Slashdot Mirror
Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits Citing Harrassment
First time accepted submitter PvtVoid writes in with the story of Julie Ann Horvath alleging a culture of sexism at GitHub. "The exit of engineer Julie Ann Horvath from programming network GitHub has sparked yet another conversation concerning women in technology and startups. Her claims that she faced a sexist internal culture at GitHub came as a surprise to some, given her former defense of the startup and her internal work at the company to promote women in technology."
I'm a guy and after reading her story I would feel the same if I were in her shoes. This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem. A lot of people simply don't know how to behave civilized with other people.
So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side? Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work? "You are saying that this code is bad not because of the code, but just because I'm a woman". It would be nice if somebody could anonymously 'leak' some of her pull requests plus entire conversation around it - and then we could see how much harrasment was from reviewer and how much unfair pushing from her side.
Problem is that GitHub is at lost position. However bad she was, they will be always painted bad boys for throwing dirt on her, so they will probably keep silent...
Git doesn't rely on github, at all. It is also completely open source (GPL) so if you wanted to fork it for some reason, you could.
What would make a lot more sense would be creating a community run alternative to github itself. Something without a business behind it.
Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife.
So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
The article details some serious allegations, and is worth reading in it's entirety. I'm eager to read github's side of the story as well. Some of the claims ought to give users pause about trusting their private data with github. That's hugely problematic. Other claims show an unprofessional and hostile environment, and a company whose HR department (if they have one) is screwing up very badly. I hope they are able to resolve all of this, as I am a very big fan of git, and of github. But at the moment the claims sound plausible and distressing.
There's already an update to this story here: Update on Julie Horvarth's Departure
There was a party at Github headquarters attended by employees and their friends. There was music and probably alcohol. Also, hula hoops.
Yes, those MEN had the GALL to WATCH two women hula hooping. Which made her feel unsafe. In other words, she's a lunatic and you can safely ignore anything she says.
Aaaand the Millennium Technology Prize goes to Anonymous Coward.
Having read all of that, it seems like maybe 10% sexism and 90% people just being horrible in a completely gender-neutral fashion. Inexcusable either way, but pitching this as a "culture of sexism" seems a bit over-the-top given that most of the negative interactions mentioned in the article are between two women.
Unfortunately we don't have enough information to know if it is a gender discrimination issue or not. If she had to deal with this because she is female, if people treated her differently and if there are persistent problems for women then it is sexism. If not it's just a crappy place to work full stop.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm a guy and after reading her story I would feel the same if I were in her shoes. This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.
You would fave picked a fight with the husband of your female boss then quit you job in a hissy fit citing "a sexist culture" ? A people's problem indeed.
I wonder, can we legally go full throttle on this "borz culture" for a tech firm ? It has been proven, time and time again, that despite major effort by the companies to accommodate females they still make up no more than 10% of some firms (most gaming companies for example), and they are still rejected/discriminated/unable to fit in/whatever.
It stands to reason that a firm who openly promotes a male culture, without actively discriminating against females, would be far more productive and retain the best male talent. Unisex lavatory. Alcoholic beverages allowed and provided. Unlimited fastfood allowances. An in-house Bunny Ranch (legal for a Nevada campus). No bullshit anti-discrimination training and assorted brainwashing. Crash couches where you can chill or sleepover if you don't feel like going home. Generous basements for those of us who can't stand direct sunlight anymore. We hire females but they never stay more than a few days, with the exception of the Bunny Ranch of course. Man, I'm excited only typing this, where do I send my CV ?
"I had a really hard time getting used to the culture, the aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion"
, I wonder how many men, if going away with perceptions like these, would be ready to ascribe it to some "them vs. me" issue. I mean, one can't conclude on basis of statements like these that some sort of improper discrimination wasn't going on, but neither can one conclude that it was.
Ezekiel 23:20
After reading the referenced article, and the github response, I am still finding myself pretty meh.
The actual sexism in it seems overblown at best. They had a party, girls were hulu-hooping, guys stared. She seems to somehow have been shocked and perturbed by this, which makes me wonder about her. Is she shocked and perturbed by the affects of gravity or the inverse square law as well? Yet this completely unremarkable scene is cited as the 'last straw' before she left.
For the most part the real problem appears to have been a founders wife. FTFA: "In her email to TechCrunch, Horvath says she felt "confused and insulted to think that a woman who was not employed by my company was pulling the strings." She also said she felt bullied by someone with perceived power and influence over her personal relationship and her career at GitHub."
Now I dont know about where Julia is from, but here on Earth a founders spouse having what might be technically inappropriate involvement in the company business is not exactly unheard of. It's also typical for that spouse to have what we gamers would describe as a great intrigue score - a manipulative deceitful personality that will bluff or lie about her current position in order to improve her position 10 moves later in her game, and who will use you up and throw you away without a hint of remorse if she sees a gain in it. This sort of woman is always scheming, and employees that just want to keep punching their clock and spending their paycheck have to be vigilant to avoid getting involved in her schemes, usually to their detriment.
Now I dont blame our heroine for being uncomfortable in that spot, Everyone is. I am just saying it's odd that she would actually be surprised by something so common, and odder still that she would attribute it to sexism.
Github indicates the spouse in question has been dealt with, so frankly it sounds like they may have won on both ends of the deal. Seems an easy bet that at least some of the employees are breathing much more easily in the office today with both of these ladies gone from it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
That's the whole point. There is no "male culture." There's a number of "cultures" and men are not an homogeneous group that can be classified under just one of them. We're all mixed between different "cultures," spanning both genders.
It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.
Of the other issues she raised:
* Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
* Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them
The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.
It wouldn't be the first company to have disappeared into its own fantasy world like that, especially one with ridiculous amounts of spare seed funding they don't actually need.
The hula hooping episode could have been dismissed as some high jinx but taken into account with everything else, no.
I don't understand the clamour to define this as sexism when 90% of the alleged harassment was from the founder's wife. Simply watching someone hula-hoop in public at a works party is not harassment and paints "Julie" in a bad light when she compares it to a strip-club and that she felt "unsafe".
GitHub relies on Git, not the other way around. There is nothing stopping you (apart from technical expertise) from starting your own GitHub clone.
after reading the story it seemed to be almost nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with the wife not liking the woman. women not liking women, news at 10.
Watching the men who are watching the hola-hoopers is however just fine. As long as you look at them in scorn and not lust ofcourse.
Whilst the journalistically juicy part of the story is the relationship between the crazy founders wife and Horvath, there could be more points about sexism that didn't make it in to the story, after all - she was hired in part to deal with this issue.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Which is why in civilised countries we have unions and employment law. If I have a grievance like she did with my employer, I go to my union, I don't resign. They understand employment law, contract law, case law, and I have a right to a union rep at meetings with management. Why resign? Does she have a legal case for suing the company? Because I know that's how you leftpondians prefer to do it.
Of course it's in men's interest to keep women subordinate so they can be more easily exploited (and it would be in women's interest to do the same to men (...)).
I fail to see why - what has this to do with gender? Does your statement still make sense if we replace "men" or "women" with "people"? Do you believe that men are women are natural enemies?
Since I do not recall seeing articles about her citing harassment, I don't understand why it is such a big deal that she isn't doing so any longer.
OK, I read the summary and realize the headline is inaccurate. What they meant to write was, " Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits, Citing Harassment" rather than the headline they did write. All I have to say is, "Commas, learn to use them."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It stands to reason that a firm who openly promotes a male culture
Quick, someone alert the Cisprivlegetriggeralert Police - we have a sexist posting on Slashdot.
Everything I've read on this subject sounds like a prima donna drama queen. Good riddance.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Females.... They are never satisfied.
Your dick's to short
And he only uses his tongue to whine.
Which is why in civilised countries we have unions and employment law.
I was a bit sad when I read that she had to request HR to be present at a meeting with the boss, you need a union on your side when you have those conversations.
Don't forget that the founder's wife treated her the way she did, precisely because she couldn't see Horvath as an engineer, but only as a potential lust object for the founder. And the founder let her. And then there's the atrocious meeting incident, where HR also proved to be totally useless.
By themselves the points may not seem all that bad, but together they're more fishy, and when you put them in a context of a company with gender issues they're quite damning. This is one of the problems with cases like this: gender discrimination usually pervades the atmosphere of a company and provides the context in which events happen. (I've seen this myself at a Dutch IT service company. I'm a man and even I could see it, so I'm pretty sure the women must have felt it too.) The events themselves aren't that bad by themselves:
* A competent woman doesn't get promoted. So what, you cannot promote everyone. But the guy who didn't promote her, always promoted only men, and some of them were incompetent.
* A junior colleague jokes that rape is just a case of economics. The colleague was a guy who regularly mistreated women. Not so funny now, eh?
* There were no women in management. Okay, that happens sometimes, women like management less anyway, and some women preferred to promote out of the company. But when you know that management consisted of a bunch of sex-obsessed baboons who did nothing but continually laugh at each other's misogynistic ‘jokes’ the picture changes.
That IT company was sort of an extreme case, but I've since seen more subtle variants elsewhere. These things aren't always that easy to put in words, and every example you might cite will be wiped off the table by someone who doesn't want to understand that there is a problem, but they create an incredibly sickening atmosphere.
It's hard enough to take for a man; if I were a woman, I would have permanently left IT ages ago.
