Slashdot Mirror
GitHub Founder Resigns Following Harassment Investigation
An anonymous reader writes "Late Yesterday, GitHub concluded its investigation regarding sexual harassment within its work force, and although it found no evidence of 'legal wrongdoing,' Tom Preston-Werner, one of its founding members implicated in the investigation resigned. In its statement, GitHub vows to implement 'a number of new HR and employee-led initiatives as well as training opportunities to make sure employee concerns and conflicts are taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.' Julie Ann Horvath, the former GitHub employee whose public resignation last month inspired the sexual harassment investigation, found the company's findings to be gratuitous and just plain wrong."
The term "Sexual Harassment", - with the word "Sex" followed by another word "Harass", - sounds awfully serious.
But, like all other liberal creation (social welfare, for example) "Sexual Harassment" itself has been abused.
Nowadays you can be slapped with a "Sexual Harassment" lawsuit if you comment on the way someone dress herself or "itself".
In fact, I can be charged for "Sexual Harassment" right now, because of the term "itself" that I've used to describe people whom I do not know how to describe (they are not male, nor female).
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
A woman can file a sexual harassment claim if she simply thinks a man might be having sexual thoughts about her. There does not have to be any overt action on the part of the man. It can simply be something like "The way he looked at me made me feel like he was undressing me in his mind," and that is enough.
"Can you describe in words the way he looked at you?"
"No, it was just a feeling that came over me."
Guess what, that is still enough to support a sexual harassment claim.
You're probably right that in general such phrases have been subject to so much inflation so as to be almost meaningless by now.
In this specific case though, Ms Horvath claimed that a male co-worker showed up at her house with romantic ideas. And that he subsequently reverted some of her patches, presumably because she didn't go along. I think that qualifies as sexual harassment, even in the pre-inflation sense of the word?
Incidentally, some of the press reports have been getting it wrong; the harassment accusations were NOT about this founder, or his wife, but another guy at GH (who has apparently been promoted since).
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Tom Preston-Werner, one of its founding members implicated in the investigation a... resigned.
a is for apple, but that doesn't fit the sentence.
The "other guy" being an ex boyfriend
Report to human resources immediately.
What part of ex is hard to understand?
the claim is from a woman who got upset over their use of "meritocracy", because judging on merit alone is wrong. you should give bonus points for race, gender identity, and financial background.
seriously, the only problem I saw was the not-employed-by-the-company wife thinking she was in charge when the CEO wasn't around. I have worked for a few small businesses where it's like that. the wife/mom just walks in and starts bossing people around, sometimes even using employees to do personal errands.
What part of ex is hard to understand?
The fact that it could have been written just "x" and still be pronounced the same. The extra "e" at the beginning is not only baffling, but outright infuriating!
It's 2014, but you wouldn't know it, by looking on here.
Male Slashdotters -- think of how you'd feel, if somebody powerful was sexually harassing your wife, (I know, alien concept for many Slashdotters, but bear with me), mother or sister, and could leverage that power to do what they like with impunity. Not a good feeling now, is it?
Criminal, bullying, and anti-social behaviour should always be caught out and punished. It's good to see somebody being made an example out of.
I start reading these things thinking, right, likely another scenario where people who are inclined to push a "men create a hostile work environment for women, especially around computers" have found themselves a cause. And even after reading what's out there from the people involved, in this case, I think there's just not enough here to assume that was the root of the problem in this case.
But then you get to the comments section, and just hang on to your fucking hats folks.
Basically, in this case, it likely means that he was fucking some underling. Consensual or not, that's a liability nightmare. At any point, said underling could become pissed and sue, saying she/he was pressured into banging the boss by the fact that he was her/his boss. So the company isn't thinking "harassment" in terms of a criminal act. They're likely thinking more in terms of civil liability.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
This this has gone insane. Now everybody is subject to a "Harassment" claim on whatever the person afected feels. This will turn into idiotic work environment, cut cummunication between workers, and send the organization into a bureaucratic nightmare, to finally kill it.
This is a
and her future job prospects. I understand that she was wronged but I think social media is the wrong way to go about resolving the problem. Reading her twitter comments made me cringe. The Internet doesn't exactly let you take comments back. I'm saying she is in the wrong at all but damn.
... and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.
More likely, because they get this weird impression that you might be a misogynous reactionary.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Last time I drove past her house, she was taking it three different ways on her lawn in broad daylight, while giving another 2 guys the old "Franz Klammer".
