5 ms·

"But I can totally see how she could have been driven to do it, and I can even see how she would feel now — after all she's gone through — that she should not h

"But I can totally see how she could have been driven to do it, and I can even see how she would feel now — after all she's gone through — that she should not have to apologise for it." You can understand, yes, but that hatred-- and allow me to say that again-- hatred is not something that we can excuse on the basis of race alone. Adria really hates Hank; hated him so much that when she called down the twitter brigades, she happily tweeted something along the lines of "I feel like Joan Of Arc." Hank found a new job because, fundamentally, he was innocent. Because he did not intend for anyone to get hurt, and did not join in the bandwagon that later attacked Adria. He even apologized to Adria, who still blames him for everything and showed absolutely no remorse. Some believe that systems of oppression don't exist and pin everything on the individual, e.g., racists. And then there are people who believe those systems are all that exist and that any action undertaken by a member of that system is the fault of the system, e.g. other kinds of racists. Regardless of where you stand on the spectrum, there are certain actions that are inexcusable. The intent and desire to destroy an innocent's life is one of them.

interpol_p 12y ago
See I don't get hatred at Hank, I mean, I did initially read it like that. But when I took a step back I started to see it as hatred of being excluded in a field you love. Hatred at the obliviousness of Hank — his inability to realise how vulnerable she felt simply attending a conference because she was in the minority. I think her view of Hank is to disregard him — kind of "Oh he'll be okay, the system's on his side." She doesn't really acknowledge him because it's not about him. We've made it about him because it's so easy for us to empathise with Hank but not with her, which is exactly part of the bias she's upset about.
- JimmyM 12y ago
  > Oh he'll be okay, the system's on his side. I think Ronson strongly suggests that this is in fact the case. Ronson's a great journalist for acknowledging the complexity of a situation without attempting to offer answers he's unqualified to give, imho. > “So you’re in your new workplace…” (Hank was offered another job right away) “…and you’re talking to a female developer. In what way do you act differently towards her?” > “Well,” Hank said. “We don’t have any female developers at the place I’m working at now. So.” > “You’ve got a new job now, right?” I said to Adria. > “No,” she said. Incidentally thank you for all your comments on this article. They're really thoughtful and have helped me understand what is clearly a very big issue much better.
  - IneffablePigeon 12y ago
    Agreed, this article is fantastic and so are interpol_p's comments.
  - JibberMeTimbers 12y ago
    You're right but it's still vague. It wasn't made clear on how or if they went about getting new jobs. How many resumes sent out? How many interviews? We don't know what their experience level is...etc...etc. Those questions miss the point of what you are getting at (gender/minority bias) but there is still a technical angle in getting a job.
- ernave 12y ago
  > being excluded in a field She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed. If the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis!" then the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. That's all it does by itself. All that about being offended and excluded and threatened, that is all baggage that she brought with her into that situation. She imagines that the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis ...and reminds me that we must continue to oppress all women muhahaha!" That's her imagination. She made that part up. Hank didn't say or imply or even think anything remotely like that. And it doesn't matter if other people share her delusion - any more than it would matter if this was a religious issue and she was claiming someone had committed blasphemy. It doesn't matter that other people share the delusion that god is real.
  - interpol_p 12y ago
    > She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed. Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter. > the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. No one is arguing that the joke is not innocuous, or that the joke is somehow sinister. I've been in Hank's shoes, I've made stupid jokes about sex. I'm not arguing that Hank deserved any retribution for making that joke. He seems like a really nice guy. It was horrible what happened to him. I'm arguing that there is a problem because someone doesn't feel safe when an innocuous joke is made. And a lack of diversity is the root of this problem. Unfortunately when this topic comes up here we all question Adria's motives, we accuse her and call her delusional. We deny her feelings, and in doing so we exclude her and other women. We make the situation worse. We should be trying to understand how she came to do something so rash and question the culture and environment that brought this horrible situation about. We should give Adria the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is not a monster, then we will see where the real problem lies.
    - mreiland 12y ago
      > Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter. It was unreasonable for her to feel that way and even the author of the article acknowledged that. She can feel however she wants, but she is responsible for herself, no one else is. It is not Hanks' responsibility to make sure she isn't offended by a simple joke. It may have been inappropriate, but that's not the same thing. There was no fairness in what she did.