Post: #1

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/techn...erman.html

LOL. I've posted before about working for or with women. And judging by the large number of insightful comments I got, a large number of you also have a LOT of experience with this dynamic.

One thing I remember vividly were that women had to have ENDLESS meetings on every little topic. They are herd animals prone to groupthink; most lack the confidence to make a decision on their own and be held accountable for the results. The other thing i remember was, every one of these marathon chitchat sessions - i mean, """"meetings"""" - started off with 45 minutes of socializing, how did your daughter do at soccer practice last night, what did you have for breakfast, blahty blahty blahty blah!

So now, a man says something wouldn't have raised an eyebrow any place on earth 50 years ago (and still wouldn't in most places today), something everyone knows is true...and it's like he murdered a baby. NO! Worse than murdering a baby! Women murder babies every day; no one says anything. This was like he was the sandy hill shooter. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

Ironically, women are STILL TALKING about this topic across america :/

Post: #2

Full article

SAN FRANCISCO — David Bonderman, an Uber board member and partner at private equity firm TPG, resigned from the board of the ride-hailing company after he made a disparaging remark about women at an Uber meeting on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day at an Uber staff meeting to discuss the company’s culture, Arianna Huffington, another board member, talked about how one woman on a board often leads to more women joining a board.

“Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking,” Mr. Bonderman responded.

Attendees were aghast at the exchange, especially at a time when Uber has been trying to overcome a series of scandals over corporate misbehavior, including sexual harassment claims. The company on Tuesday released a 13-page document outlining recommendations it planned to adopt to bring more accountability to executives at Uber for their actions and to increase board oversight. Travis Kalanick, Uber’s chief executive, also said he would take a leave of absence from the company.

After the staff meeting, employees angry at Mr. Bonderman’s remarks sent numerous emails to their managers and to Liane Hornsey, Uber’s head of human resources, according to people with knowledge of the situation, who asked to remain anonymous because the details are confidential.

Mr. Bonderman quickly apologized for his remark. People close to him said his resignation from the board was swiftly decided to demonstrate to Uber employees that he wanted to adhere to the standards he spoke about in the staff meeting.

“I appreciate David doing the right thing for Uber at this time of critical cultural changes at the company,” Ms. Huffington said in a statement.

How Uber’s Brash Approach Is Beginning to Backfire
The company, with its co-founder Travis Kalanick, is known for its brash, aggressive approach. That approach has taken a toll.

Mr. Bonderman joined Uber’s board because TPG is an investor in the ride-hailing company. For the past few months, he had been working on Uber’s culture. In a statement, he 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.”

Mr. Bonderman added: “I do not want my comments to create distraction as Uber works to build a culture of which we can be proud. I need to hold myself to the same standards that we’re asking Uber to adopt. Therefore, I have decided to resign from Uber’s board of directors, effective tomorrow morning.”

Mr. Bonderman’s board seat at Uber may not be vacant for long. As a major stakeholder in Uber, TPG will most likely keep the seat and is discussing who may fill the position.

Mr. Bonderman’s original comments, according to experts, also lack merit.

Tali Mendelberg, professor of politics at Princeton University, and Christopher Karpowitz, an associate professor of political science at Brigham Young University, conducted a study in 2012 concluding that men talked far more than women did at meetings. The professors convened 94 groups of five people and varied the number of men and women in the groups. Their study is in line with multiple others drawing similar conclusions — men talk more than women, and men interrupt more than women.

“The study shows that men will dominate the conversation if there are more men than women in the group, and they dominate by a lot,” Ms. Mendelberg said in an interview. “When you have just two women in the group, those women are much more silent than men are.”

Uber’s board of directors was composed entirely of men until 2016, when Ms. Huffington gained a seat. This week Uber said another woman had been added to the board: Wan Ling Martello, the executive vice president of Nestle in South Asia.

In an email to employees late Tuesday about Mr. Bonderman, Mr. Kalanick wrote, “Board and management leadership is our highest priority and over the coming weeks and months we will be adding strong independent board members.”

But Ms. Mendelberg warned that it will take more than a few appointments to change the company’s board dynamics. “Simply going from one woman to two women is going to do nothing to women’s voice or influence,” she said.

Mike Isaac reported from San Francisco, and Susan Chira from New York.

Post: #3

This isn't a big deal when compared to some of Uber's other issues. While private companies should be especially free to do whatever the way, forcing a board member to resign because of an offhand mark is ridiculous action. But then again, Uber's reputation is already fucked so every little thing that happens there will be blown ten times over.

