Uber, “sexism” in tech, and anecdotal feminist hysteria.

In case you have not kept up with the news, Uber has been the most recent subject of yet another hysterical feminist led mob. The hysteria began when Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, accused the company of “sexism.” Now in all honestly Fowler’s original article (if you believe what she says ) did seem to contain clearly inappropriate and unprofessional behavior. However, the resulting feminist backlash against “bro culture” on sites like Medium, Quora, Verge, and others has once again gone off the deep end. Now I clearly do not know nor will I pretend to know what happened or if what Fowler said is true. Instead, I want to focus on how feminists frequently take unproven and anecdotal claims (which is all that this is at the moment), use them to launch large-scale “mob” like attacks against masculinity and men, and subsequently cite them as undebatable “proof” of the rampant sexism in the world (or in this specific case the tech world). Finally, I think it is interesting to explore what if anything Uber should do to recover its reputation and if the allegations are true (big if) whether Uber should change its culture. For a company headquartered in the far-left cosmopolitan metropolis of Silicon Valley and which advertises its “diversity” all over its website one would think such a claim and the resulting feminist hysteria would have dire consequences. However, I think there is a way for Uber to salvage their situation and emerge all the more stronger.

The Beginning

This whole fiasco began on February 19 when Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer now currently working at Stripe, published an article titled “Reflecting on one, very, very Strange Year at Uber.” In it she basically detailed a long litany of grievances with Uber and problems with HR in particular. Her writing style and the events she claims she went through definitely paint her as an extremely “sympathetic character” to say the least. The article was immediately picked up by several other sites including Vice, The Verge, Mashable and many others. I will admit that initially (and still to a certain extent) find the whole situation rather amusing. Here is Uber, a well-known company which publicly advertises its diversity, getting ratted out for sexism. Watching the far-left cannibalize itself is always a fun and rather  interesting endeavor. However, shortly thereafter many of the subsequent articles that emerged on sites like Vox began to take a rather openly misandrist and even anti-white tone.

The follow-up outrage

A few of the follow-up articles on Medium demonstrate feminist distortions and delusions of grandeur to a tee. For your personal enjoyment, I have chosen to include some of the more humorous examples. If you are short on time you can skip to the next section where I return to the overall implications of this ordeal.

One particularly amusing follow-up on Medium was by Aimee Lucido which you can find in full here. Her post is, of course, ripe with the typical SJW mumbo jumbo about “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “sexism.” One hysterical passage was the classical “sexism is everywhere” feminist rant:

“Sexism is a problem everywhere. In politics, in publishing, in academia. If this is a wake- up call for HR, for SREs, and for Uber, then that’s wonderful. But it needs to be more. It needs to be a wake-up call for everyone.

Yep yep sexism is everywhere just like communists were everywhere in the 1950s. Moreover, we need everyone to be on the look out for it. Like maybe check under your mattress, in your closet, in the hallway, you know after all anything built by men is probably sexist in some way.

So if sexism is so prevalent at Uber then why exactly did Aimee stay and not leave like Susan? It turns out because Uber “needs” her.

I am at Uber because Uber needs me…Like it or not, Uber is going to be an important company and I’d rather it reach its potential with smart, empathetic, diverse people at the helm than that I walk out today and wash my hands of it. When I most feel like quitting is when Uber most needs me.”

I’m sure they do. You are definitely making quite the impact.

I’ve seen it. One of the senior product managers in the driver org told me the other day that he hadn’t heard of unconscious bias before he met me.”

The horror! How could someone have not of heard of that absolutely vital concept. Thank goodness you were there to educate him.

Joking aside you can, of course, see how this is a classic feminist delusion of self-importance. Aimee actually thinks that she is playing an important role in fighting the “sexist” forces at Uber and not just wasting everyone’s time with feminist dogma.

More anecdotal stories.

An anonymous user writing under the name “Amy Vertino” describes how she was an Uber “survivor.” The story is mostly her just whining about some men using crude language on group chats (i.e. something almost every man has done). The only actually bad part/person in this story seems to be a person she titles “Mike 2” who it does sound like did some inappropriate things. Now once again if Amy’s story is true then this male manager character definitely should be investigated. However, we have no idea if any of this is true as the account is entirely anonymous. Yet this story still amassed around 4.5k start on Medium. A wide variety of other stories popped-up on Medium, Reddit, Quora, and Facebook, but like with the preceding there is no way of verifying their accuracy.

Also, I wonder if the same feminists would be so eager to condone the “abusive culture” if the gender roles were reversed. Or whether they would tell a man complaining about his aggressive female boss that it is “his problem” because he “can’t handle a strong woman leader.” Moreover, my guess is that many men also had to deal with similar demeaning things from this same character yet if they came forward they would simply be told to “man-up.”

