zlacker

>>femfos+(OP)
The structural sexism in this story is arguably the investor choosing to spare himself the minor risk to reputation, the assumption that the CEO isn't likely enough to listen to the advice fairly for it to be worth giving.

(it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)

>>maxeri+oh
> (it's not at all a given that the situation would blow up in his face…)

The article was talking about risk. Risk isn't binary, if it was then there wouldn't be a risk...

> minor risk to reputation

I think the article, and at least from some candid comments in this thread, indicate that people perceive this risk as much more than minor. Almost as if not being labeled a racist or sexist or homophobic (founded or not) is worth a few $m lost from the inaction taken to avoid that labeling.

>>flumpc+vD
Right, they are cowards that put their perception of some risk ahead of doing the right thing, and they only act like that when they deal with women.

Like what do they do if a man falsely accuses them of some trespass?

>>maxeri+0G
No one will care if a guy calls some investors an asshole on Twitter...