@ Father

I think CEO's in general should just minimize discussions that aren't related to work. I also think if you do work somewhere you should minimize discussions with women.

Post: #4

Why is it so hard for women to create their own successful corporations with millions on revenue and then put whoever the fuck they want on their boards?

Post: #5

The only way I see forward is having segregated offices, that way you are protecting your company from frivolous lawsuits

Post: #6

I need to stop using uber

Post: #7

(06-15-2017 08:17 PM)PuppetMaster Wrote:  I think CEO's in general should just minimize discussions that aren't related to work. I also think if you do work somewhere you should minimize discussions with women.

Not just CEO's. I've had a number of sensitive little snowflakes work for me over the years. I tried to mentor the bright ones, and this meant having lots of conversations and trying to build rapport with them. Impossible. One day, they all stab you in the back if they think they can get promoted to your role: "He said (whatever) and here's how it made me feeeeeeeeeeeel!!" None of them realize that, while they may actually get someone fired for their fake complaining, they are unlikely to be promoted as a result. Let's see...if i'm your boss's boss, and you stab your boss in the back and get him fired...am i going to promote you to report to me, so you can do the same thing to me?? The most any of these little whiners is ever going to get out of the situation is a nomination for "best child actor".

So, i've learned to be tight lipped around the little shits. The only employees you can really trust are middle-aged people counting down until retirement...they are unlikely to rock the boat.

Post: #8

(06-15-2017 08:30 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:17 PM)PuppetMaster Wrote:  I think CEO's in general should just minimize discussions that aren't related to work. I also think if you do work somewhere you should minimize discussions with women.

Not just CEO's. I've had a number of sensitive little snowflakes work for me over the years. I tried to mentor the bright ones, and this meant having lots of conversations and trying to build rapport with them. Impossible. One day, they all stab you in the back if they think they can get promoted to your role: "He said (whatever) and here's how it made me feeeeeeeeeeeel!!" None of them realize that, while they may actually get someone fired for their fake complaining, they are unlikely to be promoted as a result. Let's see...if i'm your boss's boss, and you stab your boss in the back and get him fired...am i going to promote you to report to me, so you can do the same thing to me?? The most any of these little whiners is ever going to get out of the situation is a nomination for "best child actor".

So, i've learned to be tight lipped around the little shits. The only employees you can really trust are middle-aged people counting down until retirement...they are unlikely to rock the boat.

What industry do you work in if you don't mind my asking?

Post: #9

(06-15-2017 08:38 PM)PuppetMaster Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:30 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 08:17 PM)PuppetMaster Wrote:  I think CEO's in general should just minimize discussions that aren't related to work. I also think if you do work somewhere you should minimize discussions with women.

Not just CEO's. I've had a number of sensitive little snowflakes work for me over the years. I tried to mentor the bright ones, and this meant having lots of conversations and trying to build rapport with them. Impossible. One day, they all stab you in the back if they think they can get promoted to your role: "He said (whatever) and here's how it made me feeeeeeeeeeeel!!" None of them realize that, while they may actually get someone fired for their fake complaining, they are unlikely to be promoted as a result. Let's see...if i'm your boss's boss, and you stab your boss in the back and get him fired...am i going to promote you to report to me, so you can do the same thing to me?? The most any of these little whiners is ever going to get out of the situation is a nomination for "best child actor".

So, i've learned to be tight lipped around the little shits. The only employees you can really trust are middle-aged people counting down until retirement...they are unlikely to rock the boat.

What industry do you work in if you don't mind my asking?

I'm just a gigolo...

Post: #10

lol @ "marathon chitchat sessions"

Post: #11

(06-15-2017 07:57 PM)The Father Wrote:  Snipped article

In an email to employees late Tuesday about Mr. Bonderman, Mr. Kalanick wrote, “Board and management leadership is our highest priority and over the coming weeks and months we will be adding strong independent board members.”

This can't be an accidental choice of phrasing. If the guy is the shitlord they are claiming, then he's clearly poking fun. It may be time for me to get an Uber app and show solidarity.

Post: #12

(06-16-2017 02:52 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  This can't be an accidental choice of phrasing. If the guy is the shitlord they are claiming, then he's clearly poking fun. It may be time for me to get an Uber app and show solidarity.

That choice of phrasing is most definitely deliberate. Maybe there's an element of shitlording, but before showing solidarity consider that it's likely to be mostly pandering.