That doesn't seem to be claimed. You have to remember, some people like to show off and have fun. Back in my partying days I saw all kinds of people, men and women, do all kinds of things that they enjoyed doing, but also with the intention of having an audience. That was part of the reason they were doing them at a party, in public. They wished for an audience. Also people usually did watch because, well, when something is going on it is natural to watch. One of my friends loved to breathe fire, he'd get some 151 in his mouth, hold a lighter near it, and spew it out, causing it to catch fire. Looked pretty impressive and always drew a crowd.
So ya, if the women were pushed in to then and/or if men were making inappropriate comments then I see a problem. However if the women decided it would be fun to do and the men watching because it was something going on then I don't see a problem.
Even the first lady and will tell the president where and when to shove it in and he will listen so whats different about the founder (sounds like DS9 a bit)
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Its like you guys have no clue what history is ... that or you like watching failure repeat itself time and time again. Show me 'community driven' that didn't fail in the first year, go ahead, you can look for a while, we'll wait.
Note: Linux is not community driven, 99% of the dev work comes from people PAID to WORK ON LINUX BY A COMPANY. That is not community driven or controlled.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'd say I personally want more information before determining who is the psycho. I have on more than one occasion seen a person claim that they have a psycho who is out to get them, only to discover that the person making the claim is the one who's psycho, not the person who's allegedly out to get them. Or, sometimes, both are psycho.
There's a situation like that where I work. One of the advisers HATES the head secretary. She will tell anyone who will listen about what an evil bitch the secretary is and so on and so forth. Ya well, observational evidence does not bear this out. In fact it shows the opposite is true, the adviser is the source of the issues and is the one who's being a jerk.
So not claiming that this lady's story is untrue, but I'm not willing to believe it without some more verification. Particularly in light of the other trivial issues like the hula-hoop thing. Often a sign of psycho behaviour is making a big deal out of little things.
This is a tough one. I had the privilege to work for exceptional men and women in male-dominated industries, such as finance. Yes, there is sexism. Women are propositioned, stared at, condescended to, recipients of sexist comments and so on. I have seen some women capitalize on this and turn it to their advantage. I also observe other women who obsess over the power dynamic to the point where they are always checking, verifying and asserting their power. This usually causes resentment. A leader is not effective if s/he keeps asserting 'I am in charge'. Then there are some women who 'just get on with it'. They are there to do business and get the job done effectively. Politics, stares, sexism are like water off a duck's back. They are focussed on their work and getting the job done. Now this is in an arena among the 'captains of industry' types. Imagine an arena of shy and awkward geek boys who obsess on code? No everyone has the strength to get past such environs and 'just get on with the job'. Horvath tweeting about office politics is a bad move. You cannot express much in a tweet. It is a poor way to explain situations. I feel bad for the next woman, who will probably be treated like a vial of nytroglycerine.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
In retrospect, Horvath said she feels like she should have handed in her resignation following the episode..
Yes, she should have.
If GitHub is really run the way she claims, they are doomed already. If women refused to be treated like this (and I know many that would) companies that allowed this kind of behavior would find them selves lacking in a very large section of the talent pool.
This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.
Quite.
THIS, as in this particular case, it is primarily obvious mobbing performed on her by the WIFE of one of the founders of GitHub.
Sure, there are other issues, like the other employee who came out of nowhere professing his love and then started to bully her passive aggressively for "rejecting him".
Though she was already in "a committed relationship" with another employee of GitHub.
But this is primarily mobbing, plain and simple. Done by the proverbial "bosses wife".
FFS - founder who's wife had issues with Horvath demanded her boyfriend to resign cause it was ",bad judgement' to date coworkers".
I.e. She was pressured by "the wife", while her boyfriend was pressured by "the husband".
That's NOT SEXISM. They clearly took precautions so it would not be seen as sexism.
Founder and his wife were MOBBING their employees.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Please mod up. This has got nothing to do with trolling.
Maybe you are 48 have 2 kids and a loan to pay? You will not stay 28 forever.
She says many women joined GitHub after her.
Let's check their story of perceived sexism. If all women feel their is somewhat a culture of sexism, than she's right.
...to turn this into a feminism issue.
The whole hula hoop thing feels like "we don't have enough to make sexism sound reasonable, so let's just throw this in,"
The coworker thing is a coworker from hell, but nothing big. Don't accept other projects with this guy, devote less time to the projects with this guy and more time to other projects.
The wife thing. Oh she sounds like a real harridan. Acting to cover her husbands back like other some other evil wifes, what were their names? Oh yes. Rosalind Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama. Just be nice and don't hang around her too much.
Such as https://www.bitbucket.com/ which has an interestingly different business model. Github represents, in technology, a great step forward from the older https://sourceforge.net/. But this sounds like they have some serious employee relationship and morale problems to deal with.
So it's either sexual harrassment OR just a crappy place to work???
Not a chance, AmiMoJo...both go hand in hand...sexism in the workplace is a **symptom** of a greater problem...it's **one way** unprofessionalism can be expressed. These things do not happen in compartmentalized little spaces...it's a sign of institutional rot.
This woman was an **engineer** she's one of us. She obviously is trying to use careful language to not seem inflamitory...if anything, she is ***downplaying*** the level of sexism in her workplace...like a humble geek/engineer would!
from TFA:
Horvath told us that she “participated in the boys’ club upon joining,” but when her “character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues,” the situation changed.
I object to the notion that because she sent tweets, when she *first started working* about how she liked her job, that means we should some how be critical of what she is saying now...things change at a job after the first few months, everyone knows this.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I got to admit I become a little skeptical of her because of her hula-hoop bashing.
Agreed. The way I see it, there are basically two kinds of people in the world: people who like hula hoops, and people who are joyless humorless busybodies. I think we can all agree that Julie's unfortunate problems were completely predictable from her distaste for hula hoops.
Gender problems are people problems you fool!
This false dichotomy you purvey, that this social situation is "either A or B" is reductive and shows how far our industry has sunk.
So, is murder not a violence problem, but just a people problem? Rape...by your logic not sexual in nature...just a people problem!
Racism? Naw...that's just a people problem...by your logic.
Your reductive contextualization **insures** that you will misidentify the cause of the problem and whatever you do as a fix *will not work*
Until *men* in the tech industry mature beyond adolesence we will have this problem. It's **our fault** and we must be **proactive** to fix the problem.
Thank you Dave Raggett
That's just a variation of the "no true Scotsman" argument. Of course there is variation, but there are a lot of common problems too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I guess you are referring to the recent call not to label girls who take charge as "bossy". IMHO they have a point - men who take charge as seen as leaders, women are often derided as bossy for doing exactly the same thing. It's not just men saying it either, women call each other bossy just as much if not more.
But hay, a feminist said it so there must be some underlying man-hatred motive, right?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the wife went on to claim that she was responsible for hires at GitHub, and asked Horvath to explain to her what she was working on. The wife also claimed to employ “spies” inside of GitHub, and claimed to be able to, again according to Horvath, read GitHub employees’ private chat-room logs, which only employees are supposed to have access to.
This sounds like the founder's wife is a loose cannon with a her own little unofficial organization within the company. I have seen this before. This seems like the founder's wife was trying to recruit her into her network of spies.
Horvath called the situation, aptly, “bananas.”
Yeah, I can guess who the head banana is, the founder's wife
In her email to TechCrunch, Horvath says she felt “confused and insulted to think that a woman who was not employed by my company was pulling the strings.” She also said she felt bullied by someone with perceived power and influence over her personal relationship and her career at GitHub.
As anyone would be.
Horvath then told her partner, also a GitHub employee, about what was happening. She warned him against being close to the founder and his wife, and asked him not to relay information to them.
This was good idea.
According to Horvath, her partner “agreed this was best.” He had talked with the founder’s wife, who agreed to give Horvath space.
This is where things are going sideways and neither she nor her partner see what is going on. By Horvath's partner talking to the founder's wife, they both made it onto her enemy list and became targets.
Instead of the issue blowing over, Horvath received a meeting request from HR at GitHub, and was asked to “relay the details of that personal conversation that took place out of the office.” Horvath recalls that she was “uncomfortable with this but complied to the best of my ability.” Her partner was also asked to relay past events.
This is an indication that HR has been made aware of a situation and is investigating it. This was probably initiated by the founder's wife via the founder because of Horvath's partner.
Radio silence ensued for a month, according to Horvath, while rumors cropped up that the founder was asking other employees about her, as well as her relationship with her partner. To Horvath, the silence made her think that she was “being bullied into leaving.”
This is the investigation.
At this point, Horvath said she began to feel threatened.
Why exactly? Was it
She said that having her personal relationship dragged into her work life and put on show for her coworkers didn’t sit well with her.
That is always a danger when one dates or is married to a coworker. Or was it
The aforementioned wife began a pattern of passive-aggressive behavior that included sitting close to Horvath to, as she told TechCrunch, “make a point of intimidating” her.
Or was it something else? The fact that the founder's wife is sittng close to her raises the question of whether the founder's wife has an official capacity in the organization which would partially contradict what Horvath has said thus far.
This stalemate ended when the founder asked to see her. Horvath said that she “wasn’t going to put myself in a position like that, so I required HR be present if we were to meet.” The meeting did not go well.
