ROFL. I could literally replace the word "support" with "do not support" in this sentence and it would be an equally valid argument.
A bad one. But equally so.
Read my comment again. I already explained why both groups of women could be right.
Something else was going on.
You're confirmation bias is showing again...
It is suggesting that these women's feelings should not be taken seriously.
You are either pregnant or not. You can't be both.
As I mentioned earlier, Eric Holder is a lawyer, the issue has do do with emotions and Eric Holder has absolutely no clinical training let alone clinical training for this specific kind of environment. That makes him unqualified to make judgments.
The question is why wasn't a specialist brought in. Someone who has the clinical training and business training who has experience dealing with hi-tech startup cultures brought in for an evaluation. It makes everything highly suspect.
I am not denying that some women and others may have been put off by the culture. Or that there may have been some specific cases of abuse. But clearly there was no culture of sexual abuse.
It simply cannot be that Ms. Sanger and a number of women were highly supportive of an environment that promoted sexual abuse. They are not crazy, they are not in denial. It was not a pervasive culture.
There is something else going on and to do everyone justice, don't use an unqualified lawyer to investigate, use a qualified industrial psychologist with extensive clinical training. Use the right person for the job.
As I said before, I have dealt with such a highly qualified individual. I use awareness of cognitive biases in my work where unlike Uber, cognitive biases can kill people.
Something else is going on. A properly trained industrial psychologist with clinical training and who knows the hi-tech startup environment should investigate.
When it comes to whether Uber possesses a sexually abusive workplace environment, You are either pregnant or not. You can't be both.
This is perfect example of a false dichotomy.
Corporate culture is not some monolithic thing.
Uber is a 15,000 person company. Individual departments and reporting chains likely varied significantly. That there may have been groups or departments in Uber that did not share the corrosive culture experienced elsewhere in the company is not only within reason, but to be expected.
I am not denying that some women and others may have been put off by the culture. Or that there may have been some specific cases of abuse. But clearly there was no culture of sexual abuse.
Do you work at Uber? Have you experienced their culture first hand? What, precisely, makes you qualified to make this determination, thus invalidating the claims of others who do have first-hand experience at the company and have said otherwise?
You have not addressed at all the fact that they did not use a professional to investigate these claims.
> "What, precisely, makes you qualified to make this determination,..."
I don't have to work there. People such as the FB poster Margaret-Ann Seger and many other women who work there have been very upset about his firing. Just read the comments for Sanger's post on FB -- those written by women who support TK. There are 1,800 likes 350 shares, 65 comments to her FB post alone.
Google for the name "Margaret-Ann Seger" and you will see there are recall petitions and other positive comments by other women about the culture there.
You simply can't have these kinds of testimonials from women in there was a truly toxic culture there. Your issue is not with me, but the women who testify in TK's favor.
Culture does mean culture -- it means something endemic throughout. Undeniably there were cases just as there were cases in other tech firms. But to discount the words of the many women who work there supporting TK and his kindness and leadership is in itself discounting their opinions which is sexually abusive.
