21–30 of 33 posts
First question I would have is why did they hire a woman if they didn't want her to succeed? Just to marginalize her? There are not many details in the article so we can only guess.
Performative inclusion. — Inclusion: A seat at the table. Equity: When you speak at the table, others listen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything is possible. The difference between us is that you are starting with the arguably paranoid assumption that "the patriarchy" is the root of the problem and I'm starting with the Occam's razor assumption they simply didn't like her.
Yes, and I have a piece of evidence: the article, and you are just making stuff up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article by itself is not evidence.
No, of course not, she's making it all up. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Performative inclusion. — Inclusion: A seat at the table. Equity: When you speak at the table, others listen.
You mean equality.
If management excluded everyone in sales from meetings regardless of gender, the author might have equality but not equity.
Whereas if management ignored everyone in sales but listened to the author, the author would have equity without equality.
VP of sales and marketing of a 54B valuation company tends to have a bit more scrutiny so this doesn't really seem apples to apples. That aside, perhaps they didn't like her and it had nothing to do with gender?
she said that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, of course not, she's making it all up. /s
Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t. Maybe she earnestly believes it but is misconstruing what actually happened. We don’t know. But her account is just that: one account, which is intrinsically subjective and biased. When verifying the validity of an account, you don’t get the hold up the account itself as evidence. That would be begging the question.
The golden rule is: unless you have evidence to the contrary at least give her the benefit of the doubt, the vast majority of these cases are bad enough without people trying to muddy the waters with a 'both sides' approach. No executive in their right mind commits career suicide by relating such an account if it isn't true, and someone who managed to climb to the top of an automaker can be assumed to be in their right mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean equality.
In this case, “equity” is the term I was after. Equality means treated the same as everyone else. Equity means participation, with the same roots as when we talk about common stock being “equity.” If management excluded everyone in sales from meetings regardless of gender, the author might have equality but not equity. Whereas if management ignored everyone in sales but listened to the author, the author would have e…
If you want people to listen to your ideas at the table and accept or reject them based on merit, that's equality. Everyone starts off from an equal standing.
If you want your one vote regardless of what people think or how grand or stupid your ideas are, that's equity. Among N people you always get 1/Nth the attention, reward, impact, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe she is, maybe she isn’t. Maybe she earnestly believes it but is misconstruing what actually happened. We don’t know. But her account is just that: one account, which is intrinsically subjective and biased. When verifying the validity of an account, you don’t get the hold up the account itself as evidence. That would be begging the question.
This is pretty typical, if a woman writes up an account about what happened to her at her workplace there will be all kinds of characters trying to discredit her. The golden rule is: unless you have evidence to the contrary at least give her the benefit of the doubt, the vast majority of these cases are bad enough without people trying to muddy the waters with a 'both sides' approach. No executive in their right mind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty typical, if a woman writes up an account about what happened to her at her workplace there will be all kinds of characters trying to discredit her. The golden rule is: unless you have evidence to the contrary at least give her the benefit of the doubt, the vast majority of these cases are bad enough without people trying to muddy the waters with a 'both sides' approach. No executive in their right mind…
Did I try to discredit her? I did not.