If she thought it would, she was a fool
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Oh bull, quit sucking down the kool-aid
I've worked under the leadership of both women and men, good and bad. The only women I've seen labeled as "bossy" are the same kinds as men who would be labeled "bossy" - Middle management pointy haired people who feel they need to inject themselves into your work to validate their jobs instead of actually LEADING.
Good leadership is universal, regardless of gender.
This social engineering campaign doesn't serve women at all well and instead enforces the stereotype that women need to be coddled to be considered as equals.
And the founder let her.
Isn't that statement a little sexist?
No. As an executive of a company, the founder has the responsibility to act to prevent anyone interfering with the company, either taking action himself or hiring someone to do it within legal means.
As his wife is doing the interfering, he himself is the most appropriate person to put a stop to it. By taking no action, he is "letting" it happen. "Let" not as "giving permission", but as "not taking action against", i.e. "let it happen".
How is this person an engineer?
Her linkedin profile shows a degree in marketing and job titles in design and marketing. Not any engineering background to be seen.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ju...
Sorry, but no.
Did she quit her job because she was being harassed, or did she stop asserting that she was being harassed. (I'm not a grammar Nazi, but the headline did confuse me).
Well it's clear why you posted that as anonymous.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
"Bossy" is probably less offensive than anything I've ever called a male boss that behaved like a dick. If a word like "bossy" is preventing you from being a leader then you just aren't leadership material. If you try to ban words as a means to assert your dominance- you aren't leadership material. But that does make you bossy.
By themselves the points may not seem all that bad, but together they're more fishy, and when you put them in a context of a company with gender issues they're quite damning.
What if, and I'm just posing a scenario here, the entirety of the gender issues consists of those points, and those points only? Are those points, themselves, enough to provide a damning context of gender issues?
I'm not denying that there are companies out there that are just horrible to women; usually they're just as horrible to men, but we're bred to take it with a grin and keep on going. What I'm asking is... Have we all become oversensitive?
Were they calling out *her* character on pull requests, or was it more widespread? Was it done in seriousness, or in jest? The answer to the first question should lead to the answer to the second; if it was widespread, it was also likely in jest, and sometimes it's difficult to pick up on that if you haven't been around long enough to know all of the inside info, things that have happened in the past that people are poking fun at, and whatnot. If it was just her, just women, or just a handful of the team who had to deal with it, then there certainly was a problem and nobody can deny that.
The thing is, we don't know. None of us are there. Well, I'm sure a few of us actually are there, but they can't speak up because, no matter what the situation is, we, as a group will tear them apart; either they'll admit it's true and we'll hate them for it, or they'll deny it and we'll decry them as a liar, whether they are or not. Even if they didn't participate. Because, clearly, they didn't do enough to prevent it or put a stop to it. Like anyone here could possibly know that; perhaps they did and it was those in power who didn't act. Or, perhaps, there was actually no problem. We don't now, and will never, know.
If this was a "just her" issue, then it wasn't sexism; if it was an "everyone" issue, it probably wasn't even negative or malicious. Only if it was a "just women" and, at that, an "all women" issue; only then was it sexist. After all, it is possible that a woman, or a group of women, may be disliked and people may wish to drive her, or them, away, without sexism being the driving force. To put that another way, a sexist man will never respect a woman; so if it wasn't happening to all women within the organization, if any of them were respected, it wasn't sexism.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Careful with that talk, you may be decried as a sexist for it. After all, it's not natural that men and women may have different biologically predetermined roles. It's not like one of us was built to reproduce and wired to care and nurture, while the other was built to work and wired to gather and provide. We don't see this anywhere else in the animal kingdom, either; certainly not in other mammals.
Wait. We do?
That said, there really and truly is nothing preventing us all from working together. Those willing to give it a go just need to be aware of, and willing to deal with, the reality of the situation, which is that a mixed workplace differs from a nightclub only in the lighting, volume level, and amount of booze and dancing. Hell, drug use is similar at both. Am I saying that's right? No. Fuck, I can't stand the club scene. Would I rather work just with men? I'm sure my wife would rather I did.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Or, you'd treat your wife or girlfriend with respect. Of course, the knife cuts both ways; I was removed from my position at a company because I turned my *female* manager down for a date, because I was already in a relationship. She was absolutely stunning and, were the situation different, I would have been all over her, but that doesn't change the fact that I was already taken.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No false dichotomy there. Gender problems are people problems, but people problems are *not* gender problems. This was not a gender problem, but it was, and is, a people problem.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Female engineers and executives are normal and plentiful here.
And you're a gal seeking to make men look universally bad by your generalized, sexist comment. See how that works?
You sound like you think you own your employees and consider them your private property. Didn't you guys have a war to stop that a couple of hundred years ago?
(Should be "casual".) These things seem like a reasonable opinion:
1) A lot happened that Julie Ann Horvath is not mentioning. It is impossible to judge the situation with the small amount of information, especially since it comes from only one person.
2) The major incident mentioned in the TechCrunch story involves 2 women.
3) TechCrunch damaged its reputation by acting as though the story is extremely important when clearly the TechCrunch writer knows only one side. That story calls into question whether TechCrunch is adequately edited. Can we trust TechCrunch to be sure stories are reported accurately? Or is TechCrunch the Fox News of technology?
4) Many companies have a somewhat unhealthy social environment. Most men would just get a job elsewhere. At present, a woman can claim that there was discrimination against her, and people will say that the problems can be understood as men against women.
5) A book about feminism a woman friend gave me many years ago said, "In Italy feminism is pro-female. In the U.S. feminism is anti-male." The way the story in reported seems to indicate that Julie Ann Horvath was using the company as a target for her anger, anger that was there long before she joined the company.
I know many... many bosses that I've not respected their opinions on things (and they weren't female). Being the boss does not immediately mean everything you say should be valued and respected. Throughout time, people have always talked poorly about their bosses.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
That is classic Slashdot. Oversimplification and grand declarations regarding the behavior of others at the helm of businesses.
How about this: Social interactions, personal conflicts, and politics are all part of business (and, really, any team environment), and you'd better be ready for it or be ready to get out.
It is completely unrealistic to expect business to somehow be an antiseptic environment, like some ideal altar of pure motivation. When people hide behind claims of protecting shareholder interest, it's the same shit.
It's still a group of people, behaving like, shocker, people...
"Don't forget that the founder's wife treated her the way she did, precisely because she couldn't see Horvath as an engineer, but only as a potential lust object for the founder."
And that is different from how we would expect her to approach a male engineer she was trying to ensnare exactly how?
"And the founder let her."
So you are saying the man should have kept better control of his woman?
There might be some sexism here but not in the direction you are pointing...
"It's hard enough to take for a man; if I were a woman, I would have permanently left IT ages ago."
Do you say that because you believe as a woman you would be less well equipped to deal with such situations, or because you believe as a woman you would have simply been less willing to deal with them, perhaps because you would have had better opportunities elsewhere? What's the logic there?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Men can be very rough to their coworkers and subordinates.
This doesn't say a hell of a lot for the traditional male dominant corporate culture, Even in professional sports there has been a push-back against this kind of adolescent behavior.
Which brings up the issue of how do you "change" a Scotsman into, let's say, a Chinaman, like they demand that men become something else, namely women? Only solution is some sort of bioengineering or of course a "final solution".
news at 11
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Right. Github is located in a civilized country that also has unions and employment law. Unions aren't active in every company, and not active in most for that matter. Gender discrimination and harassment is illegal pretty much everywhere if not everywhere in the US. IANAL and I'm not going to go check all of the jurisdictions to confirm.
Everyone who has an opinion about unions seems to have a strong one. My own was formed at my first job where I made around $4/hour and got 1.5x overtime over 40 hours. The union guys got a lot more than that, though in fairness they were experienced and I was a kid, so "more" was quite reasonable. They got overtime and double overtime (3x base rate, or what they called "golden time") if they worked something like > 12 hours in a day, which happened from time to time. None of that really bothered me. Obviously, they just negotiated from a stronger position.
What bothered me was that they could spend a significant amount of that time just sitting on their butts and no one could do a thing about it. They had a "supervisor" who literally sat in a car all day long "supervising". Eventually, the company managed to get rid of that particular leech and just made one of the regular guys a shift lead or some such, and we got along just fine. The leech's parting words of advice to me were to find a job that paid a lot where I didn't have to do anything. In other words, do exactly what he had done. And then there's seniority. With a union, it doesn't matter if you're any good at your job or not, the only question is how long you've been there. Unions, in my experience, promote mediocrity. Oh, and then there's double dipping. Our work was primarily moving freight from one mode of transport to another. Typically from a ship to a train or truck. One of the enterprising union guys figured out how to sign up to work two ships at a time and only show up for one. He got paid for both. It was widely known that he was doing this, but no one could fire him for what amounted to blatant fraud. Maybe it's more precise to say it wasn't worth the fight with the union to get rid of the guy. Those instances of brazen exploitation turned me off unions.
Unions do have their place. When employers are abusing the workers, unions can back them off. Unions have enough power, though, that they can also screw over the employers AND the employees, and unchecked, they do.
Does it matter? Whether or the ruthless assholes prey on gender/race/orientation/hair/height differences because of personal prejudices or because they feel they gain advantage by it, they have to be stopped. (And whether it's opportunistic general malice or specific malice, they are able to harass minorities more effectively as racist/sexist slurs tend to be more hurtful than insults about hair length. Although of coursethat harassment should also be grounds for firing the harasser.)
