Imagine the response if women came out and said ‘we need to create
female-only spaces and stay away from men as much as possible in the
workplace out of fear of sexual harassment’. Imagine if a big CEO said
they didn’t want to hire men because it was an ‘unknown risk’. Imagine
the reaction to that.
Yeah, this is almost an exact example of male privilege and it pisses me off that they just won’t get it.
The so called “risk” comes from the combination of heterossexual men and women in the same workspace. So your scenario could very well happen, if only there were a lot of women as Wall Street CEOs out there.
They don’t even consider this for a second. Never crosses their minds.
>Yeah, this is almost an exact example of male privilege and it pisses me off that they just won’t get it.
It is quite a stunning proof of the concept of male privilege or whatever that a bunch of high-powered male CEOs can essentially say "I won't do deals with women" and suffer no professional blowback and lose no important opportunities. Surely if there wasn't any degree of serious institutionalized imbalance their respective boards would be all up on their asses about how they're losing the business potential clients and deals for no good reason. But it seems, no.
That does happen. There are all-female subway cars in Japan. There are all-female equipment training programs in Canada. There are all-female work groups, all-female conferences, and there's a "pink hardhat" home reno and repair company where they don't hire men. There's little reaction to that. So little, you don't seem to know about it.
Is your prediction that if a F500 company or other large Wall Street firm announced such a policy today that there would be 'little reaction'? Because my prediction is very different.
>Imagine the response if women came out and said 'we need to create female-only spaces and stay away from men as much as possible in the workplace out of fear of sexual harassment'
That would be transphobic
A late-40-something in private equity said he has a new rule,
established on the advice of his wife, an attorney: no business dinner
with a woman 35 or younger.
I love the subtext that accusations from 36+ year old women aren’t
credible.
I love that these guys think the wife in this story is worried about
accusations
Here’s my question: Before the #MeToo movement rose to cultural
prominence, was that infrastructure guy regularly giving women valuable
mentorship in windowless rooms and elevators, or … not?
… If Wall Street three years ago was a paradise of powerful men
providing appropriate and non-creepy mentoring to younger women, and the
#MeToo movement has endangered those close and supportive working
relationships, then that would be a shame, but I am not convinced that
that is what the data would show.
Even for men who may not necessarily harass women, it may be the case
that, in response to the whole #MeToo thing, a lot of the guys in the
Wall Street “Boys Club” simply see contact with women as a risk to be
mitigated (may falsely accuse me) rather than the litany of other
lessons they could take away from it.
It is like how companies always take the most self-serving and
Machavelian lessons from any sort of big court case they lose. “Should
we take more care not to fuck up the environment? No, the problem is
that we need to change the laws that may hold us accountable in the
future!”
If they're gonna go with that message, they might as well go all the way and never speak to their female relatives again, in the event that strangers accuse them of not just sexual harassment but statutory rape and incest as well! They can go even further and quarantine themselves from society for the rest of their lives!
Mike Pence is a visionary. I do not like that this fact is true. I
very much wish it was not.
Man I hate it when I have to agree with a piece of shit with
regressive views and even call him a visionary, truly it burns my soul
that I have to do this, woe is me.
I’ve mentioned my heuristic on this stuff. When I sniff an activist
or a mouthpiece or something, my doubt on these things skyrockets. Not
that I think the person is actively lying, but I think they’re being
actively manipulated. Maybe not even intentionally. But that becomes my
suspicion.
So activism doesn’t happen unless people are brainwashed, empathy has
nothing to do with it. Got it.
> When I sniff an activist
Now I just imagine him being in a workplace with someone, then they say something doubtful, and he leans in and *sniffs* them to be sure.
He also can't tell if this is harassment.
This is, like, a perfect sneer, I think (ignoring alt-right people or
whoever that populate SSC, and going back to the core meaning of making
fun of “rationalists”). Being self aware enough of your inability to
pick up social cues, yet galaxy brained enough to realize that
discrimination is the best defense is quintessentially “rationalist”.
