6 ms·
David Bonderman Resigns from Uber Board
- lancewiggs 9y agoThe right thing to do. He needs to be replaced by a woman, and to Ariana's point they need several on the board. Plenty of work required to change the toxic culture at Uber.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- initstick 9y agoFTFY: He needs to be replaced by a more qualified individual. It doesn't matter what gender they identify as.
- dbnoch 9y agoWhile I understand the sentiment... it DOES matter what gender they identify as. Uber's culture issues deal with sexism and harassment towards Women. You need a diverse group for the board and adding white males will not fix their issue.
- nawre 9y ago>You need a diverse group for the board and adding white males will not fix their issue. It was of paramount importance to mention skin colour here. I don't understand so-called progressives like you. Do you understand that just because you have a spectrum of skin colours, or genders, does not mean you have actual diversity. That socio-economic backgrounds weights a lot more than this, and that you can have a board of 100% {colour}+{gender} with very eclectic and innovative thinking. Taking a step back, there's always a common denominator you will be able to find between the members of an entity to proclaim that "there is no diversity because all those members share {common denominator}. This cult you dedicate to diversity is absurd. More than that, it is marketing (saving the appearances) posing a social justice. I hope the day "white males", whom you so very much enjoy denouncing as the root of all evil, becomes tired of this scapegoating never comes.
- pgodzin 9y agoWhen it comes to board seats there's only one socio-economic background that matters.
- initstick 9y agoSo how many ways do you cut the diversity pie? You've now introduced skin color on top of gender. You've also removed the slice that represents "white" (whatever that means) males. Is it your stance that the pie now only represents females? What about other groups of people, how about we slice it into socioeconomic pieces, age, hair color, weight, etc. The point is, your vision of diversity is just anti-white-male. You'll be satisfied until you find too many representatives of whatever arbitrary label you come up with next.
- viraptor 9y agoIt's more about breaking up a monoculture. You can't introduce a representation of every possible division of humankind. But that's an unrealistic extreme, just like having no representation is an extreme. At some point, working in a diverse environment you just start thinking about others more than before. Random example I've seen many times, but feel free to extrapolate to other positions/issues: If you have a group of native British developers of a web app, there's a good chance that any non-latin input will be either mishandled or rejected. Not because they hate other languages, but simply because that's not a problem they run into, or think about. Add one (for example) Greek dev, and the team will be quickly made aware of and learn about the locales and encoding issues. This will help the accessibility for all cultures, not just British and Greek. Exposure to enough people different than you makes you think about others more. Even if you don't work with every possible token representation of the difference.
- pgodzin 9y agoA woman with a perspective on the diversity and culture they need to create seems uniquely qualified for the role.
- toehead2000 9y agoAlso maybe some knowledge of the transportation business!
- throwaway-1209 9y ago"Diversity hiring" is a double edged sword though. There's a stigma attached to it which is really hard to overcome even if you're good.
- pgodzin 9y agoIt's crazy that hiring a woman to be the second woman on a board is considered "diversity hiring" though. It's not a super minority that is being looked for to tout diversity, it's half the population! I'm sure there are women who are both utterly qualified AND can provide a perspective on the more inclusive culture they are trying to create.
- throwaway-1209 9y agoHiring a woman is not crazy in the least. Hiring a woman because she's a woman over a more qualified male candidate (or the other way around) is harmful. There are plenty of women who don't need such "help".
- pgodzin 9y agoNot sure why we immediately need to jump to the trope that a more qualified male candidate would be passed over. You're treating a seat on the board as if were some sort of technical role with hard skills. It's not - it's a role to be a positive and influential voice within a company dealing with a toxic culture. Being a successful woman and having all the experiences and perspectives that come with that is literally part of their qualification for the position.
- threeseed 9y agoThere is the theory. And there is the reality. The theory says it shouldn't matter who you are it should only be based on your professional ability. And in theory it wouldn't make a difference to the ability of a company to function whether the gender or racial mix was one sided or not. The reality is different. The reality is that having a uniform gender and race mix across a company causes all sorts of problems to the culture which in turn flows through to the companies actions and behaviours. And so if you want your company to be healthy you need to have at least some mix of men and women and races because the fact is that employees simply behave differently when there is a mix.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoHow does this reality, this idea that companies are dysfunctional if gender and race are uniform, fit the data of the previous few thousand years of human progress? Has the world changed? Can groups of uniform gender-race people no longer act cordially to people who aren't same gender-race?
- danhon 9y agoHold the front page, groups of uniform gender-race people have acted cordially to people who aren't the same gender race for thousands of years? Citation needed.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoI believe what he's saying is that without the action of individuals within certain groups, it would be impossible for those in groups without power to progress. If they were uniformly racist and sexist, then progress could not have been made. That's to say they are capable of it, not that it's ideal or that they were responsible solely for progress. Most abolitionists were not African-American.
