>“I felt a wave of relief wash over me when I remembered that I worked at a large company, one with a sizable human resources department,”
I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. They aren't there as some moral arbiter. If you reported sexual harassment to HR you are going to be part of an equation - is it better for the business to lose you (and possibly some token amount of cash) or to lose the people you're complaining about. If you're complaining about a systemic issue then there is no chance you come out on top, HR will act to protect the organisation at your expense. Since the only time you go to HR is a situation where you can't deal with this issue alone it means practically every situation where you are going to HR is a situation where HR you will see getting rid of you as the cheapest way of solving the problem.
I could not agree more. I too was once somewhat naive individual thinking HR is there to, you know, make work a place where I don't have to fear of having to go to work each morning.
I won't bore with details. The unit had a high turnover. Since a good chunk of those were people, who eventually just quit, it did not affect company's employment insurance. The boss was the worst boss I could wish on anyone.
Eventually, being a young idiot, I went to HR to complain since it was getting really bad. It helped that a day before I went, another person quit in a rather explosive fashion.
Anyway, moments after HR talk I was placed on an improvement plan of sorts. I won't give you the whole back and forth, but I survived 4 months before I found something better.
As my wife would attest, I was coming back from work livid.
But manager in question was friends with CEO and numbers look good. HR looks at this says: couple of burned out people is just cost of doing business.
Bottom line is.. if you are going to HR, you better have a plan.
> someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business
What I still don't understand is why the uber HR acted this way. I think people understand that HR is there for the company, but the assumption is that they want to avoid any bad press.
If they protect a person who is a multiple offender. And this person is not C*E or high ranking manager, just a regular "high performer" (what does it even suppose to mean). What's the outcome going to be. Isn't it obvious that at some point this will generate a bad press for the company. And the bad press will be more costly than replacing the offender.
Also, when they fire an offender they are likely to "send a message" and avoid some offenses in the future.
I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business.
--
Unrelated but I wonder what happened to the HR folks that handled these cases. What would have been their line of defense — "I was only following orders", "I didn't want any trouble in the team"?
Do they have good careers now because the next employers consider them loyal? Do they have hard time because they did poor job protecting uber?
Point well made that quite often, "the right thing" and "protect the company" are the same, because "protect the abuser" is not good for the company, good publicity etc.
However, people often act for short term gain at the cost of long-term pain. I think that it's fair to say that Uber did when they repeatedly tried to "make the problem go away".
>I totally don't get how on earth protecting a "high performer" and sexual offender is good for the business.
It probably isn't, in the long run, but it IS good for the HR chief's career to keep the executives happy, and the "high performing" sexual predator is probably a good buddy of the executives. And as for the good of the business, why should the executives care about that (in the long run)? As long as it performs well for the next few years, that's good enough, because the executives will move on by then.
This aphorism that HR is there to protect the company -- I hear it all the time and it's terribly cynical, while also probably true. Why must it be this way; asked another way, why do we accept that it must be this way, that every time we engage HR it must be with the understanding that they are the adversary. Why go to HR at all, why even have HR, why not fold it all in the legal counsel's office? Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are, with all the videos and the role-playing and the seminars that everyone hate-attends yearly?
Back to the article - I'm always sad and surprised that there are women doing the work of defending bad actors by attacking the whistle-blowing women. From the article:
> "One woman called Fowler, claiming to be a PI working on a case against Uber; when Fowler got off the phone, she discovered the firm the woman worked for pretty much exclusively helped companies discredit people who’d been sexually harassed or assaulted."
cf. Lisa Bloom in the Harvey Weinstein case, it's damning as Bloom vociferous claims to be on the side that believes and defends the women accusers.
I don't mean that as snark; I'm serious. I think people in general don't follow the money enough. Even some people who occasionally advocate for it are very selective about it and frequently just treat it as a slur to deploy sometimes. But it's more important than that. It should always be part of the analysis of a business. If you aren't paying for it, you aren't the beneficiary of it.
In the case of HR, if you are a productive, profit-center worker for the company, you may in fact at least be partially paying for it, and may get treated accordingly, though I wouldn't count on that for much. But if you are not clearly in that category....
Large companies can combat this by aligning its incentives to include worker well-being and retention as part of their equation.
Unhappy workers and revolving-door hiring costs real money. Quantifying these values in terms of dollars can be helpful for creating a work place that encourages personal growth and increases positive feedback for workers in terms of money/bonuses for all levels.
You have to put worker relations in terms of money to get the needle to move, but when you do, you will be shocked how much good you can do for the workers if you can quantify their unhappiness and morale.
Doing the right thing is often just a matter of paying attention to the right metrics. Not every company is short-sited on labor. Companies are in a position to create win-win scenarios for its workers and the bottom line if the incentives are aligned.
It's a matter of legal accountability. If companies get away with defending the harassers, then that's what the cynical ones will do. Only if they get punished when they handle sexual harassment cases badly, will they start handling them better. Companies should be liable for extra damages in sexual harassment cases when it turns out they have a history of protecting the harassers. And maybe punish the individuals involved in protecting the harassers.
Exactly: it's all about money, and also individual consequences to HR staff themselves. If the company stood to lose lots of money to bad behavior, then they would police it much better. But they don't, so they don't. Instead, it would be hazardous to their own careers if they disciplined or canned people that the upper management favored (due to cronyism), so they protect those people as long as it doesn't cost the company too much.
People really need to get past this idea that HR is there to protect employees. They are NOT your friends.
> Why can't HR be what they purportedly say they are, with all the videos and the role-playing and the seminars that everyone hate-attends yearly?
IMO, most of HR's work isn't handling major complaints. It's doing the administration to track reviews, carrying out training, making sure benefits work correctly, ensuring expenses get paid out, organizing those training sessions, and so on.
Perhaps the reason HR doesn't get folded into Legal is because most of what HR does is not stuff Legal would do particularly well.
I think many people believe on some level that men are on one team helping each other, and women are on a different team helping each other, as though middle school never ended. But in my experience it really isn't like that. Women are often more willing to go out of their way to help men, and men are often more willing to go out of their way to help women. (In general but not true for all individuals. And especially not for abusers, of course!)
Companies used to have Ombudsman; literally a board member who did nothing but listen to employee complaints and help them e heard. This tended to lead to unions, which reduced company profitability, and was replaced with the current HR model, which is now giving way to out-sourced HR models.
>Companies used to have Ombudsman; literally a board member who did nothing but listen to employee complaints and help them e heard. This tended to lead to unions, which reduced company profitability,
It sounds like the ombudsmen didn't work out too well or else they wouldn't have resorted to unionizing.
> why not fold it all in the legal counsel's office?
That would not help because an in-house lawyer represents the company and a lawyer can’t represent both sides in a dispute. In other words, company lawyers can’t represent a complainant in a dispute against their corporate clients.
By contrast, HR are not lawyers so HR can pretend to be on the complainant’s side.
