Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but what’s mainly happening here is that it is simply a matter of bad judgement ... Only if you assume either that his position is so wrong that it could not be held by a reasonable person, or that he shouldn't speak or act on his position in any public way. I consider both of those assumptions to be highly suspect. > ... and people objecting to the appointment because he's unfit to lead an org like Mozilla That is…
You can be reasonable in many aspects and behaviors of your life, and be unreasonable in some that happen to matter more to the situation at hand. I think it's pretty safe to say that thinking some of your employees are lesser human beings because they happen to not conform to your outdated view of sexuality, romance, and gender identity, is a pretty demonstrably unreasonable position.
Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
181–190 of 194 posts
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#182Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the distinction is important, but this obviously is all about the legal part - the state has no business in discriminating between sexual orientations, so the state has to either offer marriage for everyone or not at all, and the same for "civil unions". Also, I think it is confusing to say "cultural customs and rituals are not rights and don't have to be inclusive." That is largely correct from a legal perspect…
First of all, thanks for a thoughtful response. I think your comparisons between race and gender are superficial. There fundamental differences between the two concepts. We still have separate toilets for men and women, and nobody suggests it's offensive. I haven't seen fashion designers catch any flack for preparing separate collections for different genders. It is normal to sometimes seek the company of your own ge…
Some places indeed do have unisex toilets nowadays, and while I think few if any people consider separate toilets explicitly offensive, at least so far, they do actually pose a problem for some people, which is why I think it is not unreasonable to consider switching to unisex toilets everywhere. The problem with the current scheme of toilet separation is that there are both people who do not identify as either explicitly male or female, and in particular people who identify as a different gender than their biological one, for those people the scheme doesn't really work (and actually sometimes leads to real-world conflicts when they are perceived by others to be overstepping boundaries when they go to the "wrong" toilet). And if you think about it, the separation doesn't really make all that much sense. After all, you don't have separate toilets at home either, do you? And it's not like you couldn't have any privacy in public toilets nowadays, which a gender separation might be a crude approximation for.
Also, you have to distinguish between enforced categorisations and self-identification. A "ladies night out" probably is not really strictly about genitals, but rather a heuristic description of what kind of activities are planned, so if you happen to be a biologically male transgender, who identifies as female, and who is interested in taking part in that activity, behaving in that social role, you hopefully would not be excluded due to your biology. In particular, there is a difference between (biological) sex and social roles traditionally associated with certain biological sexes, commonly called the gender. This whole fight is not about getting rid of those roles, but rather about the freedom for each individual to choose their role independently of their biology (and also the freedom to reject both roles). Just as you can like or dislike swimming, you can like or dislike behaving according to what is traditionally considered "male" or "female" behaviour, and you should be able to choose to behave according to any of those roles as you like to, and not be forced by society to fill one of the roles because of your biology, just as you can freely choose to pursue swimming, or to not pursue swimming. That does not mean that we should ban swimming or "behaving female" or "behaving male".
Also, all of this obviously is not to be confused with a distinction that is based directly on biologically determined differences. If you do only have one kind of genitals, then services for the other kind of genitals probably aren't for you, just as pedicure is not for people who don't have legs. But that's not exactly something that needs regulation or social pressure to enforce.
And if you look at it from that perspective, it might actually be more analogous to race than you think: Yes, inviting only white friends would be considered weird. But inviting people "for a day of doing what was traditionally what white people did" (and by that I don't mean anything "anti-black" or anything, just typical cultural differences)? You probably would not phrase it that way, but conceptually I don't think anyone would find anything wrong with that, and I guess part of why you would not phrase it that way is simply that it's the "majority/privileged/normal" thing anyhow, so it's unusual to name it explicitly, but looking at it from the other side, consider, for example, "black music": It would be perfectly fine to have a "black music festival", but inviting only black musicians or only admitting black audience would be racist, and there also is no stigma anymore for white people to be interested in "black music", listening to it and even participating in it. It's a culture that was traditionally associated with "race", and we dropped the exclusion, but we still kept the culture, and even name it according to where it came from.
As such, I would say: No, gender is different and equal, but separation as it is commonly understood should not have any place there. Just as different kinds of sports are not "separate but equal". You should be free to engage in any sports activity that you like, and you should be free to engage in any gender role that you like, and just as you usually won't find many swimmers swimming in the football stadium, you won't find many people into male roles at places where people meet "to be female", but it's noone's business to enforce some separation.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented changes to a core social institution that goes back into prehistory. Did you trade some goats for your wife? If not, then gee, I guess we've already made unprecedented changes to a core social institution.
