3 ms·

I guess you just must have been momentarily distracted when you reached the part in the article in which she explicitly states why: "While gender of a leader sh

by n72 9y ago

I guess you just must have been momentarily distracted when you reached the part in the article in which she explicitly states why: "While gender of a leader should not matter to dispatching such appalling behaviors, the symbolism over the appointment of a female CEO at Silicon Valley’s most toxic-bro startup is unquestionable."

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
That quote seems to have some sexist elements itself.
- mlloyd 9y ago
  It doesn't when this entire drama is due to the company's sexist and toxic culture.
  - atom-morgan 9y ago
    sexism + sexism != sexism?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    The sexist part is the implication that every man is "bro" somehow... that only a female CEO could count as a symbolic change in leadership.
    - dieterrams 9y ago
      That isn't being implied. And an "unquestionable" symbolism is not the same as "the only possible" symbolism.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        The only unquestionable symbolism would be hiring a female CEO?
        HelloMcFly 9y ago
        You're exhausting if only because you try to place the comments of others into a linguistic box of your own creation, not theirs. There are undoubtedly many things Uber could do that would be "unquestionably symbolic." Hiring someone else with a history of sexual harassment would be unquestionably symbolic. Nowhere did anyone say that hiring a female CEO is the only unquestionably symbolic act they could do. But it is one of them, and in that hypothetical instance, the symbolism would be positive. And no, it isn't the only unquestionably positive act they could do.
    - untog 9y ago
      I don't see the implication at all. The culture of the company can be "bro" without every single employee being "bro". By your logic all the women working at Uber would also have to be "bro".
  - lightbyte 9y ago
    Are you implying the only possible solution for that is a women? That itself is very sexist.
  - asdfologist 9y ago
    So females are incapable of being sexist?
    - HelloMcFly 9y ago
      I don't see anyone making that claim, but you are yet another commenter that feels they have to take any statement to their most extreme in order to challenge the conversation. And it's so commonly done in the same lazy way that at best charitably resembles the Socratic method, but at worst is just willful contrarianism. Females are not incapable of being sexist. Nobody claimed that. In a culture alleged (with evidence) to be at least somewhat unfriendly towards women, a female CEO is likely to be better able to empathize with the issues and experiences women face. If one of your major concerns is to make the workplace more welcome for all, then it seems reasonable that a leader that comes from the class of workers who were not given a great experience is reasonable.
      - asdfologist 9y ago
        Then where's the guarantee that men will be treated fairly? The main problem with your argument is the assumption that the gender of the leader will somehow make things better, and this line of thinking only contributes to the very sexism it aims to eliminate. Why not judge leaders by their track record, not the gender they were born into?
        HelloMcFly 9y ago
        > Then where's the guarantee that men will be treated fairly? Your immediate descent into victimhood strikes me as the same mentality of Men's Rights groups who typically seem more interested in making sure their position as the most privileged group is maintained. Do you also like to say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter"? This feels comparable to me. There is no guarantee that anyone will be treated fairly by any new CEO hire, or any CEO in general. But it's not unreasonable to be generally more concerned about the group that have had a systematically worse experience. Improving their experience does not in any way mean that others must suffer. Fairness and empathy are not zero-sum. > The main problem with your argument is the assumption that the gender of the leader will somehow make things better The main problem with your entire line of reasoning is that you keep making problematic assumptions. I don't assume that any given woman will make things better. I do assume that - probabilistically - any given senior female leader will have a better appreciation for and more developed thoughts around the troubles females experience in so-called "bro environments" than any given senior male leader. That comment has nothing to say about their other qualifications. > this line of thinking only contributes to the very sexism it aims to eliminate. I will agree that if you either intentionally or ignorantly - but either way incorrectly - apply a "women will be better than men" philosophy onto my position then that would indeed be sexist. Thankfully, neither my public comments or most-private thoughts carry that belief. > Why not judge leaders by their track record, not the gender they were born into? You need to judge prospective leaders on the entire constellation of performance domains you wish them to achieve in. In this instance, one of those performance domains is a culture change that makes the workplace less of woman-hostile environment. But it's not the only one, and it shouldn't (and almost certainly won't) be treated as such.
- lettergram 9y ago
  Indeed, my point exactly.

