5 ms·

This sounds less like sexism and more just non-sexist batshit crazy people and incompetent HR. Somehow that isn't particularly better.

by rdl 13y ago

agf 13y ago
I think the implication is that none of this would have happened, or at least would not have been tolerated, if she was male. And it sound like the basis of her relationship with the founder's wife being "crazy" was that she was a female employee. So I'd say sexism played a significant role here.
- eruditely 13y ago
  Uhm, it was female on female. Is male on male intimidation, sexism? Because men are the primary victims of violence, and their sex being highly relevant to that, is that sexist? I don't think you would say that in this case it is. Not to say there can't be girl/women on girl/women sexism.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Not to say there can't be girl on girl [sic] sexism. True, but since the "girls" under discussion are both in fact women, that would be sexism by definition.
    - LockeWatts 13y ago
      Wait, what does the noun change? You completely lost me.
      - hluska 13y ago
        The term 'girl' refers to a female between birth and when she reaches the age of adulthood. I'm pretty sure both parties in this case are adults, so I assume that's the reason behind the correction.
        LockeWatts 13y ago
        I mean, while technically true, the interoperability between the gendered nouns isn't complete. Man / Woman Boy / Girl Guy / ??? Some people would say ??? = Gal, but most would find that very informal, especially when writing. The usual female equivalent to guy is girl, which is not referring to a younger age but merely a less formal sex descriptor. Secondly, I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. If the guy is talking about girls, it makes sense, if he's talking about about women, it doesn't? I'm still lost there.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. Okay, fair enough. Nest time you see a black man over 20 and under 50 years of age, try calling him "boy". See how he reacts. But before you do, write that last will and testament you've been meaning to finish.
        meisterbrendan 13y ago
        This girl on girl/woman on woman semantics you are calling out is unnecessary and distracting--even an uncharitable reader would have a hard time ferreting out sexism in the parent comment. And by the way: your insinuation that a black man would automatically kill/cause bodily harm someone who says something racist to him is in and of itself racist and is far more perverse than anything else I've read on this thread by a very, very wide margin.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > And by the way: your insinuation that a black man would automatically kill/cause bodily harm someone ... You locate where I said or implied this, and I will defend it. "Fasten your seat belt." "Are you implying that I'm an unsafe driver, or that I'm likely to get into a traffic accident?" "Umm, no, I'm just offering some common-sense advice."
        lmartel 13y ago
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Wait, what does the noun change? Are you still a boy? Yes or no? How about a black man? Is he appropriately described as a "boy" or do you value your life?
        MarkTee 13y ago
        Not sure why you're so insistent to mention race...in 2 of your posts you've specified "black man". What does skin colour have to do with it?
        qohen 13y ago
        He's alluding to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy#Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy#Race Historically, in countries such as the U.S. and South Africa, "boy" was not only a 'neutral' term for domestics but also used as a disparaging racist insult towards men of colour (especially of African descent), recalling their subservient status even after the 20th century legal emancipation (from slavery, evolved to race segregation, viz. Apartheid) and alleged infantility, and many still consider it offensive in that context to this day since it denotes that men of colour (especially of African descent) are less than men.
        MarkTee 13y ago
        Thanks, that makes a bit more sense. I'm still not sure why he mentions race when the topic at hand is age, gender, and language, though.
        unreal37 13y ago
        He's saying calling a woman a girl is equally offensive. (Although it's a complete distraction to the discussion.)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        lutusp 13y ago
        That's easy to answer -- they're all ways to unfairly single out people based on traits that shouldn't be used to distinguish people, ways that are now illegal in some cases -- age, race, gender.
  - watwut 13y ago
    There is plenty of woman on woman/girl on girl sexism. Women are socialized into the same world as men and tend to underestimate other women the same way as men do. If you have been raised to think you can not do x cause you are women, you will assume that other woman are unable too.
  - agf 13y ago
    It sounds like the male founder initiated the interaction, so the implication would be the cause of the problems was his sexism. I was not actually saying the wife's behavior was sexism.
  - ZoF 13y ago
    What? The sexist part of this isn't the Founder's Wife's behavior(that sounds standard crazy), it's everyone at Github's behavior. /* Let me preface this by saying we have only seen half the story at this point, so I wouldn't make absolute judgements yet and the below is based on the hypothetical situation in which the linked article is 100% factual. */ If my founder was female and her husband was coming into work regularly to harass employees(or even at work at all...?)he would be dealt with _fast_. It seems that in this case(if the situation was anything close to as described) the founders wife was sitting next to a programmer for long periods of time and it wasn't dealt with. So yeah, while this does appear to be more of a, "damn that founder and his wife be crazy" situation, we shouldn't forget that societal perceptions of gender are always influencing how these situations are handled. Creating an environment where situations like this are handled differently between genders is definitely to be avoided.
    - XorNot 13y ago
      It's also worth considering that we have no idea if the founder's wife was also doing this to other male employees. She may have been - and gender perceptions being what they are, we're even less likely to hear about it.
      - ZoF 13y ago
        Yep, honestly I just hope GitHub makes a response sooner rather than later. The longer this festers before we get a counterpoint the worse it will be. Also hope it doesn't turn into the mud-slinging it seems to be headed towards.
  - tw268 13y ago
    The facts get you the first 200 upvotes. Accusations of "sexism" get the next 500.
nknighthb 13y ago
If we accept the general outline of events thus far recounted, only one of two people has to be crazy, and the others can be merely blind/incompetent/weak. Unfortunately it is impossible at this stage for an outsider to be certain who the crazy party actually is.
DerekH 13y ago
That's how I read it as well. I mean, there's definitely some hints of sexist behavior. Though as I was reading, it felt like I was in the hallways of my high school years ago. Loads of gossip and craziness. It's sad to see this story come out of GitHub though. Why can't we all just get along?
baddox 13y ago
The only thing that sounds remotely related to sex or gender is the hula hoop incident, which sounds irrelevant to the main story other than providing a final straw for the woman to leave.
- jd0 13y ago
  Did you read the whole article? It starts out explaining her struggles as a woman with the company. It also addresses her creepy suitor.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I did read the whole article. You're right, I forgot about the guy who apparently professed love for her then removed her code from production. Although that one isn't particularly related to sex or gender either, other than the fact that the creep was an apparently heterosexual male. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with a pattern of sex or gender related discrimination, and any similar interaction would be inappropriate regardless of the parties involved.
zobzu 13y ago
yeah it doesn't sound sexist much, but still batshit crazy. regardless of who's telling the truth at thing point (i doubt github will go with an explanation over this..) hypothesis: i think shes using the fact that shes a woman to push for what she wants (as in "sexist issues, sensationalistic, lets put that in there"). she's likely to either have little/no proof or be lying - whichever, when you can't prove stuff, you tend to do exactly what shes doing (or, if you're sane, you just shut up)
ScottBurson 13y ago
It isn't directly stated, but my take is that what set the founder's wife off in the first place must have been that she got wind, through her husband, that Horvath was unhappy with the "boys' club" culture. This account doesn't detail what happened early on in Horvath's time there, but makes it sound like there were numerous relatively minor incidents and a general pattern of behavior. Maybe Horvath said something to the founder, or to someone else who passed it on to the founder, he discussed with his wife, and she decided to make sure it wouldn't be a problem. I think that's why sexism is a key part of this story.

