4 ms·
> 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
by 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?
- pheldagryph 9y agoYes, I often use irony intentionally. Could you please expand on your comment?
- lefstathiou 9y agoYour full quote is: "Imagine the optics of replacing a sexist old man with another sexist old man. Worth the risk to shareholder value?" Your statement implied that replacing one "sexist old man" (who we believe to be a sexist by something he said) with another "old man" is a risk to shareholder value because that replacement, by virtue of being a man and/or old, will also be a "sexist". Your statement is passing judgment on a potential candidate without knowing anything about them simply based on their potential gender. That is definitionally sexism, the same sexism you are identifying as a risk to shareholder value. Perhaps you didnt mean it that way but that doesnt change the valid interpretation of the statement. The irony is that this sexist statement was made in a thread about an article of a guy who made a sexist comment (that cost him his job).
- pheldagryph 9y agoThank you for explaining my very, very little joke. We might consider the possibility that a suitable woman in the role is significantly less likely to make this very embarrassing class of mis-step. And with billions of dollars on the line... where's the smart money? I suppose that is a sexist sentiment, too. Nuts, I can't win!
- lefstathiou 9y agoHa, apologies for not picking up on the joke. It can be challenging to know when you are having a literal conversation or not in written form. HN is probably not the place to have this conversation (I would have emailed you if it were in your profile) but to your point on "a suitable woman is significantly less likely to make this embarrassing mis-step"... that too is overt sexism of the kind I suspect you would find unacceptable coming from a man. Rhetorical question: how would you feel about a male manager justifying hiring a man because he is "significantly less likely to get pregnant and lose interest in the job"? Lolz, yes, I do think that is a sexist comment and a part of me wonders if you actually think it isnt (maybe I'm being too literal). That said, I don't really care that you are making it. I'm a white male living in the 21st century, living with the double standard of being labeled a sexist or racist despite not being one is something you have to accept. To your point, I think "smart money" buys the right tool for the job. I can see why you think replacing this old rich sexist white male with a young rich (sexist) white female is the smart move as it gets the trolls of your back and appeases the populists trying to hijack your company through negative PR. Anyway, I had fun with this. Hope you're having a good day.