At Vice, Cutting-Edge Media and Allegations of Old-School Sexual Harassment | Hacker News Reader

At Vice, Cutting-Edge Media and Allegations of Old-School Sexual Harassment

nytimes.com

143 pointsmrjaeger100 comments

I'd heard rumors about this at Vice. Glad to see it getting some air.

Stories like this are important, because I think the traditional view of sexual harassment is that it happens at JP Morgan, or Exxon, or "stodgy" old companies.

People don't think that it can happen at their cool, hip workplace where everyone's woke. But, power is power.

Incidentally, and totally based off of a gut reaction and not data: I wonder if this is the death knell of "company outings." More and more it feels like people are content to let work be work, and avoiding things like holiday parties and after-work gatherings.

I wonder if it's partially because of situations like this: You might be inappropriately propositioned. Or, you might have too much to drink and make an inappropriate advance - I don't even mean anything grossly egregious here necessarily, but a superior making an advance on their subordinate is pretty inappropriate even if the advance itself is tame.

> but a superior making an advance on their subordinate is pretty inappropriate even if the advance itself is tame.

My thoughts have tended to arrive at the same conclusion. But, this idea seems to be a lot less popular than I'd expect. While the problem might be abuse of power, the popular conversation at the moment, oddly, is not. I wish I understood better why that is.

I agree it is helpful that the contradictions (often around cultural image) get air time. I wonder if this kind of thing can lead the popular conversation to a point of discourse that confronts the similarities in so many of the outcries, such as abuse of power.

I think, in general, that it is totally fine to have company outings, but propositions of any sort should be avoided. You're certainly asking each individual to have self discipline, but in my mind this is a very reasonable expectation.

As a rule, everyone should probably avoid relationships at work. If you do decide to have a relationship, do it right and start extremely slowly (i.e. coffee shop date, etc). Feel things out, not up :) and make sure that both people have the same ideas before moving to the next level. Relationships between superiors and subordinates should generally be forbidden.

On the other hand, think about how much time you spend at work. How close your interactions are with others. We - human beings - are jammed into little 4-walled boxes for the majority of our days with a bunch of people we already have something huge in common with...and told not to get too close with them. It's pretty wild, the whole scenario.

As a married guy I find this line of thinking hard to understand. “How are we supposed to work so closely with these people without getting ‘too close?’” Uh, I’m not allowed to solicit a date in any context: work, the grocery store, cafes, etc. Somehow I manage, and so do most married people.

It's not that point I read from the parent. It's that they're prime candidates so it's unfortunate to waste that connection. Not that it in any way is hard to resist urges.

As a married guy, if your marriage is truly fulfilling, this problem is irrelevant to you.

Given that proximity is the single largest determining factor in romantic partnership, if you work the majority of your time then coworkers will be your most promising dating pool. If you don't work much, you're probably stressed from unemployment. The number of people that have free time to enjoy close proximity with non-coworkers is certainly a minority.

> told not to get too close with them

Well, I don't think that's true really. Nobody cares if you're close friends with your co-workers. Many co-workers are close friends.

But, I get that you meant romantic relationships.

The problem of course being that there's so much negative baggage that often accompanies unsuccessful or unrequited romantic interest, all of it detrimental to the company. For example: If a subordinate rejects a superior's advances, and there's even a whiff of unfair treatment (being passed over for promotion, for example), the subordinate has a legitimate grievance that they didn't before.

The woman in the article, for example, that rejected her boss's advances and then was later let go for "poor performance": Maybe she really was performing extremely poorly! And maybe the boss really was totally over it immediately. But she now has a pretty solid case that it was retaliation, forever.

It just puts the company in a position where they have to be hyper-vigilant about monitoring things like this, and it's a huge waste of resources. Regardless of how valuable you are to the company, you're almost certainly not worth the huge headache that you just caused.

> For example: If a subordinate rejects a superior's advances, and there's even a whiff of unfair treatment (being passed over for promotion, for example), the subordinate has a legitimate grievance that they didn't before

The damage happens the minute the superior makes the advance. Maybe the superior is enlightened and won’t hold a rejection against the subordinate. But how is the subordinate supposed to know that? It puts the subordinate person in an incredibly stressful situation.

