One of my objections is similar to benjamincosman’s — people not taking no for an answer in romantic/sexual contexts is a problem I’ve seen in people of all ages, races, cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, social status, and points on the autism spectrum. It was a big problem at both my urban public high school and my elite private college.
Yes power differentials make it worse, yes it’s more of a problem in an environment as gender-imbalanced as EA or the wider Bay Area tech scene, and yes people who are striving to be moral should hold themselves to a higher standard. But trying to use the existence of these problems as an indictment of the community proves too much — I don’t know of any community of any kind that successfully avoids them.
I am not opposed to an honest discussion of the gender issues in EA or rationality or the Bay Area as a whole or whatever other scene. I’m a woman and I care about this. But this post completely fails at “Aim to explain, not persuade”. It uses inflammatory rhetoric, makes sweeping generalizations like “EA/rationalism and redpill fit like yin and yang”, and lumps polyamory in with the problems in an apparent attempt to score points, when polyamory is something that many people practice in a way that’s healthy, happy, and consensual for all parties involved.
I also take issue with the specific line
There are also upsides [to accepting the sexual advances of men in power], as reported by CoinDesk on Caroline Ellison.
This reads to me like you’re implying that Caroline only got into a position of power because she was sleeping with Sam? That’s internalized misogyny if I’ve ever heard it. Whatever her recent actions may have been, Caroline is an extremely smart person who was a successful trader at Jane Street before ever joining Alameda. When I heard she had become CEO, that made sense to me based on her experience, intelligence, and seniority at the company.
Maybe I am just feeling frustrated about everything lately and am taking it out on you, but come on. If you want people on LessWrong to respect what you’re saying, at least try to write with epistemic honesty, instead of whatever this is.
One of my objections is similar to benjamincosman’s — people not taking no for an answer in romantic/sexual contexts is a problem I’ve seen in people of all ages, races, cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic status, social status, and points on the autism spectrum. It was a big problem at both my urban public high school and my elite private college.
Yes power differentials make it worse, yes it’s more of a problem in an environment as gender-imbalanced as EA or the wider Bay Area tech scene, and yes people who are striving to be moral should hold themselves to a higher standard. But trying to use the existence of these problems as an indictment of the community proves too much — I don’t know of any community of any kind that successfully avoids them.
I am not opposed to an honest discussion of the gender issues in EA or rationality or the Bay Area as a whole or whatever other scene. I’m a woman and I care about this. But this post completely fails at “Aim to explain, not persuade”. It uses inflammatory rhetoric, makes sweeping generalizations like “EA/rationalism and redpill fit like yin and yang”, and lumps polyamory in with the problems in an apparent attempt to score points, when polyamory is something that many people practice in a way that’s healthy, happy, and consensual for all parties involved.
I also take issue with the specific line
This reads to me like you’re implying that Caroline only got into a position of power because she was sleeping with Sam? That’s internalized misogyny if I’ve ever heard it. Whatever her recent actions may have been, Caroline is an extremely smart person who was a successful trader at Jane Street before ever joining Alameda. When I heard she had become CEO, that made sense to me based on her experience, intelligence, and seniority at the company.
Maybe I am just feeling frustrated about everything lately and am taking it out on you, but come on. If you want people on LessWrong to respect what you’re saying, at least try to write with epistemic honesty, instead of whatever this is.