Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 473 posts

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#381

Post by theorique »

SolarNet wrote: post #342
brazzy wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The logic there that I have a problem with is that it's the women's fault for being attractive, and that the man isn't at as much fault for being attracted to it because the women are doing something attractive. How about it's nobody's fault because there is nothing fucking wrong about people doing something in public and others watching them???

That's fine, but that's not the logic the OP used to counter Horvath's feelings of a problem. The OP instead seemed to imply that the women were more at fault for causing the men to gawk (not just watch). However emotionally charged the event may have been for Horvath due to the situation other Github employees (and their significant others) placed her in to make it feel to her that it was gawking, the logic the OP w…

The way the TechCrunch article read, this wasn't a very big incident at all. Certainly, none of the women involved are said to have been upset or complained about being watched by their coworkers as they performed.

However, because Horvath was already in a very upset emotional state about man-woman issues at GitHub and her own situation at the company, she was in a position to read a lot of meaning into this situation that most people wouldn't.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#382

Post by kilburn »

pron wrote: post #366
aceperry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it…

It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period…

> Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub

I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society.

So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is.

What we should do is (1) not judge any party until there are enough facts on the table (of which we don't have many right now); (2) strive for an impartial account of the events; (3) judge only on and after evidence has been collected. If you want to support a cause, pushing for people to follow this recipe would work much better than pushing for "the weaker party is right until the stronger party proves themselves".

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#383

Post by theorique »

pekk wrote: post #31
almightygod wrote: post #26

This whole incident is sad. It's incredibly sad for Julie, for everyone at GitHub, for the founders, and for the alleged "crazy" founder wife who was banned from a company she probably sacrificed a lot for

I'm surprised nobody sees sexism in the way that the wife has been stigmatized.

The situation would be equally bad if it were a male founder's gay lover or husband.

Nothing to do with sexism, everything to do with a person making decisions for the company who is (1) personally close to an executive and (2) without a formal role at the company.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#384

Post by krick »

The sad thing is that however the real story may have nothing to do with sexism, but as it's presented as "sexism story" and "protecting other women", the people who will probably suffer the most after that story are that very women. It would be pretty natural for many HRs to remember that story as "possible hazard" and ceteris paribus reject the female candidate.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#386

Post by infinity0 »

piokoch wrote: post #350
sequoia wrote: post #248

When I arrived at this thread, comment two was 'using the information available in the short techcrunch article, I'm now going to PROVE, point by point, how Horvath's claims are false.' Comment three was 'aha they issued a vague apology, this is basically a FULL ADMISSION that everything Horvath said was true!' People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears? There is not enough public information present…

I don't know if Horvath is right or not, but this is nice case study how PR works. I would say this statement is a very clever move from GitHub side. I guess they have skilled PR people working on the issue. At first look, the cited article seems to admit to everything. As a result, it will be sort of last news on the topic - if they admitted Horvath is right and they even put on leave a founder and the programmer an…

It's possible that things will be brushed under the carpet as you say.

But I'm not convinced that this is a "clever PR move" as you suggest. What else can GitHub do at this point? Fire the people involved without even investigating?

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#387

Post by [deleted] »

nathell wrote: post #319
aceperry wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People: when did our brains melt and spill out of our ears?" When the topic is as controversial as sexism in tech and the workplace. Or whatever the flashpoint happens to be at the moment. Like sequoia, I've noticed that controversial topics brings out the most incredible responses from both sides, and often with very little definitive evidence. To me, this is a sign of how deeply felt this topic is, and how much it…

In an ideal world, this should really be a no-brainer. Gender-background abuse should be an abhorred practice, the way we normally abhor, say, killing people. It is telling that the topic of sexism in tech and the workplace is controversial at all.

[deleted]

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#388

Post by Karn »

hippee-lee wrote: post #378
Karn wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have a source https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408466 > Yes because women moving their hips means they automatically want to be considered for their sexual characteristics. /sarcasm Actually, yes, they do. If you don't know this then either you're very inexperienced with women or you're the kind of guy they willingly keep in the dark about what they want.

So women in a yoga class ( at work ) are actively promoting their sexual characteristics at that time? Your comment reads very, very predatory.

And yours and the other guy's read very, very naive.

> So women in a yoga class ( at work ) are actively promoting their sexual characteristics at that time?

How do you even equate yoga class with hula dancing at a party?

If a bunch of women are taking, say, yoga or pole dancing or belly dancing class, then no, they're not doing it to get male attention, at least not during the class. But there isn't a woman alive who doesn't realise that hula dancing at a party will attract male sexual attention. Or doing yoga in the middle of the office in tight, tight yoga pants.

Another example. If a guy has a great physique, and wears a tank top at the gym, he's not necessarily trying to get attention. But if he goes everywhere wearing T-shirts two sizes too small, and walks around with muscles flexed all the time, the only reason he's doing that is for attention. Do you begin to understand?

I bet you and solarnet are the guys who come home alone from the party, saying "Come on guys, just because she was leaning into me and rubbing her foot up and down my leg doesn't mean she wanted to sleep with me! You guys are such sexist assholes, ha ha!"

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#389

Post by nknighthb »

Tobu wrote: post #368
peterjancelis wrote: post #14

They are lucky it's not the CEO-founder. Easier to put a non-CEO on leave than a CEO I imagine.

They have swapped hats two months ago (acknowledging an earlier change): https://github.com/blog/1761-new-year-new-ceo-for-github I'm not terribly clear on US company governance and GitHub is atypical, so mojombo's new role is a bit fuzzy to me.

Company governance is whatever the stockholders say it is. You could give the title "Chief Executive Officer" to the janitor's dead hamster and have everybody report to a teenager with the title Cokehead Principio whose only job is to keep the board of directors appraised exclusively through interpretive dance.

Which is to say, you're fuzzy on it because it's fuzzy. There are no strict rules as to the structure of senior corporate officers.

Re: Update on Julie Horvath's Departure

#390

Post by pron »

kilburn wrote: post #382
pron wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that some people dispute the existence of sexism in tech, but that does not make it controversial in the sense that it is contentious, because it isn't. The facts are simple: 1) technology is a big source of power in our society, and 2) women are underrepresented in tech. Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period…

> Again, the burden of proof is on GitHub I can see how "to align with the weaker party" can be a sensible goal for a society. However, in this case it directly conflicts with the presumption of innocence principle, which is an even higher goal for a just society. So no, the burden of proof lies in whoever is making the accusations, whatever the (un)balanced of power between parties is. What we should do is (1) not j…

I am not in favor of judging them now, only assuming they're in the wrong for the purpose of discussion; if some people happen to jump to conclusions, I'm sure GitHub can take it more than Horvath can.

Because sexism in tech is a fact, this occasion is an opportunity to discuss it. Debating whether Horvath is right or wrong is not only futile, but is also potentially harmful to her, and that harm is far greater than GitHub's. Presumption of innocence is only a principle in legal disputes, and this, currently, isn't one, nor are we the jury. There will be no great injustice done if the assumption turns out to be false, but there is a lot of harm being inflicted on Horvath right now by people equating her position with that of a rich company and suspending any form of judgment. This does not only harm her personally, but the entire industry by implying that sexism in tech is disputable and pending "further data", which it isn't.

Given that sexism in tech is real and serious, that GitHub has a bit of a spotty background on that issue, and that GitHub does not deny any of the allegations, this is a perfectly good time to assume something bad has happened and discuss measures to correct the situation in the industry. If it turns out GitHub has fallen victim to the very real injustice of sexism in tech, I won't shed a tear for them, but will be excited to see them face the challenge and lead the way forward.

Post reply on HN