I don't think this is either a sexist incident nor a geeky one. What's it doing here? --Skud (talk) 21:45, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

It's a racist incident, but I put it in because it speaks to the degree that the tech industry (crowdfunding sites, in this instance) will ignore or even enable that racism. If it's out of scope, it can go, though. RickScott (talk) 02:45, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm idk. We cover intersecting oppressions, but they do have to intersect, you know? If we start covering every example of bad behaviour by every internet company (oh god, *so* many) we lose focus entirely. I think an incident needs to have a gender angle -- or be plausibly connected to a series of incidents with a gender angle -- to be relevant here. If this page argued that case, I would be in favour of it staying. As it is, it's a list of links that are neither particularly geeky (apart from being on the Internet) nor feminist. We usually delete non-regular contributors' pages under those circumstances. --Skud (talk) 12:49, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's about "every example of bad behaviour", it's an example of bad behaviour by a tech company that does relate to a gender issue -- the issue of police brutality that limits Black women's reproductive choice (in that knowing your children are likely to be killed by police affects the choice of whether to have children). Just because it's mainly a Black women's issue doesn't make it not a women's issue, any more than Lean In is off-topic here just because the troublesome expectations therein mostly get pushed on white women. Monadic (talk) 00:36, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.