This space intentionally left blank
The link you provide also indicate something overly suspicious about this rug story: "One employee, Horvath says, thought she was rejected for membership in Double Union, a feminist hackerspace, because of the rug. Double Union did parody the rug on its crowdfunding page, but denied that it would reject a possible member because of the rug."
Horvath has a background in marketing and virtually no examples of code to be found anywhere. Being able to sprinkle a little script onto some markup does not make you an engineer.
And keep in mind that this is not the first time she's played the sexism card. Horvath led a 'geek feminism' campaign to get rid of a rug (yes, a rug) because she objected to the word 'meritocracy'. Because we all know that meritocracy is a myth and that everyone's contribution to Open Source is equally important. Focusing on the people who actually write code is just sexism. *Gag*
If by "shove" you mean analyzing her story instead of blindly believing her without accountability, then sure these topics are shoving her into that category. Here is part of the other side, FYI.
When you lie to demonize a company, you are not a "whistle blower", you're just a liar.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
The given problem: Environment X sucks for population Y.
Your solution: Forbid population X from working in environment Y.
You also conflate thinking about sex and being sexist. Those are distinct.
What is it with Women who work in Software Dev? They seem to think that men just sit around making generalizations about them...... oh wait
Swapped X and Y by mistake.
Then you're a pretty drama queen kind of douche bag guy then.
I read her story and I see someone who can't accept the reality of working at most small companies - nepotism. Not exactly whats going on here, but close enough. Could be worse really, they could have just put her on the payroll, then Julie would have nothing at all to bitch about other than being naive.
She's pissed off because some women respected did some hula hooping and some guys watched them ... in public ... Jealous much? Thats what this is, she's jealous that those women are getting the attention, that then gets twisted into OMG GUYS ARE SCUM FOR WATCHING ... you know WHY those women used the hula hoop AT A PARTY? TO GET FUCKING ATTENTION AND GUYS TO LOOK AT THEM. ... So she's pissed off because those women got EXACTLY what they wanted ... and she didn't.
And she can't deal with the fact that the bosses wife has a great deal of influence of the boss ...
I'm sorry, if you can't deal with that last one, you are well and truly FUCKED in this world because that is a reality of EVERY BUSINESS ON THE PLANET.
The bosses wife (or husband) IS ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE MORE SAY THAN YOU DO. Perhaps one day get in a relationship and you'll understand the dynamics and you'll understand why the significant other carries so much weight.
If you continue you ignore it and pretend like it doesn't happen, you'll simply never get anywhere ... and you'll probably remain single as well.
Hope she likes being a figure head for feminism (I did not say women's rights), because thats all anyone is going to think of her for the rest of her life. She had something[ to bitch about and turned it into a men vs women thing. She's more sexist than anyone she's bitching about.
You don't scream sexism and then exclusively talk about how a member of the same sex harassed you, and then casually mention something SOME ONE ELSE DID AND SOMEONE ELSE LOOKED AT ... which Julie had ABSOLUTELY NO INVOLVEMENT WHAT SO EVER with ... as your reason for leaving. She's a worthless trouble maker doing nothing other than making women look bad.
If the bosses wife did try to job assassinate her, which is more or less what she's claiming, then leaving is the right thing to do. Ranting and raving about it on some sensationalizing blog so you get some attention? That just makes you look like you're causing problems.
If you feel the same as her, you are part of the problem and need help. You guys are truly fucked up and WAY to sensitive about shit that has nothing at all to do with you. Get help, the problem is yours, not ours.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You need to give back your weekends. The only reason you don't work 6 days a week is unions.
If calling you bossy makes you not a leader, you aren't a leader in the first place.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
FYI - when a guy does it, he's a: dick, asshole, blowhard, cocksucker, <insert any insult you can think up>
Its not that it doesn't happen to men, its that they aren't bitching about it. And neither do most women, just a few loud mouths, generally calling themselves 'feminists'
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This is in fact sexist, both toward women and toward men. Let me focus it down a little for you. Suppose a guy on a bus hits on a woman, and she says "not interested." And he keeps hitting on her. And she keeps saying "not interested." Eventually she tells him loudly to piss off. He yells "you're a stupid cunt who's probably on the rag" and walks away.
If I were to say "oh, this isn't surprising—most men engage in this kind of rape-y behavior, so it's not surprise," then that would be sexist. Because I'm explaining away one man's bad behavior by saying it's typical of all men, and hence unremarkable and not in need of correction. If it makes you feel uncomfortable to be grouped together with this proto-rapist who happens to be male, then you now understand why sexist remarks are offensive. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, you might want to check in with that a bit...
You're a troll, and/or a moron, but I'll bite anyway.
one can see it could be eliminated if; we went back to older standards where men worked and women stayed home to nurture family
Your solution to women not being empowered to pursue personal achievement and happiness is to... revert to a culture which prohibited women from even getting to the first rung of the ladder? Right.
For some, the urge to attempt mating is periodically overwhelming and unwelcome sex talk happens.
You use for some as if there are unfortunate individuals out there who simply can't be blamed for behaving inappropriately in the workplace. Other than in the case of genuine disorders such as Tourettes, this is just nonsense - most people manage it perfectly fine.
it solves economics problems
You think sweeping aside half the workforce of a country will benefit its economy?
You may think that cutting a family back to one income wouldnt be helpful, but, you must also consider that we live far above our means as it is and getting back to some basics would be mentally helpful and free up enough stress
A family bringing in half the money it usually would, causes a reduction in stress? I had no idea.
Heh, why so you can have another party in the process fucking you over?
Unions don't help you, they help themselves at the cost of the company. If that HAPPENS to help you, fine, they won't prevent it, but you're an idiot if you think its about protecting you.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
These things aren't always that easy to put in words
Anything that exists can be precisely described and quantified. But you don't care about that, because you like to see yourself as a grunting silverback charging through the undergrowth to rescue a vagina from the "sex-obsessed baboons"
Actually it speaks volumes. It's a thing of "get the job done, if niceties get in the way, prioritize the job over niceties" kind of thinking.
And it can function quite well, or not, depending on the situation.
I'm not sure whether I'd consider being willing to go the extra mile in competition adolescent or not, more.. determined.
Your point? If you truly think that's what I was getting at, you must not have read my last paragraph.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Its like you guys have no clue what history is ... that or you like watching failure repeat itself time and time again. Show me 'community driven' that didn't fail in the first year, go ahead, you can look for a while, we'll wait.
I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're going to call every place where someone somewhere has been paid to be involved 'not community driven' even if there are only a very few people being paid. So no thanks.
-- Linux user #369862
Primary development on all of those was paid for by a company, with the exceptions of kde, gnome/gtk/gimp) which I don't know the history off but I'd be welling to bet a good bit that it leans in my favor. The others ... Apache, NGINX, Postgres, GCC ... MOST CERTAINLY PAID FOR by companies. GPL3 dropped the number of contributing companies to GCC by a ridiculous amount and created LLVM, but you don't remember that, do you? Postgres kicks ass because of all the work EnterpriseDB puts into it. Apache and NGINX? Apache is old, I can see your confusion, but nginx ... seriously? It was freaking created by a hosting company for fucks sake.
One person my have started those projects, but they got where they are today because of companies investing time and money into them.
You better go take a look at the commit logs of those projects, then come back with another try. When the majority of your commits come from someone working for a company paying them to work on your open source project, then its pretty fucking hard to act like your project is independent of company support.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Sure, and I'm not arguing that. But the silly idea posted originally here is that git can magically be awesome without any 'company' pushing it, and thats just silly, there are A BUNCH of companies pushing it.
The original implication is that companies are the bringer of ruin, when in fact, companies are what allow open source to REALLY thrive.
Okay, actually git might be able to pull it off, because of Linus himself ... but it'd be an up hill battle cause most of us care more about practicality than being a fanboy.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Why is it that a woman "ensnares" a man? Have men no self-control? Or is male infantile sexuality simply "the law of gravity" as you seem to claim in OP?
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
have to do with this:
Or are you saying you don't want unions in your company because then you'd be "forced" to demand the government step in and use lethal force against striking workers, as they did frequently during the 1800s?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Anyone else want to see her O face?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Well, maybe; presuming it did not allow rejected women to punish men as well (if it did, and those rejected women exist, it's still dysfunctional but not sexist). But nothing here says there's a culture that allowed it. Just that he reverted her commits; if no one else realized he was doing so or had any idea why he was doing it, there's not necessarily a wider cultural probem.
As Jesse Pinkman would say (to a person of any gender) "Context, bitch!". It was a work-sponsored party, not the regular work day. And the women were doing something interesting to look at.
She was wrong to ask you on a date as a subordinate. Your position was removed because the whole relationship became really awkward.
This really depends on the union. Entertainment unions in the US don't run on seniority-- a lot of craft guilds don't, the SEIU and many of the newer Change to Win unions don't put as much weight on seniority, even the UAW has come around over the last few years (though I would note that seniority, in principle, didn't hurt the US auto industry for the decades it was the world juggernaut.)
Not in Germany, or Scandinavia, or Canada, or even the United States between 1930 and 1980. Militating against your perception is the fact that unionized jurisdictions uniformly have higher median real incomes and standards of living.
