zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. dkarra+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-03-28 23:50:57
And worst case for women: I would not invest in a company that would potentially make me evaluate such options.

Indirectly: Men should be wary of partnering up with women because investors might see such a partnership as "danger zone" and pass.

I KNOW sexism exists and should be eradicated. Unfortunately the current way of doing things cause lots of unintended consequences for women. I (a man), for one, refuse to put myself in a position where I'll have to make explicit decisions for men vs. women on the merit of their work because there is a chance that if the woman "loses" they'll label me a sexist (they can genuinely feel that way, but I know that my intentions are not towards gender discrimination - unfortunately there is no way to convince her of that if that happens). That means I tend to not work with women, even though I hate passing on people that will do the work well. If they have a history with such activism, it is worse because whatever happens, if they are terminated for any reason, it will most probably be labeled discrimination. If they have a social media following, I'm screwed. So it is difficult. I don't want to pass on them but the potential consequences for any misunderstanding are too large. I don't want to live and work while walking on eggshells.

replies(1): >>imtrin+GI
2. imtrin+GI[view] [source] 2021-03-29 08:19:41
>>dkarra+(OP)
We solve sexism by creating unequal opportunities instead. After all, fairness and honesty are worse than not creating a facade to play along with societies' outrage induced rules.
[go to top]