Meanwhile, Joe Dev who is working 10 hours a day will be fired for saying "Hee hee hee, look at this huge dongle I just got." at a tech conference.
- groby_b 12y ago
  Really? There's a interest police out to get all the poor guys? Or maybe, just maybe, it's time for guys to learn that women should be treated with respect. (And obviously vice versa, before that gets rolled out). Sexual innuendo does not qualify as respect. It certainly doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom. As for your "evidence" from GeekFeminism, you will note that that's a linkspam page, merely linking and quoting, without any commentary. And the quote is not about The Dating Ring, but about the changes that are necessary for the industry to become more diversified. (Yes, there's a lot of irony in this coming from the women who're responsible for this bride-for-sale scheme)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
viraptor 12y ago
Ignoring the first emotional reaction... what's actually gross about it. Sure, I wouldn't want the whole society to be based on a mail order bride model, and the whole thing sounds like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but wrong/gross? I don't think so. There was only one actually wrong part that was mentioned as far as I can tell (inappropriate touching) which was dealt with. (was just ignoring it enough? I'll leave that to the author) As long as the participants knew what they were getting into, I think it was fine - everyone got what they signed up for, no promises of results were given. (as far as I understand from the article)
noobermin 12y ago
I guess I might be an amoral degenerate, because I found the beginning rather funny. As long as these are consenting adults (save the creepy touching on that one date), what's wrong? I think it was on second thought that I found the whole idea a bit strange, all of this money spent just to give a few tech men dates?
chrismcb 12y ago
Is it ok for a group of girls in City A to try to find a group of guys in City A? Like say through a speed dating meetup? But it is wrong if the girls are from City A and the guys are from City B? Especially when they claim City A has 2 girls for every guy, and City B has 3 guys for every 2 girls? What exactly is the issue?
ohyes 12y ago
I think it's the level of cynicism required to execute on something like this. Not that I think this is bad or wrong, just a very cynical view of dating.

Dewie 12y ago

Maybe this is a dynamic that tends to emerge anyway, the only difference in this case being that it is direct and not subtle?

argumentum 12y ago

> I can't figure out how this was allowed Why wouldn't this "be allowed"? More importantly, what is the entity that would or would not be doing the "allowing"?

sciguy77 12y ago
I think he means "tolerated by the public/any reasonable readership." Several articles come to mind (particularly an op ed about gender roles from Fox News some two years ago) in which readers become outraged by something they've read. This is usually followed by a flurry of other articles in which the offensive piece in question is condemned. I think he means "how are people not more disturbed by this piece." Though perhaps OP can weigh in and explain it better.
- jack-r-abbit 12y ago
  Yes. I didn't mean "allowed" as in some governing body handed down a decision to allow it. I've seen huge uproar over (what I see as) pretty minor things compared to this. Yet this seems to have rolled on happy without that. I don't like to use the F-word (feminist) but how are they managing to not explode in anger over this. I truly don't get it.
  - larrys 12y ago
    Two possibilities. They either don't know about it or they don't care. For further thought by someone "who doesn't see the problem" (me) read my other comment. Feel free to reply to that and let me know what you think about what I have said. I think it's a practical solution to a problem.
  - argumentum 12y ago
    What specifically do you find offensive about this? All the participants (male & female, consumers and company) are willing and eager. I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken. There is no analog here ..

rayiner 12y ago

> But something about this feels really gross. I can't figure out how this was allowed. I've lost all sense of what is and isn't acceptable these days. My slow path to conservatism.

dctoedt 12y ago
> My slow path to conservatism. If you mean conservatism of the political kind, come live in Texas for awhile to get a taste of life in a conservative state; you're likely to reconsider how far you want to go down that path. I'm a lifelong Republican and always thought of myself as fairly conservative; in recent years, though, mainly because of the Tea Party -- and the life lessons learned from the challenges of, e.g., raising two kids to adulthood -- I've probably voted for Democrats almost as often as for Republicans. I have Republican friends who are so disenchanted that they've talked about switching parties.
mikeash 12y ago
Solve the problem by making the list of acceptable behavior so small that you can remember it?
- pooper 12y ago
  I can't tell if you are being serious but it can't be a white list. We'll have too many false positives.
- MarkPNeyer 12y ago
  maybe he means this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I thought you were joking (and maybe you are) but now that I think about it, that's a really good life philosophy. Tolerate behavior in others beyond what you would engage in yourself. Of course, this works better for social conventions like "call me by my last name" or "pay for your date's dinner" than for stuff like "don't be gay", which is sadly what's more associated with conservatism in this country.

sciguy77 12y ago

I wish I could give this more up votes. I felt exactly the same way (though you put it more eloquently than I could).

jobu 12y ago

This sounds more like the plot of a reality TV show than a y-combinator company. It's definitely exploiting people, and reading the article made me feel dirty and a little sad for society.