In many cases they do roll up to legal. HR folks who think they are there for the junior employees get burned out when they get overruled by the senior ones. Perhaps it shouldn’t be, but that’s why it is this way and whistleblowers are so rare. Perhaps also a competitive advantage for an employer that does protect the individuals.
> I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business.
The problem with running that campaign is that the actual companies, which have much more ability to "educate", will say the exact opposite. "We're different," they say. "We really care about our employees." And as with insurance, one doesn't really find out how good the product is until something pretty bad happens.
I'll also note that in my experience, HR often fails to reach the level of protecting the business. HR's first goal is to protect HR, especially at a dysfunctional company.
"Toby is in HR, which technically means he works for corporate, so he's really not a part of our family. Also, he's divorced, so he's really not a part of his family."
They are there to protect the business. One way they do that is by ensuring that the business follows the law. So, they are aligned the the interests of the employees up to a point.
I think you may be misunderstanding. The idea is that a large HR department knows how to do things legally correctly. People hope that a large corporate HR department is going to be at least following the law, which is a step up compared to a tiny company with no HR expertise that may do things unprofessionally. I don't think anyone's under a misapprehension that having an HR department means they're going to side with you.
This can change. Sure HR will almost always protect the organization, but I hope we are coming to the point where it is unequivocally more damaging to these companies to sweep these issues under the rug rather than dealing with them properly.
How do you see that happening? As long as HR is department paid by the organization, how is there any way, structurally, for said department to change? How would said change translate to 'less damaging' in a way that is measurable enough that stakeholders will care?
As much as unions can be problematic, at least there's at least a possibility they'll pick the worker's side.
If the harassment has moved beyond the workplace, and someone is stalking you at home or wherever, then call the police.
As long as it's still at work, the easiest thing, and probably best choice for your career, is to find a new employer ASAP. We're talking about software engineers/devs here: this field is hot, and there's lots of demand. GTFO and find a better place to work. Just look at the women who's the subject of this article: she blew the whistle publicly and now doesn't even work in the field. This, unfortunately, is generally what happens to whistleblowers; I've seen it before with someone close. She saved lives, but now can't work in that field any more.
After you've found greener grass, if the company is large enough, write an anonymous review on Glassdoor.com calling them out for their toxic environment, so others will know to avoid that cesspool.
It's really a shame that our society shits on whistleblowers so badly.
Well, its difficult- and it's important to realise that there's not going to be some perfect resolution. A lot of people simply decide fighting isn't worth it and move on to other companies. If it's very serious, you can obviously contact the police.
In my opinion if you consider your position and you do want to pursue complaining about harassment the first thing to do is contact a third party for advice. In the UK you can contact acas.org.uk who will give impartial advice about what your rights are. I'm sure there are equivalent organisations elsewhere about what your rights are, if you really are all out of options contact /r/legaladvice but obviously take that advice with a pinch of salt.
A good rule of thumb is you need contemporaneous records of what you're complaining about - whether that is a diary or inducing the person you're accusing to put their suggestions in writing (eg, via email) and keeping a copy of that outside of work. Telling people outside of work what's happening also helps.
Obviously solving these sorts of problems within the company's HR system isn't great, but it really is the only resolution you can have beyond law enforcement, and even if you succeed in getting your harraser disciplined or removed your career will be damaged. But the point is that if you know your legal rights and have a strong record of what you're complaining about then the HR equation changes- no longer are you someone to brush off, now you're someone who poses a legitimate threat to cost the company money (and more importantly, if the HR person screws up dealing with the issue it'll be a black mark against hem, so they may well decide it's best to take your side). But remember, every single meeting, every single issue needs recording, time and date. And it's for the exact reason this article demonstrates - if you have a noted timeline saying "25th July - I complained about X, I was told "A",27th July- HR told X, 28th July - X initiated a performance conversation with me" it becomes much much easier to demonstrate retaliation - and because it's easier for you to prove, it makes it much more likely the company will want to avoid you actually demonstrate that in arbitration or court.
That first article she wrote, exposing the culture at Uber, was profoundly upsetting and an important moment in the history of our industry. Kudos to her for standing up to one the most egregiously hostile work environments I've ever read about.
Susan Fowler is a hero; it must have taken a tremendous amount of courage to hit the 'send' button while knowing her life was going to change. My niece is about to graduate into the SDE work force and I have little doubt that the culture is incrementally better because of Fowler.
The only thing I'd add - I'm not sure of the exact timeline, or the exact causation chain - but I feel like Susan Fowler's article was one of the lead-ups to the MeToo movement. So in a sense, what she did wasn't just an important moment for our industry, but for all industries.
I remember reading that post and being surprised how little of it was actually sexism (the only thing I saw that qualified was the thing about the shirts), and how much of it was just maltreatment of programmers of all types. But I guess if you have to slap the label "sexism" on it to get it to be taken seriously, we take what we can get.
The sexism I see in her post: Upon joining, her manager sexually propositioned her; a subsequent manager sabotaged her performance reviews and attempts at transferring to keep a woman on his team; they gave leather jackets to SREs as a gift, but would only get jackets made for men (I think this is what you refer to as "the shirts"); she recalls many emails that she does not describe; HR claims she is the problem in all of her claims; she was threatened with firing over her claims of sexual harassment, and they backed off when she pointed out that was illegal.
Those are the instances. What that tells me is that it was a deeply sexist system.
It is certainly inappropriate and unprofessional. But it's also sexism, in that for centuries men here have been using power to push women to have sex without regard to their actual interest. E.g., marital rape didn't become a crime across the US until 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#United_States
That isn't sexism, similar things happens all the time in gay relationships. Similarly men murdering women in relationships is not sexism, since gay men murder their partners at a higher rate than straight men. So it isn't sexism, it isn't about men hating women, it is just about men committing a lot more brutal violence on average. Or in this case, it is just about men being a lot more forceful about sex than women, even when they are proposing to men.
The notion that the law allowed men to rape certain women seen as their property isn't sexism?
You could be right that men have some innate tendency to commit more violence. But what they also have, as your excuses here make plain, is more social license to commit violence. The former, if true, is just a fucked up fact our evolutionary history. The latter, though is very definitely sexism.
Sexual harassment? Sure. Sexist? Sorry, no, that's just silly. By your logic, if a male manager only propositions female subordinates, it's sexist, because he isn't also propositioning male subordinates. That's not sexist, that's a side effect of the male manager being heterosexual.
By your logic, every person that only dates people of a particular sex is "sexist", which is completely ridiculous.
You're thinking that I label the behavior sexist because the manager propositions only women and not men. I am not. I am labeling the behavior sexist because it contributes to both a work culture, and the wider culture, which excludes women from status and power.