It would be easy to conclude from this anecdotal evidence that she is a filthy, insatiable cum-guzzling slut.
Does Slashdot ever delete these kind of posts?
No idea as to the credibility of this blog, but worth a read anyway:
https://medium.com/p/d96f431f4...
"deep down you know I'm right."
Behold the power of psychological projection.
Inconceivable as it may seem to you, everyone does NOT actually think the same way you do.
Sounds like a movie which Michael Douglas & Demi Moore were the lead actor/actress -- Disclosure 1994 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01... . ;)
Some of her patches were reverted by a co-worker? How traumatic for her.
Who could take anything seriously from someone would quit the moment the quality of their work was even slightly put into question by a single co-worker?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
This is, from the various online sources, certainly a sticky, icky mess of relationships. But is it sexual harassment? I don't think so, because to be that it has to either be:
1) hostile workplace - which requires persistent bad acts, not just someone telling a raunchy joke, or happening to have an offensive picture on their screen: we're talking workers propositioning or making lewd comments about another worker on a persistent basis, even after having been asked to stop.
2) quid pro quo - do this, or I'll do that - Sleep with me and get promoted, don't and get fired is the classic example, although there's lots of quid pro quo that is more subtle. I don't see this being a quid pro quo scenario here. Yeah, there's plenty of inappropriate behavior, but quid pro quo has to involve relative power differences between the players. Coworkers reverting your changes out of spite is just bad behavior, not harassment.
A quick test is to take the events reported, and make all the people involved of the same gender; is there any significant difference in the likely outcomes? if not, then it's just plain old "bad workplace stuff", not sexual harassment. And sadly, there are no laws that prohibit the guy/gal in the next cube being a jerk, or your boss being a jerk, or getting fired for wearing green socks on red sock day, or any of a whole list of things.
What part of ex is hard to understand?
Indeed. I'd add that part is the same part creepy sociopaths do not get when they "misunderstand" a "no" for a "yes".
Anyone who says this:
The "other guy" being an ex boyfriend
is the type of person I would not want near me, friends, co-workers or relavites.
If you read up on what happened, preferably both sides of the story, you'll find that there's more to it than just that.
And women wonder why companies are so reluctant to hire them.
It is not "companies". Not even "some companies", but some men.
Having an all male workforce means not having to deal with headaches like this.
It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.
Posting AC because you liberal pussies are going to clutch your pearls and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right.
No, you are wrong. I know that deep down. Posting as myself because my gonads prevent me from posting like a coward.
[citation needed]
Odd, I was thinking it was a reason not to hire men.
Just wait until you start getting more openly gay people and see how this changes.
dot dot dot says an AC.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Or, you know, just anyone who gives half a shit would do.
Tom Preston-Werner, one of its founding members implicated in the investigation a... resigned
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
What are you, 12 years old? Passive-aggressively demonizing other people like that is as immature as it gets online, short of doxxing to incite harassment.
Looks like their mafia got to you via mods! Is there no end to their neo-geezery?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
why can't you just grow up and treat women as human beings with equal status. Neanderthals like you are the problem.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Say what you will, but the AC is correct about this being a risk that vanishes in an all-male workforce.
The risk doesn't vanish. It simply gets masked, just as one would mask if we have an all Caucasian (or X=whatever ethnic label of your choosing) workforce where racial problems vanish all of the sudden.
It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.
What kind of message does that send?
That women shouldn't have to deal with harassment?
It tells the world that women just can't handle the same work environments that men can,
Men don't sexually harass men... usually. And most men do not sexually harass women either. It's just the perverted few who think it is women's fault for being unable (or unreasonably unwilling) to deal with their creepy world views.
It is the same argument that was made against Blacks from working shoulder to shoulder with Caucasians - they'd get harassed, and when wouldn't put up, there would be complains that they are not up to the task of dealing with "the realities of work" (read, "being a good boy.")
You are the problem.
Mirror, mirror. Who had the biggest problem with women of them all?
i'd rate that blog as 0% credible
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'm sorry that none of you like the correct use of English... Bloody Americans.
You also cannot verify the credibility of the original accusation, so where does that leave us?
It's going to be hilarious when openly gay people join your workforce en mass.
Where I work, several of my colleagues are openly gay and simple statistics suggest that some are gay but not open about it.
There are zero issues. You are wrong.
