691–700 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. Founder's wife physically inanimate Horvath, making her unwelcome and scared. If someone inanimated me, I would quite right then and there. Thats some freaky x-men shit.
I'm not sure if that's meant to be "quit" or "quiet", but either works because upon becoming inanimate you're unlikely to do or say anything. b^)
Ouch. What a terrible situation. I'm holding out for the other side of the story, but unless you're willing to assume the entire thing is invented this is a major fuckup for GitHub. I think this is a classic problem with companies making the transition from small startup to regular business. Break down the barriers! Flat management! Kill bureaucracy and embrace no-politics DIY organisation! The article reads like an…
> Nebulous semi-employee with unspecified responsibilities related to a founder? This is the point that stands out for me. That the wife is not an employee of Github but claims to be able to access private company chat records, and also is able to "work" from within the office and interact with the staff. Even with allowances that company property remains company property and private chat rooms are in fact non-privat…
But the cloud. The cloud!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nebulous semi-employee with unspecified responsibilities related to a founder? This is the point that stands out for me. That the wife is not an employee of Github but claims to be able to access private company chat records, and also is able to "work" from within the office and interact with the staff. Even with allowances that company property remains company property and private chat rooms are in fact non-privat…
I love github, but toxic cultures can happen anywhere. Github employees have been involved in commit abuse since the beginning https://web.archive.org/web/20130117043748/http://sheddingbi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I, as a male, try not to stare at anybody because I'm not a fucking asshole.
So all people who don't confirm to your social norms are fucking assholes? Btw, did you ever travel to countries like Germany or Czech Republic? People there do stare. A lot. Nations of assholes, I guess. I wonder what do you think about people who don't speak English or who don't eat their food with a forks but with other ustensils.
What on earth are you talking about?
I can't believe that no one has spotted that she is exactly the same annoying feminist that forced the company to get rid of a rug because it used the term "meritocracy". http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm... Tbfh, she sounds like Adria Richards v2.0
I found that episode terribly confused, and I never understood the rationale behind it. Isn't "meritocracy" a value and environment that feminists have told us over and over again is a positive development for women? Don't women want to work in a "meritocracy" precisely because their work will be valued and appreciated not because they are women but because excellence at work knows no sex, colour, or creed?
Essentially, use of the word as a description (rather than an aspiration) packages up a whole bundle of problematic claims of the form "we're not sexist, we would have more women rise to the top if only they {tried harder | were smarter | had the technical ability | ...}" (and similarly for minorities).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The hula hooping moment was important because it visibly demonstrated her male coworkers lack of respect for women as people. They were unabashedly staring at their female coworkers as "eyecandy" in that moment and even defended their doing so. Totally disagree. If someone is hula hooping in a company that usually builds software to host version control repositories, they are doing something quite out of the ordina…
Your only source on this story is Horvath's recounting of it, and she says it was inappropriate. By what means do we have to question her assessment of the events? In questioning her, with no other information, you're saying "I don't believe you, you've irrationally overreacted". And that can only based not on the facts of the situation, but on your personal opinions of what "women" in aggregate are like. In other wo…
You are using "inappropriate" like it's an objective word. Which is false. If she said something like "they were wolf-whistling and throwing dollar bills", that's an objective statement that we can either think is true or false, and form certain opinions about it. The only objective word we have heard so far is "staring". She is saying, "Ah, they were staring at a bunch of women hula-hooping in the middle of the office at a tech company, how inappropriate!", I am not being sexist when I say, "No, that's not inappropriate, stop with your 1800s attitude."
It is just a difference between Horvath's rather prim definition of "inappropriate" and my more liberal one, and I don't see how that is sexist, or marginalizes her opinion. My grandfather would probably agree with Horvath that staring at a bunch of women hula-hooping in the office is "inappropriate", and I would disagree with him too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When someone tells a story and there's a gap between the events they relate to you and the conclusion they draw from it, it's natural to criticize their conclusions.
Unless you were there, you can't possible know what happened. We are receiving a third-hand accounting--a TechCrunch journalist relating what Horvath told them--of events we didn't experience. For all we know, the journalist editted out a part where the "gawkers" were wolf-whistling and throwing dollar bills. The point is not that they may or many not have done that, the point is that Horvath's (diluted) account is t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe this story is on "male behavior" nor an attack on every male in the world. It's an story on predators that happen to be male (and female for that matter). Your answer is kind of what I expected: You believe sexism is an attack on men, and therefore need to be on the defense.
> It's an story on predators that happen to be male (and female for that matter). Don't you think it's then disingenuous to call it sexism?
Ouch. What a terrible situation. I'm holding out for the other side of the story, but unless you're willing to assume the entire thing is invented this is a major fuckup for GitHub. I think this is a classic problem with companies making the transition from small startup to regular business. Break down the barriers! Flat management! Kill bureaucracy and embrace no-politics DIY organisation! The article reads like an…
It may well be that the greatest damage to GitHub here is not on the issue of sexism so much as their advocacy of lean management and organizational "freedom". Although it may have sounded like the "cool teacher" way to address things by having your wife take an employee out for drinks to discuss grievances, clearly this should have been handled in a professional setting according to a clear grievance process. That c…
Actually, this struck me as purely a "remember who you're talking to" problem - the team were used to a more aggressive level of language than the new hire was, so what should've happened is that the team should've learned to make the same strength of point with less aggressive words and the new hire should've worked to take aggressive words less to heart. Being as I'm a blunt bastard, I've been through this a fair few times with employees and contributors.
This is not a gendered problem, this is a 'loud brash people' versus 'quieter nicer people' problem. The reason people try and make it gendered is because, at least on average from the people I've worked with, women are more likely to be 'quieter nicer people' - but the truth, honestly, is that rather than anti-women this is a 'no structured group exists to stand up for the quieter nicer men so they go unnoticed' situation.
I've had to unpick these issues with all combinations of people.
> have management review reverts
Actually, just having a manager take him aside and say "dude, you're being a dick and either you stop it right fucking now or there will be consequences that you're really not going to enjoy" should be sufficient. Shadowcat is a relatively flat org but we have just enough hierarchy that there are people who can absolutely do that.
Sadly, the article goes back to the founder's wife problem (which, omgwtf, but that's been analyzed to death upthread) so we don't know whether it was reported (of course, dependending on who she'd've needed to report it to, that may've been difficult ...)