by n72 9y ago

DoofusOfDeath 9y ago

That quote seems to have some sexist elements itself.

mlloyd 9y ago
It doesn't when this entire drama is due to the company's sexist and toxic culture.
- atom-morgan 9y ago
  sexism + sexism != sexism?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The sexist part is the implication that every man is "bro" somehow... that only a female CEO could count as a symbolic change in leadership.
  - dieterrams 9y ago
    That isn't being implied. And an "unquestionable" symbolism is not the same as "the only possible" symbolism.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      The only unquestionable symbolism would be hiring a female CEO?
      - HelloMcFly 9y ago
        You're exhausting if only because you try to place the comments of others into a linguistic box of your own creation, not theirs. There are undoubtedly many things Uber could do that would be "unquestionably symbolic." Hiring someone else with a history of sexual harassment would be unquestionably symbolic. Nowhere did anyone say that hiring a female CEO is the only unquestionably symbolic act they could do. But it is one of them, and in that hypothetical instance, the symbolism would be positive. And no, it isn't the only unquestionably positive act they could do.
  - untog 9y ago
    I don't see the implication at all. The culture of the company can be "bro" without every single employee being "bro". By your logic all the women working at Uber would also have to be "bro".
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Are you implying the only possible solution for that is a women? That itself is very sexist.
- asdfologist 9y ago
  So females are incapable of being sexist?
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    I don't see anyone making that claim, but you are yet another commenter that feels they have to take any statement to their most extreme in order to challenge the conversation. And it's so commonly done in the same lazy way that at best charitably resembles the Socratic method, but at worst is just willful contrarianism. Females are not incapable of being sexist. Nobody claimed that. In a culture alleged (with evidence) to be at least somewhat unfriendly towards women, a female CEO is likely to be better able to empathize with the issues and experiences women face. If one of your major concerns is to make the workplace more welcome for all, then it seems reasonable that a leader that comes from the class of workers who were not given a great experience is reasonable.
    - asdfologist 9y ago
      Then where's the guarantee that men will be treated fairly? The main problem with your argument is the assumption that the gender of the leader will somehow make things better, and this line of thinking only contributes to the very sexism it aims to eliminate. Why not judge leaders by their track record, not the gender they were born into?
      - HelloMcFly 9y ago
        > Then where's the guarantee that men will be treated fairly? Your immediate descent into victimhood strikes me as the same mentality of Men's Rights groups who typically seem more interested in making sure their position as the most privileged group is maintained. Do you also like to say "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter"? This feels comparable to me. There is no guarantee that anyone will be treated fairly by any new CEO hire, or any CEO in general. But it's not unreasonable to be generally more concerned about the group that have had a systematically worse experience. Improving their experience does not in any way mean that others must suffer. Fairness and empathy are not zero-sum. > The main problem with your argument is the assumption that the gender of the leader will somehow make things better The main problem with your entire line of reasoning is that you keep making problematic assumptions. I don't assume that any given woman will make things better. I do assume that - probabilistically - any given senior female leader will have a better appreciation for and more developed thoughts around the troubles females experience in so-called "bro environments" than any given senior male leader. That comment has nothing to say about their other qualifications. > this line of thinking only contributes to the very sexism it aims to eliminate. I will agree that if you either intentionally or ignorantly - but either way incorrectly - apply a "women will be better than men" philosophy onto my position then that would indeed be sexist. Thankfully, neither my public comments or most-private thoughts carry that belief. > Why not judge leaders by their track record, not the gender they were born into? You need to judge prospective leaders on the entire constellation of performance domains you wish them to achieve in. In this instance, one of those performance domains is a culture change that makes the workplace less of woman-hostile environment. But it's not the only one, and it shouldn't (and almost certainly won't) be treated as such.
lettergram 9y ago
Indeed, my point exactly.