I don't know about this; it isn't completely unheard of for female managers to proposition male subordinates, it just doesn't happen as often obviously. I think it's wrong and abusive, no matter which sex does it (and to whom; (gay) men propositioning other men happens too), but I have a hard time seeing how this is "sexist" or only harmful to women, though obviously, due to inertia I think (more men being in positions of power), it negatively affects women more. I will grant you, however, that it can be argued that it contributes to keeping the gender-unequal status quo.
>Honestly, it sounds like a sociopath was in charge of HR.
The very topmost post in this thread you're posting in discusses how people should be educated that the whole function of HR is not to be a moral arbiter, but to protect the company's financial interests, which is 100% true IMO.
Therefore, it seems that nearly every company of any size has a sociopath running HR. How else can you explain people who would protect sexual predators in their companies and enable victims to be abused, all because it improves the company's bottom line?
This is the typical maltreatment you experience as a programmer?
> After the first couple of weeks of training, I chose to join the team that worked on my area of expertise, and this is where things started getting weird. On my first official day rotating on the team, my new manager sent me a string of messages over company chat. He was in an open relationship, he said, and his girlfriend was having an easy time finding new partners but he wasn't. He was trying to stay out of trouble at work, he said, but he couldn't help getting in trouble, because he was looking for women to have sex with. It was clear that he was trying to get me to have sex with him, and it was so clearly out of line that I immediately took screenshots of these chat messages and reported him to HR.
Or this?
> When I pointed out how few women were in SRE, she recounted with a story about how sometimes certain people of certain genders and ethnic backgrounds were better suited for some jobs than others, so I shouldn't be surprised by the gender ratios in engineering. Our meeting ended with her berating me about keeping email records of things, and told me it was unprofessional to report things via email to HR.
Regarding the propositioning for sex, a uni buddy of mine was propositioned during an interview for an internship by his male interviewer (buddy is gay, interviewer likely is too). It was absolutely vile, unsettling behavior, and it made me think it might be more common than I previously thought.
Later, one of my sisters told us about how she applied for some job at a startup (not an IT related job), and after the interview she was told she wouldn't get the job because of other strong applicants and her lack of experience in the field, which is fine and true. But then one of the interviewers asked her out for drinks right after that, at which point she couldn't lose the feeling that maybe she was refused the job only so that this interviewer could hit on her later (which he probably couldn't have if she got her job and he became a superior to her).
When - as a young(er) man - I did my mandatory civil services (which I had to do because I refused military service) in a hospital, there were not just one but few female nurses[1] who engaged in what I would consider inappropriate remarks ("I'd eat you up", "nice tushy, you should wear tighter pants", "if I was a few years younger I would...") and one nurse going so far as "jokingly" slapping me on the butt. There were a sizable amount of patients who also engaged in such remarks, as well as male patients non-nonchalantly asking me "how many of those nurses have you banged so far?".
I am still mad at myself that I didn't report at least the slapping up the chain, thinking at the time "I don't wanna be that guy getting angry over a joke" and "I don't want to be seen overreacting or considered to be a victim"; and I didn't even have the additional problem of having to care about my career as this job was something I didn't want to keep doing anyway as soon as my mandatory time ran out.
I talked to my dad about it, who happened to have done his own civil service in the exact same hospital in the late 1970s; his experiences were more or less the same, tho he said he didn't even consider reporting such behavior at all.
What I guess I am trying to say is that this kind of vile behavior is in fact pretty common, unfortunately, and also not necessarily only something men do to women (although I am sure it is more prevalent in that direction). But most of it I wouldn't attribute it to sexism, but to assholes being assholes.
[1] most of the people, especially the nurses, were nice or at least professional
> What I guess I am trying to say is that this kind of vile behavior is in fact pretty common, unfortunately, and also not necessarily only something men do to women (although I am sure it is more prevalent in that direction). But most of it I wouldn't attribute it to sexism, but to assholes being assholes.
So it's true that being propositioned for sex by someone who has authority over you is not something exclusively suffered by women. And the fact that it happens more often to women than men at Uber may not necessarily an issue of "malicious" sexism, since it just so happens that men in Uber management far outnumber the women.
What elevates Fowler's scenario is the systematic responses by HR and other management to ignore or otherwise suppress this issue, with Fowler and with many of the colleagues she talked to. After Fowler thoroughly documented this first incident, an ostensibly non-sexist HR/management would sanction the manager, not Fowler [0]:
> Upper management told me that he "was a high performer" (i.e. had stellar performance reviews from his superiors) and they wouldn't feel comfortable punishing him for what was probably just an innocent mistake on his part. I was then told that I had to make a choice: (i) I could either go and find another team and then never have to interact with this man again, or (ii) I could stay on the team, but I would have to understand that he would most likely give me a poor performance review when review time came around, and there was nothing they could do about that
The second excerpt I quoted in my prior comment indicates that, according to Fowler, a sexist mindset had become enshrined in management's decision-making:
> When I pointed out how few women were in SRE, she recounted with a story about how sometimes certain people of certain genders and ethnic backgrounds were better suited for some jobs than others, so I shouldn't be surprised by the gender ratios in engineering. Our meeting ended with her berating me about keeping email records of things, and told me it was unprofessional to report things via email to HR.
> an ostensibly non-sexist HR/management would sanction the manager, not Fowler
Are you sure they would have sanctioned the manager if he was gay and harassing a gay subordinate? Everything I've seen says that women are taken much more seriously than men on issues like this, so I'd bet that they wouldn't. They took his side since he was more valuable to the company, not because she was a woman.
>After Fowler thoroughly documented this first incident, an ostensibly non-sexist HR/management would sanction the manager, not Fowler [0]
The initial asshole propositioning her isn't really to blame for the reaction of HR and the management, tho HR/management protecting him and making him feel "safe" to conduct himself this way played very likely a role in this ever happening to her. But still, that guy was an asshole, but not necessarily a sexist or an expression of systematic sexism.
While The first quote from her writeup doesn't yet show sexism in HR/management (just general hostility/toxicity) the second quote, where the HR person mused about races and genders, is very clearly sexist (and racist), no contest there.
> Some of the women even had stories about reporting the exact same manager I had reported, and had reported inappropriate interactions with him long before I had even joined the company. It became obvious that both HR and management had been lying about this being "his first offense", and it certainly wasn't his last. Within a few months, he was reported once again for inappropriate behavior, and those who reported him were told it was still his "first offense". The situation was escalated as far up the chain as it could be escalated, and still nothing was done.
Management was sexist and the structure was kept unchanged and unchecked by HR. The jackets event, in addition to others mentioned in the post, are an extension/demonstration of that behavior.
There's no reason it can't be both. Your theory that sociopath executives only exploit people for money and not for other things they personally enjoy is not one that matches my experience.
And of course there's a long history of the "old boys' club" excusing sexist abuse with a "boys will be boys" mentality. So even if we didn't have a lot of evidence of how bro-y Uber was, your notion that they somehow escaped society's baseline level of sexism doesn't really stand up to Occam's Razor.
