I often hear investors framing their investment decisions in terms of the team as much or more than the product. I would hope that investors recognize that the sort of alleged behavior and culture at Upload is both wrong and poisonous to building a company that can scale. Investors should do more due diligence and counseling around creating a healthy company culture lest any traction be undermined by becoming known as a bad actor, reducing your talent pool as a result, lawsuits, etc.
What they actually mean by "team" is have the founders previously founded a successful startup, or been involved in one. That's it.
I'd love to hear other opinions, but that's my experience talking to VCs. They rarely ask detailed team questions, or get to know the team. They ask tech and market questions mostly...
Team is basically code for what I will call the Three P's: pedigree, pattern, and proof.
* Pedigree: Do you have a track record in this domain? Have you been involved in success stories before? If nothing else, do you check the requisite Stanford/Google/Facebook/Apple boxes?
* Pattern: Does this team more or less resemble successful teams the VC has seen before?
* Proof: Who is vouching for this team? Who else is interested in this deal?
> When asked about being mentioned in the suit, Mr. Gopman, who has drawn attention in tech circles before for criticizing homeless people, said he was not happy about it. “How am I going to get married some day if I have to explain that?” he asked. Upload declined to comment on its former employee.
Is anyone else over all this? I just can't seem to care anymore. Why can't people just do their jobs and go home? Why is it so important for a work environment to be "socially safe"? The definition of social safety is arbitrary anyways. The assertion that sexual comments could be so pervasive you can't do your job is utterly absurd in my opinion. Then again maybe I'm just incapable of seeing past my male perspective...
It comes down to whether people have a reasonable expectation of sexual conduct at work.
If the answer is no, then if it makes someone uncomfortable you have to drop it.
This is not the same as every kind of thing that can make someone uncomfortable. Should people reasonably expect to have their performance reviewed at work? Yes. So if it makes them uncomfortable, too bad...
I know it's not what you meant, but obviously unwanted physical sexual conduct is immoral/illegal.
In regard to verbal sexual conduct I would say it is certainly undesirable in a work environment. I wouldn't allow it for a second if I ran a company, but this isn't my company. If Upload want's sexual conduct to be a part of their work environment, it's a dumb choice, but it's their choice.
You can't brow beat society into being perfect, you can only give people basic rights and hope for the best.
I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. I challenge you to even come up with a definition for verbal harassment that could be universally applicable.
This is not really relevant either, though — people can feel offended or threatened for many reasons, it doesn’t mean those things can’t be part of the work environment.
For example, if someone has questions about the quality of their work, a person might feel threatened — they might be afraid of getting fired — or they might be offended — they might be proud of their work. But we accept reviewing other people’s work as part of the work place, whether or not it offends or threatens.
Emotional response is not enough to establish that something (a) is illegal or (b) should be. With regards to feeling threatened, for example, we have to ask: Was the threat of something unlawful? Being fired for doing bad work is not unlawful; being fired for not putting out is.
This is what I've been trying to get at. What makes people offended or uncomfortable is much more arbitrary and subjective than I think most people are willing to admit.
This is an interesting comparison. Is verbal intimidation illegal/immoral because of the words being said or the intention of physical violence behind them?
Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"?
Edit:
To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?
Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words.
Most crimes of words or planning are like that:
* Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”.
* Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing.
* Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth).
If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough.
Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job.
It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark.
> If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand...
This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?
I can understand the "it's not just one comment" angle, this kind of makes sense. Although, I'm still not convinced everything taken as sexual harassment is actually such, at least to the extent external government intervention is need.
With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. If there is intention, then it's a threat not verbal harassment.
My concern overall is that in the long term government and policy will be such that even so much as giving a simple compliment like, "I like your shirt", gets taken as punishable sexual harassment because someone find this sexually charged based on their own life experiences. My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.
> With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention.
What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?
>What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?
I can't answer this question. That's my point, I have no clue why people care about what they perceive as sexual comments being directed at them. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Here is my thought process; if words can't hurt people physically, and I personally don't care about anything anyone says to me, there must be other people in this world that feel the same way. If this is the case than harassment must be on some level subjective, but a objective analysis of common reality would come to the same conclusion. It's a simple fact that what is sexual harassment in America today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or the same as it is for a tribe in Africa, and I don't believe an objective definition of sexual harassment could ever exist. Therefore sexual harassment can not be universally banned in the workplace or otherwise. At least not in a non authoritarian rights based system.
