I can understand the sentiment regarding the "unprofessional" nature of the given photo, but I highly doubt that their employee outing is going to be the cause of burned bridges and lawsuits.

It does. As long as professional companies allow outings to locations that marginalises/objectifies others it's a problem with respect and how it reflects on the industry.

Now, if one of those employees decided to voice resistance to the idea and they carried on despite this, we would have a problem.

I don't see a problem with the author's specific instance, nor would I have a problem with an all female/ voluntary crew heading out to man hooters and throwing it up all over the intertubes.

Pretty much any time you're discussing inequality, if you reach for "it would be OK if the situations were reversed", you are choosing to ignore the substance of the problem, which is that 99.9% of the time the situations are not reversed.

Is it really, though? If so, why? Men who enjoy going to Hooters are not necessarily crude, aggressive louts who treat women poorly. And a company that has lunch at Hooters is hardly a place where women are automatically unwelcome, or treated as inferior. In fact, I see very little connection her at all. As a man, I find that appreciating beautiful women and celebrating sexuality are completely orthogonal to my desire to treat women as respected peers and colleagues in the workplace and to treat women with respect based on factors other than their physical appearance.

GP is talking about "less attractive industry for women", meaning an industry women would be less attracted to, as in not want to work for/be part of.

Think about it for a second. How many "all female crews" have you actually heard of in Silicon Valley (or tech startups in general)? Any? I'm honestly curious if you can come up with one.

Now let's suppose we've found an example of an all-female startup. They need funding, so they have to apply to VCs. What gender are an overwhelming majority of those VCs? Hint: it starts with an M.

Then let's say they want advice and connections from other entrepreneurs. I just clicked around on CrunchBase for 10 minutes looking at the names of people who run random startups, including Airbnb, Path, Tumblr, Yammer, Airtime and others. I didn't see a single name that sounded female. Maybe I missed one or two.

The problem with your hypothetical all-women crew going to "man hooters" is that not only is it unlikely to happen, it ignores the power imbalance in tech. These guys that went to a Hooters-like place and posted the photos are sending a clear signal that women are not welcome in their company. That's a problem, especially in an area where women are so underrepresented already. Sexism doesn't have to be deliberate or explicit to be real.

Look at the cases the OP mentioned. Each one has a concrete injury (getting passed over for a promotion, etc.), plus evidence suggesting that gender discrimination was the reason for the injury.

Now imagine that a well-qualified women applied for a job with this startup, and was passed over. Given the breastaurant photo, it would look very plausible that the applicant wasn't hired because the founders hire people they like, and they like guys they can see themselves hanging out with at places like this.

Not OK: even if the event is independently organized, pictures posted on company site or circulated via company email; tweets or social-media postings about the event including the company name (including "at Hooter's with my buds from Company X!") all send the wrong message.

If you and your dudes from work HAVE to go to one of these places (keep telling yourself it's "ironic"), you should treat it like buying ointment for an embarrassing disease. Something you do quietly at weird hours hoping nobody you know sees you.

No place that hires attractive women or even hints at human sexuality as being a positive thing, apparently.

How about places that just don't objectify a group of people?

Are there any situations left in the workplace where we should be expected to vote with our feet?

I don't actually think that all workplaces should become banal, corporate, photocopies of one another.

What articles like this seem to show by the commentary they elicit is that many of these things aren't conscious choices.

I think if a company consciously decides to foster a work environment that promotes a specific culture (within the boundaries of the law), that's their prerogative. But for me, the key word there is "consciously".

And it seems that a good portion of this phenomenon currently isn't conscious. And I feel that is incredibly harmful.

This article tries to portray this topic in a way that I think is very useful, which is to say, it's not making a moral judgement. It's saying "hey, these types of actions have a consequence. That consequence is that it will negatively effect your candidate pool, and probably make you unattractive to investors."

People are free to read that and say "I don't care about that. To me, having a company culture that reflects my values is worth the negative consequences."

I'd be happy with a culture that is at least aware of this (which our current culture appears not to be).