Like, if you’re an autist that is going to offend someone inadvertantly,
it is arguably rational to decide to do the Pence rule. But at
the same time if you’re even moderately socially competent it’s obvious
how ridiculous and frankly sad that is. It precisely highlights how the
emotionless, intellectual approach to life that “rationalists” cherish
is actually often a weakness instead. Which is the point of
sneering, as I understand it.
Not to explain a joke… it just struck me how perfect this sneer
was.
Also, if it wasn’t clear from my post, I think this is mean and
mostly punching down, which is why I don’t like this sub (to the extent
that it makes fun of EY-type folks as was the original meaning of “Sneer
Club” as I understand it, and not making fun of the SSC NRx types, which
maybe it kind of more is about now?)
> groupies of the guy who owns 'math pets'
Your characterization here is so palpably dripping with condescension I'm honestly flummoxed with how you can think it's anything other than punching down.
lmaooo that you feel the need to white knight for these [misogynistic assholes](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/8sjxm9/serious_twitter_thread_by_someone_detailing_their/)
just to clarify, "groupies of the guy who owns 'math pets'" is a factual statement, whereas _this_ comment is full of dripping condescension. I'm honestly flummoxed with how you can think criticizing a community full of documented abusers is punching down.
I hope I don't offend any sneerers by saying this, but I don't think anyone here counts as punching down when they talk shit about Peter Thiel and his coke buddies.
>Being self aware enough of your inability to pick up social cues,
I’d wager most of these guys read social cues fine. They’re just paranoid and misogynistic, that’s all. They don’t think they’re going to harass a woman by accident; they think women are going to make deliberately false accusations.
Imagine the response if women came out and said ‘we need to create female-only spaces and stay away from men as much as possible in the workplace out of fear of sexual harassment’. Imagine if a big CEO said they didn’t want to hire men because it was an ‘unknown risk’. Imagine the reaction to that.
I love that these guys think the wife in this story is worried about accusations
Matt Levine in his Bloomberg column yesterday:
Someone make an app for a chaperone service for vulnerable businessmen?
Wall St was working-class until smart math nerds invented trading algorithms.
Even for men who may not necessarily harass women, it may be the case that, in response to the whole #MeToo thing, a lot of the guys in the Wall Street “Boys Club” simply see contact with women as a risk to be mitigated (may falsely accuse me) rather than the litany of other lessons they could take away from it.
It is like how companies always take the most self-serving and Machavelian lessons from any sort of big court case they lose. “Should we take more care not to fuck up the environment? No, the problem is that we need to change the laws that may hold us accountable in the future!”
Man I hate it when I have to agree with a piece of shit with regressive views and even call him a visionary, truly it burns my soul that I have to do this, woe is me.
Don’t worry, new panoptic technologies will resolve this problem
So activism doesn’t happen unless people are brainwashed, empathy has nothing to do with it. Got it.
This is, like, a perfect sneer, I think (ignoring alt-right people or whoever that populate SSC, and going back to the core meaning of making fun of “rationalists”). Being self aware enough of your inability to pick up social cues, yet galaxy brained enough to realize that discrimination is the best defense is quintessentially “rationalist”. Like, if you’re an autist that is going to offend someone inadvertantly, it is arguably rational to decide to do the Pence rule. But at the same time if you’re even moderately socially competent it’s obvious how ridiculous and frankly sad that is. It precisely highlights how the emotionless, intellectual approach to life that “rationalists” cherish is actually often a weakness instead. Which is the point of sneering, as I understand it.
Not to explain a joke… it just struck me how perfect this sneer was.
Also, if it wasn’t clear from my post, I think this is mean and mostly punching down, which is why I don’t like this sub (to the extent that it makes fun of EY-type folks as was the original meaning of “Sneer Club” as I understand it, and not making fun of the SSC NRx types, which maybe it kind of more is about now?)
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/a2lipn/culture_war_roundup_for_the_week_of_december_03/eb22g58/
“Charitably assuming they have a valid complaint”