121–130 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not to say there can't be girl on girl [sic] sexism. True, but since the "girls" under discussion are both in fact women, that would be sexism by definition.
Wait, what does the noun change? You completely lost me.
As usual, another HN thread that perfectly exemplifies victim blaming and a collective burying of heads in the sand. There's a few people on here who seem to get it, but most don't. I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News.
I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News. I know this is going to come across as unfriendly, but I'm always bemused when people make these little plays for attention. It's a massive site, you're not one of the notable commenters, if HN isn't delivering value why not just stop reading it quietly rather than announcing it to the world?
Your attitude is the same as a lot of the socially inept that roam the valley and this message board. If This Isn't The Most Efficient Logical Course Of Action (according my perspective) Then It Bemuses Me.
I don't think this was an instance of institutionalized sexism. Rather, the founder's wife seems like an unbalanced individual, and nobody effectively set any boundaries. The other founders and HR seemed unaware or unable to set the situation to right. As for her romantically inclined co-worker -- I don't see how his behavior qualifies as sexist or hostile. Merely a bit clueless, but isn't it to be expected that empl…
> "but isn't it to be expected that employees of a tech company will be somewhat socially awkward?" Reverting people's commits and stripping their code out of vengeance isn't social awkwardness, it's completely unacceptable and unprofessional conduct. It doesn't matter what gender anyone is, or that it's being done out of romantic rejection, it's unacceptable. Full stop. Author's complaint is evidently less about bei…
Was her code reverted at 12:00 AM because it broke the site? Or was it for something else? If so what?
See how the context changes your opinion? Generic 'they reverted my code!' statement does not tell me anything.
Two women are dancing to music at work in a tech company and the author compares this to a scene at a strip club as men are watching this. Unless this was a regular exercise, what was everybody expecting? Nobody taking notice?
It seems hula hooping is ok, until men start watching. This is the most confusing bit she is saying. It basically equates to saying that strip clubs are not strip clubs until men start watching.
Woman hula hooping are bound to attract attention, for a variety of reasons. Julie, associated that with strippers, she could have associated it with entertainment or fun. The implication is that it is the men's mindset, I personally find that a rather sexiest statement on it's own towards men.
It seems the techcrunch article is very full of hyperbole.
As usual, another HN thread that perfectly exemplifies victim blaming and a collective burying of heads in the sand. There's a few people on here who seem to get it, but most don't. I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News.
This should be the top comment. As long as sexism persists in the tech industry, it's going to drive women out and keep others away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News. I know this is going to come across as unfriendly, but I'm always bemused when people make these little plays for attention. It's a massive site, you're not one of the notable commenters, if HN isn't delivering value why not just stop reading it quietly rather than announcing it to the world?
Because human beings have a desire to express opinion and emotion? Your attitude is the same as a lot of the socially inept that roam the valley and this message board. If This Isn't The Most Efficient Logical Course Of Action (according my perspective) Then It Bemuses Me.
Well, half of them, anyway.
Well, there are only three Github founders, and a quick search seems to indicate that Tom Preston-Werner is the only one with a wife, Theresa: http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/27/omakase-charity-tech-indust...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the implication is that none of this would have happened, or at least would not have been tolerated, if she was male. And it sound like the basis of her relationship with the founder's wife being "crazy" was that she was a female employee. So I'd say sexism played a significant role here.
Uhm, it was female on female. Is male on male intimidation, sexism? Because men are the primary victims of violence, and their sex being highly relevant to that, is that sexist? I don't think you would say that in this case it is. Not to say there can't be girl/women on girl/women sexism.
/* Let me preface this by saying we have only seen half the story at this point, so I wouldn't make absolute judgements yet and the below is based on the hypothetical situation in which the linked article is 100% factual. */
If my founder was female and her husband was coming into work regularly to harass employees(or even at work at all...?)he would be dealt with _fast_. It seems that in this case(if the situation was anything close to as described) the founders wife was sitting next to a programmer for long periods of time and it wasn't dealt with.
So yeah, while this does appear to be more of a, "damn that founder and his wife be crazy" situation, we shouldn't forget that societal perceptions of gender are always influencing how these situations are handled. Creating an environment where situations like this are handled differently between genders is definitely to be avoided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, it's always the women that make things dramatic. Not the power fetish of the founder's wife, the unwanted advances of coworkers, or the reverting of legitimate contributions to the team's project. Can't you see past the fact that she's a woman? Don't you see how demoralizing any of this would be?
Can I ask a question about phrasing for a minute? What's inherently wrong with an unwanted advance? Advances have an unknown state until they're responded to. If she had accepted it, it would've been a welcomed advance. There's no way to know that until you walk up to a woman and say "Hey, I think you're pretty cool. Want to go get a drink sometime?" If she says no, that's unwanted, but I don't see how it's inappropr…
This is why it's better to make an early advance with some plausible deniability, so you can back off if there's no mutual interest (e.g. backing away: "Ha, just kidding ... what, you thought I wanted to date you for real? That's crazy talk ... we're co-workers, and it would never work out, we're so different.")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what does the noun change? You completely lost me.
The term 'girl' refers to a female between birth and when she reaches the age of adulthood. I'm pretty sure both parties in this case are adults, so I assume that's the reason behind the correction.
Man / Woman
Boy / Girl
Guy / ???
Some people would say ??? = Gal, but most would find that very informal, especially when writing. The usual female equivalent to guy is girl, which is not referring to a younger age but merely a less formal sex descriptor.
Secondly, I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. If the guy is talking about girls, it makes sense, if he's talking about about women, it doesn't? I'm still lost there.