They were the opposite of a startup, but at the time I worked for a small company (who didn't want to risk alienating them). My salesperson (who was a woman) was very adamant that I attend these meetings, as they were an important customer.

After my company got acquired, the new, enormous company that I worked for rather sensibly freaked the hell out about those sorts of things (one of the few benefits to working at a large company).

And as an aside, I'm incredibly disappointed to learn that "Twin Peaks" isn't a restaurant themed after the TV show. I'd totally hang out in that place.

Unfortunately it's been gutted and the current owners have no sense of nostalgia nor style. Wish I could re-design the place. Angelo Badalamenti on the stereo, Red Room bathrooms, pie display case... the possibilities for a nice campy tribute to Twin Peaks are endless.

On topic though, it boggles the mind that staff would go to strip clubs as a work social activity, but it does happen. I used to work with some characters that got in trouble for it.

Granted, the "hacker culture" I'm most familiar with is the "security-type" of hacker (as opposed to developers/makers), but its culture is rife with every kind of 'ism imaginable (sex, race, what have you).

I suppose there's some solace in the fact that at least the discrimination isn't exclusionary.

One of the co-founders at Fogbeam Labs is a woman, so this is not empty rhetoric on my part. I respect women tremendously, and would not have invited this woman to join the team if I didn't have tremendous respect for her technical chops, intelligence, etc. But I don't buy into this PC crap of assuming that taking the team to Hooters for lunch is somehow equivalent to sexual harassment or "creating a hostile work environment."

Now, I'll grant that in some cases there may be a correlation between a team that chooses to eat at Hooters (or strip clubs or whatever) and a team that is made up of guys who only see women as sexual objects, and who might be prone to acting in uncool ways. But I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater... deal with these things on a case-by-case basis, focusing on the specifics, instead of making wild generalizations, IMO.

Anyway, I believe in celebrating human sexuality and wish that more people (male and female) could quit being so damn defensive about the fact that men like women and women like men.

And please don't take any of this as excusing examples like the ones cited in the article, where a male co-worker physically assaulted a female co-worker; or cases where repeated sexual overtures are made after the initiator has been asked to stop, etc. Sex is good, sexual harassment is bad. Let's just not assume that the two are equivalent, or that one should never mix business and pleasure.

Anyway, I believe in celebrating human sexuality and wish that more people (male and female) could quit being so damn defensive about the fact that men like women and women like men.

The simple fact is professional women don't feel this way. Due to power dynamics, due to gender differences, due to concern over personal safety, due to a general feeling of alienation because of being minority, and due to probably 100 other reasons I'm not insightful enough to cite, professional women as a general rule do not want to celebrate sexuality in the workplace.

So my reply to you is get over it already. Every time one of these threads comes up, some geek has to make the rest of us geeks look bad by pointing out, as if it was somehow interesting, that "men like women and women like men". People do all sorts of things that we don't allow in the workplace. Some of them are bad, some of them are totally innocuous, and that ambiguity is why we came up with the word "INAPPROPRIATE".

This strikes me as a continuum, not a binary thing. I'm not saying let's have Eyes Wide Shut style orgies in the office, mind you. I'm just expressing a general, personal feeling that people should loosen up a bit. In regards to the workplace thing, I don't endorse doing things that make people uncomfortable, but I also don't believe in over-generalizing and throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

See the discussion above, about dealing with "lunch at Hooters" on a case-by-case basis, vs. as general policy. My point is that I'd be fine with a work lunch at Hooters if all the members of the party were OK with going there. If we had a group member (male OR female) who didn't want to go, I certainly wouldn't try and force them to go.

Some of them are bad, some of them are totally innocuous, and that ambiguity is why we came up with the word "INAPPROPRIATE".

Overly broad generalizations to deal with ambiguity don't strike me as a proper trade-off. But that's just me.

Don't make comments about the attractiveness of women at the office.

If you're not socially aware enough to distinguish between compliments that are and aren't sexually charged (ie, you are like most guys), don't compliment women's appearance at all at the office.

Don't take the office to Hooter's.

Don't take the office to strip clubs.