And even if the superior thinks they can be objective, is that true? Will the superior continue to treat the subordinate exactly the same, try to mentor and help the subordinate move up in the company? Or will the superior try to decrease contact with the subordinate in order to avoid awkwardness? That robs the subordinate of career opportunities, just because they attracted the eye of a superior. That’s incredibly fucked up.

All very true. I was more thinking from the company's perspective (who often are the ones overtly discouraging inter-office relationships).

> I think, in general, that it is totally fine to have company outings, but propositions of any sort should be avoided.

It's more that I wonder if this is just another nail in the coffin. Again, totally not based on data of any sort, but it seems like people are less and less enthused about company outings and this might just be one more easy justification for not attending the holiday party.

> everyone should probably avoid relationships at work

That's pretty unrealistic. I recall a statistic that 40% of marriages evolve from office romances. People get into relationships with people they are around.

I don’t know about marriages, but this source says 10% of heterosexual couples met at work (dropping sharply): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003122412448050

I certainly didn't mean to foreclose the option entirely, but I'd start my search for a serious relationship somewhere other than the office. Remember that office romances can also cause major workplace strife if they don't end well. In any case, I also provided a brief description of how an office relationship (or any one, for that matter) might be done safely.

The problem will be solved by having company outings, but simply declare them privat and no longer invite colleagues with 'trouble' potential. You cant lawsuit people for there private lifes. Works for politicians already. Result of this will be a even more closed club.

It's true.

Very easy to have a couple drinks on the rooftop for X event, see women as sexy then go back downstairs for mischief.

Of course, that's both sides wanting it.

i've never understood those who think work is an appropriate place to seek romantic relationships. There's an old saying, "You don't shit where you eat"

Those whose attractions to people and whose relationships with them are more akin to shitting will have an easier time remembering and applying that one. Though people for whom that's the case, probably don't care.

Meanwhile those with good intentions and good relationships (even ones that eventually turn to shit) will see nothing at the outset to remind them of the old saw. They don't intend to shit, anywhere.

Also, if we're trying to decide here which primitive need to prioritize (sex vs. food) then sex is going to win every time, because at least for males, it's far more valuable to the species (in the evolutionary selection sense) than his procurement of food. If a male starves to death after passing his genes on, those genes march on, downward through time. (Not that a hapless office drudge and would-be harasser or uncomfortable-maker will necessarily end up passing any genes on, but his sex drive doesn't know that. That drive is pretty dumb in general.)

Still, I agree with your point. Maybe better & more instructive is just to "keep work professional" and leave it at that. Sounds a little dry perhaps. But work should be dry. All these companies that keep demanding "passion" and try to be your mom and best friend and social life all wrapped into one, are asking for trouble. Your life doesn't need to be a Greek myth. Get back to work.

i've never understood those who think work is an appropriate place to seek romantic relationships.

Like Barack and Michelle Obama? People are human. Put a bunch of single people with similar backgrounds in an office for a third or more of their waking lives, and there are going to be relationships happening unless you institute draconian policies, and probably even then.

As a general rule for life I've always made sure to keep anything romantic out of my work life. If there was someone important enough to me that I worked with who I wanted to approach in that sense I'd wait until one of us moved onto another job. I'm not willing to say the vast majority of work related flings and relationships end up in disaster but I'm sure a lot of other people won't say that the majority wind up as fairy tale endings, either.

I'm surprised more people don't live and die by this rule. It's something I decided on as a teen to avoid drama, purely, in my life. It wasn't something constructed from advice from elders or lessons learned through other people's nightmare stories. This idea wasn't constructed for a lifetime of self preservation or to protect something important to me. It was a fairly simple concept about reading the situation and showing respect for everyone involved including co-workers.

With you 100%. Sure, meeting people at work happens— in America people spend 8-12 hours a day there. But best to not act on anything until one or both parties don’t work at the same place.

My dad had a slightly gross phrase for this: ‘don’t shit where you eat’.

As in there’s no sense in potentially poisoning workplace relations if a romantic overture or relationship doesn’t go well.

I've worked at places that imported 1000s of college grads per year. In environments like this, there's no way to avoid office romance. The best you can do is put "No dating subordinates" in the company plan, and avoid serving excess amounts of alcohol at company events. (At one of the place I worked, the reason they stopped hard alcohol had to do with a DUI rather than harassment)

Where I grew up it was: Don’t fish off of the company pier

Related story from last month: https://www.thedailybeast.com/unsafe-and-just-plain-dirty-wo...

