I have a friend who works in the call center at a day trading firm in Chicago. He's a sailor and the owner/founder of the firm has a boat so he gets long stretches of unfiltered time with the guy outside of work. The guy regularly affirms that they intentionally try to hire only HRI's ("hot russian immigrants") when they hire women because it boosts morale, makes hiring ambitious men easier and apparently exploits a small dip in the local hiring pool where the the immigrant women have a slightly harder time getting jobs at most places than the non-immigrant hotties they go up against elsewhere. My friend's firm found that going the extra mile to help them with visa status stuff meant they could get better looking women on staff than their competition.

Really?

When I see any argument start with this sentence, I immediately mistrust it. I suspect that world works in mysterious, complex, and ever changing ways, and that I get to be a part of shaping it.

I prefer:

"That's how things seem to be going right now. If you don't like it, there are probably others out there who feel the same. You could work with them to make it a little better. As you're working folks will tell you to just deal with it. Smile politely, ignore their advice, and keep working."

a: make it so that ANYBODY can get a hot woman, which makes having lots of hot women about useless

b: flood the industry with women. This is happening slowly, but you can't force it. Of course, if the balance tips towards women, then we'll just have the opposite, and having hot powerful handsome men around will replace hot women.

c: (myriad of ridiculous examples about fundamentally changing our species and the nature of sexuality)

You have to remember this isn't about sexism. It may well be sexist, but all it's about is having what all of your peers want but can't have makes you look powerful. It just so happens the most common want-but-can't-have is attractive women. "making it better" can only be achieved my removing the want.

Still, I'd observe this is tied to basic human nature & sexuality. Unlike slavery, as best I can tell it cannot be done away with, short of making it illegal for a man to have a hot woman/entourage of women present (totally not a sexist law, btw)

I bring up the parallel, again, not because it's an equivalent situation, but to illustrate what I think is a common ethical trap we can fall into: what good is it to see an injustice and wave our hands, saying that it's just the way the things are?

You suggested that the grandposter is blindly optimistic for wanting to change the way men relate to women in the workplace (or something like that), but think about how much has changed culturally, that we can have this conversation in 2010 and have it be basically a given that human bondage is morally wrong? It took a law in 1865, and it was controversial at the time. Today you have to be on the fringe of society in order to believe that it was ever morally defensible, presumably. That's not a triumph of law, it's a triumph of active social change.

I believe this issue is fundamentally rooted in sexuality, and I am deeply, deeply fearful of the day we attempt to legislate the nature of sexuality.

As for the question of our fundamental nature, we'll just have to leave it up to the philosophers. I appreciate your good natured debate, nonetheless.

To take a more modern example, the same is true about compulsory military service. Many people once believed and many still believe that conscription is simply way cheaper than voluntary military service. However, the people that are drafted into the military service could instead have been involved in the productive work in the regular economy, and paying taxes that may be used to pay volunteers.

In short, "pure economics" doesn't automatically go in favour of slavery.

Slavery was a sustainable institution not just because it was perceived as cost-efficient. It required general acceptance of the idea that it's OK to deny certain classes of people -- e.g., according to their origin -- their basic rights. And that is pretty much about racism.

You: "Slavery is a terrible thing."

Yes, I agree with your statement, but it went way beyond anything we're actually talking with in order to elicit agreement from readers. You characterized the previous comment as being pro-slavery, hence creating a strawman argument.

Agreed. Many folks confuse sex/sexuality with sexism. Sex != Sexism. Just as "not liking to hang out with gays" is not (necessarily) homophobia. You can not like a thing, or think it's unhealthy, even if you don't think it's a morally wrong or evil thing. Important distinction that people trip on all the time.

I'm assuming that by great you mean better than men are of women. What evidence do you have for this, apart from the dubious[1] field of evolutionary psychology? Also, could you define your terms better? What aspects of men are women great at judging? They are, after all, not psychic.

[1] http://www.badscience.net/category/evolutionary-psychology/

What? Women are terrible judges of men. Probably even worse than men are.

i.e., it's about sexism. what is it about the subject that makes otherwise-logical people say things like this?

I argued that it is a fact that if you walk into an event with a cute girl on your arm. You will be treated differently by men AND women than if you walk into the event without a cute girl on your arm. This is how the world works.

It's why some people are streaky daters. When they've been single for awhile, they're always walking into rooms alone. But when they get some momentum going, men and women take notice and show more interest in that person, which can lead to more dating opportunities.

It's great to have SOs that try to dig what you are into (mine does, and after a while started writing up HTML and CSS for side cash; starting to get into JavaScript too), but honestly dude writing about using hot girls that barely know what rails is to get contacts at tech events certainly doesn't make us look like upstanding gentlemen. It makes it look like we look towards girls as if they are objects, rather than interesting people. The whole theme of putting yourself on a level playing ground with super rich guys because they just can't buy a smart hot girl is offsetting too.

But whatever, my original comments downvoted anyways, so I'm probably wrong and just being too touchy.

The people whom I spoke with were from a large advertising agency that use Rails developers internally. I don't see any reason to see why she shouldn't be the life and soul of a party, she is a very beautiful and very smart woman, an intoxicating combination!

I seem to have touched a nerve with you re this post. I apologise, I did not mean to cause any offence.

S

I had just found out a day or two ago that a family member was severely discriminated against at work (it's all good though, she resolved it herself before telling us. When you work in tech you can often "prove" yourself right, which she did), so you're right about the touching a nerve thing.

Anyways, cheers! I know you meant no offense.

1. Woman are crazy discerning about the men they hang around. 2. Smart men recognize this. 3. Therefore, if you see a high-value woman identifying a man as someone she thinks is worth her time, and you know she is crazy discerning about who she hangs out with, it's a safe bet that person is worth your time.

However, I don't form business relationships based on reproductive fitness. Most people interested in building a successful enterprise don't, either.

I will allow exceptions for sperm banks and male escort services, though.