4 ms·

This is sexist. No way around it. You could argue that it was not intentionally sexist, but the facts of the situation scream sexism.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> but the facts of the situation The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another. That's something we should all keep in mind.
- dmansen 10y ago
  Uber hasn't denied any allegations, all of which have an paper trail (otherwise known as "direct evidence")
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    None of this paper trail has been surfaced or aired in a public forum. And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements. Right now, this is trial by mob.
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    It's common for an organization to stop to review facts (aka investigate) before taking action or issuing claims or a defense. That's the stage they're at right now. The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  Pretty sure the evidence is that the women didn't get a jacket and the men did. The discussing was just about the complaint, but that core fact remains. It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing. You can only claim the presence of an object, not the absence of an object. Now, if there were evidence besides the blog post that all the men got a jacket as part of the program (maybe a male Uber engineer can say "Hey, I got the jacket, the women didn't get one?" that would be some sort of evidence. Right now, the claim is that men in a program got the jacket, and women did not. That claim is only made by one woman who was in the program. Corroboration would be great before you start talking about textbook cases and discrimination.

jimmywanger 10y ago

> but the facts of the situation The facts of the situation are that this is still a he said she said situation, without any direct evidence one way or another. That's something we should all keep in mind.

dmansen 10y ago
Uber hasn't denied any allegations, all of which have an paper trail (otherwise known as "direct evidence")
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  None of this paper trail has been surfaced or aired in a public forum. And Uber is not denying allegations until they do an investigation on their end. When some sort of evidence comes out, that's when we should be making judgements. Right now, this is trial by mob.
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  It's common for an organization to stop to review facts (aka investigate) before taking action or issuing claims or a defense. That's the stage they're at right now. The people who jump to a microphone to say "nuh uh! not us!" before they've stopped to look at the situation are not people to work for. Because when they're wrong, things are only going to get worse.
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Pretty sure the evidence is that the women didn't get a jacket and the men did. The discussing was just about the complaint, but that core fact remains. It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It definitely isn't a "he said, she said" situation when there is a physical item (jacket) missing. You can only claim the presence of an object, not the absence of an object. Now, if there were evidence besides the blog post that all the men got a jacket as part of the program (maybe a male Uber engineer can say "Hey, I got the jacket, the women didn't get one?" that would be some sort of evidence. Right now, the claim is that men in a program got the jacket, and women did not. That claim is only made by one woman who was in the program. Corroboration would be great before you start talking about textbook cases and discrimination.