One of the interesting parts to come out of that (and from the OP) is VICE's "non-traditional workplace agreement":

> New hires at Vice also sign a “Non-Traditional Workplace Agreement,” an infamous internal document that requires employees with no experience at Vice to agree as a condition of employment to not be generally offended by anything that goes on there.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4203989-Non-Traditio...

> to not be generally offended by anything that goes on there.

Is it a one way or two way street at Vice - ie. are you allowed to "offend" in your turn too?

Seems pretty one way:

> One woman said she was riding a Ferris wheel at Coney Island after a company event when a co-worker suddenly took her hand and put it on his crotch.

So basically the letter the women sign is a license for certain men in a elevated position to assault women.

I feel like this kind of shit puts us two steps back, especially when the American president is accused of similar behavior towards woman, now it will give that side another "whatboutism" ammunition.

I have a strong nagging feeling that there are bound to be more #metoo stories shortly from Vice.

I mean it's so fucking bizarre to have a systematic infrastructure set in place to allow it's higher up members to traumatize defenseless women.

If the mainstream media wanted to destroy Vice once and for all, now seems like an appropriate opportunity.

> If the mainstream media wanted to destroy Vice once and for all, now seems like an appropriate opportunity.

So I guess its well accepted now that "mainstream media" is not merely there to report what is going on but have active agendas to shape the world according to their wishes. It a weapon of destruction.

> So I guess its well accepted now that "mainstream media" is not merely there to report what is going on but have active agendas to shape the world according to their wishes. It a weapon of destruction.

I'm not sure what you're angling for, but they're all corporations with market interests. The NYT itsself authored the article.

Your comment appears to be reaching pretty hard to throw in that MSM comment.

Wat? That was a quote of parent. Besides, Vice would have to try pretty hard to get more mainstream than it already is. Is TFA not discussing Matt-Lauer-style remote-kidnapping locks?

That’s been true since Watergate.

I've signed something similar at other companies. Talking about sex work at a regular company is inappropriate. But discussing an article your co worker wrote about sex workers is okay because it's your job to cover vices.

The agreement protects Vice from being sued for the second scenario, but not the first. Though I've encountered employees who interpret it as "anything goes."

People who work on search engines, build family friendly filters, or categorize apps and movies have to deal with porn. But that doesn't mean employees are allowed to watch porn. One story I heard about Bing is that they go to a covered conference room whenever they need to view adult material. A good idea to not expose porn to bystanders.

Straight from 2004:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/av759j/the-vice-v11n5

"The VICE Guide to Partying

Here are some of the types you'll need to invite.

TRANSSEXUAL: Pre-op is good, but post–breast implants, pre–gender reassignment is PERFECTION. All transsexuals are slutty, so don't worry about that. This guest is a very high priority and should be catered to accordingly. Put her first in the queue for cocaine and drinks. Tell her how pretty she is. Touch her a lot.

GUY WHO WILL FUCK TRANSSEXUAL: He is your #2 guy, your party wingman. If the tranny doesn't feel loved, she will leave. Then you're fucked. If you don't have a tranny chaser in your six-degrees network, I have one word for you: craigslist.com. We posted there for this party ("Guy wanted to fuck tranny in ass") and had 20 respondents within an hour. I picked this particular man because he has the biggest ring through his cockhead that I have ever seen.

WANTON DRUNK SLUT: This is a surprisingly tough one to find. Once you get a reliable drunk slut in your life, someone who will shed her clothes and let a room full of people write on her with indelible markers at the drop of a hat, hold onto her like a dinghy in the perfect storm. She is a true party staple and will prove again and again the fact that nudity at a party is as contagious as the bird flu. Just as the night begins, give her (and only her) a handful of shrooms."

Yep, that's Vice. The current progressive, cutting-edge image is just makeup.

And even that is tame compared to their earlier stuff. Its weird how they flipped from underground rocknroll to liberal party line. Or is it.

Wow, that article only gets worse. It's actually weird that one of the takeaways of the top-level article is that people were surprised to find sexual harassment/assault at a "young, hip" company like Vice. But looking at this kind of content one has to expect it to be much worse at Vice than at "traditional, old-school" companies.