Of course if all you care about is your perception and your subjective reality, and you believe it's ok to push this on people, my point is moot. I just lean towards basic rights and leaving the subjective stuff alone. It all depends on how you view reality. Personally I feel reality has a common base of extremely simple truths (science/normative ethics), and all else is essentially arbitrary. Is this right or wrong? I'm clearly not qualified to say, nor is anyone else.
Edit:
It's like trying to find an answer to the equation "2+2" if you don't know anything about math. Some people say the answer is between 14 and 20, some really strange people may say it's 2,000 and they know it for sure. Personally, I think it's best to say it's between negative and positive infinity and wait for additional information.
The question of the ethics of sexual harassment in the workplace is "2+2", and nobody on earth really know anything about "math" in this regard. So defer to the least restrictive answer.
Well, harassment is very threatening. The other person clearly wants something. They aren't being nice about it or even straightforward. They have usually been around longer and sit higher in the organization. If you don't give them what they want -- they might make your life hell until you quit. Or they might not. Hard to say. What do you do? This happens every week.
People who engage in harassment can be quite masterful about their use of language. It's rare indeed for them to actually come out and say, they want to trade favors. What is bothersome is not the language but the underlying goal.
What is intimidating is different in different countries but nearly every country has laws on the books against assault (in law: "a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"). Your standard for what can be made law in a "non authoritarian" system is awfully high. It's okay for different countries and cultures to have different laws.
You're kind of making an unsupported leap asserting that sexually harassing comments always have intentions behind them (Edit: and by this I mean intentions to assault/blackmail, not intentions to engage in something consensual). I mean there is a distinction between sexual attraction and the intention to actually force physical assault.
Obviously it's not authoritarian to stop someone who's actually threatening someone, or who is strait up assaulting someone. I feel pretty strawmanned in that regard. I just disagree that sexual harassment always stems from an intention to physically engage regardless of the other persons desires.
I just don't see how a comment like, "I intend to masturbate to you", guarantees an intentional threat. I see no evidence that the individuals here would have physically harmed the female in question.
The discussion of forcing sex through power is kind of a separate issue more alone the lines of blackmail than harassment.
Of course someone saying, "Nice behind", wants something. So dose the guy who compliments your shirt, potentially. We all feel desire for someone we find attractive, and sure some people may vocalize this desire in ways perceived pathetic and unacceptable, and some won't. The mere feeling of desire and the vocalization of it dose not guarantee an intention to physically assault. Nor dose it guarantee blackmail for sex. I think you have an extremely bleak view of humanity if you think most people are capable of going to the extent of assaulting/blackmailing someone just because they vocalize their attraction. I just don't see this...
Edit:
I feel like I'm really coming out in support of sexual harassment here. I hope you realize this isn't my intention. I'm just trying to argue against the endless tide of restrictions I feel are arbitrarily calibrated to the point where they may stifle life itself for many people.
> My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.
I fear that you are your own worst enemy here. This issue with harassment is not simply that there is something sexually charged about it, but that it is coercive and unwelcome. If we don't cultivate a culture -- corporate or otherwise -- that recognizes the distinction, then people will be very sensitive about sexuality in general.
Coercive comments being objectively wrong I can understand, but this is not the case 100% of the time. Obviously, coercing someone into sex is borderline immoral (Edit: I looked up the actual definition of coercing, and would actually say it's completely immoral, since it's unwanted), and if there is any threat or power behind it it's essentially blackmail.
What I don't understand is the unwelcome side of things. This is where my argument stems from. There are a lot of things that large portions of society feel are unwelcome that others feel are perfectly acceptable.
I look back at history, with all the "unwelcome" things we have arbitrarily restricted that resulted in oppression, and I feel like we are dangerously close to making the same mistakes. I mean there was a time when scientific discourse was very "unwelcome", and it didn't really benefit society much. Is saying, "Nice behind", the same as discussing mathematics, of course not. However, I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed. Which is think is a fine thing for a company to opt for, but not something we should be forcing.
