Let's have dinner—but don't bring your wife, please | Hacker News Reader

Let's have dinner—but don't bring your wife, please

cnbc.com

19 pointsjkw10 comments

I was happy to read in the last paragraph that she chose to attend the dinner as she originally planned, and that it went without incident.

As for the rest of the article, it sounds like it's a manufactured issue based on a single anecdotal experience. I don't see any problems with a younger woman having dinner with an older gentleman in a business context (or in any context, for that matter), and I can't imagine many others would either. Heck, when I'm out to dinner somewhere I'm not really paying much attention to who's seated at the table next to me, mostly because I just don't care.

Very relevant, there are entirely too few women in business and this is one of the reasons. It all falls under the umbrella of our perception of women as a society, and I think improving that is a good way to increase actual equality in the business world.

Perhaps this comment seems self-evident, but I very often talk with people who fail to see how stereotypes and perception (much more than actual behavior and potential) is the basis for social norms.

I don't think it's a good idea to "network" over dinner. Not only are there too many opportunities for other people to get the wrong idea, but it just isn't healthy to blur the lines between your work life and your after hours life. Go home and have dinner with your family, fer Chrissake.

Wow, the judgement in that post. First of all, you think it is an opportunity for people to get the wrong idea, which I find preposterous, and the only way to fix that bias to show have counter-examples.

Beyond that, your personal ideas about work/family balance are not global, stop projecting what you think is "healthy" onto others, you are not the arbiter of global truth.

>Wow, the judgement in that post.

Wow, the faux outrage in that post.

I wasn't proposing to make it illegal. I just said I think it's a bad idea. And I don't like to see this kind of thing becoming "normal", because it forces people like me to conduct business after hours.

You are missing the point. It is already "normal" -- and it is a major part of business networking. It happens all the time. An older man having dinner with his younger male business associate, no problem.

If being a young women makes you "locked out" (due to social stigma on behalf of either party), it puts you at a perpetual disadvantage. Either you turn down an invite for useful business networking, or you are never invited because the other party already internalized the stigma.

Due to the majority of gray hairs in industry being men, and the majority of current college graduates being women -- these type of quiet, almost polite disadvantages are worth talking about.

>You are missing the point. It is already "normal" -- and it is a major part of business networking. It happens all the time. An older man having dinner with his younger male business associate, no problem.

I'm not missing the point. My point is we don't have to worry about this if people don't do business dinners. It's not common in every industry, and IMO we should resist it where we can.

On one hand, I agree with this: women should be treated as equals in business situations.

On the other hand, I believe this: it is perceived as inappropriate when an authoritative figure of one sex is seen in a semi-private setting with a subordinate of another sex.

Can of worms in this comment aside, that is the perception. This is particularly more prevalent when one or the other of these people is married.

Why in the world would this be true?

Because people have unfortunately abused situations like this far too often, or at least handled them in unwise ways far too often. To conform to one part of the story is, however illogically, perceived as an implied possibility for the second part of the story.

This has everything to do with media, but it also has everything to do with setting proper boundaries. I think it's certainly similar in situations where the woman is in authority. The thought is, if there is never a chance for inappropriate things to happen, they won't; secondly, good people make mistakes. This doesn't mean they absolutely will - but it's in the same category as "the only safe sex is no sex at all." Complete abstinence has become the cultural standard for this particular behavior, and perception is the judge.

I work for a religious organization. My boss likes to take the 4 members of his group out to lunch for our birthdays. Three out of four of the group are female. Due to the environment, he takes the 3 women out as a group on each birthday (we love it) to keep up appearances. On one side, I don't see it as a way of being respectful of everyone involved (everyone is married, and we're all professionally friendly). On the other side, it is sad that it takes that much effort to uphold an image of propriety.

I have heard of inappropriate office romances that have happened and started with instances like this (seemingly harmless but rolled into something more).

It's called Bayes' Equation. Given an older wealthy man and a young attractive women dining together, the probability can be calculated to be enormously in favor of some sort of sexual relationship between them.

You can't shame people out of drawing this conclusion. It's math. You can't shame math.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com