As much as HN has grown in the last decade there's still a sizable undercurrent of reactionary thinking. Look at the large number of comments that see nothing wrong with a sexist comment at the big board meeting about fixing Uber's sexist culture.
It takes a certain kind of idiot to make a sexist remark (even as a joke) in a meeting about how your company is going to tackle its terrible problem with sexism.
Maybe just the awkward air in the room that he just can't shake. Perhaps the comment in a different setting would have merited just an apology to the room...but tossing that out there, in that particular time and place. Just wow.
At an Uber staff meeting earlier in the day, Arianna Huffington, another Uber board member, said one woman on a board often leads to more women joining a board. Mr. Bonderman responded “that it’s much more likely to be more talking.”
1) The media rarely characterizes the actual underlying science correctly.
In this case, the journal entry [0] and an author of the paper herself[1] characterize it as simply a "difference" and are careful to not concretely link it to human-observable behavioral differences (such as "Women talk more", which the media is more than happy to expand upon to clickbaity levels in order to get more ad revenue).
2) History has shown that science, which strives for impartial and unbiased results, often has its results applied by biased and partial people who have agendas. Said agendas may include justification of the current status quo.
In my opinion, keeping these two points in mind is just an exercise of healthy critical thinking. When applied here, I reject your idea that this Huffington article justifies Bonderman's behavior as being unoffensive.
In my experience, women generally do talk more. Is that an offensive statement, or is it the context of David Bonderman making that statement at an Uber staff meeting?
I can't find it now, but there's a video of one of Ben Horowitz's lectures where he says one benefit of hiring women is that they communicate more openly and effectively, at least with each other. If a woman feels marginalized by another woman during a meeting, she's more likely to communicate that and solve the problem, rather than holding onto it.
I don't know if this is true or not, but since there was no backlash over this, it goes to show that context and tone influences what's seen as disparaging.
>"In a statement, Mr. Bonderman said his comment “came across in a way that was the opposite of what I intended, but I understand the destructive effect it had, and I take full responsibility for that.”
Is this just a very selective part of the statement then? Because saying something wildly inappropriate and "something failing to have its intended affect" are very different things.
This seems like a real missed opportunity by the Board of Directors to have had him replaced(fired?) and put out a press release emphasising that toxic culture would not be tolerated at any level.
I would be curious to know if he is still entitled to his full Board member salary.
32 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 37.4 ms ] threadhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-women-really-...
Are we all _sure_ he meant it as a sexist joke?
At an Uber staff meeting earlier in the day, Arianna Huffington, another Uber board member, said one woman on a board often leads to more women joining a board. Mr. Bonderman responded “that it’s much more likely to be more talking.”
Seems ironic that Arianna's own site posted this:
Biological Evidence May Support Idea That Women Talk More Than Men, Study Says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/women-talk-more-tha...
Is it not possible to say anything anymore without someone being offended?
1) The media rarely characterizes the actual underlying science correctly.
In this case, the journal entry [0] and an author of the paper herself[1] characterize it as simply a "difference" and are careful to not concretely link it to human-observable behavioral differences (such as "Women talk more", which the media is more than happy to expand upon to clickbaity levels in order to get more ad revenue).
2) History has shown that science, which strives for impartial and unbiased results, often has its results applied by biased and partial people who have agendas. Said agendas may include justification of the current status quo.
In my opinion, keeping these two points in mind is just an exercise of healthy critical thinking. When applied here, I reject your idea that this Huffington article justifies Bonderman's behavior as being unoffensive.
[0] http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=128545&Cult... [1] https://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2013/La...
I don't know if this is true or not, but since there was no backlash over this, it goes to show that context and tone influences what's seen as disparaging.
But, in my experience, it's not women who predominantly do that ;)
Is this just a very selective part of the statement then? Because saying something wildly inappropriate and "something failing to have its intended affect" are very different things.
I would be curious to know if he is still entitled to his full Board member salary.