This sounds less like sexism and more just non-sexist batshit crazy people and incompetent HR. Somehow that isn't particularly better.

by rdl 13y ago

This sounds less like sexism and more just non-sexist batshit crazy people and incompetent HR. Somehow that isn't particularly better.

agf 13y ago

I think the implication is that none of this would have happened, or at least would not have been tolerated, if she was male. And it sound like the basis of her relationship with the founder's wife being "crazy" was that she was a female employee. So I'd say sexism played a significant role here.

eruditely 13y ago
Uhm, it was female on female. Is male on male intimidation, sexism? Because men are the primary victims of violence, and their sex being highly relevant to that, is that sexist? I don't think you would say that in this case it is. Not to say there can't be girl/women on girl/women sexism.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Not to say there can't be girl on girl [sic] sexism. True, but since the "girls" under discussion are both in fact women, that would be sexism by definition.
  - LockeWatts 13y ago
    Wait, what does the noun change? You completely lost me.
    - hluska 13y ago
      The term 'girl' refers to a female between birth and when she reaches the age of adulthood. I'm pretty sure both parties in this case are adults, so I assume that's the reason behind the correction.
      - LockeWatts 13y ago
        I mean, while technically true, the interoperability between the gendered nouns isn't complete. Man / Woman Boy / Girl Guy / ??? Some people would say ??? = Gal, but most would find that very informal, especially when writing. The usual female equivalent to guy is girl, which is not referring to a younger age but merely a less formal sex descriptor. Secondly, I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. If the guy is talking about girls, it makes sense, if he's talking about about women, it doesn't? I'm still lost there.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. Okay, fair enough. Nest time you see a black man over 20 and under 50 years of age, try calling him "boy". See how he reacts. But before you do, write that last will and testament you've been meaning to finish.
        meisterbrendan 13y ago
        This girl on girl/woman on woman semantics you are calling out is unnecessary and distracting--even an uncharitable reader would have a hard time ferreting out sexism in the parent comment. And by the way: your insinuation that a black man would automatically kill/cause bodily harm someone who says something racist to him is in and of itself racist and is far more perverse than anything else I've read on this thread by a very, very wide margin.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > And by the way: your insinuation that a black man would automatically kill/cause bodily harm someone ... You locate where I said or implied this, and I will defend it. "Fasten your seat belt." "Are you implying that I'm an unsafe driver, or that I'm likely to get into a traffic accident?" "Umm, no, I'm just offering some common-sense advice."
        lmartel 13y ago
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Wait, what does the noun change? Are you still a boy? Yes or no? How about a black man? Is he appropriately described as a "boy" or do you value your life?
      - MarkTee 13y ago
        Not sure why you're so insistent to mention race...in 2 of your posts you've specified "black man". What does skin colour have to do with it?
        qohen 13y ago
        He's alluding to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy#Race https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy#Race Historically, in countries such as the U.S. and South Africa, "boy" was not only a 'neutral' term for domestics but also used as a disparaging racist insult towards men of colour (especially of African descent), recalling their subservient status even after the 20th century legal emancipation (from slavery, evolved to race segregation, viz. Apartheid) and alleged infantility, and many still consider it offensive in that context to this day since it denotes that men of colour (especially of African descent) are less than men.
        MarkTee 13y ago
        Thanks, that makes a bit more sense. I'm still not sure why he mentions race when the topic at hand is age, gender, and language, though.
        unreal37 13y ago
        He's saying calling a woman a girl is equally offensive. (Although it's a complete distraction to the discussion.)
        deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
        lutusp 13y ago
        That's easy to answer -- they're all ways to unfairly single out people based on traits that shouldn't be used to distinguish people, ways that are now illegal in some cases -- age, race, gender.
