This story is unavailable.

Hmm… first, it’s kind of hard to argue against the article because “a feature, not a bug,” is relatively undefined. The article makes a case that it’s pervasive, but the main evidence is a) that an extraordinarily high number of women have received unwanted advances (although, I would kind of like that term defined as well) and b) that CEO’s who get in trouble for sexual harassment often get other jobs, neither of which definitively add up to a “culture.” For instance, I’m guessing many of those advances were by the same people, so even if 84 percent of women received them, it’s possible that only 10% of men made them. I’m not saying that’s not a big deal, just that it’s hard to use it as evidence of pervasive culture. Again, the word is ill-defined, so it’s hard to argue for or against.

As for the diversity issue — the evidence seems mixed. This NYT article is probably the best breakdown I’ve read. According to this, on the one hand, black and latino people are often put off by a belief that the culture won’t be welcoming, and they could extend their recruiting to historically black colleges.

However, it also details people who chose to apply for non-profit and business work instead, which, to be honest, is a choice I don’t feel is my place to judge. Either way, one of the “criticisms” in the article, is blaming tech companies because Black and Latino students don’t often come to information sessions, but show up to interview and resume workshops. To be honest, I’m not sure how you blame that on Facebook. These are the top jobs in the industry, and you’re an adult at a top college. If you can’t be bothered to show up at an information session I’m not sure it’s Facebook’s job to track you down in a resume workshop. Regardless, the point is it’s clearly a complex issue and could be dealt with better than simply quoting a Medium post.

As for 2) this is going to sound harsh, but at some point, if people seriously want to have this conversation, they have to find some sort of reasonable punishment for domestic violence and sexual assault that lies in between slap on the wrist and permanent purgatory. Ray Rice is the perfect example. His initial punishment was too light and they changed the system. Supposedly, the punishment for that sort of crime became a suspension of 4–6 games. That’s nearly half a season in a sport where the average career is 3–4 years, and the majority of your earning potential comes before the age of 30. In other words, that’s a stiff punishment. Personally, I’m okay with that. Pair it with mandated counseling and community service. If you want to argue there should be a stiffer one (8 games, a year), go ahead and make a case.

But, I do think that once he’s done with that punishment, he deserves to be able to move on and earn a living. Again, you can argue that some of these people received slaps on the wrist, but I kind of get the feeling that almost nothing except permanent blackballing from the industry would satisfy some people.

Last, seriously, the idea that sexism in the industry has to do with white men creating a system for and by white men is beyond ludicrous. Travel to Latin America and tell me that sexism is an issue solely (or even primarily) attributed to white men. Go to Asia or Africa or afterward. Then watch Straight Outta Compton and tell me that if the CEOs were all black then everyone would live in perfect, respectful harmony.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.