The far left press, bro-culture, and misandry

But that does not stop the far-left magazine Vox. As on February 28 they published a piece on “Uber and the problem of Silicon Valley bro culture” (I refuse to link back to it as Vox should not be making ad-revenue off something so grotesque). In it, Sarah Lacey, a 41-year-old “journalist”, berates Silicon Valley’s juvenile hyper-masculine culture. A quick look at this women’s Twitter feed really tells us really all we need to know about this lady. She is a spinster feminist who ironically likes to rail against sexism and hyper-masculinity while still supporting Islamists (sound familiar to anyone?). Based on this you can probably predict where this article is going, but I will continue anyway. According to Sarah Lacey, the Valley had three waves a “Mad Men wave, a nerd wave, and a bro wave.” Of course according to her the previous two were definitely sexist as well in their own way, however, in her opinion the bro wave is particularly bad.

And then there’s what I’d call the “bro wave.” It’s very much a junior-high-age male culture, a hypermasculine, hypersexualized culture. And the hypermasculinity of men usually goes hand in hand with the hypersexualization of women.”

Wow, that is a lot of hypers. You think in gender studies, journalism or whatever hack degree she has they would have at least taught her to vary her word choice.

One is that tech has always talked this talk about how they’re better than everyone else…It has this whole ethos of self-achievement and meritocracy. All you have to do is work hard and be smart. And so if you go around preaching that, you can’t then just be sexist and racist and everything else. The self-righteousness shtick doesn’t square with the facts.”

I do like meritocracies.

So either you believe it is a meritocracy, in which case only white men have the ability to do this, or you acknowledge there is a bias problem that’s really in this industry. So I think the self-righteousness is one reason.”

Well, Lacy, you said it and not me “only white men have the ability to do this.” Of course I myself would at least add in Asian men.

So you are a company that is growing so quickly, and there’s such a power shortage in Silicon Valley as is, you need to hire anyone who can scale that data center, and if that’s a white man, that’s a white man.”

So you hire a skilled individual who suits your company’s needs. That sounds like a good, reasonable decision. But, I could see how that would trouble a racist misandrist like yourself.

published some news a couple of weeks ago that pulled together three different studies that basically show 95 percent of white men in Silicon Valley do not believe diversity is a top problem, and 75 percent of companies in Silicon Valley don’t even believe it’s enough of a problem to have any sort of program at all within their companies to solve it.”

Really then maybe Silicon Valley isn’t as cucked as I thought it was after all! But I’m more inclined to think that Sarah is letting her hyper-misandrist and racist ideology drive her thought process and interpretation. Why would anyone ever think that this was a “top” priority. These people have real problems like developing and managing systems for millions of users. They do not have time for your cultural Marxist dogma. Moreover, even if it is not a top “priority” enough recruiters are engaging in this anti-white misandry that it undermines any sense of fairness in the hiring process. I moreover think that it just goes to show how truly resilient and indispensable that white men are that even when they are being discriminated against they wind up being hired.

In theory is this behavior acceptable or not?

While it is easy for just about anyone with a brain to dislike feminist hacks like Sarah. This case  in total is very interesting in that it does not fall clearly in line with either side in the culture war. I think if the accusations prove to be true they would divide many on the right. I’d hypothesize that more traditional conservatives and moderate MRAs would lean more towards critiquing the “grotesque” Uber culture and taking great pride in calling out the fallacy that women are better off at large “progressive” companies in “liberal” cities than the supposedly backward rural areas. I suspect many of them in particular would bring up Arianna Huffington and her role on the board as being particularly hypocritical. In contrast, I think neo-masculinists and “red pill” types would view the unrepentant frat-boy culture as a good thing and argue that this type of aggressive masculine cut-throat leadership is exactly what we need more of. Moreover, they would probably argue that this is yet another example of women wanting equality and then not being able to handle it (as many men are frequently yelled at and berated by their bosses as well).

I my personal view of the matter I think that Companies should be allowed to control their own culture as they see fit short of actual violence (I think the hand grabbing incident would cross the line in just about any circumstance). I personally would definitely not want to have this type of culture at my company. But, If Uber wants to have a “uber” (no pun intended) cutthroat masculine culture then they should be able to have that. Just like if the Huffington Post wants to have a highly over-sensitive feminized culture they should be able to have that (as an aside I don’t see anyone critiquing HuffPo for their entirely female editorial board). If you do not like that then you should go find a job elsewhere which Fowler in the end did. However, Uber must also be prepared to deal with losing talent and the resulting consumer backlash.

Back to reality.

Returning to reality and the actual facts of the case I still think there is something everyone can agree about. Namely how quickly feminists are likely to fly off the rail even with only anecdotal evidence. Also, how quick the far-left media is to take these anecdotal facts and use them to further their misandrist and anti-white narrative.

