Oh, so now it's the WaPo. Sorry if I don't consider this paywalled billionaire propaganda rag to be authoritative.
This particular retreat facilitates interactions between women at the company, and the company's more senior people. This represents a significant benefit to career advancement, that is denied to one group of employees based on their membership in a protected class (sex). This a blatantly sexist policy. I hope this much, at least, is clear to you.
I'll bite: What are women's retreats for?
Let's start with: Employer programs that confer career benefits based on membership in a protected class are unethical and should be avoided or ended. Is that clear enough?
The entire WNBA business model is dependent upon membership in a protected class.
It was a yes/no petition tacked onto a begged question. The original request was for clarity. I'm trying to bring clarity where needed, rather than answering the wrong question, or blindly accepting unstated assumptions.
:thumbsupETA: I see now that you answered just above.
It's not clear to me how the question you've been asking maps to anything I've actually said. I'm trying to get that map clear, before I try to answer. ETA: This is why I asked you to try using the words I wrote, and the things I actually said.
Okay, but only if it's anti-woke.
Why don't you ask a woman that question?
I agree that it seems very silly. I was very confused when you raised this point, because it didn't really have anything to do with what I actually said, nor with the words I actually used to say it.
No, you don't understand. I'm not saying it's simply enough that it's illegal. I'm saying that it is clearly sexist, and therefore clearly wrong.
I think sexist programs in the workplace are indeed an important issue. I think it makes perfect sense to go after this particular program, because it is obviously and inexcusably sexist.
Because you raised the point. So I'm asking you. For my part, I'm pretty sure that women's retreats fall afoul of the spirit and the letter of equal opporutnity law when they are designed to provide a career benefit to women, while denying that same benefit to men because of their sex.
It was meant to address your point: There's a simple and straightforward reason to go after this particular program: It's obviously illegal. In addition to being blatantly sexist. So in addition to the simple justification, there's also the moral justification: Sexism is wrong. Having said as much, I felt it rendered moot your poorly-articulated strawman of a point. It seems to me you agreed about that, since instead of trying to rebut me, you tried to insinuate your strawman back into the discussion, as something I tacitly agreed with.
Why?
Sexism in the workplace is a big deal to me. Giving advantages to women, while withholding those same advantages from men, because they are men, is a big deal to me. As big a deal as giving advantages to men, and withholding them from women because they are women. To me, both injustices are equally important, equally deserving of legal sanction, and equally deserving of government attention when it looks like the law has been broken.
It never occurred to me that you were trying to convince me of anything. I assumed all along your intent was to misrepresent and vilify me. Next time you're "just wondering what I thought", consider being a little more clear about what exactly you're trying to do. Paraphrasing my position in terms of your strawman is counter-productive.
Men already have it, and have had it for centuries.