- obstinate 9y ago> Can groups of uniform gender-race people no longer act cordially to people who aren't same gender-race? "No longer?" At what point did they ever?
- pheldagryph 9y ago> FTFY: He needs to be replaced by a more qualified individual. It doesn't matter what gender they identify as. Given the politics of the situation, reasonable people might hear in this: "A woman should not be hired for this role." Imagine the optics of replacing a sexist old man with another sexist old man. Worth the risk to shareholder value?
- aaron-lebo 9y agoYeah, optics matter, but a reasonable person might take your comment as saying "optics matter more than merit". Your last sentence doesn't follow. Maybe you could replace a sexist old man with a man who isn't sexist?
- dogecoinbase 9y agoMaybe you could replace a sexist old man with a man who isn't sexist? This is not testable. Move what you can measure.
- aaron-lebo 9y agoOk, so how do you test that a female hire isn't racist?
- nemothekid 9y agoBy not moving the goalposts.
- pheldagryph 9y agoI would rejoinder with: the optics are the merit. These are only board members, after all.
- lefstathiou 9y ago"Another sexist old man"? Do you see the irony in your statement?
- glasz 9y agono. the requirement is "woman". don't you get it?
- notatoad 9y agoIf he were an engineer, you'd be right. But for a board seat, being a woman is exactly the sort of qualification that is needed at Uber right now.
- you_go_first 9y agoIt looks like you're a director at several companies you've invested in and you're male. You should practice what you preach and relinquish all those positions to women. Gender shouldn't matter to determine qualification. If they appoint a woman, it should be because she's better qualified and not because of her gender. I'm shocked that people think the solution to sexism is a different flavor of sexism. It does women no favor to get positions on account of their gender instead of their qualifications because it just delegitimizes why they got a position in the first place. It will just leave people always wondering: "Did they earn it or were they given it on account of their gender?"
- comex 9y agoThere are several reasons why diversity is desirable in all positions, including the tendency of implicit bias to diminish perceived qualifications. But in this specific case, being a woman actually is a qualification. One of the key jobs for Uber's leadership in the immediate future is reducing sexism, and women are likely to have at least some personal experience being on the receiving end of it in their lives, which gives them a unique perspective.
- you_go_first 9y agoWhat about an openly gay white male? Or an immigrant? Or a black person? A muslim? A disabled person? An atheist that grew up in the south? A baptist that grew up in the Bay Area? There are plenty of different individuals out there that would be qualified to give perspective on being on the receiving end of a toxic culture. What about a straight while male with strong prior experience changing the culture at a company and with experience in transportation? There are many qualifications that need to be considered, and boiling it all down to one qualification above all others, being a women, is incredibly diminishing and overtly discriminatory. The qualifications should be defined in terms wholly indifferent to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. Individuals who happen to be white and or male and are now experiencing a culture that now blames them for everything because they are of the same gender and skin color as people in the past that did bad things now also have experience dealing with a toxic culture. It may only be 5 years or so experience dealing with a toxic culture, but you usually only need about 5 years or so experience with something to be qualified so long as you are well qualified in other aspects the job requires.
- flylib 9y agohe still has the board seat, it's TPG board seat, he can pick one of his co-workers
- rubyfan 9y agoI'm not sure I fully understand the point he was trying to make? Was it a dig at Huffington not adding value?
- samstave 9y agoit would _seem_ that his attempted defense is that he claims he was trying to say "having more women on the board would lead to more discussion" -- but that appears to be his defense, it is unknown if that defense would actually be true at all...
- heyheyhey 9y agoListening to the audio, he's saying it in jest and Huffington laughs along (albeit nervously since it wasn't a funny joke). It's just reinforcing a stereotype that women tend to talk a lot.
- rubyfan 9y agoInteresting, thanks for clarifying. Yeah the quotation on its own was unclear what point it was even trying to make.
- mikeash 9y agoIt was a verbal version of these cheeky bathroom doors: http://imgur.com/jkkkFVF http://imgur.com/jkkkFVF Not so cheeky coming from this person at that time and place, though.
- rubyfan 9y agoThanks that helps. Seems like one misstep after another with this company but sounds like he did the right thing in resigning.
- robbiemitchell 9y agoAll thanks to the leaked audio from the meeting (6:40): https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-ubers-hands-meeting-travis-194232221.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/inside-ubers-hands-meeting-tr...
- BigJono 9y agoPreparing to be bombarded with downvotes for this, but resigning over such a remark seems like an overreaction. His apology seems sincere, that should be enough. On the scale of things said about women by men in power this is about a 2/10, there's many much more egregious examples of sexism out there for people to be upset about.
- tyingq 9y agoI think that's generally true about the remark in a generic setting. That he blurted it in that time and place, though...that's the catch.