I'd put money on it that there will be a significant increase in the percentage of female board members at Uber soon.

Post: #13

Quote:Arianna Huffington, another board member

That's it. Uber is going down the drain, no matter how successful it may be at the moment.

Post: #14

I really feel Uber are totally hypocritical for treating their employees (and even CEO) like this when their success is based on being overly aggressive, un-politically correct and somewhat immoral.

Post: #15

(06-16-2017 04:34 AM)the-dream Wrote:  I really feel Uber are totally hypocritical for treating their employees (and even CEO) like this when their success is based on being overly aggressive, un-politically correct and somewhat immoral.

Well, once a special snowflake sues and wins, the company is fucked at that point.

Post: #16

(06-15-2017 08:18 PM)Suits Wrote:  Why is it so hard for women to create their own successful corporations with millions on revenue and then put whoever the fuck they want on their boards?

Women don't build all they do is destroy, and that includes countries that you put them in charge of (Germany!).

Post: #17

The lesson in this is not to double down on PC groupthink bullshit, but to simply never advance women on the board - at least no women who would take offense at such things. Margaret Thatcher would have laughed it off and said something witty in return.

And what does that bitch do? She pumps it out in a great scandal. The remark was ridiculously benign - so what that women talk more? That is usually true. Men talk less - that is an observable fact in life. It is true also in the corporate world.

Fuck them - I would only hire women for unimportant, eye-candy position. I would fucking avoid all female leadership positions like the pest they are. In 90% of the world no one would bat an eye at such a statement. But first world problems are certainly "mean" comments about female corporate board members....

Post: #18

(06-15-2017 07:57 PM)The Father Wrote:  Full article

SAN FRANCISCO — David Bonderman, an Uber board member and partner at private equity firm TPG, resigned from the board of the ride-hailing company after he made a disparaging remark about women at an Uber meeting on Tuesday.

Earlier in the day at an Uber staff meeting to discuss the company’s culture, Arianna Huffington, another board member, talked about how one woman on a board often leads to more women joining a board.

“Actually, what it shows is that it’s much more likely to be more talking,” Mr. Bonderman responded.

Attendees were aghast at the exchange, ...

Jeez, that's it?

When I saw the title of this thread I was expecting something a lot more risqué than "it’s much more likely to be more talking".

These days you're really just one off-hand comment away from losing your job thanks to these harpies...

Post: #19

“The study shows that men will dominate the conversation if there are more men than women in the group, and they dominate by a lot,” Ms. Mendelberg said in an interview. “When you have just two women in the group, those women are much more silent than men are.”

This sentence above proves that woman being "much more silent" is a good thing, and the author knows it.

Post: #20

I remember when hiring women at software companies was the ultimate sin.
Lactation rooms in a place of business let alone a startup is absolutely the height of insanity.

A lot of pussies in San Fran right now.

Post: #21

There's a very simple rule in Corporate America.

EVERYTHING you say relating to women should be along the vein of insisting that women are discriminated against and that we need more women leaders. That should be the extent of it.

Post: #22

(06-16-2017 11:44 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  There's a very simple rule in Corporate America.

EVERYTHING you say relating to women should be along the vein of insisting that women are discriminated against and that we need more women leaders. That should be the extent of it.

The most successful software companies are dominated by men. This is a fact.
It's a vicious environment. I would love to hire a woman who is one of the guys.
Older women are much better hires than younger women.

Not really, and I don't feel bad for saying it. I'm all for women entrepreneurs.

In fact, I just bought Self Made Female edition of Forbes. There is just a huge discrepancy of Men hiring women and women bringing down the very person who hired them. Ironic how the richest self made woman still inherited the other half of her dead husband.

There is a massive double standard in Western Business. Which I have been a victim of. A conflict that should have been settled by men and we all get along was ultimately settled by women. Employment termination.

If women want to prosper so much, why don't they hire all women? See how fast that company grows and profits.
They are rarely there at the riskiest parts of the startup. But want to call all the shots when it's smooth sailing. It's pure bullshit!
I could go on and on about this. But the political correctness within Corporate America is CRUSHING GDP. No doubt about this.

Post: #23

(06-16-2017 12:11 PM)crdr Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 11:44 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  There's a very simple rule in Corporate America.

EVERYTHING you say relating to women should be along the vein of insisting that women are discriminated against and that we need more women leaders. That should be the extent of it.