Don't put sexualized women or men in your presentations.

Don't make sexualized jokes in your presentations, and avoid sexualize humor at the office to the extent possible.

Don't raise concerns or ask questions of professional women about child care or marriage unless you are anticipating caring for your own children or forming your own marriage and need advice.

Nerds are creatively idiotic about this topic, so I'm sure that not only have I missed obvious things, but this list will probably expand by at least 10 more items by the end of the year, but at least by being specific I don't have to debate on the slippery slope with you about it.

Of course, because it's not like you spend a significant portion of your life at the office (post school) and the office is probably where a majority of your interactions with other people will occur... nothing like passing up meeting the partner of your dreams because he/she happens to be a co-worker and is therefore automatically off-limits.

What a load of horse-shit.

Flirting, complimenting, asking out co-workers is no sin... Again, there's a line between doing "normal people things" and "sexual harassment." Advocating the former is NOT endorsing the latter.

but at least by being specific I don't have to debate on the slippery slope with you about it.

Who's debating? It's just a friendly discussion as far as I'm concerned. You're welcome to believe whatever you like; and I'm not likely to change my views on any of this based on this discussion.

Keep it out of the office.

When your unwanted advances, innocuous though they seem to you --- the "libertine libertarian" who "prefers to keep his/her workplace relationships intimate" --- result in a complaint from a coworker drafted on a law firm's paperwork, your company will fold like an unsuited 7-2 and pay up, probably to the tune of a year's headcount, and you'll have inflicted that on them because you think your personal life trumps the business.

I've watched this happen multiple times. There's no real fight. Nobody has their day in court. Your company counsel says "we'd be fucking idiots to spend the money taking this to court" and you say "but there's absolutely no merit to the argument" and he says "that doesn't matter" and poof! out goes a person's salary for a year.

You can be a hard-ass about this and call this list "horseshit", but the only reason you haven't been handed your ass on this issue in real life is that most employees aren't savvy enough to have their complaints drafted for $100 by a lawyer. Let me help them out: HAVE YOUR HR COMPLAINT DELIVERED ON A LAW FIRM'S LETTERHEAD SO YOU CAN COLLECT A YEAR OR TWO'S SALARY. There. I feel better. It's fun to rant!

I've witnessed multiple auto accidents as well, and I still drive to work.

There. I feel better. It's fun to rant!

Cool, glad to hear it!

Vulnerability? The vulnerability has been caused by something else, which is the inappropriate behaviour. Minority? Irrelevant - (at least) one sex will always be in the minority if there are an odd number of employees. Feeling bad? Unrelated to sex.

Regardless, the behaviour mentioned is neither severe nor pervasive (if standalone) and not intrinsically sexual.

EDIT: From some above comments, you sound like you might be suggesting there is an Atlantic culture device. I'm UK-based, so perhaps this partially explains to you a difference in opinion.

The UK has extremely similar workplace gender equality issues to the US according to the World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index; we're basically neck and neck.

The Gender Gap Index does not measure harassment - "The Index benchmarks national gender gaps on economic, political, education- and health-based criteria" (from the 2011 report) - so I do not see the relevance to a discussion on sexual harassment.

The insane contortions of the American legal system are good reason to base a company outside of the US.

I've seen the system be abused by people with totally bogus complaints. Somehow, I just can't work up any outrage about it. Something about how "men like women and women like men and that's just the way it is" just does something to my internal moral compass.

Planning on starting a company in Europe or Asia so you can ask your coworkers out on dates without worrying about discrimination complaints? Good luck with that. ;)

So you don't think that men like women and women like men?

   Something about how "men like women and women like men 
   and that's just the way it is" just does something to my 
   internal moral compass. 

