4 ms·

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 mak

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.
- malandrew 9y ago
  It's ironic that you don't try to avoid the same criticism that you have doled out elsewhere. Previously you criticized someone for "feel[ing] they have to take any statement to their most extreme in order to challenge the conversation", yet in this comment you have done the same.
  - asdfologist 9y ago
    Agreed, let's all try to have a civil discussion around here, folks.
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    I disagree, I feel every comment was sufficiently justified by the text of the parent comment. My only regret is including the "Do you say 'All Lives Matter...". I shouldn't have made that a question targeting the parent comment, and just noted that the protestation seemed comparable.
- asdfologist 9y ago
  So by your own admission, you're advocating hiring a female CEO based on a probabilistic argument that females tend to make the workplace more female-friendly. Isn't this akin to saying that the US Department of Education should hire an Asian leader because the US is bad at math and science, and Asians have been shown to be generally better at math and science?
  - HelloMcFly 9y ago
    Good grief. No, I do not advocate hiring a female - or anyone - on any single set of criteria. I don't think Uber - or anyone - should only consider or be committed to hiring women. To do so would be both unethical, sub-optimal and illegal. That is as clear as I can be on that subject. However, I do think they should make an increased effort to find qualified female candidates for the CEO position and put them through same selection process as male candidates. And I do think that all things being equal, women candidates will have a leg-up on male candidates in the one particular performance domain of redressing the female-hostile culture Travis and the leadership team created because on balance women will have more understanding of the issues facing the female workforce. However, 1) that isn't the only performance domain, and 2) the selection process may very well reveal that one or more of the male candidates has better insight into the issue, more personal experience creating the kind of culture change needed, or both. That's why the selection process exist. > Isn't this akin to saying that the US Department of Education should hire an Asian leader because the US is bad at math and science, and Asians have been shown to be generally better at math and science? No, it's not, and that doesn't seem to me to be a good-faith analogy on your part at all.

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.

malandrew 9y ago
It's ironic that you don't try to avoid the same criticism that you have doled out elsewhere. Previously you criticized someone for "feel[ing] they have to take any statement to their most extreme in order to challenge the conversation", yet in this comment you have done the same.
- asdfologist 9y ago
  Agreed, let's all try to have a civil discussion around here, folks.
- HelloMcFly 9y ago
  I disagree, I feel every comment was sufficiently justified by the text of the parent comment. My only regret is including the "Do you say 'All Lives Matter...". I shouldn't have made that a question targeting the parent comment, and just noted that the protestation seemed comparable.
asdfologist 9y ago
So by your own admission, you're advocating hiring a female CEO based on a probabilistic argument that females tend to make the workplace more female-friendly. Isn't this akin to saying that the US Department of Education should hire an Asian leader because the US is bad at math and science, and Asians have been shown to be generally better at math and science?
- HelloMcFly 9y ago
  Good grief. No, I do not advocate hiring a female - or anyone - on any single set of criteria. I don't think Uber - or anyone - should only consider or be committed to hiring women. To do so would be both unethical, sub-optimal and illegal. That is as clear as I can be on that subject. However, I do think they should make an increased effort to find qualified female candidates for the CEO position and put them through same selection process as male candidates. And I do think that all things being equal, women candidates will have a leg-up on male candidates in the one particular performance domain of redressing the female-hostile culture Travis and the leadership team created because on balance women will have more understanding of the issues facing the female workforce. However, 1) that isn't the only performance domain, and 2) the selection process may very well reveal that one or more of the male candidates has better insight into the issue, more personal experience creating the kind of culture change needed, or both. That's why the selection process exist. > Isn't this akin to saying that the US Department of Education should hire an Asian leader because the US is bad at math and science, and Asians have been shown to be generally better at math and science? No, it's not, and that doesn't seem to me to be a good-faith analogy on your part at all.