>Your theory that sociopath executives only exploit people for money and not for other things they personally enjoy is not one that matches my experience.
I think I wasn't clear enough: I'm really pointing at HR, not at general company management. You're absolutely right: corporate executives definitely do exploit people for things other than money (such as sex). I'm only looking at the situation where some manager is sexually harassing someone, and then HR protects the harasser because he's high-up in the corporation. HR isn't getting anything out of this harassment, other than keeping their jobs and furthering the financial interest of the corporation.
I do get your point about the boys' club thing, but I do think it's pretty common for female-led HR departments to also protect abusers. To me, it's just pure sociopathy: HR wants to protect the corporation at all costs, and the person running HR simply doesn't care about the victims at all.
Her first manager propositioned her for sex almost on day one.
HR lied about that managers past issues and told her suck it up or receive a negative review.
She received a negative review anyways (changed after the fact - her in-person review was positive). This blocked role changes and made her ineligible for graduate tuition reimbursement.
Leather jackets for the men, women told to deal with it.
Threatened by manager with termination because she reported somebody to HR.
While I do agree about the jackets thing being sexist, I would like to point out that this isn't always a man vs. woman thing.
At my current company, they like to buy corporate-branded clothing for employees too. T-shirts, polo shirts, and sweatshirts/hoodies are what they normally get. The last time they got some shirts, I went to go get some, and they were all in L, XL, and XXL sizes. I'm a tall guy, but I'm slim and wear a size M. Other employees, including guys who wear size S, all thought I was weird for not wanting a free sweatshirt that's too large and baggy. Also, there were no female sizes that I can remember, it was just all those huge sizes.
Also, there's the issue of just how far the company needs to go to cover everyone. How many different sizes should they get? My last girlfriend could not wear most normal sizes; even XS was too large for her, and she needed XXS if she could find it. She usually bought her clothes in Asia when she went back there because the only stuff that usually fit her here was in children's sizes (her size is pretty average for women however where she comes from). What does the company need to do for people who are at a size extreme? Quite possibly, the clothing vendor my company uses doesn't even have a size to fit my ex-gf.
But yeah, not even bothering to get the jackets in any women's sizes at all is pretty blatantly sexist.
The way I read it, they actually had all the employees try on jackets and ordered them for each employee, except they turned around and didn't order female jackets because they didn't meet a minimum order size.
That's quite a bit different than ordering a batch of jackets in some array of sizes and hoping most people can find one that fits. That's still a bit shitty, but not nearly as shitty as above.
I'll also note that having been through several rounds of custom clothing orders (for a sports team), getting the count for women's items waived is common, as long as the total order size meets minimums.
Of course none of the above is as shitty as the government agency my neighbor works at that asked the female employees to serve cocktails at a winter social.
>Of course none of the above is as shitty as the government agency my neighbor works at that asked the female employees to serve cocktails at a winter social.
Wow, that's amazing. I wonder which agency this was, and if this is new for this agency or if they were doing this kind of thing before 2016. It sounds like excellent grounds for a lawsuit.
I'll both agree and disagree with you, and to some degree with other people replying to your comment.
You're probably correct in thinking this maltreatment extended to men, or generally in ways that weren't specifically sexist. That doesn't mean that the sexist aspect of the maltreatment isn't also true, or an additional or more specific problem.
I'd say it's completely fine that the problems at Uber were presented from a sexist perspective, as that is a more salient and quite likely more damaging perspective.
That said, I do think there's some value to your comment in that it's very likely this kind of culture probably hurt many people in ways that weren't sexist. Highlighting Fowler's perspective, hopefully, doesn't bring to attention sexist problems at the expense of others. I don't feel it does, so far.
You can never overestimate the amount of sexual harassment women faces in the tech industry.
My Fiancée kept telling me about different incidents that happened with her and I used to always brush it off saying maybe you are reading too much. Until one of her other female colleague shared the same incident. I asked her to goto HR but be prepared for the backlash to the extent of firing. And as expected HR took no action, nothing. She changed firm and then the same story with different people. And I am not talking about small companies, they are Fortune 500 companies.
This industry seriously needs people like Fowler to come forward and write about it. I encourage my Fiancée to write her experiences as well.
>> You can never overestimate the amount of sexual harassment women faces in the tech industry.
Why just tech industry, even though I am offering anecdotal evidence? My wife works in the social services sector, and listening to her and her female colleagues; it's the same story.
There have already been posts (now deleted) speaking to how terrible the culture was generally and how the experiences of men have been lost in the "#metoo noise". Both can be true. She's telling the story from a women's perspective and encountered situations that were unique to women at Uber. It also sounds like she suffered greatly in the aftermath of going public[1]. Continuing to speak out must have taken great courage. This all doesn't discount the pain and suffering many men may have experienced at Uber, but again, she's telling her story.
It's incredibly brave of her to take on the darling of venture capital, because what she highlighted wasn't the extremes of silicon valley culture, but the ordinariness of its status quo. And how it's deeply anti-human (and anti-woman) in so many ways. Truly, kudos to her.
Her work has had profound impact and I’m excited to read her book.
It’s amazing to still see the ramifications of her work today.
For example, in this very thread it shows just how latent misogyny is in the majority of the community. It’s a special sort of myopia dressed up as factual rational discussion but her work exposes that sentiment for what it is: fear of change, fear of women, fear of losing power over women, and the insecurity of emasculated men who work in power systems that encourage them to kick down.
I don't see it, what actually changed? Uber changed a lot, but that doesn't matter if you don't work at Uber. The only thing we learned is that investors and customers doesn't care, Uber is doing better than ever and the people who caused the problems got extremely rich in the process.
Sometimes these discussions, as here, go relatively well. But that's relative. There's still a lot of misogynist nonsense, both subtle and blatant, and I can watch my antisexist posts get voted up and down. But quite often they go poorly. That's something that's easy to miss if one isn't intentionally antisexist. And since sexism is something guys can ignore if we want, it's especially easy for us to miss it.
My experience here on HN, over the recent past few years, has only ever been consistent with this thread. Anything that could possibly be interpreted or misinterpreted as sexist gets voted down into oblivion. As do any defenders on abstract principles, or who take neutral stances.
This very comment of mine could be interpreted suspiciously as insufficiently antisexist, and be downvoted too.
Further, I use HN as a proxy for the general attitudes of the tech industry.
My experience is different. I submit that maybe you are only noticing what you're noticing. People who aren't directly affected by systemic oppression rarely notice it as much as people who are, if only because for the latter group success and even survival depends on being very alert the fine details.
So 1 comment with 17 negative responses in a full thread of 36 comments is "the majority of the community?
That's kind of the part that really surprised me. That it exists, OK, but "the majority" in this thread? I feel like on the contrary, in the scope of this thread, it is a tiny minority.
Edit: Since I can't reply to the comment below. By "17 negative responses" I meant negative to the one "bad" comment.