Everybody's got an anecdote about some union chicanery, politicians have been eating out on "lazy union bosses" stories for 30 years. Everybody's also got an anecdote or two about CEO salaries and corporate greed. Anecodotes notwithstanding, the data tells us one is a much bigger problem for our society and our economy than the other.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
No no, you misunderstand. The Civil War was over slavery as an agrarian, quasi-manorial system of farm labor. The north was fighting for the much more palatable capitalist wage slavery :)
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I could just as easily have been transferred to another location; she didn't have to go up the chain and have me removed at the district level. In retrospect, it was a shit retail job, so I'm better off for it; and she did admit what happened several months later and was let go, as well. As far as I know, she still hasn't recovered from the 9 year gap the incident left in her employment history. That's not the kind of incident that results in keeping an employer on your resume.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Eh... GitHub is a huge brand presence for Git, if we consider Git as a business concern. I'm certain a lot of people elect to use Git because they know that they'll be able to host it with GitHub. If we lived in a world where BitBucket had been the more aggressive first mover, I'm sure things would be different.
The other thing Git has going for it is Linus, but just because Linus uses $X DVCS doesn't mean that people are clamoring to use $X. Very few people need to pull kernel diffs and Linus is atrocious at marketing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
I know someone who went to the union for help with a problem with a boss. The union did nothing.
In America, unions are too focused on political issues to worry about the little guy. That's why their membership is falling.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
She didn't like abuse in patch comments. Good thing she isn't a Linux kernel developer then. You know how Linus is.
When you realize that monogamy is a relatively recent concept in human society than you start understanding these behaviors more.
As I was attempting to point out with my comments re: pull requests, there is a distinct difference between abuse and ribbing based on inside knowledge; to someone lacking that inside knowledge, the two, however, are indistinguishable. Your response seems to be in support of the "yeah, she's just weak" position you appear to think I was taking. You to make a good point about commit comments in the Linux kernel repos, though :)
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Agreed...her employment prospects are going to be lame from here on out....she should have shut her mouth and got another job. Having formulated this clear statement it is apparent to me now that she probably could not have done that (tech skill deficiency) and she jumped the gun by launching an emotionally charged public diatribe. The hula hoop incident didn't really appear to have anything to do with anything...she was emotionally rattled from the boss' phsyco wife and HR and couldn't deal with or interpret the emotions from the "hula hoop incident" appropriately.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
First assholes would appear to be boss + boss's wife. It's amusing this is painted as some sexist outrage when the prime mover seems to be the boss's wife, a woman.
Second asshole would seem to be the jilted co-worker, if her allegations are true. What kind of misfit weirdo just goes up to a co-worker and starts blathering about his love. Learn social cues, you neckbeard loser. If she's interested in you it will be apparent at least to some degree, respond in kind.
Third asshole would seem to be Horvath. The whole "meritocracy rug" incident proves this out. More than likely she's a mediocre engineer at best and blames the lack of people worshiping her code on "teh sexism".
None of this really surprises me. People are just assholes, and yes men are pigs. But really I would chalk a lot of this up to people being young. I was (an even bigger) asshole until I hit about 30. So in a company of young neckbeards and chip-firmly-on-shoulder Feminists I can't imagine things working out well.
Why is it okay to mistreat non-engineers? Why does job title make any difference?
you had me at #!
Common? Not sure what universe you're working in, but you ought to consider leaving. In over 25 years working in high tech, many of those with small startups, I've never, ever encountered someone's spouse interjecting his or herself into the running of the company. Not even close.
Obviously you did not RTFA. This was about harassment, not sexism. So of course the comments spell this out. It's not some deep-rooted conspiratorial meta-evidence for rampant sexism on Slashdot. Crazy boss's wife had a jealous streak and was creeping out on Horvath. The only sexism claim has to do with some ill-explained aversion to hula hoops. Not entirely sure that it had any place in the article, but whatever.
I am not saying my experience is despositive, but i have never worked with a group of developers in which assholism was not the order of the day. Since sexism is a form of assholism, then it's not surprising this is what she experienced.
And it's not just developers. When NASA sent up astronauts in the beginning, one of the first theigs they discovered was that sending up teams of three was a mistake *because two of them would would gang up on the remaining one* .and that represents the behavior of high functioning , high intelligence success stories.
AFAIK no one has stuidied how to identify and join groups which are not domionated by assholes or how to stop your group from devloving into a pit of vipers. aIt's a topic worthy of investigation, that's for sure. I know people who joined non- profits just to try to get away from assholism. I don't know if it worked or not for them.
For the record, assholism has been given a two part test (from Wikipedia's article on the book "The No Assoles Rule"
1 After encountering the person, do people feel oppressed, humiliated or otherwise worse about themselves?
2 Does the person target people who are less powerful than him/her?
We'll have to see what she does in the future to asee how she solves this problem for herself. I have no solutions except two-person companies. I wonder if any readers who share this interpretatiion of these events have ideas.
The best
And yet she somehow already has another position.
She already has.
It's not about people who behave like dicks, it's about a normal and generally good manager being called bossy because they are female. You have to remember that in the 50s the ideal woman was subservient to her husband and not too strong willed. We are well past that now, fortunately, but there are still some underlying issues around particular words.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There was no sexism at all, what my reading of the Techcrunch article which only presented Horvath's side of events. Her allegations of sexism are ridiculous and completely unfounded.
Mind you, I completely believe her version of the events as presented here. It's just that they're not "sexism", and I resent that card being thrown for things where it's not appropriate. It's just like how certain people will scream "racism!!!" for things which aren't racism, such as disliking Obama: "If you don't love Obama, you must be a racist!"
The real situation is that GitHub is simply a horrible place to work, and one of its founders has an evil and manipulative wife who clearly doesn't want any other women working there. This is the real problem with women in the workforce. Men aren't the problem, it's other women who are jealous and controlling. They don't want other women working with them, and when they do, these women want to be the ones in control of things, and direct all their energy to building alliances and backstabbing potential rivals. Not all women are like this; I don't think Horvath is, however, a certain percentage of women are, and it ruins it for everyone. It only takes 10% of female workers to be this poisonous to give them all a horrible reputation. Just ask any normal, non-backstabbing working woman you know: does she have more problems with the men at her workplace, or the women?
The only remotely "sexist" thing presented here was men gawking at a couple of female employees using hula hoops. That's not sexist, that's human nature. Geeky guys who don't get any action are naturally going to gawk at women who display themselves like that. Did the man say inappropriate things? Touch or grope them? Harass them by asking them out and not taking no for an answer? Or did they just look at them? Staring at someone isn't wrong when they're intentionally putting themselves on display. Did the men gawk at these women when they were just sitting in their cubicles, or only when they were making a spectacle of themselves? I don't see the problem here. We have a workplace that has very few female employees and a bunch of socially-awkward men who don't get out much and probably don't get laid much; WTF do you expect when some girls gyrate in front of these men? Did these women even complain about the gawking? Did they gawk at Horvath? I suspect the answer to that is "no", since she wasn't doing hula hoops in front of them.
This all sounds like typical small-company bullshit, with an evil boss's wife thrown in, and a completely incompetent HR department. The problem with this last part is that I don't think there's any small company in America with a competent HR department.
This story is a good illustration, IMO, of the idea that you shouldn't get too emotionally tied to any job, especially at small companies. Small companies, in my experience, are a total mixed bag; some can be OK, others are just a horror show, with harassment and other bad behavior the norm. There aren't many consequences for harassment at small companies (it's hard to prove, and they don't have deep pockets to sue for), so you should be ready to pack up and switch jobs at a moment's notice. Big companies are much better in this regard; you probably won't have anyone hula-hooping at them, harassment is usually dealt with far more strictly, etc., but the work quality usually sucks compared to small places so that's the trade-off.
From the book : The No Assholer Rule
Their (assholes) unpleasant behaviours were catalogued by Sutton as The Dirty Dozen:[6]
Insults
Violation of personal space
Unsolicited touching
Threats
Sarcasm
Flames
Humiliation
Shaming
Interruption
Backbiting
Glaring
looks like she pretty much got a clean sweep of all available asshole behaviors. That deserves some kind of award.
Sorry but her story has the ring of truth for anyone in the industry more than a five years. Companies are by and large run the way a pirate ship is run and guess what, they're happily populated by would-be buccaneers who have a pirate's lawless and coersive mentality. Arbitrary authority, nepotism, verbal abuse, threats, intimiddation, you know, the above list.
What's REALLY enlightening here its to filter slashdot comments by their ratings. Filtering for "5" comments yields not the usual collection of insightful or funny stuff you want to read and reflect on because it's obviously drawn from personal experience, but rather abusive and or jocularly dismissive "rebuttals" to her story, myopically focused on some detail (hula hoops !) many of them authored by Anonymous Cowards who, presumably, started with scores of zero and "earned" their way to the top, despite the self imposed filter bubble of most readers.
I take this to mean one of a number of things. Github aficionados friends and supporters know how to jack the ratings system of Slashdot when the cause suits them. Slashdot is primarily populated by just the kind of knuckleheads the article's author is complaining about or the article itself did not attract the attention of people who accepted the headline as truthfuil and accurate, as if the headline had been: "Politicians are liars" claims small time campaign donor !
At any rate, as it stands, it's an interesting glimpse into Slashdot "culture" as it presents itself in reaction to this particular article at least. Not my tribe, that's for sure.