- bla2 9y agoYou have to look at the remark in the context it was made. They were having a meeting where they presumably tried hard to make the point that they're very serious about fixing their culture. This is the only way to _maybe_ keep this believable, even if you feel that "everyday sexism" should be considered harmless.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y agoYeah right. What possess someone to say something like that at a time like that. Maybe try keeping ya gob shut. Maybe it'd be nice for a change if men in power were generally saying pleasant things about women. That there are worse things happening in other places doesn't mean we can't also expect better behaviour from those in front of us now. P.S. Hello from the south island
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cycomachead 9y agoThere's (pretty much) always a more egregious example though. It also seems like, given the context of the remarks, the (probably little) harm this causes him, and the potential for a new board member who's hopefully more inclusive, that hopefully something good comes of this.
- metellus 9y ago
- danblick 9y agoI wonder if Uber's investors have an unusual perspective on women's issues: https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/3561e0558d4fa07f0dc27a9d380fd0ae https://www.crunchbase.com/funding-round/3561e0558d4fa07f0dc...
- staticautomatic 9y agoBy now this is starting to be downright hilarious. Fuck all these folks and the Ubers they rode into town in.
- ocrimgproc 9y agoHey staticautomatic, I hope you see this. Sorry for the offtopic comment but I couldn't find your email anywhere. Shoot me an email at fkocrimgproc@gmail.com . It's about OCR.
- redm 9y agoOn one hand, we live in an age that highlights and elevates any remarks made to a point that there are serious real world repercussions. On the other hand, the internet offers a layer of perceived anonymity that causes people to say things they never would, or should, in person. Things that they would be ashamed if that had to repeat to peers, in person. It's a strange time to be alive.
- pgodzin 9y agoThis was said in person though?
- pgodzin 9y agoReally can't make this up. The board has spent months trying to figure out how to deal with their culture issues, and minutes into the all-hands presenting their findings, he says a disparaging offhand comment about women.
- jolux 9y agoAnd interrupts Arianna Huffington to do so, too.
- jbuild 9y agoWhat do you think of adding Marissa Mayer to Uber's board of directors? She seems to be suited to run companies in Uber's position.
- you_go_first 9y agohttp://jezebel.com/lawsuit-accuses-marissa-mayer-other-female-yahoo-execs-1787530305 http://jezebel.com/lawsuit-accuses-marissa-mayer-other-femal...
- glasz 9y agothat comment is quite sexist.
- jazoom 9y ago?
- aresant 9y agoSo Bonderman made an overtly sexist, diminutive comment about a new FEMALE board member at a meeting held SPECIFICALLY to address Uber's inherent culture & sexism issues? I'm not sure whether watching HBO's Silicon Valley or just pulling up HN has given me more belly laughs at the inanity of the current state of tech over this past 12 months.
- royrobben66 9y agoI am Roy Robben the Director of Employment SEP Constructions Company. Our company seeks reliable, efficient and dedicated personnel in States who will represent the company's interest and also carryout basic operations, because we do not have any branch there. The job is a flexible and home based one and can be carried out by any person without interrupting his or her daily activities. All the job entails are: -Keeping records of payment made by our customer and clients request. We are offering you a base salary of $3,000 monthly which will be a tax-free If you are satisfied with the conditions stated above and you are willing to work kindly send your resume/cv to via Email: terryrobben.rep@outlook.com royrobben66@gmail.com Regards Roy Robben (Director of Employment SEP Constructions)
- ericzawo 9y agoThis was the right move. On another note it's getting harder and harder to separate the news out of Uber from satire. Watching the car accident continue over again at head office feels like I'm sometimes caught reading The Onion.
- ohreally123 9y agoBecause white males are a generic, misogynistic, power-hungry/greedy subspecies I guess? Come on.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- landon32 9y agoNo, because females have different life experiences than males. There is no way around that. Society treats females and males differently from birth. Running short on time, but this page links to a bunch of relevant studies: http://www.spertus.com/ellen/Gender/pap/node7.html http://www.spertus.com/ellen/Gender/pap/node7.html
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- you_go_first 9y ago> Society treats females and males differently from birth. So what you're saying is that both are on the receiving end of sexism because both are treated different on account of their gender.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- obstinate 9y agoSort of, although the downsides are unevenly suffered. The patriarchy is bad for men, but it is far worse for women.
- stale2002 9y agoYes, and males and females experience that sexism in different ways. So a man isnt going to experience the same problems that women experience, and vice versa. Which is why it is important to have a diversity of perspectives.
- hashmymustache 9y agoIt seems like teachable moments have become fireable offenses. I understand the seriousness of the issue and context, but is this really worth the level of outrage it has received? Edit: Curious at the downvotes for an honest attempt at a reasonable discussion on the issue. Such are the times.
- cthulha 9y agoCalling this a 'teachable moment' is really letting the person off the hook for observing and learning up before now. If he hasn't learned by now what is appropriate behaviour, why do you think he'll ever learn? And if he doesn't learn rapidly and advance with best practices in corporate culture and governance, then he's not capable of the leadership and management responsibilities of a board member. The 'teachable moments' were at least 3 years ago, if not much earlier. The firing offence is ignoring them.