Without any independant verification it's about as credible as both the woman's and Github's stories.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe one of the reason tech workers get a bad rap is because of little kids like this? When people are put in charge of an environment like this, and they don't have the self-control to handle themselves, no one will grow up and every non-techie will point out the out of control nerd farm.
One of the things that does bother me about our chosen profession is the...lack of professionalism. I'm not saying everyone has to live in a PC world with no expression of opinion, etc. But, you would think that by one's 20s (and beyond in some cases!) one would have enough self-control to realize what sexual harassment is. I'm sure there are all sorts of mitigating circumstances that will be cited, etc. but I've just never had the urge to harass female colleagues. Usually, I'm too busy doing work at work to even think about it. I'm a guy, and I probably wouldn't want to work somewhere like GitHub, or be a Linux kernel developer, etc. In my opinion, it's not unreasonable to say that an office shouldn't be run like a strip club. I see a lot of posts accusing people of being overly PC and how they should be allowed to harass whoever they want without restrictions. I'm betting that most people are referring to the "sexual harassment training" that HR in large organizations has to give. It's silly, yes. But you know why we have it? Because some people are morons when it comes to personal behaviour.
I would be all for the IEEE, ACM or some other organization lobbying for all software and systems engineers to be lumped into the main body of the engineering profession. People could be licensed and responsible for their work, there would at least be a code of ethics on paper, etc. And, training would be formalized so that people would at least have a grounding in the fundamentals. PEs have to at least pass an exam that demonstrates they were paying attention in their college classes.
All-female workplaces are even worse. The cattiness gets pretty severe. Women tend to try to destroy one another socially to improve their own status. Men might destabilize periodically and fight, but women are in a constant state of social status war. The female-on-female war is one of social attrition. Unless you can hire all females in such a way as to reduce or eliminate the pressure in the environment to "nicely" brutally chip away at each other socially, not hiring any men will only make things even worse. Men who are present but don't respond to female efforts to climb the female social status tower tend to keep these catty, aggressive women in check that would otherwise fucking DESTROY the workplace..."nicely."
I'm sorry that none of you like the correct use of English... Bloody Americans.
English is not my first language, so... you lose?
Translation of GitHub's weasel words: "Our lawyers told us not to admit to anything or we could be liable in a lawsuit. The company we hired to tell us we aren't liable in a lawsuit told us we aren't liable in a lawsuit."
Maybe Horvath isn't entirely in the right here but it is clear that the co-founder must have intimidated her as she claimed and/or let his wife (a non-employee) run amok. GitHub even admitted as much when the original story broke and re-banned his wife from the building. GitHub's legaleze non-statement doesn't address this at all.
The anonymous medium post is being given far more credence than it deserves because it fits the narrative people want to have about the story. Just be honest... You want the truth to be that Horvath somehow did wrong and brought this on herself because the alternative is that a fun cool company that has good technology also did a bad thing.
Let us not forget that Horvath did not bring any of this up in the first place - she simply quit. It was an anonymous person (that was suspected of being the founder's wife at the time) who posted about it, thus eliciting a reply from Horvath.
Again, according to Horvath, the supposed "investigators" never bothered to contact her until a day or two before wrapping up the "investigation". It seems very clear GitHub hired them to obtain a foregone conclusion.
I don't see how any of this is shocking. It is 100% believable (and by Occam's razor probably true) that the founder's wife was allowed to run around like she owned the place, got into a conflict with Horvath, then when it blew up Preston-Werner jumped to his wife's defense (understandable) without thinking about the implications of allowing your non-employee relative to even put you in that kind of situation to begin with; he certainly didn't consider what it would be like for an employee to be cornered by a co-founder over it. Then when it became public, they called the lawyers, circled the wagons, etc. I also would be shocked if some of the anonymous stories are by GitHubbers who are just repeating internal rumors and rising to defend the company they like, without any actual direct knowledge of what happened.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Posting AC because you liberal pussies are going to clutch your pearls and mod me down into the dirt, even though deep down you know I'm right
I post messages using my own account and I know how they have modded my posts deep down into the abyss, but why should I be scared of *them* ??
Their behavior is so damn predictable ... they say one thing but their action reflects another.
For example: They say they believe in "freedom" but they are the one who will do _anything_ to silence their critics.
They will also stick all kinds of labels onto their opponents, in the hope that the labels would somehow ruin their opponents' reputation.
In other words, they are pussies.
Why should we have to be scared of them pussies?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
What are you, 12 years old?