That's a bunch of crap. I'm pretty sure I've seen studies showing fathers are generally more nurturing and caring than mothers (the whole "women are nurturing and caring" idea seems to me to be a completely false stereotype; maybe some women are like that, but not the majority). And in the pre-agriculture days, it was the women who did the gathering; men did the hunting.
Sorry to reply to my own post, but since Slashdot is too shitty to let me edit my own post....
To add to the "women are caring and nurturing" BS, think about this: how often have you heard of evil step-mothers? It's so common it's a huge stereotype. Now, how often have you heard of evil step-fathers? I don't think I've ever heard of that.
> Or, you'd treat your wife or girlfriend with respect.
You're assuming that no female is capable of "sharing". It's almost like you are attributing an anti-bellum notion of female moral purity to women. How chauvanistic of you.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
These "older standards" never existed anyway. Women have long been employed in various jobs, namely schoolteaching and nursing, as well as various other menial jobs like maids. Middle-class and up women who got married did tend to become housewifes, particularly during the US's postwar economic boom, but poorer women and women who never got married (derided as "spinsters") generally had to work for a living, even during the bad old days when women weren't allowed to work at many good jobs. Don't forget, even during the 60s or so, telephone operators were generally women. Not to mention secretaries. The idea that women generally stayed home to raise kids is not only sexist, but completely false.
Then she was smart enough to have done so before making publicly coming out against her previous employer. Good on her, let's hope this job works out, then. Don't take my comment as being unsupportive of her or her actions, as I certainly support anyone's right to move on from a bad situation, and to make that situation known. I'm simply stating a fact; one which she was clearly aware of, as she had a new job lined up before all of the publicity.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
> Wrong, I consider my private property to be my private property and I treat my employees well enough for them to work for m
Well. Fortunately we don't live in a feudal society anymore and there's some limits to your raving megalomania there. There's such a thing as law and order and equality and no one is above the law.
Although such things are the only thing that allow petty Robber Baron wannabees like you to even exist in the first place. Otherwise, you would just get crushed under the heel of a bigger bully.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I think you missed the point of my post. Clearly, I'm not misogynistic enough to even have a clear picture of what the roles should be; if your posts are at all accurate, there is more of a parallel with Lions (and likely many other large mammals), where the females are the hunter-gatherers by nature. If you actually read the entirety of my post, however, it should become clear that I was pointing out that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter; anyone should be allowed to fill any role they're physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of filling, and respected based on the merits of their performance, rather than their gender. I didn't put it quite that way, and the part of my post that was making that point didn't use as many words, so I can understand how you may have missed it, not having been slapped upside the head with tit and all.
And this is why these topics never see any reasonable, mature, and progressive discussion.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
No, I think he's saying that all groups of people are natural enemies of each other. You can replace "men" and "women" with any other group names:
Of course it's in white peoples' interest to keep black people subordinate so they can be more easily exploited
Of course it's in business owners' interest to keep immigrants subordinate so they can be more easily exploited
Of course it's in politicians' interest to keep citizens subordinate so they can be more easily exploited
> Not in Germany, or Scandinavia, or Canada, or even the United States between 1930 and 1980. Militating against your perception is the fact that unionized jurisdictions uniformly have higher median real incomes and standards of living.
No they don't. They have lower standards of living and lower real incomes. Much of this is driven by the (oddly) higher cost of living inherent in high density urban centers and the amplified tax burdens in more union friendly nations.
You might be lucky enough to get more "downtime" but have no money to really do anything with it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you haven't read the TechCrunch story, you don't know what you're talking about and should shutup. The woman was clearly harassed. If it were me I'd have gotten punchy and fucked up someone at the company before leaving. She's way too kind.
I sincerely hope this post was pure satire.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yeah, I agree. It would have been a bad bet to even have dated her too because a) integrity b) if you're dating, that could lead to favoritism, contributing to a hostile work environment No, that was not the girl for you anyways, especially if she makes such bad decisions.
In this case, we expect her try to snare a man for the same reason she (apparently) tried to snare the woman - to further her own plots in the company.
Don't read more into it than is there.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Why is it that a woman "ensnares" a man? Have men no self-control? Or is male infantile sexuality simply "the law of gravity" as you seem to claim in OP?
I think for many men it is a "law". Self control in the US is declining in general, and many men didn't have much to begin with, particularly when culture encourages such behavior. Everyone wants to blame someone else for their failures, anyway. It's a convergence of a society not valuing self control nor personal responsibility. It's only like not worse because it's politically incorrect.
Disclaimer: I'm a man, but I see this all the time, everywhere.
I don't know, but it works for me.
I'm sure my wife would agree :)
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
If I were to say "oh, this isn't surprising—most men engage in this kind of rape-y behavior, so it's not surprise," then that would be sexist. Because I'm explaining away one man's bad behavior by saying it's typical of all men, and hence unremarkable and not in need of correction.
The problem here is: this kind of behavior is entirely typical of men, and not of women. It is extremely, extremely rare to find a women who behaves in such a manner towards men (or women for that matter). You'll pretty much only find men acting this way. This doesn't mean it's typical of ALL men, however with women you simply don't need to worry about it. Women, however, have their own problems; the evil/crazy founder's wife in the story acted in a way that many (but again, not ALL) women act.
This doesn't mean that these behaviors don't need to be corrected, but there's no practical way to correct such behaviors. What are you going to do, go beat up the asshole guy on the bus? That's illegal. His actions weren't illegal, though they were horrible and distasteful. Or are you going to go tell the guy how rude he was? You think he gives a shit? He's an asshole. Same goes for the evil founder's wife; you can't use violence with her, because it's illegal. You can try to get her in trouble by publicly outing her, but as Ms. Horvath is probably going to find out, this will very negatively impact your career since America hates whistleblowers. Or you can tell her how bad and hurtful her actions are, but again, you think she gives a shit? She's evil. The people who exhibit these bad behaviors are sociopaths. They have no conscience, and don't care about who their actions hurt. There's really nothing we can do about them in modern society because violence is illegal; in the really-old days, they'd be shunned from their tribes if they pissed off too many people, or pushed off a cliff or something if they fucked with the wrong person. But the smarter ones are really crafty, which is why they get into high-up positions, like Governor of New Jersey or Vice President of the US, and these days there's just no way to deal with them except to avoid them whenever possible.
Anyway, the point I'm getting to is that there's nothing wrong IMO with pointing out that a certain behavior is only done by a certain group, even if it's only a minority of that group. All groups have their Achilles' Heels.
"You don't scream sexism and then exclusively talk about how a member of the same sex harassed you"
Who said that women don't discriminate against women?
Women are a BIG part of the problem. They don't get a pass for discriminating against women just because they're women and they "should understand".
They also don't automatically get a degree in feminism, nor become experts on gender politics.
Julie's description certainly sounds like a pattern of abuse. The media attention is because she's a woman in IT. There's a world of complicated issues around this whole article, and a huge amount of it is gender related.
You go right ahead and call your male boss a cocksucker. Then you can go on to explain that it's totally alright because you weren't challenging his authority. Bonus points if you add: "it's not like you're a woman- why are you mad?" (which appears to be your point here)
Men get called names all the time for "merely exercising their authority"- sometimes even "bossy". Do you really believe women are so pathetic that they can't deal with the consequences of authority? What happens when a woman is genuinely a terrible leader? Are they immune to criticism because it might hurt some other woman's feelings?
This whole campaign was so horribly ill-conceived from the get-go that it would be funny if not so sad. "Let's show how great women can lead by publicly advertising they are incapable of taking criticism". I'm offended by that idiocy and I'm a man.
however you arrange it, the distinction is not helpful to this discussion whatsoever...what you say makes sense logically but in application its nothing more than an excuse to minimize sexism
sexism is a huge problem...whatever words you use...the actual behavior needs to change
seriously, the choice to contexualize the question as being dependent upon different "types" of problems is reductive and stupid
Thank you Dave Raggett
GitHub considered her an engineer.
Your assertions demand evidence, espcially this one:
I saw this article: http://valleywag.gawker.com/st...
Doesn't mention Horvath...***does*** mention other employees who didn't like the rug
Your bullshit is piling up fast...unless you have any evidence whatsover you're just a dumb troll
Thank you Dave Raggett
No one gets called bossy solely for being female! They may get called bossy for actually being bossy (not a gender issue) or maybe for giving a command someone does not like (also not a gender issue). This is about people not liking criticism and using a social movement with lots of clout as a pulpit for complaining.
"Underlying issues around particular words". How much cognitive dissonance do you have to suffer through to type that? In what universe do you think "particular words" can utterly crush a leader? "Cold war over guys, the Ruskies called us capitalist pigs. How can we fight against such unwavering oppression." The entire concept is complete nonsense. This is petulant children running to mommy and daddy (some higher authority figure in this case) and screaming "they called me a bad word!" Definitely leadership material.
And in what world do you think your red herring about what you think women in the 50s were like helps make your point?
WTF you're an idiot.
You have to do some serious linguistic gymnastics to infer that from my comment.
She is *not* being inflamitory...she is using careful language.
Some have accused her of using inflamitory language to describe non-sexism...others have said she should have "spoken up sooner" citing her tweets from her first days at work saying she liked the job
whateverthefuck you thought i was saying is wrong
Thank you Dave Raggett
EnterpriseDB is an important part of PostgreSQL development with several contributors, but they still work within the larger development community of contributors. There are other companies with just as many contributors, with one example being how 2ndQuadrant is adding logical replication features.
