8 ms·

I just find the whole leather jacket incident incredibly baffling. It's just a few hundred bucks. Is Uber that short of cash? It's ridiculous.

Taylor_OD 10y ago
They need that money to keep subsidizing my flat rate rides.
CydeWeys 10y ago
It's only baffling until you realize that it really just is horrible, blatant sexism of the worst kind. That entire department had turned so corrosively sexist (going from 24 to 3% women) that it needed to finish the job and get the rest of the women out by making it plain that they weren't welcome. We're talking about the people in power here being so horribly sexist that they have to force the women out in order to feel comfortable being themselves. Any company that cares one inkling about diversity will go out of its way to make minorities feel comfortable. We're dealing with the opposite situation here: A department actively working to drive out diversity.
- xanderjanz 10y ago
  Thats not how I read it. They tried to push out the last few women, while scheming to keep them? Why hire them in the first place? I take it at face value, Oblivious Employees/Managers thought that not paying extra for women's jackets was equality.
  - sudosteph 10y ago
    > Why hire them in the first place? Because they were qualified applicants and the hiring manager wanted to not get sued for blatant hiring discrimination? These folks clearly don't deserve to be taken at face value. Otherwise the "Everyone is getting jackets" could have been properly taken at value to mean that everyone, including women were getting them. So we're past believing them at face value now, great. So why did they really make this an issue? Probably some combination of: 1. Someone was playing politics and wanted a head pat for saving money (conversely, they did not want to reprimanded for going over-budget). 2. Women are often perceived as less assertive, so they thought they would be less likely to raise a stink over a "minor issue" like a free jacket. (The really pessimistic side of me says someone thought "Women don't wear leather jackets anyhow, it's not stylish enough. Why spend money on something they won't use?") I don't for one second believe they actually thought "equality" came into play at all.
- twfarland 10y ago
  It doesn't seem like they're trying to actively force women out. It seems like they're such creeps that no women (or grown men) would want to be there.
Paul-ish 10y ago
It is absurd. They don't think "We don't hire and retain enough women to get a bulk discount on their gear.", they think "Their fault for being a woman."
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Taylor_OD 10y ago

They need that money to keep subsidizing my flat rate rides.

CydeWeys 10y ago

It's only baffling until you realize that it really just is horrible, blatant sexism of the worst kind. That entire department had turned so corrosively sexist (going from 24 to 3% women) that it needed to finish the job and get the rest of the women out by making it plain that they weren't welcome. We're talking about the people in power here being so horribly sexist that they have to force the women out in order to feel comfortable being themselves. Any company that cares one inkling about diversity will go out of its way to make minorities feel comfortable. We're dealing with the opposite situation here: A department actively working to drive out diversity.

xanderjanz 10y ago
Thats not how I read it. They tried to push out the last few women, while scheming to keep them? Why hire them in the first place? I take it at face value, Oblivious Employees/Managers thought that not paying extra for women's jackets was equality.
- sudosteph 10y ago
  > Why hire them in the first place? Because they were qualified applicants and the hiring manager wanted to not get sued for blatant hiring discrimination? These folks clearly don't deserve to be taken at face value. Otherwise the "Everyone is getting jackets" could have been properly taken at value to mean that everyone, including women were getting them. So we're past believing them at face value now, great. So why did they really make this an issue? Probably some combination of: 1. Someone was playing politics and wanted a head pat for saving money (conversely, they did not want to reprimanded for going over-budget). 2. Women are often perceived as less assertive, so they thought they would be less likely to raise a stink over a "minor issue" like a free jacket. (The really pessimistic side of me says someone thought "Women don't wear leather jackets anyhow, it's not stylish enough. Why spend money on something they won't use?") I don't for one second believe they actually thought "equality" came into play at all.
twfarland 10y ago
It doesn't seem like they're trying to actively force women out. It seems like they're such creeps that no women (or grown men) would want to be there.

Paul-ish 10y ago

It is absurd. They don't think "We don't hire and retain enough women to get a bulk discount on their gear.", they think "Their fault for being a woman."

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]