> In 2003 Vice reached a $25,000 settlement with the freelance writer Jessica Hopper. The deal involved defamation claims tied to an interview she did with the rapper Murs that was published in the February 2003 issue of the magazine, according to a copy of the agreement viewed by The Times. During the interview, Murs asked Ms. Hopper if he could have sex with her. She said no and included that answer in her article.

> But before the article was published, the magazine changed her response to yes and printed it under the headline, “I Got Laid But Murs Didn’t.”

> Mortified, Ms. Hopper hired lawyers. The two sides struck a settlement that, in addition to a payout, required Vice to print a retraction and a formal apology.

Wow. I feel so poorly for Ms. Hopper. They defamed her and shamed her, yet a $25,000 settlement likely only paid for her lawyers. Disgusting -- they should feel ashamed.

I hope that she can get the appropriate justice. $25,000 is a pittance compared to the psychological trauma from having to relive the trauma over and over from being discussed. I mean, fuck man, why even become a lawyer if you are going to achieve such poor results?

But I guess when you can't afford the same lawyers a large corporation can, its going to be an uphill battle. Especially now when the US courts is trending towards less class action lawsuits.

When all goes wrong you are supposed to be able to count on the law. Seems like a pretty big asterisk is needed there.

humiliation surely, but 'trauma' sounds like a truly extreme stretch

If you donate $25K to the EFF, HN can tell everyone I agreed on sex. Odd, isn't it?

Disgusting.

I hate how easy it is for me to remember this culture in that time. I did not readily realize it but Shock was the name of the game. The original hipster was a coked out liar who spoke in what we now call youtube comments. At the time, it was shocking and cool. Working in these environments was very awkward for me and I couldn’t imagine what it was like for females. I was driven by the intellectual and creative bent but had to face the reality that it was was far from that. It was a culture that favored shock over honesty and this the story exemplifies it well.

I do not understand, however, how the settlement turned out so poorly for her. I would guess it’s just a matter of affording good attorneys?

I was shocked by that figure as well. All I can think is that since they pay people peanuts that may have sounded like an impressive settlement figure to someone.

"Disgusting -- they should feel ashamed."

This is VICE's standard operating procedure.

'Voice of a Generation'

Let's not forget that they changed the interviewer's words to mean the exact opposite. Even though they could hardly have been considered a serious news organisation at that time, who wants to read an interview in which answers were changed so drastically?

> One woman said she was riding a Ferris wheel at Coney Island after a company event when a co-worker suddenly took her hand and put it on his crotch.

I have absolutely no idea why someone would think this is OK to do. Generally I can try to piece together how someone might rationalize their behavior but the best I can come up with on this one is: alcohol.

Best one I can come up with is: he's a creep.

Me too. I've heard the "he grabbed my hand and to put it on his crotch in public" story before. Did people learn this from porn? Was it done in some John Cusack movie?

Apparently penis in popcorn is a thing and it's from a movie.

https://www.google.com/search?ei=wZs-WoqmLIKOjwO435PoCQ&q=pe...

Schools should probably start teaching kids how to appropriately make a pass at a girl. Most movies seem to show guys “courageously” lunging in randomly for a kiss. The advice a kid gets from his friend’s older brother is going to be much worse. I’m sure 12 year old boys would appreciate learning how to know if a girl likes them, how to get a girlfriend, how to go in for a kiss, etc. as that’s 97% of what they think about. And doing things the right way early on and seeing success would probably translate well to good behavior later on.

I wish this could be taught. But, sadly, given how many religious conservatives are rabidly against teaching children anything about anything that could maybe lead to sex, I can easily see there being a major defense against this because schools are "trying to get young kids to have sex."

This is a little tongue-in-cheek, but it does get you thinking about how movie portray the "courageous" male:

[1] http://www.cracked.com/blog/how-men-are-trained-to-think-sex...

The fact that this happened isn't surprising. There are always creeps in the world, and unless we all live in bubbles that separate men from women, there always will be. What matters more is what happened afterwards. Did the woman report it to HR? Was there a response? Was he fired?

Without context, these stories are useless.

There is no way to prove that it actually happened. Not sure what HR can really do in cases like these or what is even expected of them.

On its own, sure, but when you have 5 women saying it happened? 10? It’s always valuable reporting things to HR.