One way you can tell if an open source project has a real community is whether the project would go on even if the largest company contributing code disappeared. Linux would survive RedHat disappearing, and PostgreSQL would certainly survive EDB going out of business. That's not even a theoretical question, because the PostgreSQL community is informed by having seen it happen once already. A company named Great Bridge hired a good percentage of the PostgreSQL community once, and then failed after running out of VC cash.
It is VERY necessary to be excellent at non-verbal communication. The little we know about the communication indicates that Julie Ann Horvath was angry and already thinking about leaving before the angry incidents, of which there were apparently MANY.
If you are at all involved with women from the U.S. culture, you should be aware that the woman culture in the U.S. is going through some very unhappy decades. If you want to learn more about that, you could read the book Learning to Play With a Lion's Testicles. The woman who wrote it is angry toward her family and toward a man in Africa who hosts volunteers. She is also angry with an elephant that doesn't like her. Later in the book, after many pages of calling her host a "Neanderthal" she is sexually attracted to her host. Typical confusion.
You said, "Uh, yeah, whatever. I thnk not." That's verbal and partly non-verbal communication. It shows disrespect for the person with whom you are communicating. It indicates that you feel disrespect and that you think only you know the answers.
I'm guessing that you don't do well with women in the U.S. culture. When they feel crazy, they don't want to be with someone who thinks that it is okay to be crazy. They want help.
How does pointing out that this may or may not be sexism at work minimize sexism? Calling something that is not sexism does nothing more than dilute the meaning of the word and the power of the concept, thereby trivializing and minimizing it. Calling into question whether an act is truly sexist actually does the opposite, as does making the effort to accurately define the concept.
When you paint everything the same color, that color begins to lose all meaning, as that color becomes normal, and normal is acceptable. Do you want sexism to become acceptable? If not, you'd best make sure you're not calling out normal and/or otherwise non-sexist behavior as sexist. That, my friend, is precisely why the distinction is not only helpful, but essential.
Point to the sexism, here, and back up your position. My ears and eyes are open.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
:) Well, I thought you were not married at the time,right? :)
Not at the time, but it's unlikely I would have met my wife if things had played out differently.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Looks like it all worked out for the best then!
I wonder how many men, if going away with perceptions like these, would be ready to ascribe it to some "them vs. me" issue. I mean, one can't conclude on basis of statements like these that some sort of improper discrimination wasn't going on, but neither can one conclude that it was.
Not many, for much the same reasons that polls show that white consider us to be living in a post-racial worlds while nearly everyone else in America disagrees strongly.
You don't generally notice discrimination if you're not the one being discriminated against, since most of it will happen out of your sight. You may have some awareness that "some people" still act that way, but it will seem remote to you and likely overblown.
Does no one remember what it was like to be a geek or nerd in high school? Sometimes people act against you with open, gleeful hostility, but most of the time, it's just a subtle undercurrent of preconceived notions and dismissive attitudes. Guess what? It doesn't really go away when we get older. It just happens to different people.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
you can't point out the obvious and then make it seem like you're representing a "side" of the argument
***of course*** the behavior described could be misrepresented...pointing that out is redundant
***if the allegations are true*** then it is *sexism* by the Federal workplace standards
Thank you Dave Raggett
your link mentions the rug but not in any way that proves your point...
Thank you Dave Raggett
So it's alright to call my female boss a cocksucker? After all, not treating a female the same way you would treat a male is sexist, right? Or is it really just not okay to call your boss a cocksucker, regardless of gender? No matter how much we all really want to.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
But hay, a feminist said it so there must be some underlying man-hatred motive, right?
Yes, actually. Man-shaming has always been part of the narrative, since the whole "women need men like fish need a bicycle" and scum manifesto thing.
I'm sorry, but if you think women's 'equality' depends on banning the use of certain words, then women aren't leadership material. Leaders lead in SPITE of competition/subversion. The ones who can't hack it are the ones who forget that 'sticks and stones' nursery rhyme.
This. And it's damaging the the valid points of the movement.
Honestly, if equality movements, be they gender, racial, or whatever else, want to be taken seriously, they need to crack down on this behavior. You can't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and their sisters, Tammy, Dottie, and Harriet, speaking in the name of your movement, saying things your movement doesn't actually stand for; and there needs to be some standard punishment for doing it, as well.
Women have every right to the same rights I have as a man; if they choose to reject the responsibilities that come with those rights, society has the same right to deal with them they way they'd deal with me if I did the same. If a woman can't deal with that, then she can't handle those rights; just like a man who can't come to terms with their own personal responsibility. That's what equality is, and that's what I'm a huge proponent of; gender/race/status equality, across the board. If you can't get behind that, then I would ask you to either explain why I'm wrong (I'm open to hearing it, but nobody has ever tried -- not that they've tried and failed, but nobody has ever stood up and told me that across-the-board class equality is wrong) or spend some time considering your perspective on the topic.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I'd like to clarify on this point. I know several feminists and none of them are whiny little bitches. Weak women (and men) are whiny little bitches; feminists are, by and far, stronger than that. And they hate the whiny "I'm a feminist, I'm powerful, but I'm going to whine about you not recognizing that" girls (I won't degrade women by calling these girls women) with a passion.
Feminism is real. Feminism is powerful. Feminism is something men can and should support. Feminism is also invoked by girls who have no real self-image, to the detriment of real women everywhere, feminist or not; and I just can't support that.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Having a bad day?
You're still not getting it. Consider the original statement: Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife. So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another. First of all, if 75% of the article is about her problems with the founder's wife, 25% is about the other problem. So turning the narrative to a stereotype about how some women behave toward other women would be bogus even if the 75% part was truly just "one woman being bitchy."
But the bottom line is that the behavior of the founder's wife, if it was as described, is behavior that we've seen both men and women can exhibit. Labeling the founder's wife's behavior as "one woman being bitchy to another" takes a very specific dynamic between two individuals and generalizes it into a stereotype that isn't actually true, and then dismisses it on that basis. If a man had done the exact same thing, it would neither have been generalized in this way, nor dismissed because of the stereotype. We would think of it differently because the bad actor was a man. That's sexist.
I admit I could be misinterpreting AmiMoJo's comment. If so that's my bad.
Thank you Dave Raggett
show it...I read the article, it doesn't claim what you say it claims..
copy and paste the applicable text, if it's so blantantly obvious to you it should be easy for you to demonstrate
Thank you Dave Raggett
"Proto-rapist?" What the FUCK is that supposed to mean? Nothing to see here, typical feminazi lexicon salad.
You're completely missing the point. The stereotype is that it's just a woman being bitchy to another woman. So that means she doesn't do it to men, right? If so, then it is in fact sexist behavior, and Ms. Horvath is right to complain about it, even though the perpetrator of the sexist behavior happens to be female. So dismissing it as not an issue because it's one woman behaving badly toward another is sexist. Alternately, you are saying that if she also does it to men, it would be a different type of behavior in that case than in the case where she does it to women. That makes it a sexist statement, because you are saying that it is different when a woman behaves this way toward a man than toward another woman.
Rape is when you engage in sexual behavior of any kind with someone without their consent. When you hit on a woman and she says no, and then you persist, you are indicating that you do not respect her "no." This very strongly suggests that in the right circumstances, you would rape her, because to you "no" means "keep trying." That's why this is rape-y behavior: not because it's rape, but because it's disrespectful and scary, and could turn into rape.
No. You can flirt with, make catcalls at, make lewd remarks to, make lewd gestures to, expose your genitals to, or even jerk off in front of them (without anything touching them) and you may have committed any number of offenses, but rape is not one of them. Rape has a specific meaning, and does not cover all "sexual behavior".
Since that isn't even the scenario proposed by the GP, I'm not sure why you bring it up. The scenario is "Making unsuccessful passes at a women and then calling her a cunt while retreating". Nothing about "persisting". That's not "rape-y" by any reasonable definition -- see the last word, "retreating"?
Your scenario is BS too; that's just being a pest, not "rape-y".
Are you saying that another employees wife was harassing her and yelling at her for being a bad employee? What the fuck are you talking about? Read the fucking article!
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
And while it's certainly possible you have by chance avoided companies where that happened, it honestly seems as likely you just never saw it, or realized what you were seeing. These women are good at this game and we geeky technical guys (in the vast majority of cases) are pathetically outclassed. And the one in this story sounds like a bumbling child compared to another person in a similar position I have known.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"In short, Horvath said that she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work. " Pfft chicks and their hormonal issues, they always screw everythings up, from the article, it seems even the boss's wife contributed in making the situation... messy.
According to Horvath: “I met her and almost immediately the conversation that I thought was supposed to be casual turned into something very inappropriate. She began telling me about how she informs her husband’s decision-making at GitHub, how I better not leave GitHub and write something bad about them, and how she had been told by her husband that she should intervene with my relationship to be sure I was ‘made very happy’ so that I wouldn’t quit and say something nasty about her husband’s company because ‘he had worked so hard.’”
That's a face palm!
+pc
If you're deterred from leading by someone calling you bossy, you're probably not suited to be the Boss.
She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure.
