As a woman I would far rather work for a guy who thinks women should stay at home but keeps his opinions to himself and his family and treats me fairly than I would work for a guy who can quote Steinem and Lorde and hooks but throws me under the bus. Have essentially done both. My personal motto has been "Your beliefs are not a problem for me unless you make them my problem." Orthopraxy all the way.

Outcomes are the evidence. I am not interested in your or your company's social media statements. I'm interested in whether people who are underrepresented in the field can succeed at your company and whether you treat people like me fairly. This is obvious self-interest on my part, just like engaging in paid labor in the first place.

"People leave managers, not companies." I think this is the most appropriate cliche to apply to the Basecamp story.

> As a woman I would far rather work for a guy who thinks women should stay at home but keeps his opinions to himself and his family and treats me fairly

Do you actually expect someone with those views to treat you fairly, though? I mean, I'm sure it's not impossible that this guy could leave his opinions at the door and fairly evaluate your performance, and evaluate you for promotion. But I certainly wouldn't expect that to be the case. You claim to have had such a manager once, so I won't deny your experience, but I doubt your experience is typical in that sort of situation.

> Outcomes are the evidence.

Yes! This is something I wish more people would focus on. Outcomes are what matter. That doesn't mean the ends justify the means, but it does mean that we should be taking actions not because they make us feel good (usually only temporarily), but because they are likely to give us the best outcomes.

Regardless, I really don't think most women are going to experience great outcomes with a misogynist boss.

>America is culturally deeply Protestant //

Could you highlight some of the characteristics that you consider go along with this.

"Deeply protestant" to me brings to mind the Quaker (a Protestant denomination) Cadbury & Fry chocolate companies. They did things like build municipal buildings, housing, schools. Fry family members addressed prison reform (Elizabeth Fry) and studied and acted to counter poverty and it's causes, for example. They reduced working hours too!

Sure, it was paternalistic, and they grew wealthy from their employees, but it seems they acted benevolently and genuinely tried to make a difference in their communities and for their workers.

https://medium.com/@cafonline/meet-the-philanthropists-sweet... gives a brief view.

What we hear of USA this side of the pond and these sorts of attributes don't seem to mesh.

America is much more informed by evangelical Protestantism, rather than Quakerism and other non-conformists, and deeply influenced by "sola scriptura" (which directly conflicts with Anglican and Methodist theologies). In the US evangelical and non-denominational Christian theologies generally posit that accepting Christ as your personal Savior (and the sole source of salvation) is all that is necessary to be saved (and Christian). Individual affirmation of a series of propositional statements is necessary and sufficient to fulfill your duties as a Christian. (This contrasts quite a bit with Quakerism, which is primarily experiential and focuses on discerning God's will and turning it into action in community). Orthodoxy is the primary measure of Christianity in the US. Any action can be forgiven as long as you say the right words.

> "sola scriptura" (which directly conflicts with Anglican and Methodist theologies) //

This seems like a misconstrual to me. Anglican and Methodist orthodoxy still has prima scripturum, which is only a very nuanced difference to sola scripturum; both in theory reject influences that are incompatible with scripture as the principle authority.

> In the US evangelical and non-denominational Christian theologies generally posit that accepting Christ as your personal Savior (and the sole source of salvation) is all that is necessary to be saved (and Christian). //

This is not what sola sciptura is about. This is absolutely orthodox in all mainstream Christian denominations, that faith alone is necessary for salvation. Either group would consider the NT's exortations such as "what then shall we go on sinning?" (St.Paul) or "faith without works is dead" (James-the-Lesser) as primary teachings.

I'd actually consider that things are the reverse of your suggestion, that [USA/Western] evangelicals have strayed away from the Scriptures as a principle source of inspiration and instead rely on the characters of leaders and on self-help style influences that don't match well with the revelation of Jesus in the NT. Certainly it only takes 1hr of reading NT to find that being financially wealthy is contradictory to Christianity - not impossible to get to heaven and be rich, but er, maybe as hard as getting an obstinate camel through a tiny gate!?! Prosperity gospel, bah!

Thank you for this... I've struggled for a while to sum up what I think is wrong with the dominant US form of Christianity, and this hits the nail on the head.

I have heard that regarding judaism referenced at similarly high level frequently over the years. What is a reasonably accessible way one might learn more?

Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything. I grew up not-quite-orthodox (in a stream of Judaism that doesn’t really exist anymore) and that provided a, in retrospect, very interesting slightly outsider vantage point.