zlacker

> (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+(OP)
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+v2
No one will care if a guy calls some investors an asshole on Twitter...

>>Google+me
Statistically, ~0% of normal business interactions result in any Twitter outrage at all.

The premise that powerful men having interactions with women is risky isn't proven, there's all sorts of evidence to the contrary, where egregious behavior is ignored. Recent years there have been some consequences for things like physical sexual assault, not widespread consequences for misinterpreted advice.