By introducing that dynamic tension is created. Especially so if the other party refuses the advances. Let me illustrate this point with a fake situation:

Sally works 9-5 at company A. She loves her job and enjoys her day-to-day tasks. She has to spend a significant portion of every day at this job, so she is grateful that she enjoys it and feels comfortable. Ted is a fellow employee that recently got assigned to a project with Sally. They work well together on the task at hand. One day, Sally notices Ted's eyes lingering and catches him looking at her when she is working. This makes it harder to concentrate because she feels uncomfortable. After some time, Ted starts flirting with her when they should be working. Normally, Sally is fine with chit-chat but the combination of deadlines and the flirtatious nature causes her much anxiety. She wants to be nice but at the same time, she cares more about the project and her career advancement than this guys pathetic attempts at being witty. One day, Ted asks her on a date as Sally is walking to her car. After a very uncomfortable silence, Sally declines and leaves for the day. That night, Sally cries into her pillow. What was once a great work environment has now turned extremely uncomfortable. Her job is demanding and the added pressure makes it hard to focus. She doesn't want to deal with the extremely awkward situation, especially since it is both unavoidable and takes a large amount of her waking life. What are her options? She can go to a supervisor. If the supervisor doesn't care and writes it off, she will feel terrible. If the supervisor transfers Ted from the project, rumor may get around and everyone in the office will know.

(The gender roles could easily be switched.)

The point of that story is to illustrate that even something as simple as coworker relations can really ruin someone's life. They HAVE to be at their job all day because they need money. It's not like a social circle that they can stop attending. If an awkward or uncomfortable dynamic is created, they have to deal with that EVERYDAY. It's like going to high school and having to know you deal with the bullies.

You can argue that "Sally" needs to learn to deal with it because it's life, beautiful, whatever. But she shouldn't have to. She should be able to go to work and deal with the task she was employed for without having to worry about all that other bullshit.

It's a perfectly normal, routine thing and mature, well-adjusted adults should not have a problem with something like that. Truth be told, it strikes me as disrespectful to women to assume that most of them are like your Sally, and are emotionally fragile as to be unable to handle a situation like this. Now if Ted kept making repeated advances after being told "no," then you're in a whole different ball-game.

I found it especially annoying because I am celibate for medical reasons, so rejecting some man's attentions was in no way personal criticism. But I also did not feel I should have to tell someone I barely knew about my medical situation. Futhermore, I had reason to believe that divulging such personal info wouldn't have helped anyway.

I live with a dread disease. I have raised very challenging children. I was sexually abused as a child. In short, I have done much harder things. But having been a homemaker for a long time, I was surprised and annoyed to run into this crap at work so much. I was there to get a paycheck, not pick up men.

It sounds like the guys you worked with were going beyond what I'm talking about. I am absolutely not saying that it's OK to harass people, to propose "quid pro quo" situations, etc. I'm just saying that co-workers should feel free to ask each other out, within the obvious constraint of doing so in a polite, respectful and reasonable manner.

But I also did not feel I should have to tell someone I barely knew about my medical situation.

You're right, there's no reason you should be obligated to do that.

You seem to live in some fantasy land. Why does someone have to be "mature and well-adjusted" to be employed in this country. In fact, you are implying mature and well-adjusted when it comes to dating and sexual advances. People come from varying backgrounds and have varying emotional states. Job descriptions don't usually list having to handle harassment as a duty. Furthermore, it's fantasy to think that once a dynamic like that is created, things will continue the same as they were before. Some people are strong and wouldn't be bothered. Many people, however, would be bothered. In a workplace, you have to cater to EVERYONE, not just the "mature, well-adjusted adults". What if Sally (or Ted) was right out of high school and was not a "mature, well-adjusted adult". Why are they required to be when it comes to sexual advances. They are at work to perform a duty and get paid for it. They are REQUIRED to fulfill those duties and not some made up ones pertaining to being "mature, well-adjusted adults".

A more appropriate course of action for Ted would be to ask if Sally wanted to get coffee outside of work, without implying any advances or sense of relationship (i.e. dating). An approach like that would allow Sally to decline the offer without the same kind of negative consequences.

