David Bonderman resigns from Uber board after sexist remark | Hacker News Reader

David Bonderman resigns from Uber board after sexist remark

nytimes.com

57 pointserict1529 comments

It takes a certain kind of idiot to make a sexist remark (even as a joke) in a meeting about how your company is going to tackle its terrible problem with sexism.

I can't find it now, but there's a video of one of Ben Horowitz's lectures where he says one benefit of hiring women is that they communicate more openly and effectively, at least with each other. If a woman feels marginalized by another woman during a meeting, she's more likely to communicate that and solve the problem, rather than holding onto it.

I don't know if this is true or not, but since there was no backlash over this, it goes to show that context and tone influences what's seen as disparaging.

Also, what's actually said surprisingly influences what's seen as disparaging.

It's quite a stretch from that sentiment to what Bonderman said.

>"In a statement, Mr. Bonderman said his comment “came across in a way that was the opposite of what I intended, but I understand the destructive effect it had, and I take full responsibility for that.”

Is this just a very selective part of the statement then? Because saying something wildly inappropriate and "something failing to have its intended affect" are very different things.

When I saw this I swear I though it was a news story from the Onion

The remark was discussed earlier in this (flagged to death) thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14548761

I really wonder why that got flagged that much. It's like this post, it's being moderated down super fast. Weird

As much as HN has grown in the last decade there's still a sizable undercurrent of reactionary thinking. Look at the large number of comments that see nothing wrong with a sexist comment at the big board meeting about fixing Uber's sexist culture.

Fun that his comment likely will result in more women on that board, and probably more (substantive) talking.

I hate meetings. I hate people who just love to hear themselves talk.

But, in my experience, it's not women who predominantly do that ;)

Not a meeting fan either, but what else would a board do other than talk?

Yes, talk. But some sorts of talk are more useful than others.

Right...maybe you missed the "substantive" bit?

Sure. But "substantive" can be a value-laden concept.

I think you may have misinterpreted something I wrote. We seem to be saying the same thing in different ways.

This seems like a real missed opportunity by the Board of Directors to have had him replaced(fired?) and put out a press release emphasising that toxic culture would not be tolerated at any level.

I would be curious to know if he is still entitled to his full Board member salary.

I wonder where the pressure came from that actually made him resign. His firm?

Maybe just the awkward air in the room that he just can't shake. Perhaps the comment in a different setting would have merited just an apology to the room...but tossing that out there, in that particular time and place. Just wow.

I'm offended that people are offended over a stupid hack joke (It's ok to be offended).

Wait... isn't the entire purpose of a board to talk in board meetings? They certainly aren't driving the cars.

The remark:

At an Uber staff meeting earlier in the day, Arianna Huffington, another Uber board member, said one woman on a board often leads to more women joining a board. Mr. Bonderman responded “that it’s much more likely to be more talking.”

Seems ironic that Arianna's own site posted this:

Biological Evidence May Support Idea That Women Talk More Than Men, Study Says http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/women-talk-more-tha...

Is it not possible to say anything anymore without someone being offended?

If you searched for a contradictory HuffPo article for everything Arianna Huffington said, she would be the most ironic person on earth.

If you can't say anything without someone getting offended, maybe your communications stack is out of date.

If you can't listen to anything without being offended, maybe your thin skinned and need to toughen up a bit.

Unsupported by the facts.

There's two things I'd like to say:

1) The media rarely characterizes the actual underlying science correctly.

In this case, the journal entry [0] and an author of the paper herself[1] characterize it as simply a "difference" and are careful to not concretely link it to human-observable behavioral differences (such as "Women talk more", which the media is more than happy to expand upon to clickbaity levels in order to get more ad revenue).

2) History has shown that science, which strives for impartial and unbiased results, often has its results applied by biased and partial people who have agendas. Said agendas may include justification of the current status quo.

In my opinion, keeping these two points in mind is just an exercise of healthy critical thinking. When applied here, I reject your idea that this Huffington article justifies Bonderman's behavior as being unoffensive.

[0] http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=128545&Cult... [1] https://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2013/La...

In my experience, women generally do talk more. Is that an offensive statement, or is it the context of David Bonderman making that statement at an Uber staff meeting?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com