For future reference, if you really need to reply to a comment before the lockout on immediate replies times out, click on the timestamp on the comment. That brings you to a view of the comment that lets you reply sooner. That view either has no lockout, or the lockout is mere seconds.
Having worked at a rapidly expanding SV company during the same time frame I witnessed & experienced similar wildly juvenile & unprofessional behavior. My own experience parallels Fowler's in some disturbing ways and makes me think that the complete lack of corporate oversight or HR professionalism is rampant throughout the entire industry. Kudos to her for having the courage to go public.
It's not just Uber. There is an ethos around running companies that succeed at all costs. Getting big is their God and everything else can be sacraficed. They are level 4 leaders...long-term doesn't matter. Burying things is the norm; culture, values, compliance, the law...doesn't really matter, outside of HR marketing speak.
It's hard to be a good company when you can get away with being bad, so long as the metrics still show good.
I don't know if this was just the culture and influence from Kalanick, but Uber all around seems like a terrible company. Tehy cover up data breaches, they lie to regulators when they test their self driving cars, they act passively when women get harassed on their watch. I haven't worked there but from the outside it seems pretty much "do whatever you want, but don't get caught".
there should be no "WHY" someone had to sacrifice their career/life to expose systemic industry wide treatment of people that is unjust. There is only that this treatment exists and that the industry is not going to progress without everybody's collective effort to change it
Sorry, but you don't quite understand what sexism is. A quick review is in order.
For hundreds of years, women were in effect property of men. They would go from being controlled by their fathers to their husbands. Their legal rights were narrowly circumscribed, and their practical rights were even smaller.
This is on the decline, but the changes are quite recent. Women couldn't vote until 1920. It wasn't until 1974 that women in the US could generally get credit without a male cosigner. It wasn't until 1993 that the US fully outlawed a husband raping his wife. It wasn't until 2005 that half the law and medicine degrees went to women. And, as Fowler demonstrated, there is still significant anti-woman bias backed up by institutional power, even at newly formed companies in that most forward-thinking industry, tech.
That's what sexism is: gender bias plus systemic power leading to broad harm in a way that maintains that systemic power.
So no, there's no such thing as "sexism against men" because even if non-men had sufficient bias, they don't have the power. Most of the things you're complaining about are not "sexism against men", they're anti-sexist action, working to dismantle centuries of oppression.
Now I get that we dudes losing our systemic power is uncomfortable. Loss of privilege is still a loss, and loss is never fun. But you have a choice. You can retreat into MRA/incel lingo, become bitter over that loss, and eventually die cranky about how things were better in your day, when men ran things. Or you can decide that sexism is bad, work to dismantle it, and be pleased to see a little progress toward freedom. I know which I'm picking.
> So no, there's no such thing as "sexism against men" because even if non-men had sufficient bias, they don't have the power.
is obviously a horrendous over-generalisation, based on otherwise rational argument you laid out. It's just that it's much, much rarer (especially when we're talking about IT). But the pendulum swinging too far the other way isn't going to help society, either.
The reason why I'm even bothering to call this out is that this attitude does everybody a disservice. By all means, fight sexism when you see it, in any form. Treat all people as equal. Avoid lumping them into groups and labelling them. Maintaining that one group deserves special treatment seems equally patronising and misguided, whether that's in a negative or positive way.
No, it's not an overgeneralization. Sexism is a societal system of power, like capitalism or communism or racism.
It's possible to have anti-male bias, of course. It's also possible to have biased anti-male action in limited circumstances. E.g., it could be that a woman might buy a gun go on a calculated anti-male killing spree, the way that men so often do to women.
But it's not possible to have anti-male sexism in our society because men are a dominant group here. Being anti-sexist in a society dominated by men means dismantling the system that gives men unequal power.
(As a side note, I understand that sometimes men use "sexism" to mean anti-male bias, the same way white people use "racism" to mean anti-white bias. I'm using them here in a technical sense, the one used by most people who study this professionally. Common terms are often wrong in a technical sense. E.g., the way people talk about how much "memory" their computer has, or the many things people mean by "energy". That can be fine when speaking casually, but it also can obscure what's really going on.)
>even at newly formed companies in that most forward-thinking industry, tech.
I dispute this heavily, I've worked in both tech and some traditionally other heavily male dominated industries, like construction and oilfield work.
While both have their sexists, I find that the problem is far worse, and far more accepted in tech than either. Blue collar workers often just have an old fashioned view of the sexes, but tech workers often have an actively virulent anti-woman persecution syndrome, as extolled by the post above.
Women I have seen go into heavy industry lines of work seem to fare far better, and face less bullshit (anecdotally of course).
It isn't "holding out". Having used this place a decade longer than you, I'd say that it's notably better than it used to be. As you say, blatant, factually wrong misogyny does sometimes get downvoted now. Especially in a case like this, which has been prominently covered, discussed for years, and stars a well-known bad actor like Uber. But "less bad than it used to be" doesn't mean that it's good.
I can totally believe that. There are a lot of smart, well-meaning people who believe they couldn't possibly be entangled in a problematic system, let alone benefiting from it or even responsible for it.
It has been a long time since I worked in a factory or a restaurant. But in both those environments there was a straightforwardness, a bluntness that I miss. It was often obvious that things were fucked up, and people could be quite frank about it. In tech we build things out of words to match visions. It's not shocking at all to me that it's often easier to see the vision than the reality.
You posted four examples of sexism against men to prove that the overwhelming majority of sexism happens towards men? Do you believe that there are less than 4 instances of sexism happening towards women in Silicon Valley...?
I'm honestly confused how someone could take an article describing an actual issue about specific incidents of some men being sexist against some women and take that as an announcement that being sexist against men is okay.
Do you think it is impossible to be against sexism in general and not a specific direction of sexism?
I'm not here to pile on, I just want to understand why this point of view is so common. I have always felt incredibly blessed by my circumstances (straight white male). Would you really rather be some other gender and/or race? Do you truly believe it would make life easier?
And I should point out that in the short term it's often personally advantageous to suppress one's empathy and self awareness. Narcissists are fucking exhausting, but they often get what they want. And what quite a lot of people want is a sense of power.
What you’re describing is an opposition to affirmative action policies. The general intent of actively considering more women (and people of color) for speaking and leadership roles is to examine biases that prevented us from considering them in the first place [1]. It also helps normalize and set role models for newer employees or students.
This one white guy told a black guy trying to get on that there was no more room on the bus, which was generally true, but it could have definitely looked like (from the tone and wording) that the white guy was talking down to him.
The black guy got very upset and claimed that the white man wouldn’t have said this to a white guy, and wouldn’t have said this if the bus was full of black people instead of the mostly-white and Hispanic bus in this instance.
Both parties involved escalated, argued, and made the situation worse.
At the end of the day, the original offender didn’t say anything overtly racist, but it’s also true that the black man’s points may have been factually accurate as well.