If a company want's to ban all sexuality and non professional interaction, forcing their employees to wear uniforms and only talk directly about business, this is fine. However, if a company want's to have bikini/board shorts day, and allow consensual non coerced sex in the office, I also think this is fine. Because the simple truth is, not everybody find this unwelcome.
I'm hoping someday people will realize that none of this is objective, and there are actually perspectives dramatically different than their own. It's not just one person either, and there is a spectrum. We need to stop forcing our narrow perspectives on others, and learn to live and let live.
Edit:
If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on. Should a Muslim coffee shop not be allowed to print verses on their cups because their American workers find it offensive and unwelcome?
> I'm hoping someday people will realize that none of this is objective, and there are actually perspectives dramatically different than their own.
The issue isn't whether this or that form of expression is okay with someone or okay with everyone. Again we look to things like self-defense and assault: these cases are not settled by the judge doing a poll to see if someone else would feel intimidated in a similar situation or if everyone (that they could find) would feel fine with it.
The issue is whether a reasonable person would find the conduct irritating, coercive or intimidating in the work place.
> ...I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed.
There is something to what you're saying here. Often people supplant the "reasonable person" standard with a "someone feels bad" standard -- I have seen it places I've worked, though not with regards to sexual harassment. But two wrongs do not make a right. The alternative to the "someone feels bad" standard is not the "yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man" standard.
> If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on.
Why do you believe they "need" to move on? Why can't they stand and fight?
> Why can't people just do their jobs and go home?
I would actually use this line at the beginning of a rant to the opposite effect: why can't people be professional in the workplace? Why can't they just do their jobs and go home, and not treat the office like a social club / bar?
What is professional? What sexual taboos are/aren't acceptable? What is acceptable workplace banter? I feel like it makes more sense to defer to the least restrictive system...
Oh, it's almost completely impractical in the real world.
First and foremost, it would make at least a heavy minority if not a majority of people rather unhappy. Because of a wagon-load of reasons (excessive work hours, moving to a new city for work separating you from most of your pre-existing social network, general difficulty of making new friends as an adult), work friends are the core of most people's social networks nowadays. If you eliminate work friends, you'd leave a lot of us more-or-less friendless, isolated, and sad.
It also becomes complicated when you consider that some work inherently involves discussing your personal opinions. What business practices are ethical, aesthetics of design, editorial choices.
Finally, employees must be able to discuss matters of common interest directly, to organize against management in both traditional matters of worker interest (conditions, pay, benefits) and to express a collective opinion about the direction of the company (eg, when the company takes actions the employees believe are unethical). This also requires employees be able to express potentially objectionable opinions to each other.
But as a model of professional behavior, it would make everything so much simpler if you never said one extra word to or treated the person in the next desk/cube/office in the slightest way different, inside the workplace, regardless of whether they're your best friend, your spouse, your kidney donor, your childhood bully, your crush, your worst enemy, or your closest relative. If you work with your best friend, finish your work, leave the office, and then talk to them about sports or your porn collections.
That's a terrible caricature of the truth. Professionalism doesn't exclude being a human being. Read some transcript of, for example, Supreme Court deliberations (hardly suspect of being unprofessional), and you'll see plenty of banter/jokes etc.
If you read actual examples it's pretty clear what people object to. It's not even that these are actual attempts to flirt or anything like that. Telling someone that you have an erection and concentrate because of her isn't flirting. It's a passive-agressive attempt to demean and hurt the other person.
If you read the full filing[0] you can see that there's plenty of gross stuff in there. Telling a female co-worker that you have a hard on because of her, that you can't concentrate and are going to go "rub one out" to clear your head isn't appropriate in a work environment. I sure wouldn't like something like that directed at me.
I understand you wouldn't want that, but I would. I find it endlessly hilarious honestly. Even if the person directing it at me was serious.
My point is there is no common ground here. What is/isn't acceptable to me clearly differs from you. It will be thousands of years before society has any chance of finding common ground on what is/isn't offensive. What do we do in the mean time? Set arbitrary standards, or learn to live without them?
You bet your tight little ... that we should just do our jobs and go home. Maybe you should go home with me? You know my wife is cool with it and I can do really good things for you here at $company...
