The push for diversification will ruin this company. (Refer to Ms. Huffington on the board)
and if I was an investor- I would sell my stock immediately.
What's your problem with women?
I've seen a couple posts like this and since no one else seems to be pointing it out, I will.
I think his his point was that there will be the temptation, - whether it will come to pass, or moreover ever be proven, remains to be debated - to hire a woman to be CEO without regard for more qualified candidates who happen to be men, for the sake of having "a more caring" public image.
'Cause thats not not sexist at all !!!
I doubt there will be that temptation at all. The board will always look for qualified candidates first and foremost. The intent with diversity is after candidates have met the quality bar, not before. People here don’t seem able or willing to get their heads around this, because not doing so allows them to spout the conspiracy theory you’ve mentioned and mentioned on other threads here. It’s an expression of fear, nothing more.
The push for diversification will ruin this company. (Refer to Ms. Huffington on the board)
and if I was an investor- I would sell my stock immediately.
Ruin the company? They were on a glide path to disaster. The only advantage Uber has over Lyft (and others) is the name recognition. As that name become synonymous with assholery, secrecy, and blatant law-breaking the entire company suffers. They absolutely have to bring in a public face that turns that around. If that means a woman, they'll bring in a woman. You don't think there are any women in the world who could run this glorified taxi company?
My opinion is that a founder with a majority stockholder position is the only person who would run their company like it was their own son or daughter. Any hire they get now will merely be an "employee" and not as aggressively focused.
The push for diversification will ruin this company. (Refer to Ms. Huffington on the board)
and if I was an investor- I would sell my stock immediately.
What's your problem with women?
I've seen a couple posts like this and since no one else seems to be pointing it out, I will.
I think his his point was that there will be the temptation, - whether it will come to pass, or moreover ever be proven, remains to be debated - to hire a woman to be CEO without regard for more qualified candidates who happen to be men, for the sake of having "a more caring" public image.
'Cause thats not not sexist at all !!!
Anome's comment was funny though. ߘ怜t;br>
I don't know, I think it was a bit glib.
My problem with the original post is that it typifies both sides of the problem. Women only seem to get appointed to C-Level positions when the company is in trouble, sending the message "Well, we've tried everything else, we might as well see what happens when we let a female run it..."
This is then picked up on by people like trashman69 above as being a needless push for diversity at the expense of the business. This attitude is based around the idea that a company couldn't possibly be employing a woman at C-level because she's actually good at the job, since if women were as good as men at the job, then there would be more women employed at C-level. (Then, after circling this argument two or three times, they lie down, have a good lick, and go to sleep.)
Of course, there are women who are at C-level positions in all sorts of industries because they're good at it. There are also women who are at C-level positions for all the other reasons men get to C-level positions (nepotism, bribery, general corruption, etc). But despite this, they can't get past the idea that men must be better at it because there are more men doing it, when that isn't really so.
[EDIT] StrangeDays said everything I meant to say above, and much more succinctly.
Comments
That got a chuckle out of me!
I don't know, I think it was a bit glib.
My problem with the original post is that it typifies both sides of the problem. Women only seem to get appointed to C-Level positions when the company is in trouble, sending the message "Well, we've tried everything else, we might as well see what happens when we let a female run it..."
This is then picked up on by people like trashman69 above as being a needless push for diversity at the expense of the business. This attitude is based around the idea that a company couldn't possibly be employing a woman at C-level because she's actually good at the job, since if women were as good as men at the job, then there would be more women employed at C-level. (Then, after circling this argument two or three times, they lie down, have a good lick, and go to sleep.)
Of course, there are women who are at C-level positions in all sorts of industries because they're good at it. There are also women who are at C-level positions for all the other reasons men get to C-level positions (nepotism, bribery, general corruption, etc). But despite this, they can't get past the idea that men must be better at it because there are more men doing it, when that isn't really so.
[EDIT] StrangeDays said everything I meant to say above, and much more succinctly.