- watwut 13y ago
  There is plenty of woman on woman/girl on girl sexism. Women are socialized into the same world as men and tend to underestimate other women the same way as men do. If you have been raised to think you can not do x cause you are women, you will assume that other woman are unable too.
- agf 13y ago
  It sounds like the male founder initiated the interaction, so the implication would be the cause of the problems was his sexism. I was not actually saying the wife's behavior was sexism.
- ZoF 13y ago
  What? The sexist part of this isn't the Founder's Wife's behavior(that sounds standard crazy), it's everyone at Github's behavior. /* Let me preface this by saying we have only seen half the story at this point, so I wouldn't make absolute judgements yet and the below is based on the hypothetical situation in which the linked article is 100% factual. */ If my founder was female and her husband was coming into work regularly to harass employees(or even at work at all...?)he would be dealt with _fast_. It seems that in this case(if the situation was anything close to as described) the founders wife was sitting next to a programmer for long periods of time and it wasn't dealt with. So yeah, while this does appear to be more of a, "damn that founder and his wife be crazy" situation, we shouldn't forget that societal perceptions of gender are always influencing how these situations are handled. Creating an environment where situations like this are handled differently between genders is definitely to be avoided.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    It's also worth considering that we have no idea if the founder's wife was also doing this to other male employees. She may have been - and gender perceptions being what they are, we're even less likely to hear about it.
    - ZoF 13y ago
      Yep, honestly I just hope GitHub makes a response sooner rather than later. The longer this festers before we get a counterpoint the worse it will be. Also hope it doesn't turn into the mud-slinging it seems to be headed towards.
- tw268 13y ago
  The facts get you the first 200 upvotes. Accusations of "sexism" get the next 500.

nknighthb 13y ago

If we accept the general outline of events thus far recounted, only one of two people has to be crazy, and the others can be merely blind/incompetent/weak. Unfortunately it is impossible at this stage for an outsider to be certain who the crazy party actually is.

DerekH 13y ago

That's how I read it as well. I mean, there's definitely some hints of sexist behavior. Though as I was reading, it felt like I was in the hallways of my high school years ago. Loads of gossip and craziness. It's sad to see this story come out of GitHub though. Why can't we all just get along?

baddox 13y ago

The only thing that sounds remotely related to sex or gender is the hula hoop incident, which sounds irrelevant to the main story other than providing a final straw for the woman to leave.

jd0 13y ago
Did you read the whole article? It starts out explaining her struggles as a woman with the company. It also addresses her creepy suitor.
- baddox 13y ago
  I did read the whole article. You're right, I forgot about the guy who apparently professed love for her then removed her code from production. Although that one isn't particularly related to sex or gender either, other than the fact that the creep was an apparently heterosexual male. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with a pattern of sex or gender related discrimination, and any similar interaction would be inappropriate regardless of the parties involved.

zobzu 13y ago

yeah it doesn't sound sexist much, but still batshit crazy. regardless of who's telling the truth at thing point (i doubt github will go with an explanation over this..) hypothesis: i think shes using the fact that shes a woman to push for what she wants (as in "sexist issues, sensationalistic, lets put that in there"). she's likely to either have little/no proof or be lying - whichever, when you can't prove stuff, you tend to do exactly what shes doing (or, if you're sane, you just shut up)

ScottBurson 13y ago

It isn't directly stated, but my take is that what set the founder's wife off in the first place must have been that she got wind, through her husband, that Horvath was unhappy with the "boys' club" culture. This account doesn't detail what happened early on in Horvath's time there, but makes it sound like there were numerous relatively minor incidents and a general pattern of behavior. Maybe Horvath said something to the founder, or to someone else who passed it on to the founder, he discussed with his wife, and she decided to make sure it wouldn't be a problem. I think that's why sexism is a key part of this story.