Hacker News Reader

Comment by fein | Hacker News Reader

I'm not really sure that the point needed to be restated, as I think that we all know what qualifies as an HR nightmare. Gender inequality is a problem that definitely needs to be avoided, but (what seems to be) the core issue for this article seems to be a non issue. We don't really have any context for the Hooters-ish photo, so I can't make any concrete deductions, but it seems as though an all male startup team decided to go willingly, and most likely unanimously to the wild wings and boobs eatery. If they had female counterparts that felt as though they did not belong then there could be a problem. Again, we don't have much context.

I can understand the sentiment regarding the "unprofessional" nature of the given photo, but I highly doubt that their employee outing is going to be the cause of burned bridges and lawsuits.

View on HN

You've got it backwards: this is the context. It probably wouldn't trigger a lawsuit on its own; it's the reason you'd lose that lawsuit, or have to settle on very unfavorable terms.

Look at the cases the OP mentioned. Each one has a concrete injury (getting passed over for a promotion, etc.), plus evidence suggesting that gender discrimination was the reason for the injury.

Now imagine that a well-qualified women applied for a job with this startup, and was passed over. Given the breastaurant photo, it would look very plausible that the applicant wasn't hired because the founders hire people they like, and they like guys they can see themselves hanging out with at places like this.

"Gender inequality is a problem that needs to be avoided" but you find that an all-male publicizing going to a "breasturant" for a team outing is a "non-issue"? Do you genuinely not see any contradiction in those viewpoints?

If the decision to go was unanimous then how is this a problem? They went to a restaurant that advertises the objectifying of women, with employees (of the eatery) that are totally OK with it as well.

Now, if one of those employees decided to voice resistance to the idea and they carried on despite this, we would have a problem.

I don't see a problem with the author's specific instance, nor would I have a problem with an all female/ voluntary crew heading out to man hooters and throwing it up all over the intertubes.

It is a problem because it is an explicit sign to women thinking of applying to that company that they would not be welcome in the organization. Fewer organizations that welcome women mean a less attractive industry for women, which is the polar opposite of avoiding gender inequality.

Pretty much any time you're discussing inequality, if you reach for "it would be OK if the situations were reversed", you are choosing to ignore the substance of the problem, which is that 99.9% of the time the situations are not reversed.

It is a problem because it is an explicit sign to women thinking of applying to that company that they would not be welcome in the organization.

Is it really, though? If so, why? Men who enjoy going to Hooters are not necessarily crude, aggressive louts who treat women poorly. And a company that has lunch at Hooters is hardly a place where women are automatically unwelcome, or treated as inferior. In fact, I see very little connection her at all. As a man, I find that appreciating beautiful women and celebrating sexuality are completely orthogonal to my desire to treat women as respected peers and colleagues in the workplace and to treat women with respect based on factors other than their physical appearance.

Even the post I replied to admitted that it would be a problem if there was a woman in the company who objected. If you assume that women are more likely to object to going there than men, and that men in the company enjoy going there, it's obvious that a woman would be less welcome to join the company than a man. I think you're seeking to interpret "unwelcome" as implying deliberate slights or cold shoulders, which isn't what I was getting at - I mean that the company culture would have to change more to accommodate a woman than a man, and that this would be obvious to the woman.

Unwelcome? I've never understood this. The stereotype is that attractive people got hired by being attractive (or maybe for putting out) rather than being competent, but I have trouble believing anyone has never met any coworkers who were both. I've had my share of crushes on sharp people I've worked with; it's my responsibility not to let it be an issue, and so I don't.

Did you reply to the wrong comment?

GP is talking about "less attractive industry for women", meaning an industry women would be less attracted to, as in not want to work for/be part of.

We need to get past this meme of "if the situations were reversed, I'd be OK with it."

Think about it for a second. How many "all female crews" have you actually heard of in Silicon Valley (or tech startups in general)? Any? I'm honestly curious if you can come up with one.

Now let's suppose we've found an example of an all-female startup. They need funding, so they have to apply to VCs. What gender are an overwhelming majority of those VCs? Hint: it starts with an M.

Then let's say they want advice and connections from other entrepreneurs. I just clicked around on CrunchBase for 10 minutes looking at the names of people who run random startups, including Airbnb, Path, Tumblr, Yammer, Airtime and others. I didn't see a single name that sounded female. Maybe I missed one or two.

The problem with your hypothetical all-women crew going to "man hooters" is that not only is it unlikely to happen, it ignores the power imbalance in tech. These guys that went to a Hooters-like place and posted the photos are sending a clear signal that women are not welcome in their company. That's a problem, especially in an area where women are so underrepresented already. Sexism doesn't have to be deliberate or explicit to be real.

If your team has a documented history of this sort of thoughtcrime, any woman with a grudge and a lawyer can use that to fry you. Whatever you think of the ethics, it's blatantly self-destructive behavior within the US system of employment law.

>I'm not really sure that the point needed to be restated

It does. As long as professional companies allow outings to locations that marginalises/objectifies others it's a problem with respect and how it reflects on the industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com