[n72]

I guess you just must have been momentarily distracted when you reached the part in the article in which she explicitly states why: "While gender of a leader should not matter to dispatching such appalling behaviors, the symbolism over the appointment of a female CEO at Silicon Valley’s most toxic-bro startup is unquestionable."

[DoofusOfDeath]

That quote seems to have some sexist elements itself.

[mlloyd]

It doesn't when this entire drama is due to the company's sexist and toxic culture.

[humanrebar]

The sexist part is the implication that every man is "bro" somehow... that only a female CEO could count as a symbolic change in leadership.

[dieterrams]

That isn't being implied.

And an "unquestionable" symbolism is not the same as "the only possible" symbolism.

[humanrebar]

The only unquestionable symbolism would be hiring a female CEO?

[HelloMcFly]

You're exhausting if only because you try to place the comments of others into a linguistic box of your own creation, not theirs.

There are undoubtedly many things Uber could do that would be "unquestionably symbolic." Hiring someone else with a history of sexual harassment would be unquestionably symbolic. Nowhere did anyone say that hiring a female CEO is the only unquestionably symbolic act they could do. But it is one of them, and in that hypothetical instance, the symbolism would be positive.

And no, it isn't the only unquestionably positive act they could do.

[untog]

I don't see the implication at all. The culture of the company can be "bro" without every single employee being "bro". By your logic all the women working at Uber would also have to be "bro".

[atom-morgan]

sexism + sexism != sexism?

[lightbyte]

Are you implying the only possible solution for that is a women? That itself is very sexist.

[lettergram]

Indeed, my point exactly.