I guess, the reason I tell you this story is that:
1. I believe you are not correct to say that the majority of sexism is directed toward men. That is ridiculous. That’d be like the black guy on the bus being told that the majority of racism is against white people. Puh-lease, that does not pass the smell test. There are entire pieces of the English language that are used to accuse women of being less capable and stable (the linguistic root of the word “hysterical,” or the term “baby brain,” and a lot of others). If sexism in the tech industry is mostly against men I’d love to know why only 20% of women bother to enter that field and where the remaining 30% went.
2. Going along with point one, there is almost no response that the white guy could have made to resolve the situation. His people have been oppressing the person in question for centuries, so he’s not really in a position to be able to honestly say that he isn’t being racist or generally isn’t. There’s a saying goes that you make your own bed, and that’s what white people have done: made an entire race not trust them implicitly. This is entirely the white people’s fault. Back to the Uber situation, that’s what men have done, made the workplace so bad for women in the past that women are now fed up and can’t trust men, and they are justified.
3. Your use of of escalation is not helpful. I know you cited a bunch of sources but that doesn’t make the spirit of your comment any less inflammatory.
> is people have been oppressing the person in question for centuries, so he’s not really in a position to be able to honestly say that he isn’t being racist or generally isn’t.
Since we dropped collective punishments a longer time ago, this statement is false.
On the contrary, it a big problem on the topic of racism.
I would escalate that argument any time.
edit: it is additionally false, because "the person in question" hasn't been oppressed. So the statement is flawed in numerous ways.
I think we have to acknowledge that discrimination and oppression will be followed by retaliation. Even if white people and men are treating black people and women, respectively, with perfect equity (spoiler alert, they’re still not), those groups have already been wronged and have been conditioned to understand that those people consider them to be sub-human. It is logical for women and black peoples to continue to distrust men and white people, respectively.
So, we have to accept that there will not be be a world without bias and discrimination until we treat people like we would want to be treated, and stop escalating.
I actually do think he’s in the wrong as well, in this particular case, I agree.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that this person has already been affected by racism. The only hope there is to allow the passage of generations to ease that pain.
In other words, by engaging and escalating the argument, even though the white guy was likely correct, he is reinforcing these tensions rather than reducing them.
If people stop treating others badly, you’re left with the next generation scratching their heads saying “my grandma is so racist, it’s so weird, I don’t see the difference” which is what we want.
That is something different. I wouldn't blame him harshly for reacting this way, but I would also firmly state that his statement is ridiculous.
Use your judgement in the situation, but if you just accept it, he might continue to treat others unfairly. So a firm rebuff is certainly valid.
Deescalation doesn't mean to fall on your knees. You won't ever end up on the same level and might just become a bully victim otherwise. That is no road to more justice in my opinion.
I don't agree with your opinion, but I vouched for you (after you were flagged) because you didn't violate any of the rules and I believe that your opinion is worth discussing.
Feminism can go extreme at times and your opinion has a level of validity. Additionally I would like to probe how a person like you would arrive at that conclusion.
Another thing that gets me is that you didn't do anything wrong. You aren't slandering women, you're just saying that there's sexism towards white men. I am not white and I say this is not worth flagging.
It's not true that that comment didn't violate any of HN's rules. It violated several rules, such as the ones against flamebait and ideological battle.
Ok you're right. But the topic itself: of men also suffering from sexism, to me, does not violate the rules; if he presented that topic in a different way would it still violate the rules according to canon/you?
Judging from the lack of responses except downvotes, the answer must be "no". This must be all that pervasive tech industry patriarchal misogyny I keep hearing about.
Seems like a yes to me. Disagreement usually comes in the form of a logical justification for why there is a disagreement. Lack of response indicates to me that someone disagrees but can't construct a logical argument to justify a disagreement.
I mean, it completely dismisses other people's experiences on the first line, alleges that some kind white knights are running rampart on HN, cherrypicks "points", links to random reddit comments to attempt to prove a position.
But sure, what a comment! How dare people thing it's crap.
If you had just omitted your last sentence that would have been so much better.
(It's a general heuristic on HN: Omit your last sentence. Most of our comments would be improved, as we are not as good at rhetoric as our passions would guide us to imagine.)
Considering the fact that confirmation bias exists, you're predisposed to look for/notice examples that confirm your hypothesis (true or not). You're also predisposed to explain why other people might be painting a different picture (e.g. media are biased). Again, whether that's true or not.
So here's my question - considering that a huge amount of people seem to disagree with you - me heavily included (I've been in the industry 16 years) - why are you convinced you are right, and not missing something?
Well, the same goes for women, feminism and the claim that women have been facing sexism for hundreds of years. Of course, there has been laws against women in many countries (mine included) but what many fail to also mention is that the same laws (right to vote) also applied to most men (at least in my country). There wasn't really a sexist thing for the most part, but more of an economic elite that are the only ones that can vote. People claim the society was more sexist before, but I am not certain. There were clear gender roles but they also existed for a reason. How many countries have for example sent women to war historically speaking? Practically zero. Who gets saved from disasters first? Women and children.
There are loads of negative aspects to being a women in a society 500 years ago, but also a lot of positive things. People seem to have been brainwashed that women were treated horrible when in many cases this is simply not true. I am certain that most men suffered just as much as most women.
> why are you convinced you are right, and not missing something?
I am correct because I do not deny that women are facing sexism, I just use the same baseless claim like women do to rile people up. No one can know for sure which sex faces the most sexism at a certain time since most sexism isn't spoken of, that is especially true for sexism against men.
If someone is sexist towards you, you will probably not report that. Same goes for women. But it is now socially acceptable for women to complain about sexism, but when men do they face the kind of backlash I face in this thread. The same kind of thinking goes hand in hand with racism, that you can't be racist against white people. It's the same agenda or ideology but in slightly different places.
I do not know for sure that men face more sexism, but I have a good feeling about it and the number of white knights getting mad confirm my beliefs even more. Many in this thread claim that you can't be sexist against men or racist against whites. This is why I am right, because in their world it's not even to be counted and when that kind of ideology is wide-spread you know whatever is the reverse of their beliefs is more close to the truth.
This response has to be the most aggressive misreading of privilege I've encountered in a while. Privilege IS NOT a system where everyone in a group gets better outcomes than another group. It IS NOT a system in which everyone in a group even receives all of the benefits of privilege. Yet it does describe systematic power imbalances that cause the majority of members in a group to receive benefits or the lack of oppression.
In any case, anec-data is not useful for argumentation.
When discussing universal statements, counterexamples are arguably useful.
More importantly, though, I think we're all dealt a huge hand of cards--many at birth, some later--some beneficial, some deleterious. In a form of social bikeshedding, we tend to concentrate on things like race and gender because they're obvious. It's far from clear, though, that they constitute more than a tiny fraction of the cards that matter. Denouncing someone because of their race, gender, etc., seems pointless and cruel. I prefer to deal with each person as an individual.