This woman was not an employee. Her abusive - dictatorial - power came solely from being the founder's wife ----
and the men who let her run riot,
There's a difference between "is" and "aught." We hold people responsible for failing to do as they aught, not for what they are.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Wow the union situation in the USA is so screwed up compared to us lefty commies in the UK. Can you seriously stop your workers getting together and discussing their wages and conditions? Appointing a spokesperson to come and ask you for an extra two minutes toilet break every day? Would you just fire the lot of them and re-hire?
But crudely put, employment law is there to try and bring the dicks up to the level of the good guys, rather than bring the good guys down to the level of the dicks. So if you're not a dick, you shouldn't have to worry about it.
I read the article on TechCrunch and going on the premise that it's factual (since it's the only source of info beyond comments here that I have) I find the behavior of the founder's wife to be completely unacceptable. HR should have stopped this when they first got wind of it. The founder's wife had no business being in the work place let alone intimidating Julie Ann. I won't comment on the hula hoop behavior other than to say it doesn't shock me as these guys probably don't get out much. If it's in front of them they're gonna look. That issue muddies the waters here and if anything HR should have stopped the activity if it was a problem. Sorry, it's a business and if something like that is distracting it has to move elsewhere. Julie Ann being intimidated and treated the way she was is unacceptable. The co-worker that was rebuffed that constantly changed her code and worked against her should have been dealt with sternly. Doesn't matter if he was well liked or not. He overstepped his bounds and should have been warned and possibly let go if his behavior didn't change. It's a shame this came down to a harassment issue as this is more of an unhealthy work environment issue where she as an employee wasn't taken care of as a priority.
Care to point out where I made a strawman argument? Replace "boss" with "young adult in a leadership position" and the point stands. No effective leader is handed leadership on a silver platter. How is banning a word really going to help women. How exactly do you ban a word from a specific usage anyway? The whole thing screams of knee jerk reactions, lack of thought and completely impossible goals. Which are all really bad traits for leaders.
You missed the part where he keeps hitting on her. Refusing to hear no when it is said to you doesn't mean you are a rapist, but it's a good reason for the person you are hitting on to treat you as a potential rapist, which is what I mean by "rape-y behavior."
The problem here is that men don't do this kind of thing. You will never hear a story of a woman who's a company founder or executive, and her stay-at-home husband targets other men in the company and intimidates them and tries to get them fired. This kind of underhanded behavior is entirely female. It doesn't mean that most women are like this, but a subset of them are. It's just like how most men are not beefy, bald-headed biker gang members who like to get into bar brawls, but you won't find a single woman like that, only men. I'm sorry if that's "sexist", but it's reality, and the reality is that men and women ARE different, no matter how much people try to deny it.
You've proven my point. They're not bald, so they don't count. I added bald there for a reason. There's no beefy, bald, biker-gang members who get in bar brawls who are female. Also, are the biker dykes in gangs? I added that in there for a reason too. Not all bikers are in gangs and wear gang vests; that's almost universally men.
Your points are valid, more or less. But honestly I'd rather have unions in our world than not. I'll take a leech here and there if that's what is required to not go back to the days before unions.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
I didn't see any serious allegations, just some picayune nonsense and hurt feelings. She's upset by "aggressive communication" on pull requests. The founder sends his wife around to have a chick-to-chick talk to see if there's anything to be done about keeping her happy. She blows up at that and complains to the net.
Man, I'm excited only typing this, where do I send my CV ?
Just put it in the bin where it belongs :)
I dont read
Well, you certainly seem to have strong opinions. However, I don't see any data backing up your prejudice here—just assertions that "only women ever engage in this behavior," which certainly isn't something anybody who's studied human history would be so bold as to say. What it is is a tactic whereby someone with no formal power can control events through the application of informal power. How many male advisors to kings and queens do you think have done this? If your answer is "none," you are ignorant of history, and might want to read up on it.
It's not enough to be a brilliant engineer and designer these days. You also need to exhibit some semblance of social skills, tact, and etiquette. Despite all the general dislike creative designers often harbor towards management personnel, there are equally brilliant and effective management staff capable of preventing the issues alleged to have happened at GitHub. Whether it's a large corporation that requires a dedicated managerial department or a small team of 20 designers, someone has to step up and control negative office politics. Some of the alleged behaviors from other team members is simply unacceptable and indicative of extremely ineffective and totally incompetent management.
"And the founder let her."
So you are saying the man should have kept better control of his woman?
It is his job as a company executive not to let his non-employee wife interfere, not his role as her husband. Maybe if she were head of HR the discussion of whether this was appropriate or not would be different.
Appeal to nature is certainly a logical fallacy, but that's what what the grandparent was doing.
It's a mistake to appeal to nature, but it's also a mistake to pretend that nature and natural processes don't exist, or that we have somehow entirely separated ourselves from them.
if your posts are at all accurate, there is more of a parallel with Lions (and likely many other large mammals), where the females are the hunter-gatherers by nature
Birds too, especially raptors. In fact, female hawks and eagles are larger and more muscular than the males since not only do they hunt the same amount, they have to lay eggs as well. This difference lets them catch larger prey than the males can, which benefits the family since the pair can hunt and catch a wider variety of animals.
you know WHY those women used the hula hoop AT A PARTY? TO GET FUCKING ATTENTION AND GUYS TO LOOK AT THEM
Geez, and I liked the rest of your post so much too. But that conclusion is a terrible one. Awful.
Which is why I would nevere allow a union in my company, because there is nothing civilized about government destroying my individual right to own and operate private property the way I see fit and interfere with my hiring and firing decisions
What if it was an open shop? Would you not then be guilty of interfering with your employees' rights of free association?
Huh. Learn something every day. Thanks!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
GitHub is closely connected to Git, not the other way around.
GitHub would be called HgHub or something if Git didn't exist. Git would be completely unaffected if Github didn't exist.
Linux started out community driven and was like that for most, if not all of the 90's.
Humanism is real. Humanism is powerful. Humanism is something everyone can and should support.
Feminism is only about women. It even says so on the box.
Until women are treated as equals in all aspects of life where physical differences don't preclude that possibility, Feminism will be necessary. If you want to take any and all power from the Feminist movement, it can be done in a few simple steps, but we all have to get on board and do it. Here's how:
As long as Feminism is necessary, as long as the movement by and far has a point, and they very well do, those of us who do treat women as our equals will still be called out by the "fake" Feminists as not doing enough, because we don't respect all women equally, we don't go out of our way to "raise up" the weaker women, and we still hold on to societal ideals of what a woman should look like. Well, the flipside of that is that we don't respect all men equally or "raise up" the weaker men, and we most certainly still cling to societal ideal of what a man should look like. Once we're able to honestly apply the same measures for respect to both men and women, truly provide the same level of aid and assistance to both men and women, and admit that both genders hold ideals for the appearance of the other which are neither realistic, nor healthy, true Feminists will be satisfied and the whiny bitches from my previous post lose their teeth.
Then, and only then, does it become acceptable to call a girl a girl, a woman a woman, and a bitch a bitch. And we all know there are bitches out there that make even the most empowered Feminist wish there were a third gender to assign to them; just like we have douchebags, who do nothing but serve to make all men look like woman-users.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Before I get flamed to hell and back, "take any and all power from the Feminist movement" may have had some sarcasm behind it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
This is not the proper place to have a full discussion about what you've typed (especially since Slashdot will lock the comments soon) but I should at least contest the overall sentiment. A "war on douchebags" (so to speak) is no different than a "war on drugs" or "war on terror." You cannot eliminate people being jerks. No one will ever succeed with goals like "make people stop being unfair." It is an impossible goal, largely because the definition of things like "fairness" and "manners" and any number of other social moral judgments are subjective and highly fluid. Who decides where the boundaries are? Who gets to tune what constitutes equality? There is no one person that can sit in that chair and be truly "fair," especially with so much of the composition of equality being compromises, and in the absence of compromise there is only favoritism. To illustrate: in exchange for men giving up certain things for equality, will women do the same, i.e. all women (in the U.S.) at age 18 being legally required to sign up for selective service?
As long as people have autonomy, they will behave in the way that they want to behave. The only three ways to eliminate that are to allow them to make a profound personal mistake that teaches them to behave that way, to convince them to make an effort to change their own behavior, or to take away their autonomy. The first is out of anyone's control while the third is on the same overall moral level as things like Big Brother, Hitler, or eugenics, leaving the second option: convincing someone to change.
Feminism as it manifests publicly doesn't change anything; it violently pushes away the people it would need to convince to change. Until feminists can come to the table with a civil and convincing set of arguments, the only people who will listen will be the feminist echo chamber.
One final note: most of the oppression of women today comes from other women, not men. Who do you think operates all of those beauty magazines? If you want to see how modern female oppression really works, this comic illustrates it best (even though there are some English usage issues.)
You didn't contest the sentiment of my post, you failed to understand it. I never called for a war on douchebags. Keep reading until that thought falls from your head. Also, how many Feminists do you know? Actual Feminists, not whiny "I'm a Feminist, I'm a strong, empowered, female" bitches, because those aren't Feminists.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this post, but it sure sounds like a whole lot of "we'll never get everyone on board, so there's no point in anyone getting on board". When you recognize the first half of my post as satire (I mean "but we all have to get on board and do it", come on -- if it were that simple, we'd have no social ills whatsoever, right?), the rest, after the list, should just fall right into place for you.
This is the first time I've been called out for doing too much, though. Thanks, it's nice to see the flipside of the coin, for once.
Also, why the fuck did Slashdot eat my <ol>?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.