No. Just calling a spade a spade. What explanation can there be to mention that the "other guy" is/was the "ex-boyfriend" as a counter-argument? What relevant information does that elucidate? What is the point?
Passive-aggressively demonizing other people like that is as immature as it gets online,
Not as much as mentioning that the "other guy", the harasser, was "the ex-boyfriend" as if that explained things, without context with which to interpret that precious pearl of information.
short of doxxing to incite harassment.
If you say so, it must be so. See, if the shoe fits, wear it or see a podiatrist (or in this case, psychiatrist.)
"With the lack of any evidence to the contrary you have to accept it as the truth."
Now that IS hilarious!
You don't have to accept anything as the "truth" without supporting evidence either way, or is reasoned thinking beyond people these days? An accusation has been made, and now counter claims are coming out. No evidence either way, so its a PR exercise for all parties involved.
The typical "he said, she said". Just happening via the media.
and airing out personal and professional problems to the world, is the allowance of mob justice. Even though they found no wrongdoing or harassment after a legitimate investigation, it didn't matter; Preston and his wife had already undergone trial by media.
From the previous article where Horvath aired out her grievances with the company, I was disappointed to realize accusations of company-wide sexual harassment were misleading and that 95% of her problems were with Preston's wife. I don't know why that was a problem that needed to be dealt with publicly. It was dramatic.
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
Ah well, to hell with the court system then. Guilty until proven innocent!
Nice troll BTW
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I guess that explains this picture
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
You can verify the source of the original accusation. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary you have to accept it as the truth.
By which crazy logic? Knowing the source of the accusation doesn't make it automatically "true until proved false".
From an old-timer...
This is why there are rules about dating in the traditional workplace. Welcome to adulthood.
Clearly you have reading comprehension issues.
That is exactly how the court system works. If someone testifies against you and you provide no evidence against their testimony, then their testimony is accepted as fact.
It's interesting reading the opposite side of this story. However, this has pretty low credibility to me. We're dealing with one story which is being publicly told by an individual who is putting her name out there, and standing behind her words. This rebuttal consists of a few loose allegations with no facts to back them up, posted by a generic anonymous coward. It reads more like office gossip than a factual rebuttal.
However, I have a few thoughts on it.
- It's insinuated that Julie is being deceitful by hiding the fact that the engineer is an ex-boyfriend. If it is, in fact, true that it was an ex-boyfriend, it's equally reasonable that Julie excluded that part of the story from her public side of the tale in order to protect his identity and not publicly call him out. Keep in mind Julie didn't even mention the founder or his wife by name.
- It's insinuated that the engineer's advances were "OK" because he was an "ex". This is simply false. Just because you had a relationship with someone doesn't make it OK to harass you.
- It's insinuated that Julie didn't have any issues with the retaliation that the engineer used against her. However if you read Julie's story, she obviously did. She may just not have come forward about it immediately, which is what happens in MANY cases of retaliation and harassment. It's easier and more comfortable to deal with the issue on your own, hope it blows over by itself, etc.
- The back-and-forth regarding the wife just sounds like meaningless he-said she-said. I'll believe it if the wife comes forward publicly and says something about it, but this just sounds like 3rd person rumor mongering to me.
- The insinuation that the "Passion Projects" at GitHub was somehow a bribe to get Julie to stop "threatening" the founder's family is a pretty serious allegation to make without any factual information to back it up, and posted anonymously.
The key thing, though, is were the wife's actions *sexual* harassment (prohibited by law) or just plain old harassment (perfectly legal).
"owner's wife" problems in small organizations are legion, and while really annoying, and really, really bad business, they're often not sexual harassment. There's a famous case of a dentist whose wife caused a particularly attractive receptionist to be fired (out of a fear of a workplace affair): while gender specific, this is was NOT sexual harassment or gender based discrimination in the eyes of the court.
It also means fostering an environment where juvenile-minded males never grow up into reasonable, professional men, fostering a culture that eventually and surely will spawn a molester or sociopath.
And this doesn't just apply to the business world. You get similar issues in professional team sports, where guys come out of school/college straight into what is essentially a never-ending frat house environment.
This blog post misses the point.
Feeling of being harassed isn't based on facts - it is based on perception.
That is why the whole case is so ambiguous.
Whether the perception is rooted in actual events or in their interpretation is a whole different story, which in real life actually makes very little difference. Because the result is the same.