Now, what should Uber do? I think Uber should come right out and say they have a strong and intensely masculine culture that not everyone can handle. Sure they will lose a lot of progressives, but they will probably lose them anyways. If there is something Trump’s election taught us it is that most people can stomach a strong masculinist as long as they are honest. However, looking like a hypocrite is the death of just about anyone. Particularly after this latest revelation that Uber executives including the CEO Travis visited a escort bar in Korea. At this point, nothing would look more hypocritical than coming out and saying some stupid statement like “we value women and we are working diligently to fight sexism.” People are not stupid and they will realize that such statements are both shallow and meaningless.

However, I think no matter whoever comes out on top due to the odd nature of the case the right does not lose. If Uber is sufficiently shamed and ends up failing (or losing substantial profits) then we lose yet another hypocritical globalist institution (i.e. no loss). If Uber emerges victorious over the feminists then the feminists suffer yet another humiliating defeat and a strong masculinist beacon remains in Silicon Valley.

UPDATE  Amusingly enough the misandrist matriarch of the Huffington Post (who sits on the Uber board) said that sexism “is not a systemic problem at Uber.” This Uber situation just keeps getting weirder and weirder. Link: http://fortune.com/2017/03/21/arianna-huffington-sexual-harassment-uber/

Why arm chair feminists hate real women’s rights activists.

As a student at the far-left Brandeis University I was unfortunately witness to the very disgusting recension of the honorary degree of Ayaan Hirsi. If you have not heard of this travesty you can read about it here. Now in dishonor of the three year anniversary of this repugnant event I have decided to revisit the subject of why spinster gender studies professors and so-called “feminists” hate real women’s rights activists like Ayaan Hirsi and Pamela Geller. After all it would only be rational for women fighting female genital mutilation, child marriages, and honor killings to be role models for feminists, right? Ironically, the answer is no. In fact, these man-hating feminists seem to despise these brilliant women even more than they despise us “misogynist privileged white-male shitlords.” To any thinking person, it is truly baffling, however, for someone well versed in the pathology of the virulent disease known as third wave feminism it makes a lot of sense. Feminists hate these women for two reasons. Firstly, they challenge their “Islam delusion” and hence push these feminists to face the uncomfortable reality of Islam. This creates a form of cognitive dissonance with these feminists whereby they cannot synthesize the cold hard facts with their fantasy world. Rather than accept the reality they often reject the facts outright and blame the people that raised the issue in the first place. Moreover, this also affects the ability of these women to maintain their disdain for western society when there is clearly a much more repressive civilization around the corner. Most of these women have deep embedded racism and anti-western thought as well so it is fundamentally incomprehensible to them how the “evil white colonialist oppressors” could be better than “the poor mistreated Muslims.”

The final reason is perhaps even more powerful. It arises from contempt and jealousy. Now this may seem like an odd assertion, but allow me to explain. Most of these “feminists” have wasted the majority of their careers and (in many cases) their prime reproductive years as well on superfluous or mythical problems like catcalling, the (mythical) wage-gap, beauty standards, getting the government to pay for their birth control (rather than pay for it themselves), the right to murder the unborn, and/or blaming men for every problem that has ever arisen. Then someone like Pamela Geller comes forward who has helped women escape murder by their deranged sharia abiding husband or father or someone like Ayaan Hirsi who has been sent death threats and had attempts on her life and it reveals just how truly superfluous and meaningless their work is. Moreover, it “trivializes” much of the “oppression” they have faced. You see while they were sitting in their comfy office chairs and drinking their Starbucks lattes on their upper-middle class salaries bemoaning how they make less than male CEOs, the evil “patriarchal” doctor who “slut-shamed” or some evil “misogynist” man that dared to comment on the purposefully provocative dress they were wearing, women like Hirsi have undergone multiple beatings and genital mutilation. Their make-believe “oppression” will never compare to the real oppression these women faced. No matter how much they hamster or attempt to rationalize these “horrid” thoughts away they will deep down know the truth. This combined with the first point produces a deep and burning hatred in these feminists that not even one of us “cavemen” could inspire.

This also, creates a direct threat to their social standing. These feminists are use to beta males prostrating themselves before them and profusely apologizing for being a male. These “males” (I use quotes because they are really a travesty to our entire gender) would literally rather die than be called a misogynist. Meanwhile, for us “misogynist” men they can drum up their hordes of worker betas and thoroughly taint our reputation both among men and women. However, a woman speaking out against them poses new challenges. Much like a black speaking out against the thuggery of BLM or a Hispanic immigrant speaking out against illegal immigration they have to attempt to discredit them and portray them as traitorous to their own cause or accuse them of attacking some higher “victimized” group than themselves.

Putting this altogether it becomes quite clear why feminists despise these women with such vigor. It should also become crystal clear that this is exactly the reason we should support them. Women like Pamela Geller and Ayaan Hirsi are truly inspirational and they each do more for women everyday than all the gender studies professors, feminist majority leadership members, and Pro-Choice America murderers put together.