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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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-dec...) -- the company is referred to as "Y Combinator's first all-female company", and no negative comments.
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)
I remember the case he mentioned well enough. As I remember, 2 male developers were making some perhaps tasteless jokes to each other, not referencing anyone in particular. A woman seated nearby, whose job is outreach to developers like them, overheard, and decided that it would be a good idea to take a picture of them, without their permission, of course, and call them out on the internet about it. A standard gender in tech scandal ensued.
Sounds a lot more like an interest police out to get guys than anything to do with respect for women to me.
This has been rehashed aplenty. Sexual innuendo between two people, when not directed at a third person does not qualify as disrespect to the third person, unless you're trying very hard to feel disrespected.
> It certainly doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom.
If you think it doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom, I seriously doubt you have ever interacted with anyone in high school. Please read the data in this and draw your own conclusions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
If I were to say that "you're ${INSULT}" when you can't hear me, is that not disrespecting you? If I close all my HN posts with "parenoob is ${INSULT}", is that not disrespecting you? Or, to stick with the 2-people restriction, if I closed all my direct e-mails with that statement?
The answer should be fairly obvious.
As for point 2, the fact that teens are currently taught to be sexist doesn't mean they should be taught to be sexist, or that it's OK. Especially not from adults.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Well... I never said it should be banned. I am actually a pretty tolerant person. It just feels gross to me. I was more curious how it was allowed to happen at a time when lots of people are working hard to make tech a more inviting place for women. I don't think this is helping. Admittedly, I know this is not a tech recruiting ring... these women don't sound like they're on a path to be in tech. They just want to date a techie. But if this isn't insulting to women in tech (all women? everyone in tech? everyone?) then I truly have lost all sense of acceptability. I probably should have picked a better word than "allowed."
Why can't it be allowed to happen? I mean, nobody as far as I can see was forced, coerced, deceived or tricked into doing something that they did not want to do. Some guys wanted to meet some females that have specific qualities, some females wanted to meet some guys that have specific qualities. Things like that happen - both in RL and on specialized sites - literally every second. Do you have to like it? No. There's a lot of things that people do that I don't like. However I would never imply that should not happen - apparently, there are a lot of people that do like doing those things, and as long as there are people willing to do this and nobody is hurt, it's their business, not mine. So I wonder - why exactly should not it happen?
>>> But if this isn't insulting to women in tech
Who is "women in tech"? It's not a person that you can insult. Why "women in tech" should have single opinion about anything and be - all of them, collectively - insulted by something? And why, if some woman or multiple women are insulted by this, we shouldn't wait for them to tell us if they are insulted and listen what they are insulted by, instead of trying to guess it and wield that imaginary insult as a weapon?
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).
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