Yeah. A friend who has a PhD in a relevant topic did a great presentation on the phrase "biblical marriage". I forget all the permutations, but aside from the traditional man+wife, there was man+slave, man+wife+slave, man+dead brother's wife, and a few others. Basically, the people talking about biblical marriage were immensely selective in their interpretation of the bible, finding in it the exact prejudices they br…
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#185People need to speak up and stop this insanity about ousting Eich. This include the LGBT community and their supporters. Yesterday their were fighting for inclusiveness and accepting people with different values. They need to walk the talk themselves, even if it means to tolerate people whose value they disagree with.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that with 600+ employees, there are going to be an awful lot of employees who are not going to be comfortable saying, "Hey, boss's boss's boss's boss: why did you put your money down with the anti-gay bigots?" And I don't know about you, but if I were a) afraid to ask, or b) didn't get a satisfactory answer, I wouldn't be posting about it on Twitter. Because of that great-great-grandboss thing. I have no idea…
True, but my point is that the people who have actually been working for him for many years now have no negative experiences along these lines to report that I've seen. And that if you're worried about how he'll treat people working for him, the best thing to do is to ask the people who have been working for him. It's not like he's a new hire into the organization or something; there are lots of people around who hav…
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Our culture is in middle of making unprecedented > changes to a core social institution that goes back > into prehistory. Homosexuality was not a big deal during Ancient History. Then came Christianity and its obscurantism, shaming everything that was not in the good book for the sake of control. Our culture is going back to its roots paganism and greek heritage it's a long way since the Renaissance.
Some caution about throwing out the moral foundations of our culture that have served for 1,800 years is not unreasonable. The assumption that Christianity, monogamy, or even the nuclear family can be removed with no negative consequences is full of reckless hubris
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but my point is that the people who have actually been working for him for many years now have no negative experiences along these lines to report that I've seen. And that if you're worried about how he'll treat people working for him, the best thing to do is to ask the people who have been working for him. It's not like he's a new hire into the organization or something; there are lots of people around who hav…
I agree that we've so far had no negative reports. But a) there's a strong disincentive to report, b) subtle discrimination is hard to pin down, and c) that he has helped to strip gay people of their civil rights is enough to cause fear, and fear is all it takes to create problematic working conditions.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because Mozilla has a culture of openness and transparency, it doesn't mean every piece of information about the goings-on of the company is public. I find that unsurprising and entirely normal.
Yes, but I wonder exactly why in this particular case.
Re: Three Mozilla Board Members Resign over Choice of New CEO
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but my point is that the people who have actually been working for him for many years now have no negative experiences along these lines to report that I've seen. And that if you're worried about how he'll treat people working for him, the best thing to do is to ask the people who have been working for him. It's not like he's a new hire into the organization or something; there are lots of people around who hav…
I agree that we've so far had no negative reports. But a) there's a strong disincentive to report, b) subtle discrimination is hard to pin down, and c) that he has helped to strip gay people of their civil rights is enough to cause fear, and fear is all it takes to create problematic working conditions.
It seems to me that you didn't fully read the second link that bzbarsky provided, in which the author says that while she's not happy with the past donation, she doesn't see that it has changed how Mozilla treats its staff, and that in past years it has been improving (years in which Eich was a CxO, if not CEO): To be clear, I’m personally disappointed about Brendan’s donation. However, aside from how it affected me emotionally, I have nothing to indicate that it’s materially hurt my work within the Mozilla community or as a Mozilla employee. Mozilla offers the best benefits I have ever had and goes out of its way to offer benefits to its employees in same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships on par with those in heterosexual marriages. Last year we finally got trans-inclusive healthcare. We didn’t have an explicit code of conduct when I started, but adopted the guidelines for participation within my first year. Progress might be slow, but it’s being made. And I don’t see Brendan standing in the way of that.
To throw away commentary like that with a handwave saying "well, any dissenting employees would be silenced by fear" does not do Eich justice, and it also does not do that author justice, because you're effectively saying she doesn't count because she's not in fear. A well-written, considered article, one that is neither gushing nor abusive, presenting a complex, nuanced picture... and it's worthless because 'someone might be too scared to speak up'.
It's apparent that you won't be happy unless there's a vocal dissentor to support your point of view. You've essentially pre-convicted the guy against evidence provided by people that currently work with him, and are groping around for ammunition.