That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting.

Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.

> That something can occur has only superficial relation to whether it ought to be to be discussed in a given setting.

Given the setting (an alcohol-filled after-work work party), I fundamentally disagree.

> Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture.

My comment didn't mention women, men, or anything in between, because, hey, men sometimes have sex with men! You'll notice that Travis' email didn't mention women either.

Since I love channeling my inner Scalia, I'm just going to say that, in general, you're doing yourself a disservice by not being a textualist. With that said, I'm not going to be baited into defending a straw man, many years of philosophy trained me well :)

The way women are treated is not a straw man here, it is directly related to why Uber and Kalanick in particular have been under as much scrutiny as they have. I believe what is trying to be explained is that unless you know what it is like for your job to hinge on your decisions regarding sex, and anything sex adjacent (ie. what you wear to work, whether you are flirtatious or not, whether you keep up with 'the boys' after work etc) it would be hard to understand why it is very important that sex and work be kept separate, and why professionalism is important. Many women are threatened by men in the workplace in various way, not the least of which using sex as a hiring/firing decision. When that is the general culture for women in the workplace, this email really reads more as 'if you aren't interested in sex (or being asked for sex by your colleagues), this probably isn't the party for you'. Except missing parties can also mean missing key networking opportunities and thus losing traction in the corporate world.

lol, next time read the philosophy books better

"inner Scalia"? "Straw man?"

You're being dismissive and aggressive to what purpose?

"Inner Scalia" was a joke because you're reading too much into what I said and Scalia was, famously, a staunch textualist.

And your straw man is this: "Your comment reads as if you have little understanding of how women are treated in our culture."