431–440 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, rage against feminism... the radical notion that women are people.
It's nice to see you can make use of stock quotes that are completely distant from reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite the stretch you've outlined. But maybe "unsafe" could mean the exact things Horvath mentions happened to her like coworkers visiting her at her home to make advances.
Where are you reading that the coworker visited her at home? All I saw is, 'asked himself over to “talk"' in a context which implied to me that it took place at the office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Comments on the original TechCrunch article were equally vindicating even though that article offered no actual evidence. It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it. GitHub's response neither confirms nor denies any part of the story. It does say the founder's wife will no longer be allowed in the office, but that is not an admission of wrong…
> It's unfortunate TechCrunch and Valley Wag posted the story without first corroborating at least some piece of it. I think we have to be careful with statements like this. Yes, they could have tried to find a Github employee who would corroborate part of it, perhaps the assertion that the wife was in the office periodically. But the problem with that is that it is perfectly reasonable to think they would have faile…
Again, that is speculation. "What ifs" are not useful here.
As "news" outlets, I expect both sites to corroborate stories before posting them. If they don't, they are effectively tabloids. Posting allegations like this is the definition of tabloid journalism.
There are too many people involved in this story for me to believe that zero of them were reachable for comment. TechCrunch only vaguely mentions "awaiting comment from GitHub", which could mean anything.
I do think it is irresponsible to publish such a story without any corroboration because it implicates several people directly and an entire company's work environment with nothing more than one person's word.
The whole story could be true, but the fact is no one knows; TechCrunch and Valley Wag certainly don't.
I try to avoid these topics, but it's almost sad to see how easily you've all rushed to her side. It seems the magic word of the 2010s is "sexism": utter that word, and people will defend you no matter how little evidence there is, no matter how full of shit you are -- assuming, of course, you are a female. Is what she described accurate? Maybe so, maybe not. No one fucking knows, and that is the point. Stop being as…
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…
>Whenever a well defined group of people is absent from (or underrepresented in) a source of power, discrimination is taking place, period. This is a good illustration of the point in the grandparent comment. This is simply not true, and I can't even think of any fallacy/ belief/ blindspot that could be adopted by a somewhat rational listener to make it sound convincing. (just to address the recalcitrant credulous am…
The reason I put "period" is because many people aren't aware of the current body of research in gender studies and sociology, and modern definitions of sexism (a simple introduction can be found here[1], esp. unintentional sexism: "The tendency to use intent, rather than result, to measure whether something was offensive and inappropriate, and therefore sexist, is tied into male privilege and the way that it enables sexist practices to be seen as normal."). If women are largely absent from a group wielding any social power, then by definition sexism exists (or sex-based discrimination, if you prefer), unless you can prove that being a woman is a relevant debilitating disability, which I don't even think anyone conjectures. Because the data suggests[2] that diversity in Silicon Valley is severely lacking, this is a serious problem in Silicon Valley.
(Any rationalization such as "but what if women don't want to be in tech" is irrelevant. The assumption is that all groups want to take part in powerful institutions, and if they don't, it must be because somewhere along the line society encouraged them not to want that, thus effectively removing them from power.)
[1]: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de...
[2]: http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/17/technology/diversity-silicon...
Him mentioning the cofounder's wife immediately gives credibility to Julie's claims! I hope she get's paid! The workplace should be professional, not a schoolyard.
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…
Just one quick note on "women are underrepresented in tech". You are absolutely right. What is the solution? You think that Julie's case is going to help that change? Or we should focus on the root of the problem, aka. education. How come in schools (elementary or secondary) nobody tells to young girls that they can become an engineer? Why is the society parents, teachers, media included trying to push those girls to…
And you are absolutely right. Sex discrimination is systemic, probably starting in kindergarten and even at home. However, it's hard to fix education if young girls don't have lots of positive role-models to look up to, and you can't make those role models unless education is fixed. So fighting sexism has to be systemic as well, and at all levels at once.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gawk? Quite possibly. Complain? One* ex-colleague of mine was gay, and he'd have been rendered temporarily incapacitated by that, I suspect. But the point is that hula-hooping, or shirtless weight-lifting, shouldn't be prohibited just because some people gawk and others are made uncomfortable. If you want to sexualise hula-hooping or weight-lifting, fine, just don't use that point of view as the basis of a complaint.…
> But the point is that hula-hooping, or shirtless weight-lifting, shouldn't be prohibited just because some people gawk and others are made uncomfortable. You believe it's okay for people to be at the office without their shirts on? Where do you draw the line-- what behaviors should be prohibited at the office, simply because they might make others uncomfortable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkCA5EyRDQ&feature=player_de...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have not the faintest trace of an idea what feminism or Marxism are. This is the most idiotic thing I have read all week. OK, it's Monday morning, but I give it a good chance to stand...
"Cultural Marxism" is an academic offshoot possibly inspired by Marxism. Though I'm not quite sure why it's called "cultural". As for feminism, what's your definition, and do you think other people are practicing that definition in particular? Look at tumblr posts discussing patriarchy theory sometime; somewhere amidst the paranoid depressed teenagers is a pretty well-defined belief system, and it's not yours anymore…