The harassment is somewhat similar to a boss yanking chain. Contractually and factually, there is nothing wrong. But still makes you feel like shit.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
"ex boyfriend" is relevant in this context. She's claiming she was bullied by a coworker at GitHub. If fact she's having relationship issues with an ex-boyfriend who also also worked at GitHub, and has caused additional problems for herself by dating the friend of a GitHub manager and getting into a pissing contest with the manager's wife over that relationship.
That said, GitHub management should have sat everyone down and told them to act like adults or find somewhere else to work, her included.
Guys, guys, calm down. This happens all the time. An employee, usually a woman, ends up in some strange and complicated drama with a bunch co-workers and yes, almost every time there is a male co-worker involved as well. The woman, having some self-esteem issues, ends up spreading false rumours and burning bridges with pretty much everyone involved. The sad thing is that even though she quits the job the rampage never ends. It just goes on and on because women are like this. For them the whole issue of having a problem with a bunch of people becomes the main ingredient of what she is. She stops being a professional software developer and turns into a martyr which is very unfortunate not only for her but for everyone. This behaviour usually has to do with very low self esteem (teenagers etc.). Then at some point there is a moment of recoil and she starts apologizing and forgiving everybody, and again the reason is low self esteem. Before that happens though she probably writes a book, holds a bunch of speeches, launches a society for harassed women and all that. Or perhaps going crazy on twitter is the norm nowadays.
She should have just had the thing sorted out the best she can and then just continue her career somewhere else. Now she has transformed herself into a frankenstein nobody dares to work with. Because in the end nobody can be sure who did and what and now she seems at least as bad as the people she keeps accusing. Such a tragedy.
"With the lack of any evidence to the contrary you have to accept it as the truth."
Now that IS hilarious!
My pink unicorn finds it funny too
Yes let's blame the victims. Bullying and harassment happens in all-male workforces as well, which invalidates your argument. Maybe men should not be hired either?
Because you "manly conservative men" have pushed into society that male on male harrassment is not only ok, but expected.
I am sorry you either were a bully or were bullied in highschool, but dont bring your childish sociopathic bullshit into the real world where the rest of us live.
are you printing out posts or just rubbing your "pink unicorn" on the monitor?
You DID NOT just call a woman bossy!!!
Feminist swat team are descending on your home/workplace as we speak!
The term "Sexual Harassment", - with the word "Sex" followed by another word "Harass", - sounds awfully serious.
But, like all other liberal creation (social welfare, for example) "Sexual Harassment" itself has been abused.
Fortunately no conservative constructs have ever been abused... couldn't resist - back to the topic
Nowadays you can be slapped with a "Sexual Harassment" lawsuit if you comment on the way someone dress herself or "itself".
In some cases, it was much worse before. In the 1980's, at the place where I worked, we had our first gender harassment seminars.
It quickly turned surreal. Your example of how the woman dresses was spot-on. The gender harassment rep told us that it was very dangerous to compliment a woman regarding any physical matter. That telling her "Those earrings are nice" was okay, but saying you look great in those earrings was skirting the edges of harassment.
Then when a man asked what the definition of sexual harassment was, she said "Sexual harassment is whatever a woman says it is". You could have heard the proverbial pin drop.
This draconian interpretation started a years long mess, where the men actively avoided all the women. Male supervisors would not engage 1 on 1 with female staff - there would always be at least one other person. Men quit talking to or socializing with women.
And the women absolutely hated it. Some of the ladies I worked with were dirty minded and flirtacious enough to make me blush some times, and the men were avoiding them like the plague.
One of the machinists had a nice photo of a young lady in a cheerleader outfit on his toolbox. A woman took offense to it, and he was told to take it down. It was his daughter. The pathetic part was this estrangement only alienated normal guys. The men who were actually harassing women still did all the same things, blocking doorways so the woman had to brush up against them, "accidentally" touching them in the places you might expect, they just kept on keepin' on.
Fortunately, calmer, more rational heads saw what had been created, and modified the rules. Instead of treating all men as rapists who just hadn't been caught yet, they focused on the guys - and women who were the real problem.
In the end, it did help, although a lot of the older guys were pretty set in their ways, and never did socilize much with the female staff.
In fact, I can be charged for "Sexual Harassment" right now, because of the term "itself" that I've used to describe people whom I do not know how to describe (they are not male, nor female).