And just so there is no misunderstanding, I have recomposed my example story:

Ted works 9-5 at company A. He loves his job and enjoys his day-to-day tasks. He has to spend a significant portion of every day at this job, so he is grateful that he enjoys it and feels comfortable. Sally is a fellow employee that recently got assigned to a project with Ted. They work well together on the task at hand. One day, Ted notices Sally's eyes lingering and catches her looking at him when he is working. This makes it harder to concentrate because he feels uncomfortable. After some time, Sally starts flirting with him when they should be working. Normally, Ted is fine with chit-chat but the combination of deadlines and the flirtatious nature causes him much anxiety. He wants to be nice but at the same time, he cares more about the project and his career advancement than this girl's pathetic attempts at being witty. One day, Sally asks him on a date as Ted is walking to his car. After a very uncomfortable silence, Ted declines and leaves for the day. That night, Ted cries into his pillow. What was once a great work environment has now turned extremely uncomfortable. His job is demanding and the added pressure makes it hard to focus. He doesn't want to deal with the extremely awkward situation, especially since it is both unavoidable and takes a large amount of his waking life. What are his options? He can go to a supervisor. If the supervisor doesn't care and writes it off, he will feel terrible. If the supervisor transfers Sally from the project, rumor may get around and everyone in the office will know. (And yes, males can cry too if you want to attack this using that stereotype.)

Finally, just because you are a male and might enjoy female advances doesn't make it true for everyone.

Honestly, I did miss that you made the point about reversing gender roles. I don't know that it changes matters much, though. My argument that asking co-workers out is no big deal, would remain the same in either case. Normal, mature, well-adjusted adults of either gender should be able to handle politely turning down a co-worker, IMO.

or you are just trying to win.

^sigh^ - Win what exactly? I don't know about you, but I'm not in a debate or a contest of any sort here. There are no winners, or losers or anything else. It's just a friendly discussion, for crying out loud.

Why does someone have to be "mature and well-adjusted" to be employed in this country.

They don't have to be, but I'm operating on the assumption that most people are. And I don't think we should change our whole fundamental approach to going through life, to cater to a few people who aren't.

Job descriptions don't usually list having to handle harassment as a duty.

I never said they did, or should. You seem to be operating on the assumption that asking someone out is automatically "harassment" which is absolutely false. If I ask a female co-worker out, she says "no," and nobody ever mentions it again, and nobody treats anyone differently as a result, and we continue behaving as reasonable adults, are you really contending that someone was "harassed"?

In a workplace, you have to cater to EVERYONE

No, you don't.

What if Sally (or Ted) was right out of high school and was not a "mature, well-adjusted adult".

Then you help them become mature, well-adjusted adults. The context doesn't change anything in that regard. There are all sorts of situations a green, right out of high-school kid might not be prepared to handle. If that comes up, and they spazz over it, you help them learn and adjust and grow.

A more appropriate course of action for Ted would be to ask if Sally wanted to get coffee outside of work, without implying any advances or sense of relationship (i.e. dating). An approach like that would allow Sally to decline the offer without the same kind of negative consequences.

Sure, did you think I was suggesting that Ted approach Sally and say "Hey, wanna go home and fuck?" (or vice versa)? That would be silly in pretty much any context. I'm talking about politely asking someone to join you outside of work for some non-work related activity, where the encounter is clearly intended to be personal and might or might not lead to a romantic or sexual interlude.

What are his options? He can go to a supervisor. If the supervisor doesn't care and writes it off, he will feel terrible.

This is absolutely no different from the previous scenario. His option is to politely tell Sally that he isn't interested. This only becomes an awkward situation if she refuses to acknowledge that and continues to make an issue of it. Just like if the roles were reversed.

Finally, just because you are a male and might enjoy female advances doesn't make it true for everyone.

I never contended otherwise.

Obviously here you've moved the goal posts, from "should have to put up with" to "should be able to handle".

It seems like everyone here has made their points and there's not much to be gained from relitigating. Why don't we all just agree that the thread we've got here so far does a pretty decent job of summing up all of our respective takes on this issue, and refrain from growing the thread any further?

It's not about whether people are robust enough to deal with this crap. It's about whether they should have to put up with it, and how it affects the company.

Firstly, one need not be male in order to be happy going to a place like Twin Peaks. The only time I've been to Hooters, I was dragged there by a bunch of chicks.