RichardFord 12y ago
Really? It makes me a little sad when people that "aren't single and aren't the target market" think that things should be banned. Society is really becoming very intolerant because people don't conform to their little bubbles.
- sciguy77 12y ago
  I don't think he's saying, "I'm not the target market, therefore ban articles that aren't relevant to me." It seems far more likely that saying he wasn't the target market was more of a disclaimer. I would disagree that his post is "intolerant." OP believes the piece is sexist, which you may or many not agree with, but taking issues with perceived sexism doesn't strike me as intolerant. Out of curiosity, are you affiliated with the article? I couldn't help but notice your account was made a few minutes ago (HN highlights new accounts).
  - RichardFord 12y ago
    He wants the practice to not be allowed, not the article. My point is just because he's not single and not the target market, he shouldn't be asking for a ban on a dating scheme. I'm single and find the whole idea of "flying in women to meet geeks" to be a bit strange, but this idea that it should be banned is ludicrous. There's too much "I don't like this" or "I don't understand this" so let's have some entity ban it. I have nothing to do with whatever these people are doing.
    - sharpasand 12y ago
      where do you see the demand or even asking that this practice be banned or even disallowed ?

Torgo 12y ago

This didn't happen in a "professional" setting like PyCon, for one thing.

Dewie 12y ago
It's weird that people are punished for talking about dongles in a professional setting when dongles are a technical term relevant to their profession, and the context of the word is not a joke or innuendo unless there is some insinuating tone of voice to accompany that otherwise pretty innocuous comment.
- harryh 12y ago
  That's not weird at all cupcake. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanzug/13982071359/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanzug/13982071359/
  - Dewie 12y ago
    Explain to me how that relates to dongle-gate?
    - harryh 12y ago
      Words aren't just words. They have context. Sometimes a dongle as an adapter. Sometimes it's a dick. It's not hard to tell the difference.
      - Dewie 12y ago
        Well that's my point. According to what I've heard about 'the incident', the statement could be interpreted to really just be about dongles in the relevant technical sense. And it was such a perfectly normal sentence that there were no clear signs of having deliberately tried to make a pun or something like that. So then you're just left with how the sentence was said, which we don't know much about (I think). > It's not hard to tell the difference. Perhaps, if you know that "dongle" is a technical term, and you don't take the sentence out of context (like overhearing only one sentence). Besides, many catch themselves in making unintentional puns and innuendos, only noticing after-the-fact that the sentence could be interpreted in another way. It surely isn't so unlikely that one can justify firing people point-blank when they do make such a mistake!

parennoob 12y ago

> It feels like not too long ago a couple guys lost their job for making a joke about dongles and forking. I fail to see how that was worse than this. That was Joe Schmoe male developer, who it is acceptable to fire for the slightest of reasons, including making an innocuous joke that wouldn't be out of place in a K-12 classroom. The men who are the customers of this startup are the rich guys in Silicon Valley who are awash in cash and cannot be fired. The two are worlds apart, don't be under any impression that they mix in any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, the first group (Joe Schmoe) is squeezed to the max by policing by interest groups like "Geek Feminism" and suchlike. Notably, Geek Feminism seems to have a neutral/positive approach to this Dating Ring thing (http://geekfeminism.org/2013/12/30/happy-new-linkspam-30-december-2013/ http://geekfeminism.org/2013/12/30/happy-new-linkspam-30-dec...) -- the company is referred to as "Y Combinator's first all-female company", and no negative comments.

frostmatthew 12y ago
> The men who are the customers of this startup are the rich guys in Silicon Valley who are awash in cash and cannot be fired. I'm guessing you missed the news over the last couple months of GitHub[1] and Rap Genius[2] each letting a co-founder go? [1] https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-results https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-... [2] http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-fired/ http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-...
- parennoob 12y ago
  This doesn't change the fact that those two are still awash in cash. They could easily be part of the rich guys in this program and this Dating Ring thing would welcome them with open arms. Meanwhile, Joe Dev who is working 10 hours a day will be fired for saying "Hee hee hee, look at this huge dongle I just got." at a tech conference.
groby_b 12y ago
Really? There's a interest police out to get all the poor guys? Or maybe, just maybe, it's time for guys to learn that women should be treated with respect. (And obviously vice versa, before that gets rolled out). Sexual innuendo does not qualify as respect. It certainly doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom. As for your "evidence" from GeekFeminism, you will note that that's a linkspam page, merely linking and quoting, without any commentary. And the quote is not about The Dating Ring, but about the changes that are necessary for the industry to become more diversified. (Yes, there's a lot of irony in this coming from the women who're responsible for this bride-for-sale scheme)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

viraptor 12y ago

Ignoring the first emotional reaction... what's actually gross about it. Sure, I wouldn't want the whole society to be based on a mail order bride model, and the whole thing sounds like Breakfast at Tiffany's, but wrong/gross? I don't think so. There was only one actually wrong part that was mentioned as far as I can tell (inappropriate touching) which was dealt with. (was just ignoring it enough? I'll leave that to the author) As long as the participants knew what they were getting into, I think it was fine - everyone got what they signed up for, no promises of results were given. (as far as I understand from the article)

noobermin 12y ago

I guess I might be an amoral degenerate, because I found the beginning rather funny. As long as these are consenting adults (save the creepy touching on that one date), what's wrong? I think it was on second thought that I found the whole idea a bit strange, all of this money spent just to give a few tech men dates?

chrismcb 12y ago

Is it ok for a group of girls in City A to try to find a group of guys in City A? Like say through a speed dating meetup? But it is wrong if the girls are from City A and the guys are from City B? Especially when they claim City A has 2 girls for every guy, and City B has 3 guys for every 2 girls? What exactly is the issue?

ohyes 12y ago

I think it's the level of cynicism required to execute on something like this. Not that I think this is bad or wrong, just a very cynical view of dating.