I brought up the question one time, if a man avoids all contact with women in the workplace - except for the minimum to get work done - in order to not be accused of harassment, and the women know he avoids them because of that, is his avoidance sexual harassment?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Mixing women and men together today in work areas .. sad state
She implies sex for attention and when something goes wrong, well - all hell to pay.
It's so much clearer and easier to understand then the countless men driven from work because of ugly social gossip - now that would mean women would actually be recognized as possible of fault - and society can't think in those.
Not those terms anymore.
That is because there are a huge number of misogynistic women. I wouldn't say more than there are men, but there are plenty of republican christian 'merikan cunts out there that claim women should just "marry a rich man and become a baby factory". And then on the other side, there are women that are so feminist that they seem to wrap the scale and become misogynistic themselves. "Ohh, you can't even say that word around me, thats my trigger word!"
What happened to treating people like people; whether they are male, female, or otherwise?
Only if you didn't know that it's a word in Latin.
And someone else can testify "nuh-unh!"; and without proof either way, you are right back to square one. This is why there is a thing called "burden of proof". The prosecution is the one that needs to prove it with evidence.
Only if you didn't know that it's a word in Latin.
Whoosh!
Is it really "misogynous" (sic) to point out that sexual harassment charges are frequently abused? I don't know what's more troubling, the fact that this happens, or the fact that those who speak out about it are silenced.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"ex boyfriend" is relevant in this context. She's claiming she was bullied by a coworker at GitHub. If fact she's having relationship issues with an ex-boyfriend who also also worked at GitHub, and has caused additional problems for herself by dating the friend of a GitHub manager and getting into a pissing contest with the manager's wife over that relationship.
That said, GitHub management should have sat everyone down and told them to act like adults or find somewhere else to work, her included.
Thank you, someone with intelligence actually understands.
Actually, I thought that the business world produces sociopaths almost as fast as a baker bakes bread rolls? Asking for sociopaths not to be present in business environment seems pointless.
Ezekiel 23:20
the AC is correct about this being a risk that vanishes in an all-male workforce.
Not in the San Francisco area...
And someone else can testify "nuh-unh!"; and without proof either way, you are right back to square one. This is why there is a thing called "burden of proof". The prosecution is the one that needs to prove it with evidence.
You need to learn how to read.
The prosecution has brought in someone to testify.
The defense offers no counter.
The prosecution has satisfied burden of proof.
In this cause there she has pleaded her case. There has been no evidence against it. Therefore her statements can be taken as fact.
Yes, everyone that does not act exactly how you want them to act right now is misogynistic. And people wonder why that term gets laughed at.
People treat people in many different ways. What an asinine statement.
According to an anonymous blog post with no sourcing, confirmation, or corroboration. It's bullshit.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The source of the "ex boyfriend" claim is an anonymous blog post with no sourcing or corroboration, and it's a detail that was completely missing until now, despite plentiful opportunities to introduce it. Since claimed, no one has confirmed it. A troll is throwing up sand.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The original accusation has a human being who's come forward and publicly attached her name and career prospects to it, and is accepting significant personal costs to do so. The anonymous blog post is 100% consequence free for the author. That does imply a relative difference in credibility.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Is it really "misogynous" (sic) to point out that sexual harassment charges are frequently abused?
Depends on the motivation. GP however didn't just point this out, but appeared to be arguing that this would be valid reason to not hire women, period.
In the interest of improving my English, what is wrong with "misogynous"? Spell checker likes it.. Would "misogynistic" be more common?
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
How funny that Wired is complaining that "wasn't github supposed to be meritocracy?" It was, until some feminist groups complained enough about it. ref http://readwrite.com/2014/01/2...
Personally, I'm just waiting for Skynet to activate. At least it would hate both men and women equally.
In this cause there she has pleaded her case. There has been no evidence against it. Therefore her statements can be taken as fact.
In this case there is no cause at all, or did I miss the lawsuit, her testimony under penalty of perjury and the subsequent cross-examination?
The source of the "ex boyfriend" claim is an anonymous blog post with no sourcing or corroboration, and it's a detail that was completely missing until now, despite plentiful opportunities to introduce it. Since claimed, no one has confirmed it. A troll is throwing up sand.
And the official story from actual people whose actual jobs are to actually investigate this shit is that there was no case to pursue.
It's typical bullshit drama from people who can't act like adults.
You can verify the source of the original accusation. With the lack of any evidence to the contrary you have to accept it as the truth.
Not only is this a joke, the fact is actual investigators investigated and found out the claims were bullshit.