> It's far from clear, though, that they constitute more than a tiny fraction of the cards that matter.
This isn't true. Take any intersection and add minority status and you'll see increased poverty, reduced college attendance, increased arrest rate etc. There may be other cards but none so universally an issue as the continued disadvantages faced by POC in the USA. Sure other issues exist, but saying that while people are discussing racism is the equivalent of walking into a San Jose city council meeting and asking "what have YOU done for the city of Hollister today?"
> I prefer to deal with each person as an individual.
As is the only rational way to go about interpersonal interactions. You aren't America, you aren't Every Hiring Manager, you aren't Every Cop.
I have little doubt that being poor leads to lots of other problems. (Source: was poor growing up, relative to most here) It's a far greater leap to say that being (for example) black is hugely more important than being poor, being ugly, being short, being aspy, being disabled, having mental health issues or parents with mental health issues, etc.
Beyond that, even to the degree that one is a minority, it's not clear that the well-intended actions taken on their behalf are actually even helpful. If you haven't read Sowell's book Cosmic Justice, it's well worth a look on this topic.
And your thoughts on the latter half of my comment, where I suggest the entire tone of the post was to invite a negative response to confirm his martyrdom syndrome?
"the status quo is still in 2020 that a baby born in America white and male is among the luckiest babies in history."
Millions of these "luckiest" babies are suffering from crippling illnesses, yet they are treated like they are awash with privilege solely because they are white and male. This is racism and sexism. Disabled white men are not privileged.
Making something illegal does not stop people for continuing to perpetuate that something. We have this conversation here all the time, and I think we can all agree that legality is not the beginning nor the end of equity.
Put another way: making something illegal does not solve the problem, and asserting that does does makes it harder to solve problems.
The point of "privilege" is not that all white men have lives of luxury and pleasure, but that society is arranged so that people of type X get cut a certain amount of slack that non-X people don't get. Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.
> Disabled white men certainly have their own struggles; disabled black men would have even more struggles.
This is a bizarre take. It sounds like you're saying that no matter what the individual circumstances are, race is the ultimate decider of one's struggle. It could be argued that this is the exact line of thinking that leads to "systemic racism". It's surprising how prevalent this view is, on HN especially. Not two months ago there was a top voted article about how dangerous and stifling the "victimhood mentality" can be. If that is true, why would you so willingly put an entire race of people in the victim bucket? It smacks of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
I am and always will be on your side if you're advocating for personal empowerment of people and groups but I disagree with the tactic of using group membership as the most important deciding factor of someone's experience and a means to discredit one person over another due solely to the nature of their group intersections.
The people describing racism, sexism, ableism, etc, and their impacts are not primarily the ones "using group membership". The problem starts and rests with the those systems, and is driven by the people who benefit from and act to sustain those systems.
If you want people to be truly equal, you need to work to end those systems. And that requires starting with an honest account of what's happening.
As a straight white dude, I definitely understand the urge to try to sweep the problems under the rug. It's much more comfortable to think that things are fine. But as MLK explained, we won't solve these problems without a "dynamic tension" that comes from making the problems very clear.
We didn't have slavery or Jim Crow or the Nadir because of people trying to fight race-based oppression. We had those things because race-based oppression is materially and mentally beneficial to a lot of the people on the oppressor end of those systems. And we won't end them by pretending that speaking clearly about racism is somehow the real racism.
That's not the conclusion here. The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other. The kind of thinking you describe was more common in the 60s and 70s but has fallen out of favor after the rise of black feminism and intersectional analysis.
Race does not bind more tightly than other aspects. Ableism exists. But the existence of white people who suffer in a myriad of ways does not negate the existence of white privilege in places like the US.
> The conclusion is that there are many axes of oppression and one does not invalidate the other
Yet this is the inevitable consequence of intersectional analysis.. It describes a way to calculate value discrepancy of opinions based off group membership of the opinion holder. This is just an attempt to overcorrect the "axes of oppression" from sins of the past. The solution moving forward should not be to sin in the opposite direction - this will just create backlash (re: Charlottesville). It should be centered around empowering individuals and telling people that they can achieve anything because they can. Telling people that they are victims is a great way to ruin them. Everyone is a victim to one thing or another. The answer isn't to dwell and blame your victimhood or oppressors, the answer is to go out there and achieve.
It seems strange to place the blame of Charlottesville on people trying to fix racism rather than the racists responsible for things such as murder or, you know, racism.
This reeks to me of a similar argument against gay marriage, where there wouldn't be nearly as much violence towards them if they didn't try and demand their rights immediately.
Good intentions do not absolve people of objectively bad ideas. I drew that comparison because they are playing opposite sides of the same game of identity politics, which I'm saying is inherently flawed
It's interesting that you say that, since looking through your post history here you've engaged in identity politics all the same.
Everyone engages in some form of identity politics. The post we were responding to engaged in identity politics as well because they believed white men were discriminated against the most.
If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.
> If you want to make an arguments make an actual argument against their position, not one against the concept of identity politics because that's an inherently flawed argument.
It's not inherently flawed to a liberal of the 1960s - 2010s, who idealized universal principles, individual identities, colorblindness, and single standards of behavior to be applied to all, regardless of sex, race, etc.
Please, have the intellectual honesty not to erase that entire era. It's not necessary to do that in order to promote the contrary ideology of intersectionality.
Right, as in I'm arguing that it's a bad way to view the world... Total non sequitur. No, not everyone engages in identity politics. Only people who are looking for an easy out and not individually assessing ideas and their ramifications
What about the fact that again, you've engaged in identity politics here on HN? My entire point is that it's hypocritical to decry identity politics while also engaging in identity politics.
Complaining about identity politics is a big way white men practice identity politics, Charles. When there's a problem, refusing to let people talk about the problem becomes part of the problem.
What makes you think it's ok to make wide, sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender think and how do you think that doesn't constitute racism?
As stated before, pointing out and having a clear and honest dialog about racism isn't in itself racism.
That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.
Also, "wide sweeping generalizations about how people of a certain race and gender" is a mischaracterization of what's happening. In the Charlottesville example, white supremacists set out to do what they do by the very definition of their organization - oppress non whites. There is no sweeping generalization there. If they weren't out to oppress non whites, they wouldn't be white supremacists lol.
> That, and white people can't experience racism. They may at some point in their lives be discriminated against based on their race, unlikely though it is and extremely unlikely it'll be in some massively detrimental way. But, that's not racism.
Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.
Expert definitions often differ from common usage. E.g., people talk about the "memory" of their computer, meaning their hard drive space. (And when they say "hard drive" they often mean the whole tower.) The common definition for "energy" contains things that would horrify physicists. And the dictionary gives definitions for things like astrological signs, too.
The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition. If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from.
> The definition komali2 is using seems to be a pretty standard expert definition.