I don't see why you're upset? You're a team player right? We're not trying to run a "socially safe" workplace here. You're not one of those bleeding hearts are you?
Why should a anyone have to have the occasion to make such a reply? What workplaces have you worked in where you could literally ignore other employees, especially authority roles, without repercussions? In what world do you suppose women are not subject to this sort of sexual harassment regularly?
Is it really unthinkable that people would suffer being at the receiving end of all sorts of abuse?
The one story that always got me was a friend who went on a business trip with a CXO, who had "accidentally" forgotten to book a room her. He kindly offered her to crash in his suite. She refused–and later found out it had happened two at least two other women before.
This story about Upload actually sounds somewhat different. It's really more a juvenile culture as you'd see in high school or undergrad, possibly the result of the founders' age. It seems to be very much like typical middle school bullying, but with a sexual component on top.
The only redeeming fact I cling to is that every single company that actually made it big was either somewhat well-behaved from the start, because the people who are successful also tend not to be completely immoral. Or at least they adjusted rather quickly (Facebook comes to mind). Let's hope Uber doesn't prove me wrong.
> Across the tech industry, sexual harassment appears to be ingrained. While the research is largely anecdotal and fragmentary, Chloe Hart, a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Stanford University, said the subject came up often in 27 in-depth interviews she had with female engineers about their social interactions at work.
This article is spinning a narrative that sexual harassment and discrimination in Silicon Valley are so widespread and endemic that we need a fresh start. All based on one sociology grad student's unpublished research. I'm not sure I share this view. Are Google, Facebook, Netflix so far beyond repair that we need a fresh start? From what I know of these companies, I would think that they actually treat women better than most other American companies, including the New York Times.
41 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 29.7 ms ] threadWhat they actually mean by "team" is have the founders previously founded a successful startup, or been involved in one. That's it.
I'd love to hear other opinions, but that's my experience talking to VCs. They rarely ask detailed team questions, or get to know the team. They ask tech and market questions mostly...
* Pedigree: Do you have a track record in this domain? Have you been involved in success stories before? If nothing else, do you check the requisite Stanford/Google/Facebook/Apple boxes?
* Pattern: Does this team more or less resemble successful teams the VC has seen before?
* Proof: Who is vouching for this team? Who else is interested in this deal?
Really now?
If the answer is no, then if it makes someone uncomfortable you have to drop it.
This is not the same as every kind of thing that can make someone uncomfortable. Should people reasonably expect to have their performance reviewed at work? Yes. So if it makes them uncomfortable, too bad...
In regard to verbal sexual conduct I would say it is certainly undesirable in a work environment. I wouldn't allow it for a second if I ran a company, but this isn't my company. If Upload want's sexual conduct to be a part of their work environment, it's a dumb choice, but it's their choice.
You can't brow beat society into being perfect, you can only give people basic rights and hope for the best.
I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. I challenge you to even come up with a definition for verbal harassment that could be universally applicable.
For example, if someone has questions about the quality of their work, a person might feel threatened — they might be afraid of getting fired — or they might be offended — they might be proud of their work. But we accept reviewing other people’s work as part of the work place, whether or not it offends or threatens.
Emotional response is not enough to establish that something (a) is illegal or (b) should be. With regards to feeling threatened, for example, we have to ask: Was the threat of something unlawful? Being fired for doing bad work is not unlawful; being fired for not putting out is.
Is it the verbal nature of it, that leads you to believe people have no right to be free of it?
As a counter example, consider that verbal intimidation is just as illegal as any other kind.
Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"?
Edit:
To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?
Most crimes of words or planning are like that:
* Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”.
* Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing.
* Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth).
If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough.
Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job.
It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark.
> If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand...
This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?
With intimidation the words are a non issue, it's just vocalized intention. With verbal harassment the words are all that matter, there is no intention. If there is intention, then it's a threat not verbal harassment.
My concern overall is that in the long term government and policy will be such that even so much as giving a simple compliment like, "I like your shirt", gets taken as punishable sexual harassment because someone find this sexually charged based on their own life experiences. My personal hope is that sexuality will become less of a taboo, and people will become less sensitive to it. This is jut my preference though.
What is it about harassment that bothers people? Why don’t people like being subject to sexual harassment?