Not really. The time cube guy attaches his name to drivel too.
If this were true the founder could start a massive lawsuit for being forced out. For some reason he seems unwilling to test it in open court though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The GitHub statement is a blatant white wash and she has responded with a hard core rant on twitter.
If you mean "the official story from the people hired by github to investigate github's wrongdoing, who found that their employer github did nothing wrong, but for totally unrelated reasons one of our founders is going to spend more time with his other interests," then I agree.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The time cube guy has nothing to lose by being time cube guy. Horvath's prospects in the startup world are in a shambles now, and she's faced a volume of shit that crazy people like time cube guy don't care about because they're crazy, but is a huge disincentive to normal people. It's not proof, but it's a point in her favour.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Who only found out he was the ex- during that visit.
Some of her patches were reverted by a co-worker? How traumatic for her.
Tell you what, if I reverted changes that my co-workers did, I would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.
That 'generic anonomous coward' is the Wife!
I can't believe you lump a talentless dilettante like Richards in with sharks like Fiorina and Whitman.
Except there is credible evidence against time cube guy.
There is no credible evidence against Horvath so her story must be accepted as truth.
Not only is this a joke, the fact is actual investigators investigated and found out the claims were bullshit.
No they failed to find evidence. That's the absence of evidence is not proof that Horvath lied.
It would depend on the structure of the organization/project. But yes, most private corporate projects are not similar to Wikipedia in that way (but all additions have the possibility to include bugs that make revisions simply the best thing to do).
But that is what makes it such a simple situation. You have the original code, you have her changes, and you know what revisions/additions the accused did. Have a third party scan the changes, than ask the accused employee to justify his revisions. It would take like 3 hours of time to come to the bottom the the situation and figure out what exactly happened and dispense disciplinary action.
But lets make this clear. It is possible that the accused acted in way that hurt the company, but I cannot see how he possible hurt the "victim" here. And at the very least the company is better off with her gone.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It is misogynistic if you have no proof that sexual harassment charges are frequently abused. It comes across like you're just saying things hoping that there's a kernel of truth in them. In all honesty, every law is ripe for abuse and while you may feel that sexual harassment is abused more than others, I'll be there are as many or more people who feel that a boss or his wife's position of power is abused more frequently.
So, yes, it is misogynistic. But not because you're pointing something controversial out, but rather because you're manufacturing a fact and assuming it's common knowledge.
Not going to comment on the rest of your post, but to answer your final question. No. That's not sexual harassment. Simple.
Wow someone who actually did make some mistakes having to resign, if you go to Mozilla you can be forced to resign on the basis of your religious convictions, on the basis of trumped up media-mis-handling charges. Then you can watch those who stay horribly mis-handle the media backlash with no consequences whatsoever.
Every time you see the HR crazies and the typical female social network/internet shamer in a company getting her way just because she has a vagina, you know it's best to avoid.
Great, if it's such a frequent occurrence, perhaps you can share with us 3-5 examples of abusive sexual harassment charges?
I mean, if it's "frequently abused," you should be able to find plenty of properly sourced and factually correct examples to draw from.
Shouldn't you?
I think everybody's all for more women in the work place, and even tweaking some things to make it a more inviting place (but I'd fall short of "catering to" since I don't like discrimination). Stuff like improved parental (both parents) leave, more flexible hours, better work-life balance, etc that helps everybody, but women tend to value more highly and so it disproportionately keeps them away.
Let's say you're an employer with a mostly-male (at least in a particular section) workforce and you want to improve your gender balance in that particular section. Maybe your interviewers have been unfair, maybe the labor pool has been lacking, maybe your offering is disproportionately unfavored by women, whatever - you want to address it because you're progressive and want to do the right thing.
Now you may have some "male chauvinist pigs" in your workforce. You're fine with firing them - you just don't know who they are yet, since there haven't been any women around. There's a risk that you (or your employee managers!) may be held personally liable if some incident go south, and nobody's thrilled with that, but you institute procedures and brush up on harassment law and train people so you're not too worried about that.
But then you read about bullshit like the Adria Richards case and other horror stories that you hear about all over the place from your business buddies and you realize that you're making yourself pretty vulnerable in a way that you can't really defend against. Even excluding the legal issues (you're being sued by an employee...), there's massive PR issues because the kind of personality that tends toward frivolous or over-blown claims is probably well correlated with the kind of personality that enjoys a large social media reach (my observation - may have selection bias, but not really relevant to my point). And neither the law nor the public opinion will give you the benefit of the doubt.
