[onmydesk]

> "'Their attitude was, We can leave you with nothing because you’re a girl and you have a rich boyfriend,' she said

She wasn't an engineer. Perhaps they wanted engineers. Whats wrong with pointing out she happens to be cared for financially so won't have that to worry about? Its not the reason, its a fortunate circumstance.

Playing the sexism card is in rather poor taste. Did she complain when they took her on board because she suspected there was positive discrimination at play?

Doing 'the logo' and 'all that stuff' is suitably vague. Is she not fortunate to have got away with coining 60k for a lowly role in the first place?

[nissimk]

I didn't get that. It looked to me like she took 60k at the startup instead of a higher number at a more established company with the expectation that she'd get paid out the difference at the exit. Isn't that the risk/reward expectation of startup employment?

And what's wrong with pointing out her external financial situation is that it is not relevant to the decisions of the business. Is it less wrong to screw over a girl with a rich boyfriend than it is to screw over anybody else?