Secondly, one need not be female in order to be unhappy going to a place like Twin Peaks. Older, more respectable-looking men, men with daughters who would be round about the right age to be waitresses there, or extremely religious men, would feel uncomfortable there.

Thirdly, this isn't the only kind of company outing that can make people feel uncomfortable. Going to a steak-only restaurant can make vegetarians uncomfortable; on the other hand going to a vegetarian restaurant will make the omnivores uncomfortable.

Anyway, the point of the story is to organize your company outings, if you must have them, at someplace everyone will enjoy. Which, as far as advice goes, falls into the category "bloody obvious". No need to stick your genitals into it.

Anyway, the point of the story is to organize your company outings, if you must have them, at someplace everyone will enjoy.

Do you mean on a case-by-case basis though? IOW, if you had a group where everyone was happy going to Hooters, would you do it, or are you saying that one should always stick to the "safe" choice? If the latter, I wouldn't really agree, as that seems very limiting and likely to lead to a bland experience.

(I'm exaggerating above, of course, but the thought of going to Hooters or similar with my workmates or especially with my boss fills me with a feeling of ick. Boundaries, people, boundaries.)

But in answer to your question, if some other people at a company I don't work for all want to go to Hooters (or the male-stripper equivalent) together then I'm not gonna sit around and disapprove of that. Or, closer to home, my workmates and I all do eat steak [I assume] so if we go to a steak restaurant we need not worry about the hypothetical vegetarian who might be our next employee.

That's a fair and understandable position. I'm different in that I prefer to have fairly intimate (not necessarily sexual though) relations with my co-workers. The companies I've enjoyed working at the most, were the ones where we did things like going out to bars together after work, etc. For me, I like to blur those lines... life is life, I'm not a big fan of boundaries, borders, rules, limits, regulations, etc.

But, then again, I'm a fairly libertine leaning libertarian, so I can accept that not everyone will share my views...

In reality, it won't deter only female hires. I have nothing against going to places like this (or strip clubs: subsidized steak, at least in Oregon) socially, but a fair number of people wouldn't want to go socially, and I absolutely wouldn't want to go in a work context.

I have no problem with guys going to strip clubs or guys going to Hooters or guys hitting on girls at bars. I'm friends with plenty of people who do these things and still think they're great people.

But none of them take it to work, or go out of their way to take work to there.

It's on their private time. But something tells me that Kathryn Hough wouldn't dream of attacking them.

(and of course what she as an individual thinks is appropriate isn't necessarily the final say for all companies, so attacking her presumed prejudices doesn't really win the argument...)

It's as much a marketing issue (to customers and potential hires) as it is a legal one. Going to hooters is 100% legal. It may prejudice a jury against you if there are discrimination lawsuits for other issues in the future, and it may make sales or hiring harder in some cases.

I see extremely limited upside to company trips to places like that, and lots of downside, so it's a bad idea.

There are lots of issues which fall on various points in this kind of branding. Personally, I'm fine with losing sales to anyone who dislikes firearms irrationally. Company shooting trips, sanction carry at the office on premises, etc are fine with me. As a practical decision that's a minor dislike by 10-20% of people, strong like by 5-10%, and irrelevant to most. Fine in the computer security industry, but if I were in the fashion, childcare, or animal-welfare industry, there would be a lot different numbers, so it wouldn't work.

Other common situations are going to bars for company outings when people don't drink; doing outdoor type outings when people are physically impaired (obese or old or whatever).

Some people are going to have to be left out of certain situations, it's unavoidable, for a variety of reasons.

I probably wouldn't organize a company outing at hooters, but that said it's really not that controversial of a restaurant. I've seen families there the few times I've been there.

At a Berkshire Hathaway board meeting: http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Bill-Gates-...

Most restaurants hire a lot of female servers. Most have very nice looking women. This is not a coincidence. Most have them wear clothes that in some way accentuates their sexuality, even if it's just nice form fitting attire that shows no skin. They're not given burquas.