So I don't think there's any denying that a company exposes itself to greater risk by hiring a woman instead of a man. Frankly, men don't really sue for sexual harassment (they should, though, it's not uncommon for men to be harassed). Your progressive employer who's trying to do the right thing will still have to weigh the costs and benefits and determine that the benefits outweigh the costs, or that the cost is acceptable.
The problem is that this should be a slam dunk win for the company - there should be no risk at all for hiring a woman! More generally, you don't want to make the "backwards" viewpoint supportable at all, or else it'll greatly hamper progress on those issues.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Looking around where I work, where there are several openly gay people and noone gives a shit, I would say it won't change at all (well, apart from making it harder for intolerant dickheads).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
This would all be a much more meaningful comment if it were 80 years ago and we were debating allowing women into the workplace at all. Outside of the tech industry--in medicine, law, business, factory work--women make up a substantial, if not equal, portion of the workforce, and the employers have figured out how to handle men and women working together. You have an express policy forbidding harassment, an HR department that responds properly to accusations, and bam! You're in the clear. For employers who do these things, they have cases of sexual harassment. They also have cases of theft, embezzlement, incompetence, misunderstandings, and all the other normal workplace issues that get worked out by having competent management and HR, and the company isn't in any particular danger from a lawsuit. Companies have to be grossly negligent in handling complaints or allowing particular environments to persist, to be liable.
Except in the tech industry, the retarded manchild of the working world, where the male/female ratios are from the 1960s, and so are the attitudes of your average techie--and the startup world is 10 times worse than everywhere else because they're not big enough to need competent HR professionals and they imagine themselves to be "disruptors" of the status quo. It's improved a lot over the last couple decades, if only because of the general improvement in society's attitude towards women. But if you want to see truly caveman sexism, look no further than the latest Hacker News darling.
BTW, women in the workplace don't really want a change in the status quo--more flexible hours, etc., is just more sexist "men are from mars" bullshit. What women want is not to have to put up with crap because they're women. Figure that part out (and as I said, most of the Fortune 1000 could give lessons on it), and you're golden.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
This explains quite a lot.
Sincerely, to me it casts serious doubt when someone that does web design describes herself as "engineer". Then this. My personal conclusion is that Julie Ann Horvarth is what many call an "attention whore". By having a look a her web site (hey, people still have those?) she looks full of self importance.
Hey, don't take it out on us Americans just because OUR ancestors had the balls to leave and find a better life.
In my experience, gay men are MUCH easier to work with than women. And all-male workforce, even if some of them are gay, is still much preferable to the walking-on-eggshells bullshit you have to put up with when you bring women in. The most flaming gay guy I've ever met was nowhere near as self-involved and narcissistic as the average woman, and nowhere near as touchy or sensitive to even the most innocuous criticism.
What happened to treating people like people; whether they are male, female, or otherwise?
Because that's a bunch of fantasy-land bullshit. In the real world there are real differences between people, and some of those differences are gender-related. Women and men aren't just physically different. They're socially, emotionally, culturally, and mentally different. A woman isn't just a male with tits and a man isn't just a woman with a penis. You can delude yourself to believe that if you want, but you're pretty naive to do so.
"Treating all people the same" presumes that people ARE all the same. They're not.
you have no idea what kind of rubbing me and my pink unicorn can get up to.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
to leave them gays alone!
How is that working out for you?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Of course dating somebody is relevant. It doesn't make something right, but it is certainly relevant.
Or in your little world is an ex lover not messier at work than a random anonymous colleague.
What was done is likely wrong (we're all involved in a lot of assumptions here), but we're sitting on the sidelines where it's easy to try and second guess what has occurred.
You can be an arrogant prick about it, but management and motivating a team can be messy and mistakes crop up even for otherwise good people.
Just thought I'd update this now that more details have been revealed. Horvath was dating someone at github, who at the time much of this happened was an ex; however, he's not the bully; Ted Nyman is the guy who vengefully reverted her commits after she refused to get involved with him--that's a classic pattern of sexual harassment. She never dated Nyman.
Subsequently revealed emails and texts show that TPW and his wife were pretty much as bad as alleged, and that various upper-ups at github worked with them to protect github and the upper-ups. Most of what comes out of this story is that github is a pretty drama-heavy, toxic place to work.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.