My slow path to conservatism.
Of course, this works better for social conventions like "call me by my last name" or "pay for your date's dinner" than for stuff like "don't be gay", which is sadly what's more associated with conservatism in this country.
If you mean conservatism of the political kind, come live in Texas for awhile to get a taste of life in a conservative state; you're likely to reconsider how far you want to go down that path. I'm a lifelong Republican and always thought of myself as fairly conservative; in recent years, though, mainly because of the Tea Party -- and the life lessons learned from the challenges of, e.g., raising two kids to adulthood -- I've probably voted for Democrats almost as often as for Republicans. I have Republican friends who are so disenchanted that they've talked about switching parties.
That was Joe Schmoe male developer, who it is acceptable to fire for the slightest of reasons, including making an innocuous joke that wouldn't be out of place in a K-12 classroom. The men who are the customers of this startup are the rich guys in Silicon Valley who are awash in cash and cannot be fired.
The two are worlds apart, don't be under any impression that they mix in any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately, the first group (Joe Schmoe) is squeezed to the max by policing by interest groups like "Geek Feminism" and suchlike. Notably, Geek Feminism seems to have a neutral/positive approach to this Dating Ring thing (http://geekfeminism.org/2013/12/30/happy-new-linkspam-30-dec...) -- the company is referred to as "Y Combinator's first all-female company", and no negative comments.
As for your "evidence" from GeekFeminism, you will note that that's a linkspam page, merely linking and quoting, without any commentary. And the quote is not about The Dating Ring, but about the changes that are necessary for the industry to become more diversified. (Yes, there's a lot of irony in this coming from the women who're responsible for this bride-for-sale scheme)
Sounds a lot more like an interest police out to get guys than anything to do with respect for women to me.
This has been rehashed aplenty. Sexual innuendo between two people, when not directed at a third person does not qualify as disrespect to the third person, unless you're trying very hard to feel disrespected.
> It certainly doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom.
If you think it doesn't belong in a K-12 classroom, I seriously doubt you have ever interacted with anyone in high school. Please read the data in this and draw your own conclusions. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html
The answer should be fairly obvious.
As for point 2, the fact that teens are currently taught to be sexist doesn't mean they should be taught to be sexist, or that it's OK. Especially not from adults.
I'm guessing you missed the news over the last couple months of GitHub[1] and Rap Genius[2] each letting a co-founder go?
[1] https://github.com/blog/1826-follow-up-to-the-investigation-...
[2] http://recode.net/2014/05/26/rap-genius-co-founder-moghadam-...
Meanwhile, Joe Dev who is working 10 hours a day will be fired for saying "Hee hee hee, look at this huge dongle I just got." at a tech conference.
Why wouldn't this "be allowed"? More importantly, what is the entity that would or would not be doing the "allowing"?
I don't necessarily agree with firing people over politically incorrect jokes either, but in this case there is no party that is potentially suffering damages. I.e. in the case of misogynist jokes by an employee, the company may believe it's reputation would suffer unless mitigating action was taken.
There is no analog here ..
They either don't know about it or they don't care.
For further thought by someone "who doesn't see the problem" (me) read my other comment.
Feel free to reply to that and let me know what you think about what I have said. I think it's a practical solution to a problem.
As long as the participants knew what they were getting into, I think it was fine - everyone got what they signed up for, no promises of results were given. (as far as I understand from the article)
Society is really becoming very intolerant because people don't conform to their little bubbles.
>>> But if this isn't insulting to women in tech
Who is "women in tech"? It's not a person that you can insult. Why "women in tech" should have single opinion about anything and be - all of them, collectively - insulted by something? And why, if some woman or multiple women are insulted by this, we shouldn't wait for them to tell us if they are insulted and listen what they are insulted by, instead of trying to guess it and wield that imaginary insult as a weapon?
My point is just because he's not single and not the target market, he shouldn't be asking for a ban on a dating scheme.
I'm single and find the whole idea of "flying in women to meet geeks" to be a bit strange, but this idea that it should be banned is ludicrous.
There's too much "I don't like this" or "I don't understand this" so let's have some entity ban it.
I have nothing to do with whatever these people are doing.
Sometimes a dongle as an adapter. Sometimes it's a dick.
It's not hard to tell the difference.
> It's not hard to tell the difference.
Perhaps, if you know that "dongle" is a technical term, and you don't take the sentence out of context (like overhearing only one sentence). Besides, many catch themselves in making unintentional puns and innuendos, only noticing after-the-fact that the sentence could be interpreted in another way. It surely isn't so unlikely that one can justify firing people point-blank when they do make such a mistake!