I can't answer this question. That's my point, I have no clue why people care about what they perceive as sexual comments being directed at them. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Here is my thought process; if words can't hurt people physically, and I personally don't care about anything anyone says to me, there must be other people in this world that feel the same way. If this is the case than harassment must be on some level subjective, but a objective analysis of common reality would come to the same conclusion. It's a simple fact that what is sexual harassment in America today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or the same as it is for a tribe in Africa, and I don't believe an objective definition of sexual harassment could ever exist. Therefore sexual harassment can not be universally banned in the workplace or otherwise. At least not in a non authoritarian rights based system.
Of course if all you care about is your perception and your subjective reality, and you believe it's ok to push this on people, my point is moot. I just lean towards basic rights and leaving the subjective stuff alone. It all depends on how you view reality. Personally I feel reality has a common base of extremely simple truths (science/normative ethics), and all else is essentially arbitrary. Is this right or wrong? I'm clearly not qualified to say, nor is anyone else.
Edit:
It's like trying to find an answer to the equation "2+2" if you don't know anything about math. Some people say the answer is between 14 and 20, some really strange people may say it's 2,000 and they know it for sure. Personally, I think it's best to say it's between negative and positive infinity and wait for additional information.
The question of the ethics of sexual harassment in the workplace is "2+2", and nobody on earth really know anything about "math" in this regard. So defer to the least restrictive answer.
People who engage in harassment can be quite masterful about their use of language. It's rare indeed for them to actually come out and say, they want to trade favors. What is bothersome is not the language but the underlying goal.
What is intimidating is different in different countries but nearly every country has laws on the books against assault (in law: "a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact"). Your standard for what can be made law in a "non authoritarian" system is awfully high. It's okay for different countries and cultures to have different laws.
Obviously it's not authoritarian to stop someone who's actually threatening someone, or who is strait up assaulting someone. I feel pretty strawmanned in that regard. I just disagree that sexual harassment always stems from an intention to physically engage regardless of the other persons desires.
I just don't see how a comment like, "I intend to masturbate to you", guarantees an intentional threat. I see no evidence that the individuals here would have physically harmed the female in question.
The discussion of forcing sex through power is kind of a separate issue more alone the lines of blackmail than harassment.
Of course someone saying, "Nice behind", wants something. So dose the guy who compliments your shirt, potentially. We all feel desire for someone we find attractive, and sure some people may vocalize this desire in ways perceived pathetic and unacceptable, and some won't. The mere feeling of desire and the vocalization of it dose not guarantee an intention to physically assault. Nor dose it guarantee blackmail for sex. I think you have an extremely bleak view of humanity if you think most people are capable of going to the extent of assaulting/blackmailing someone just because they vocalize their attraction. I just don't see this...
Edit:
I feel like I'm really coming out in support of sexual harassment here. I hope you realize this isn't my intention. I'm just trying to argue against the endless tide of restrictions I feel are arbitrarily calibrated to the point where they may stifle life itself for many people.
I fear that you are your own worst enemy here. This issue with harassment is not simply that there is something sexually charged about it, but that it is coercive and unwelcome. If we don't cultivate a culture -- corporate or otherwise -- that recognizes the distinction, then people will be very sensitive about sexuality in general.
What I don't understand is the unwelcome side of things. This is where my argument stems from. There are a lot of things that large portions of society feel are unwelcome that others feel are perfectly acceptable.
I look back at history, with all the "unwelcome" things we have arbitrarily restricted that resulted in oppression, and I feel like we are dangerously close to making the same mistakes. I mean there was a time when scientific discourse was very "unwelcome", and it didn't really benefit society much. Is saying, "Nice behind", the same as discussing mathematics, of course not. However, I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed. Which is think is a fine thing for a company to opt for, but not something we should be forcing.
If a company want's to ban all sexuality and non professional interaction, forcing their employees to wear uniforms and only talk directly about business, this is fine. However, if a company want's to have bikini/board shorts day, and allow consensual non coerced sex in the office, I also think this is fine. Because the simple truth is, not everybody find this unwelcome.
I'm hoping someday people will realize that none of this is objective, and there are actually perspectives dramatically different than their own. It's not just one person either, and there is a spectrum. We need to stop forcing our narrow perspectives on others, and learn to live and let live.