It's an activist propaganda definition created specifically to excuse black (specifically black, though of course it incidentally has since been used for other groups) bigotry against whites (again, specifically, though it incidentally can excuse bigotry by blacks and others against other targets, as well).
It's perverse in practice and intent, because the mere acceptance of the definition as correct and it's narrowed concept of “racism” as meaningful creates exactly the kind of social privilege for those perceived as being disadvantaged that makes it possible for them to be racist by that narrowed definition, and that's the whole propaganda purpose of activists promoting the definition.
It's much better to use the standard definition of racism while understanding that the positions of power (both relative and absolute) of the racist(s) are impact multipliers (as positions of power are for anything, racism is hardly unique).
> Dictionaries are descriptive of majority usage, Charles. So to put it bluntly, that's the average white person's definition of racism.
I didn't realize you were qualified to assess every non-white person's definition of racism. Do you not see how you're over-reaching in terms of speaking for other people?
> If you disagree with it, you should explain what books on racism you've read and which one you're getting your definition from
I understand that the consequences of racism have been messy, but the definition is not. The definition is simple and plain and I gave you my source but I'll repeat it: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".
I'm curious why you believe that white people can't experience racism, William. From the definition it would imply that you think no other race could claim "inherent superior[ity]". I see why you would reject this definition that the majority of society has agreed on because it would make you a dictionary racist.
If you can't tell the difference between a generalization and a universal claim, that could be your problem right there.
Also, a dictionary is not a book on racism. It's a book collating common usage of words. I suspect you don't name a book by actual experts because you've never read one. Maybe you should try that before trying to discuss the topic further.
That would also explain why you're doing the a classic white-fragility routine here, arguing over trivia and playing word games rather than actually grappling with the ongoing harm.
This isn't a "debate". There's no stage, no hosting organization, no moderator, no judges, no rules. This is, at best, a conversation. At best.
I definitely decide how I'm going to spend my time. My goal in having these conversations is to end patriarchy and white supremacy.
Most of the people supporting those things, wittingly or otherwise, will carry their views to their graves. And a good fraction of those people will argue just as long. This is pretty obvious from history. Look at the number of people still today, 150 years later, who are eager to lionize America's pro-slavery traitors, for example.
My aim is not to convince the diehards, because they are not open to learning anything. I'm going to reach the people I can reach, and leave a reasonable record for the members of the audience who are, like I was, willing to change their minds. But I owe exactly zero to randos who are eager to defend race- and gender-based oppression. Which includes the regrettably large number of people who get mad that people are just discussing those problems.
If you think something is owed to them, you go right ahead and have whatever "debate" you think is their due.
Well, nobody writes posts because they're eager to be "wrong", do they?
What active measures are you taking, besides changing hearts and minds on HN, to dismantle the patriarchy and white supremacy? What are you personally doing, say, to promote the work of developers and entrepreneurs that are female and non-white?
I should have clarified in my original post that I'm referring to men with disabilities that are not immediately apparent. I imagine visibly disabled men are not treated as if they are awash with privilege.
This argument does not address the point. No one said that lucky means perfect; everything is relative.
It can be (and is) true that you can be the luckiest baby in history and have "crippling illness". You can both be privileged and disadvantaged on different axes at the same time.
I think you misunderstand racism and sexism. These refer to power structures that oppress people, not inborn disadvantages.
There are power structures being built to counteract the older power structures of predominately white male society. These power structures aim to exclude white men in an attempt to make up for historical discrepancy. Unfortunately, disability is often not taken into account, and so we now have power structures that discriminate against white men whether they are disabled or not. Empowering a healthy, able-bodied woman/black-person/whatever at the expense of a disabled person of any background is not okay, but it is done all the time. I've personally experienced this a lot in the past few years. It never happened pre-2016.
If you don't agree that there are power structures discriminating against white men, then we would have to have a much longer discussion for me to get my point across.
I'm just trying to find a way to stay alive. I don't understand why I get so much hate for that. I can't take care of the oppression other minorities face. I can't even take care of myself.
You seek to profit by gaining employment at a company built on disrespect for society and its laws and then you are surprised that it doesn't treat you with respect?
Uber had very good PR. In hindsight, we all know what a horrorshow Travis was, and how awful his company became. But when Fowler joined Uber, she was 24, and Uber was still on the rise, a beloved darling. It's entirely reasonable that she (and many others) joined on the basis of what the media and what recruiters were saying at the time.
Speaking of Uber and Susan Fowler - had the current CEO frog marched out everyone that authorized, worked on, did not block, did not fight against what she experienced especially after the publication of her post?
Such destructive cleaning of house creates the wrong incentives. Most of the people involved would have lacked either the full story or the power to do anything about it. If it's a fireable offense to be near a big scandal, the rational response isn't to start fighting against the problems you see - it's to build a massive silo to minimize the number of problems you can see.
There were people who authorized either employees or contractors to harass her, dig the dirt out on her, etc, etc, etc. There were people who read/compiled/presented that information to the higher ups in management/executive levels. Did those people write memos/emails to their bosses saying that based on their view they should not be doing it but since they may not be fully aware of the full context they need their boss to send reply to this memo/email and say "Yes, do it."
That's the accountability. Someone makes a decision. That someone gets to be accountable.
Absolutely. Maybe you don't have the full context of the story - the CEO at the time that Fowler got harassed, Travis Kalanick, ended up being that someone who's accountable.
It is highly unlikely that the CEO did it all himself.
It is far more likely that there were dozens if not hundreds of people that actively and willingly participated in it. Were those people terminated? That's the real question. I'm, frankly, shocked that it is presumed that by replacing a CEO rather than replacing everyone who thought going after Susan was "just doing their job, not a big deal, no need to have a boss sign off on it" is considered to be acceptable.
I don't think I agree - it seems very likely that bosses all the way up the chain were signing off on it. "Let's hire investigators to discredit her" is surely not a decision that some random member of HR staff would make on their own.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. It seems like a good point. Large swathes of Uber, especially people with power, seemed ok with all sorts of ethical failings. I'd really love to know how many of those people kept their jobs.
Of course, large companies often treat major failings as PR problems. So instead of cleaning house or making other big changes, they do the minimum necessary until the heat is off. A classic in the genre is Jack Dorsey, who is extremely good at sounding sincere and contrite, promising to listen and improve until attention is elsewhere.
I feel like someone needs to run an education campaign on what HR is and who it works for. HR is there to protect the business. They aren't there as some moral arbiter. If you reported sexual harassment to HR you are going to be part of an equation - is it better for the business to lose you (and possibly some token amount of cash) or to lose the people you're complaining about. If you're complaining about a systemic issue then there is no chance you come out on top, HR will act to protect the organisation at your expense. Since the only time you go to HR is a situation where you can't deal with this issue alone it means practically every situation where you are going to HR is a situation where HR you will see getting rid of you as the cheapest way of solving the problem.