I think there's a distinction to be made between "people who are unable to find sexual partners" and "people who self-identify with and participate in communities that spew hatred and encourage violence over the fact that they can't find sexual partners".
Sort of like the difference between "white people" and "white supremacists". Except that currently we don't have separate (reasonably brief) terms for the above categories.
There's nothing wrong with having employees who are unattractive / can't find sexual partners, and I agree that that would be just as ridiculous a criterion to fire someone over as being caucasian. However, if you have people in your company who are filled with vitriol or considering violence (be it because they hate women who won't sleep with them or because they hate people with a different skin color), that's a problem waiting to happen.
I think this "intolerance of intolerance" is becoming terrifying.
I personally find "people who hate people with a different skin colour" and "people who hate women" to be repulsive. I'd prefer not to work with those people, if possible. But I accept that in a free society, I might have to. I have no special right to be protected from opinions I don't like, and nor should I.
Nobody should be excluded from employment because of an opinion. And in a free society, it should never be illegal to state an opinion.
We are crossing the line into thought crime here, and it's frightening to see powerful people like Ellen Pao being ok with that.
I also prefer not to work with people with such bad views but I think I could. However, I also want to work with women and PoC and as the object of someone's hatred, it would presumably be harder for them; their absence would be worse for the organization, themselves, and me personally.
My starting point is I don't think what you say or do outside the workplace should have bearing on your employment. Lots of people have bad, crazy ideas that don't significantly affect their performance.
It is the rare person who can prevent their hate from leaking out into their day to day interactions and making their coworkers uncomfortable - thus interfering with morale and the company's viability.
If we remove the ideological aspect of this argument entirely, what we're left with is the notion that employment is supposed to be 100% comfortable. But...
In any given employment environment: chairs may be less than form-fitting; different people will have different tolerances for the thermostat setting; some employees may heat fish and durian fruit in the microwave; one may be asked to load or unload 40 foot shipping containers; being under pressure to meet a deadline is fairly normal; a boss or coworker may have an unpleasant personality, possibly even a personality disorder.
In general, we expect that in many ways, employment will be uncomfortable. In general, we accept this as a nominal cost of earning a living.
But once various ideologies are introduced, there is a sudden expectation that a small and specific subset of workplace interactions ought to be 100% pleasant and comfortable. Why is this?
If I have the choice between working somewhere where my colleague thinks he has the right to rape me if I don't sleep with him vs a place where my colleagues are respectful and have my back, where do you think I'll choose to work? And if I don't have a choice of where to work, do you think I'll be able to do my best work with that sort of threat present?
It's not just about comfort (though personally I do think people have a right to a workplace where there coworkers would defend them against bodily harm rather than claim a right to inflict it). It's also about what's best for the business.
> There's nothing wrong with having employees who are unattractive / can't find sexual partners, and I agree that that would be just as ridiculous a criterion to fire someone over as being caucasian.
On an unrelated note: the "firing" time hasn't arrived yet, but not being hired just because you're Caucasian isn't that uncommon nowadays.
Incel doesn't mean "someone who is unable to have sex". We need to have some esympathy and empathy for that group, and many places are trying to fix lonliness. This group may benefit from legalisation of sex work. Pao is not talking about this group.
Incel means "someone who is a member of a group who have a pathological hatred of women and men who have sex with women, who think that they have a right to demand sex, and that if it's not provided they have a right to take it by force by rape". Pao is talking about this group.
Incel was a label that these people gave to themselves, simply meaning "involuntarily celibate".
Sure these communities are incredibly toxic, but I don't think it's fair to say that every member of them has all of the beliefs you describe. Most of these people are probably mentally ill, they need compassion and empathy, not to be purged from society.
How much more bitter and angry are they going to be if they start to feel like they're also excluded from having a job?
Sort of like the difference between "white people" and "white supremacists". Except that currently we don't have separate (reasonably brief) terms for the above categories.
There's nothing wrong with having employees who are unattractive / can't find sexual partners, and I agree that that would be just as ridiculous a criterion to fire someone over as being caucasian. However, if you have people in your company who are filled with vitriol or considering violence (be it because they hate women who won't sleep with them or because they hate people with a different skin color), that's a problem waiting to happen.