I won't say the sexism angle is bunk, but the difference in attitude also strike at the very question of what the role of a CEO is. Just with a reddit-y spin:

I won't say the sexism angle is bunk, but the difference in attitude also strike at the very question of what the role of a CEO is. Just with a reddit-y spin: Are the CEOs ultimately responsible for the behavior of the company beyond simple profit/sustainability? (This is a series of rhetorical questions, but do remember that your position for Pao/Huffman also applies to Kalanick). Is it their job to jump on the grenade so the area is clear for everyone else to pick up the pick up the pieces and move a never version of the company forward? To eat the problem so the baggage doesn't weigh on the company forever? I think under Pao, we saw a reddit userbase that expected the CEO to be a leader. A case where forcing a CEO to confront the dissent and dissatisfaction would compel action. In the wake of her ouster, and under Huffman it has become known the top brass DGAF. They have an addicted userbase and will skirt ownership and responsibility of the orgnization's actions like weasly middle managers (or politicians). The userbase appears to have adapted to operating under those terms. Why would the userbase maintain the same dissent towards Huffman? That would be insanity (doing the same thing, expecting different results).