Edit:
If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on. Should a Muslim coffee shop not be allowed to print verses on their cups because their American workers find it offensive and unwelcome?
The issue isn't whether this or that form of expression is okay with someone or okay with everyone. Again we look to things like self-defense and assault: these cases are not settled by the judge doing a poll to see if someone else would feel intimidated in a similar situation or if everyone (that they could find) would feel fine with it.
The issue is whether a reasonable person would find the conduct irritating, coercive or intimidating in the work place.
> ...I still feel like we are closing in on a world where any expression of sexuality or attraction is disallowed.
There is something to what you're saying here. Often people supplant the "reasonable person" standard with a "someone feels bad" standard -- I have seen it places I've worked, though not with regards to sexual harassment. But two wrongs do not make a right. The alternative to the "someone feels bad" standard is not the "yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man" standard.
> If people feel they can't work at a place with a certain set of rules or philosophies then they need to simply move on.
Why do you believe they "need" to move on? Why can't they stand and fight?
I would actually use this line at the beginning of a rant to the opposite effect: why can't people be professional in the workplace? Why can't they just do their jobs and go home, and not treat the office like a social club / bar?
First and foremost, it would make at least a heavy minority if not a majority of people rather unhappy. Because of a wagon-load of reasons (excessive work hours, moving to a new city for work separating you from most of your pre-existing social network, general difficulty of making new friends as an adult), work friends are the core of most people's social networks nowadays. If you eliminate work friends, you'd leave a lot of us more-or-less friendless, isolated, and sad.
It also becomes complicated when you consider that some work inherently involves discussing your personal opinions. What business practices are ethical, aesthetics of design, editorial choices.
Finally, employees must be able to discuss matters of common interest directly, to organize against management in both traditional matters of worker interest (conditions, pay, benefits) and to express a collective opinion about the direction of the company (eg, when the company takes actions the employees believe are unethical). This also requires employees be able to express potentially objectionable opinions to each other.
But as a model of professional behavior, it would make everything so much simpler if you never said one extra word to or treated the person in the next desk/cube/office in the slightest way different, inside the workplace, regardless of whether they're your best friend, your spouse, your kidney donor, your childhood bully, your crush, your worst enemy, or your closest relative. If you work with your best friend, finish your work, leave the office, and then talk to them about sports or your porn collections.
If you read actual examples it's pretty clear what people object to. It's not even that these are actual attempts to flirt or anything like that. Telling someone that you have an erection and concentrate because of her isn't flirting. It's a passive-agressive attempt to demean and hurt the other person.
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/15/uploadvr-sued-over-rampant...
My point is there is no common ground here. What is/isn't acceptable to me clearly differs from you. It will be thousands of years before society has any chance of finding common ground on what is/isn't offensive. What do we do in the mean time? Set arbitrary standards, or learn to live without them?
I don't see why you're upset? You're a team player right? We're not trying to run a "socially safe" workplace here. You're not one of those bleeding hearts are you?
/s
Are you really saying you can't ignore unwanted sexual comments in the work place?
You last assertion is beyond me. I see no evidence to suggest that women in general are subject to regular workplace harassment.
[0] http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/miller-v-dept-corrections...
The one story that always got me was a friend who went on a business trip with a CXO, who had "accidentally" forgotten to book a room her. He kindly offered her to crash in his suite. She refused–and later found out it had happened two at least two other women before.
This story about Upload actually sounds somewhat different. It's really more a juvenile culture as you'd see in high school or undergrad, possibly the result of the founders' age. It seems to be very much like typical middle school bullying, but with a sexual component on top.
The only redeeming fact I cling to is that every single company that actually made it big was either somewhat well-behaved from the start, because the people who are successful also tend not to be completely immoral. Or at least they adjusted rather quickly (Facebook comes to mind). Let's hope Uber doesn't prove me wrong.
This article is spinning a narrative that sexual harassment and discrimination in Silicon Valley are so widespread and endemic that we need a fresh start. All based on one sociology grad student's unpublished research. I'm not sure I share this view. Are Google, Facebook, Netflix so far beyond repair that we need a fresh start? From what I know of these companies, I would think that they actually treat women better than most other American companies, including the New York Times.