The most successful software companies are dominated by men. This is a fact.
It's a vicious environment. I would love to hire a woman who is one of the guys.
Older women are much better hires than younger women.

Not really, and I don't feel bad for saying it. I'm all for women entrepreneurs.

In fact, I just bought Self Made Female edition of Forbes. There is just a huge discrepancy of Men hiring women and women bringing down the very person who hired them. Ironic how the richest self made woman still inherited the other half of her dead husband.

There is a massive double standard in Western Business. Which I have been a victim of. A conflict that should have been settled by men and we all get along was ultimately settled by women. Employment termination.

If women want to prosper so much, why don't they hire all women? See how fast that company grows and profits.
They are rarely there at the riskiest parts of the startup. But want to call all the shots when it's smooth sailing. It's pure bullshit!
I could go on and on about this. But the political correctness within Corporate America is CRUSHING GDP. No doubt about this.

It is well-known here that women can never compete with men in almost any professional endeavor (unless men are not interested in it like gossip magazines etc.).

Not even balanced filmmakers like Cassie Jaye know this, but the reasons are:

1. IQ differential between men and women - roughly 4-6 points, they massage the stats. women develop faster and are better in ages 11-14, but by 15-16 men already outgrow women and end up a bit more intelligent.

2. IQ distribution of men vs women - almost all geniuses are men, most psychopaths and most morons are also men. Women are centered in the middle. AT levels of even 140 there are way more men than women outnumbering them 7 to 3. It gets even worse later.

3. Different mental makeup - male minds get invigorated with subjects, also far more interested in tech, abstract thought. Also almost all geniuses and inventors were men. The biggest artists were men and are still men. Women in part can be almost as good as artists, but for example their interest in technology and engineering is non-existent. Women in feminist societies like Sweden choose the least number of STEM subjects for study. Even if you go into business endeavors or medicine - the toughest subjects are chosen almost exclusively by men - neurosurgeon, scientist etc.

4. Male competitiveness - we risk x-times more than women, we like to compete, we like to win, we like to triumph over 100.000 men being the best in a given field in the world. Most women lack that. Men also negotiate x-times more and stronger during wage negotiations, because they know that they are the providers of the family and they want to outcompete others.
Women have an egalitarian viewpoint and also their competition matrix ends in a miniature social circle (direct office) - best for them is to all be almost equal with them being slightly above all other bitches - that is their mental design. We instead have larger concerns (at least for the men who are at the top).

5. Child-rearing and children: past 30 most women want children and reorder their priorities. That takes away their ability to work as hard as before and also WANT TO WORK AS HARD as before if she can afford it - in many professions like lawyers or doctors almost 50% of women stop working as they marry another successful lawyer or doctor and don't want to work.

In short - the reason why there will never be as many women as men as CEOs, top chefs, top scientists, top managers, top businessmen is simply, that this would be unfair to men. Women IN AGGREGATE CAN NEVER COMPETE WITH MEN! Nature has created men such that a number of men will succeed and a greater number of men will fail miserably. In contrast nature designed women to play it safe and stay the course in the middle, have children and propagate the species and not go out and conquer and explore the world risking life and limb.

Trying to change that kind of makeup would need genetic re-engineering or enforced affirmative action that takes many under-performing women and puts them above better men.

Post: #24

It's science. Women are better at talking and socializing, from 1 year old to 99 years old.

Fucking retards denying science.

Besides, what's wrong with being social and chatty. Good fuckin lord the reason we have women do the hiring sometimes is because women are really good at picking up on subtleties, because they're really social. Female cops are a huge asset for domestic disputes. Call centers hire chicks because they're good at talking.

I meet way more socially weird dudes than I do chicks because chicks are more social.

What the fuck is wrong with that. Have these people never been....anywhere on the planet. Hell my BJJ gym...walk in, the chicks are all circled up chatting it up, while the dudes are all solo on the mat stretching.

I mean, I don't want my surgeon being overly social, but I figure if he's the head surgeon, he probably didn't get there by being chatty anyway. I want my

That said, you're in the lions den. Gotta have your head on a swivel.

Post: #25

Agreed, but there is a great way to handle this. I saw an interview where the Chase chairman was asked about female executives and he dodged the question by saying that the bank was committed to diversity and that their commitment to diversity would result in more female leaders rising up to the executive committee.

Classic jive, but the reporter loved his virtue signaling.

Remember....virtue signal one thing and then do another. SJWs will ALWAYS are like evangelicals in that they care much more
about vocal affirmations of virtue than any actions you take.