4 ms·

Let's start with a disclaimer. I wasn't at PyCon, i don't know what actually happened and i think this entire affair is a disaster for everyone involved. I do

Let's start with a disclaimer. I wasn't at PyCon, i don't know what actually happened and i think this entire affair is a disaster for everyone involved. I don't know who is right, but i do know there are a whole lot of people being assholes. Along those lines, why do you feel comfortable to sit in judgement of this woman, because she didn't do what you would have done? Try looking at this from another perspective. If the issue that she is concerned about is not this particular incidence of sexism that happens to be happening near her (if it did), but instead that the mindset of those in her community, telling these particular guys to STFU is not going to address the problem. If they're going to blow her off and just go somewhere else and continue being jackasses (again, if they actually were being jackasses), then what could she hope to achieve by confronting them directly? If on the other hand, her goal is to call out a particular type of conduct as unacceptable, then her behavior seems sensible. She's not going to change these dudes' minds, but she might reach others. So, post to blog, post to twitter. I wish everyone would stop jumping immediately to evil plots, and accusing others of intentionally gaining at the expense of someone else.

downandout 14y ago
It's not an evil plot, it's just very opportunistic and shows a complete lack of concern or empathy for the effects of her actions on others. She probably thinks she came out on top of this because her follower count may have gone up slightly, but I think that in the end she has cost herself future opportunities with this. The message she sent was very simple: Being anywhere near her is a liability. You never know what will offend her, and how she will react to it. Do not hire her or take a job that would involve interaction with her. Stay away. Don't even eat lunch near her, as she may broadcast your lunch conversation if she finds the content to be objectionable.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  And where has she shown to have a complete lack of concern or empathy for the effects of her actions on others? Has she gloated that her follower count has increased? Has she expressed any glee over these firings? In fact, if you've read the Venture Beat article they assert directly the opposite: Richards, while standing by her actions, has tweeted that she did not think the developer should lose his job. It’s fairly clear that getting him fired was not her intention.
  - jcc80 14y ago
    "Has she expressed any glee over these firings?" No, but she did compare herself to Joan of Arc and say that she stepped up when the future of women in tech was on the line. A tad bit dramatic.
    - knowtheory 14y ago
      But surely even an overly dramatic defense of her own actions does not directly imply that she was trying to get anyone fired, or that her goal was only self-aggrandizement. She can be both obnoxious, maybe even wrong-headed, and still act in good faith. (even if her actions did not have the consequences she intended)
      - jcc80 14y ago
        No I don't think she was trying to get anyone fired and did not mean to imply that. She just decided to create a mess and try to turn this into something about sexism. I can't know her intentions but my guess is that her passion for this issue prevents her from acting reasonable and in fact, did more to hurt the cause than help it. It just provides ammo to all those who are afraid to hire a woman and that's a shame.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      I'd say an appropriate comparison considering how the flames are tossed at women who disapprove of sexual objectification in professional environments.
- aviraldg 14y ago
  > The message she sent was very simple: Being anywhere near her is a liability. You never know what will offend her, and how she will react to it. I agree, this is how you'd expect kids to behave.
mseebach 14y ago
No, the impulse to take everything to the principal level immediately is what kills fun and empowers busybodies in HR. Is two guys sharing a snicker over a mild sexual innuendo really what's keeping women from going into IT? Is the key feature of more gender-equal industries really that no-one ever makes an inappropriate joke? If the joke offends you, say so, in so many words. If the offender doesn't respect that, then, fair enough, take it further.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  Let me be clear, I always prefer a strategy of direct engagement as a first option. I do not think this was an effective strategy for addressing the problems that happened, or were perceived to have happened. I think that the way this has shaken out has been a fiasco, and the fact that we're arguing about it on HN is a pretty good indicator of that. But my point isn't about what I would have done, or what should have been done. It's whether or not Adrian Richards was behaving maliciously, which is what GP and a long list of others have insinuated or asserted without any good evidence.

downandout 14y ago

It's not an evil plot, it's just very opportunistic and shows a complete lack of concern or empathy for the effects of her actions on others. She probably thinks she came out on top of this because her follower count may have gone up slightly, but I think that in the end she has cost herself future opportunities with this. The message she sent was very simple: Being anywhere near her is a liability. You never know what will offend her, and how she will react to it. Do not hire her or take a job that would involve interaction with her. Stay away. Don't even eat lunch near her, as she may broadcast your lunch conversation if she finds the content to be objectionable.

knowtheory 14y ago
And where has she shown to have a complete lack of concern or empathy for the effects of her actions on others? Has she gloated that her follower count has increased? Has she expressed any glee over these firings? In fact, if you've read the Venture Beat article they assert directly the opposite: Richards, while standing by her actions, has tweeted that she did not think the developer should lose his job. It’s fairly clear that getting him fired was not her intention.
- jcc80 14y ago
  "Has she expressed any glee over these firings?" No, but she did compare herself to Joan of Arc and say that she stepped up when the future of women in tech was on the line. A tad bit dramatic.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    But surely even an overly dramatic defense of her own actions does not directly imply that she was trying to get anyone fired, or that her goal was only self-aggrandizement. She can be both obnoxious, maybe even wrong-headed, and still act in good faith. (even if her actions did not have the consequences she intended)
    - jcc80 14y ago
      No I don't think she was trying to get anyone fired and did not mean to imply that. She just decided to create a mess and try to turn this into something about sexism. I can't know her intentions but my guess is that her passion for this issue prevents her from acting reasonable and in fact, did more to hurt the cause than help it. It just provides ammo to all those who are afraid to hire a woman and that's a shame.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    I'd say an appropriate comparison considering how the flames are tossed at women who disapprove of sexual objectification in professional environments.
aviraldg 14y ago
> The message she sent was very simple: Being anywhere near her is a liability. You never know what will offend her, and how she will react to it. I agree, this is how you'd expect kids to behave.

mseebach 14y ago

No, the impulse to take everything to the principal level immediately is what kills fun and empowers busybodies in HR. Is two guys sharing a snicker over a mild sexual innuendo really what's keeping women from going into IT? Is the key feature of more gender-equal industries really that no-one ever makes an inappropriate joke? If the joke offends you, say so, in so many words. If the offender doesn't respect that, then, fair enough, take it further.

knowtheory 14y ago
Let me be clear, I always prefer a strategy of direct engagement as a first option. I do not think this was an effective strategy for addressing the problems that happened, or were perceived to have happened. I think that the way this has shaken out has been a fiasco, and the fact that we're arguing about it on HN is a pretty good indicator of that. But my point isn't about what I would have done, or what should have been done. It's whether or not Adrian Richards was behaving maliciously, which is what GP and a long list of others have insinuated or asserted without any good evidence.