Sorry I wasn't implying she shouldn't report to HR. I was responding to previous comment which said "What did HR do?". So like you are suggesting it could have been the first report against him and HR might not have not done anything, which doesn't necessarily imply they are complicit in harassment.

That incident happened after a company event, isn't that considered private time? I mean, she would have had to agree to go with the co-worker, during their off-hours, in the first place and he might have interpreted her willingness to go along as a signal of mutual interest (romantic, sexual) in each other?

That isn't meant as an excuse for such creepy, if not straight up criminal, behavior. But as somebody with some social issues of his own, I can relate quite a bit with not being able to properly interpret social and body cues.

To me, the vast majority of people are walking blackboxes where I have no clue how they would react to most actions of my own. Which boils down to me acting rather passively in most social situations out of fear I might break some unspoken rule, misinterpret the current mood in the room/between people.

A good rule of thumb is, if you're not sure, don't stick someone's hand on your crotch.

Where did I suggest that's anything to go by? But I can easily relate to a situation where signals are misinterpreted, which goes both ways: Missing out on advances by others because you don't realize them as such or you interpret them as such and fear of having it misinterpreted and as such don't act on them.

The last time I had "body contact" with a woman she literally had to rip my clothes off and throw me on her bed, even tho I wasn't comfortable with that situation at all and stated as much to her, that I'd rather not have intercourse on the first "date".

She didn't care and I was overwhelmed by that situation, only way out there would have been to handle her roughly. But she assumed I was at her place exactly for that, while I was at her place for exactly the reason we talked about: Seeing how much stuff she had because I wanted her to help with moving out. Sorry for not sticking with the old stereotype of "if a woman invited you over it's to have sex".

That wasn't pleasant at all, she supposedly didn't remember much of it due to being too drunk. I probably could push charges, if anybody would actually believe me, but to what end?

I'm only writing this to put context to my previous statement: People are complicated, social is complicated, for some among us even more so than for others. In that regard, I find it really sad that we readily apply Hanlon's Razor to all kinds of problems but rarely, if ever, to social interactions.

The EEOC says the company is responsible for things that happen at company events and on the way to and from events. I'm not a lawyer but I hear lingering after the event qualifies.

> I'm not a lawyer but I hear lingering after the event qualifies.

That sounds so undefined, I wonder where the cut-off point is? Considering that co-workers can also be friends in private, so private social gatherings following up on company events are not really that rare of a thing.

If a woman wants to touch you, she will. End of story.

Are women the only ones supposed to attempt to initiate a relationship nowadays? That's a bit extreme IMO.

No. It wasn’t meant to come off like that. I was responding to the context of the story.

It doesn’t matter who it is. If someone wants to be intimate they will clearly signal it.

>If a man wants to touch you, he will. End of story.

I can only imagine the amount of outrage if someone wrote this.

Wouldn't that be assault as well?

Yes.

That’s not even close to what I was getting at. If you are interested in someone there are a million non threatening, non aggressive ways to signal it. If it’s purely sexual the same applies. If the other person wants the same they will make it obvious.

In the context of the story about the man forcibly putting the woman’s hand on his crotch, there didn’t seem to be any precedent (from the story that was published) that would have indicated that she would want to touch him like that. If there was some conversation that happened where mutual interest was expressed and the conversation turned sexual, then if she wanted to touch him she would.

Grabbing another person and forcing their hand to your genitals is not okay. I don’t understand how that is ambiguous.

No woman better fucking touch me unless I invite them to.

There's a very good rule here: unless you have done action X on at least 3 occasions with a given person, ask them before you do it. "May I hug/kiss/grope/whatever you?"

If you've already done this on several occasions in the past, sure, use your discretion and interpret body language or subtle signs. Otherwise, ask. Period. No exceptions.

I've never heard of that rule, did you just make it up?

That isn't a very good standard to go by because many people don't instantly voice their concerns about behaviors making them uncomfortable, some even prefer to voice such concerns only to third parties when the "offender" is not around.

That's why you can end up repeating mistakes over and over again and annoy/intimidating people you don't even realize you are annoying/intimidating, even tho that wasn't your intention at all.

> use your discretion and interpret body language or subtle signs

Making it sound so simple disregards the fact that this isn't natural to everybody and it's not really an easy skill to learn when it's not natural to you, especially not on your own.