Why do good liberal folk rail against the supposed repressed sexuality of the United States, holding up European countries as some kind of enlightened ideal, and as soon as a woman decides to empower herself by working wherever she pleases, including a place that shows her midriff, we all suddenly prude out and talk about lawsuits?

Even 'good liberal folk' don't hold work events at establishments that might bother us unenlightened troglodyte prudes, because we still make up a decent chunk of the talent pool, and finding good employees is hard enough without alienating large swaths of them through easily avoidable things.

'Good liberal folk' in quotes, of course, because ogling someone who's so empowered she has to wear a skimpy uniform to keep her crappy minimum wage job doesn't strike me as particularly good or liberal.

All men have been there, most men outgrow it.

Why is gender inequality a problem that needs to be avoided? The economy needs tech startups. What difference does it make that the vast majority are started by men? It would be equally good if most tech startups were started by women, but they aren't. Who cares? The "gender inequality is bad" meme seems to be an unquestioned default that most people hold in their heads. The first thing people will always assume is that any uneven statistical distribution of people in a profession will be due to discrimination. But that's usually not the case. Usually, it comes down to a far simpler explanation. There are significant average motivational differences between men and women when it comes to math and the hard sciences that will always ensure a gender imbalance in engineering-related fields. Statistically, it has little to do with ability (except at very elite levels). Far fewer women than men enjoy thinking about and discussing technology. It's a simple fact of the world that's easily observed in the ever day conversations that men and women choose to have. And it will forever ensure a statistical gender imbalance in tech. Most women aren't interested in technology and women (and men) who are in technology, who keep pushing for this fictional perfect male/female balance would do well to show a bit of respect to the majority of the female population that chooses to be interested in other things that females are typically more oriented towards.

They're not as bad as they were at first. That's something.

I'm still embarrassed to be a member of HN when these threads roll around.

Thank you, by the way - you generally do an excellent job of being a voice of reason here.

It boils down to this: she was offended, she should avoid the company. Instead she's publicly trying to gang up on them, where it actually might cause them to lose some coin. Live and let live.

NYC is handing us our ass on female founders and employees, partly because they come closer to getting this right.

Perhaps we should consider learning something here?

So are investors just not watching? I would think that one call or email from one of your VCs where they condone That Sort Of Thing would be enough to scramble the PR machine and never do something like that again.

But it seems that every month (at least) we see some startup doing something dumb like this. Are VCs just not watching what their investments are doing?

Just don't go to shitty lunch places (like Hooters).

I can't think of any place that's objectionable in this context that's actually a decent place to go.

There are going to be situations in life where you'll be uncomfortable. It might be because of your values, gender, faith, or race. It will happen. It will happen to the person standing next to you at some point.

How about we all grow up and move past these points, and build cool stuff? I don't care if it is done in a Hooters or a Bed, Bath, and Beyond.

I bet everyone is smiling in that pic.

Everything is more spontaneous and loose. I think they would respect anyone in their group who didn't think it was nice to go to that place, as I think you should respect their choice.

You just went 100% for it and I thought it was a bad choice. I work with 2 guys and a girl and all of them are open minded to know what is and what is not going on.

It's the startup world: you can choose not only who works with you, but what works with you too.

Good look on your startup, I understand your goal to be respectful, but don't be too strict... after all, you hate rules.

Gender issues are not like making someone feel uncomfortable for their eating habits, or their consumption of alcohol. Your eating habits, especially in Silicon Valley, are not something that systemically keep you back from achieving success. Gender and implicit sexism do.

Perhaps as a man, respecting women for their brains and their bodies feels "orthogonal" to you, but I doubt it does to most of the women you work with. Ask them, but in a way where they can really respond.

More than anything that's the important idea here. Being a woman in technology is different than being a man. If you are a man and have opinions about this and have not sought out the opinions of the women you work with in a genuine way, in an environment where they can be honest, then you don't know what you are talking about. I've asked and it's always surprised and dissapointed me.

Maybe from now on we should use IANAW to talk about gender issues as men, because honestly, its are stacked in our favor. Only by understanding the other side can we understand what the problems with gender issues look like.