So even when it looks equal on a surface level, because the algorithm doesn't discriminate by gender, these structures result in an unequal distribution. This is the part that one side cries itself hoarse over, and the other handwaves away as "personal choices".
OTOH, the algorithm's purpose isn't to account for structural gender problems, it's to reward the drivers who earn Uber the most profit, thereby encouraging more behavior by them that earns them the most profit
the structural biases working against women--their driving habits resulting in less fares/hour and their domestic responsibilities resulting in less of the most needed hours--means they earn uber less money.
it wouldn't make sense for uber to pay employees who earn them less the same as employees who earn them more. they'd lose their highest-earning employees to a competitor who did not try to correct for these biases. quits are at all-time highs right now, so this is a real concern.
Oh, I completely agree. I wouldn't expect from the algorithm - or Uber - to compensate for such fundamental societal structures. I just think it does a very good job at showing something that many talk about. The cost of the unpaid labor that is often expected of women is very clear here.
if there's "unpaid labor" costs that are creating disadvantages for working women in jobs where pay is offered at equal rates regardless of gender, maybe they need to make different personal choices if they want to avoid dealing with those costs as an employee of that job
it's not the responsibility of society as a whole to rescue women from the choices they're actively making in a country where they have or nearly have the same rights as men, which is usually where Uber services are available ---