[Barrin92]

>I don't really think the various Civil Rights Acts support the bay area's rebranding of separate but equal.

that is an incredible bad faith characterization. In informal 'frat house' style settings that don't have many rules women often face incredible amounts of harassment because mostly men don't respect boundaries. It's why there is such a stereotypical bro-culture in SV, it's enabled by the laissez-faire attitude.

In settings with rules and where people expect professionalism it doesn't tend to be as much of an issue, but in some house where people even mix drinking and work it tends to go bad really quick.

[vmception]

It's supposed to be provocative to potentially stoke introspection.

I understand the rationale behind "safe spaces", that wasn't my question.

[Barrin92]

well it's not provocative, it's just stupid. The whole "oh safe spaces? See you're the real racist!" thing you can find in the youtube comment section of Ben Shapiro videos. You're not making some genius point here, you're just not familiar with the kind of experiences women face in these environments or lack the social intelligence to imagine it, like 95% of the HN audience.

[vmception]

your words and I’m not familiar with those influencers

Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws? Do you see how easy that is for me to have zero emotion on this, your turn. Think of it as a standardized test question, you have to answer those based on accuracy.

[Barrin92]

>Is the way they are addressing it compatible with existing laws?

Obviously. Private, gender separated clubs exist everywhere in the United States. Ever been to a sports club or a fraternity? Civil rights legislation addresses employment and 'spaces of public accommodation'. You're obviously JAQing off because you know this

[ummonk]

California has legislation that goes beyond national legislation.