Sure you can ask about all the things that everybody else considers "normal", but do you really want to stick out even more as the "oddball" than you already feel for being insecure about such seemingly "normal" things?

I recall an episode about Lady Boys in Thailand, where at the end Shane signs off by essentially says he’s going to have sex with a male prostitute.

That seemed more “wrong crowd” than just “edgy” to me.

The co-founder of Vice started a alt-right white boy club[1], which was pretty shocking to be honest. It did make me stop watching Vice & Vice News altogether.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_McInnes

I think they've done a 180 since he left though.

McInnes is a racist, misogynistic shitheel for sure, but he also left in 2008. Since, Vice has become an outlet that does objectively good stuff with its reporting and its specialist media--I love Waypoint, I have a friend there whose moral compass is beyond reproach as far as I am concerned, and I have zero doubt that that friend wouldn't be there if they weren't convinced of the place.

Near as I can tell, Vice is an outlet that escaped its asshole founder and gone past his goals. Should probably be commended for that (while at the same time expected to clean house when confronted with meritorious allegations).

Not sure why you're being downvoted.

Austin Walker (current editor in chief for Waypoint - Vice's Video Games site) is the walking antithesis of an alt-right bro.

It is a good question though: how long do you hold an organization responsible for someone or for their collective actions?

> Austin Walker (current editor in chief for Waypoint - Vice's Video Games site) is the walking antithesis of an alt-right bro.

What does being left wing or right wing have to do with anything? We’re talking about sexual harassment, not politics. The majority if the recent high profile cases have been democrats doing the harassment btw.

Read two posts above you. We were talking about how one of the founders is a public racist, but how Vice's current editorial approach seems to have move passed that.

I don't think it's controversial that sexual misconduct is persistent across the political spectrum.

Yes, Vice is extremely left wing. They apparently also commit a good deal of sexual harassment internally if this article is to be believed.

Not sure what the founder who left (and his politics) well before any of the alleged offenses has to do with anything.

Alt-right is way beyond right wing. Chances are high that if you label yourself alt-right, you're also drinking the sweet red pill poison.

The discussion thread you are responding to was about one of the founders starting "a alt-right white boy club".

> The group takes its name from the showtune "Proud of Your Boy," a song introduced in the 2011 stage-show version of Disney's Aladdin

If not for the references, I’d be _sure_ that this was a parody/Wikipedia prank. Bizarre.

I am baffled by the outrage. Isn't Vice known to be an edgy, drugy and boundary bending outlet? Are we seriously pretending to be suprised that drugged up late teens are doing sick stuff. Or what am I missing here?

just because d-bag is your "image" doesn't make you immune from sexual harassment laws.

I am not criticizing the laws. What I have issues with is the fake outrage. It seems so hypocritical to me acting suprised about this situation. For me it is on the same level than breaking the news that rock stars are taking drugs and having sex with girls half their age. Sure, it is illegal and for some morally problematic, but pretending this is a scandal is beyond ridiculous.

Yesterday's "The Vice Guide to Right Now" podcast was about sexual harassment in the restaurant industry[1]

Hypocrites.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59w3q3/sexual-harassment-...

Vice has different people saying and doing different things. It's not a monolithic entity. I'm not sure what might've given you the impression that is.

The entity is vice.com, not Viceland the cable channel, not Vice Magazine, not Vice News or Vice Films but vice.com the website.

Now look at how many articles on sexual harassment vice.com the website has published recently:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/topic/sexual-harassment

And yes someone has editorial control of vice.com.

I dont think these expose’s and #metoo campaigns are going to have the effect that they are going for. These things are merely exposing consequences (or lack thereof)

I think it is more likely that gender exclusive clubs will become more in vogue again, where they simply bus in the people willing to be objectified

Unfortunately There is nothing about this that is curbing behavior or desires, it is only showing the folly of gender diversity in the workplace. The additional liability incurred

Im not endorsing these observations, I and almost everyone will publicly say this is wrong, upvote how heinous people in power can be, but what I perceive of peoples desires are unchanged.

I'll bite even though I shouldn't. What do you mean by the "folly of gender diversity in the workplace?"

The additional liability incurred, as I wrote

Reply on news.ycombinator.com