Employee uses employee perks... what is there to see here other than not-so-thinly-veiled sexism?
> JUST IN: Elon Musk's Twitter has been sued for "disproportionately" firing female employees.
The person who posted video is very clearly saying “See, they weren’t fired because they were women, they were fired because they didn’t do any work” but the video doesn’t show/prove that at all. Just because someone uses the perks doesn’t mean they don’t work but people are jumping to that conclusion and this is all in the context of the first tweet (women being disproportionately laid off) so it’s pretty clear that sexism is at play in this thread (especially if you read the replies).
It’s quite literally not. She is showing off the perks as she does her job, we don’t see the parts of her doing her job other than he briefly touching on when she is in meetings and the like. You are assuming she isn’t doing work but nothing in the video proves it.
Also the perks are literally there to entice people to work for Twitter and/or come into the offices. How does using the perks make her immediately a slacker? I’m not saying that women can’t be criticized at all, I’m saying that video proves nothing yet the person who posted it on HN and the person who posted it Twitter (assuming they aren’t the same person) are both trying to use it a smoking gun for why women were let go (disproportionately). The context on Twitter (and the replies) show this for the dog whistle it is, you can choose to ignore the signs but that doesn’t make them go away.
> She is showing off the perks as she does her job, we don’t see the parts of her doing her job other than he briefly touching on when she is in meetings and the like. You are assuming she isn’t doing work but nothing in the video proves it.
You're reading too much into it trying to ascribe sexism where it doesn't exist. Women can be criticized just like men can, that's equality.