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > his inability to realise how vulnerable she felt simply attending a conference because she was in the minority Aren't we granting too much power to minorities? Let me tell you a story that happened to me. I once went to a Java developers meetup. I'm a Lisper, probably the only one that was attending, so I was a clear minority (that was 3 years ago, back before everyone jumped onto functional programming bandwagon and started replacing 'A's in their company logos with lambdas, etc.). I actually only went there because my friend was giving a talk about Git. That, and they had free pizza. But I digress. Anyway, there was this guy showing an interesting library for Java, name of which I can't remember now, that was aimed at seriously reducing the amount of cruft and boilerplate one has to write, replacing common patterns with annotations. I thought it was a great idea, and wanted to congratulate him, but suddenly, the entire audience started criticizing. That it's wrong, it's not "the Java way", etc. I voiced my opinion, that it clearly improves readability, for which I heard that I "don't get the Java way of doing things". I think I might also heard someone telling me, "you're a Lisper, this is different, you won't understand". Now should I be offended at that reaction? Well, I felt bad, but should I cry foul, and vent out on the obvious discrimination of concise languages? Should I Tweet about how misolambdic the people on that conference were? How they hate metaprogramming? Should I get someone fired from their job because they told me I'm a Lisper, and thus don't understand Java? I'm a minority after all. I can't even get a job in the field I love, and have to code PHP to earn my bread. I don't think anyone would find affirmative answers to above questions reasonable. And yet in some cases, it's apparently fine to overhear a random joke and turn it into a mess that gets two people fired from their jobs, just because you're a part of a minority. Do we want a society that's afraid of minorities? Because in a way, it validates discrimination - when people see that the smaller group has a disproportional ability to cause damage, it makes people hate them, not welcome them. Moreover, I believe that not being easily offended is the sign of being a mature person. You shouldn't let some passing airwaves upset you to the point of losing control.
  - chongli 12y ago
    Aren't we granting too much power to minorities? Why should we be the ones who have the ability to grant power?
pcthrowaway 12y ago
Adria's immediate comment on the situation [1], conveniently not mentioned in the article being currently discussed, expressed anything but hatred for Hank. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  Yeah, it's odd her opinion in the interview didn't seem to match that public HN comment, which I remembered too (thanks for finding it). I'd guess the article author didn't notice/find the HN comment, or he would have asked her about it, I'm curious what she would say (she never meant it, she was just trying to save her own job? She changed her mind? She has complicated feelings?)
  - pcthrowaway 12y ago
    To be honest, I'm a little bit skeptical of the honesty of the interviewer. Even if she said the things in this article, it's possible many of those statements were taken out of context. Someone here linked to this blog post [1] from someone apparently close to Richards, where the writer is classified as being manipulative and duplicitous in order to obtain 'the first interview' with Adria Richards. [1] http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false-equivalencies.html http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false-equi...
    - jrochkind1 12y ago
      Hm, you/they think the interviewer intentionally made Richards look as bad as they could, or something? I don't really know. The article you link to is worth reading -- it's critiquing a different article by Ronson in the NYTimes Magazine, not the OP by the the same author in Esquire. Obviously he used the same research for both though, and the critique might apply to both. The NYTimes one indeed reduced Richards to 'an anecdote', it was not focused just on this case, like the Esquire one was, and the Esquire one is a lot more clear about the consequences Richards faced. I think he did a somewhat better job of depicting the fucked up stuff that happened to Richards in the more recent Esquire one, but perhaps it's still not fair. Obviously Richards has actually suffered way worse 'retribution' than 'Hank', and it is indeed illustrative. But I'm struck by Richards comment in the article you link to: "This has been my M.O. for several years, and it's how most people who run blogs operate: You experience something that generates strong feelings; you wrote a blog post. Pretty straightforward." Yet she blames 'Hank' for tweeting about his own strong feelings about getting fired. I have no idea if he was wrong to tell the joke or not; I am absolutely sure she was right to complain to conference if she felt threatened by it. I think the conf hosts did the right thing -- they didn't kick him out, they just told him, hey, cool it. It's fucked up that he got fired; and it's even more fucked up that Richards got fired, and harassed and threatened by a mob, and had her career ruined way more than 'Hank'. What happened to Richards is definitely instructive, and that women in tech _know_ that there's an internet mob of misogynists waiting to try and ruin their lives... provides some context explaining where she's coming from, for sure. I'll admit I don't think she was or is responding compassionately or entirely rationally... but I understand why.

interpol_p 12y ago

See I don't get hatred at Hank, I mean, I did initially read it like that. But when I took a step back I started to see it as hatred of being excluded in a field you love. Hatred at the obliviousness of Hank — his inability to realise how vulnerable she felt simply attending a conference because she was in the minority. I think her view of Hank is to disregard him — kind of "Oh he'll be okay, the system's on his side." She doesn't really acknowledge him because it's not about him. We've made it about him because it's so easy for us to empathise with Hank but not with her, which is exactly part of the bias she's upset about.

JimmyM 12y ago
> Oh he'll be okay, the system's on his side. I think Ronson strongly suggests that this is in fact the case. Ronson's a great journalist for acknowledging the complexity of a situation without attempting to offer answers he's unqualified to give, imho. > “So you’re in your new workplace…” (Hank was offered another job right away) “…and you’re talking to a female developer. In what way do you act differently towards her?” > “Well,” Hank said. “We don’t have any female developers at the place I’m working at now. So.” > “You’ve got a new job now, right?” I said to Adria. > “No,” she said. Incidentally thank you for all your comments on this article. They're really thoughtful and have helped me understand what is clearly a very big issue much better.
- IneffablePigeon 12y ago
  Agreed, this article is fantastic and so are interpol_p's comments.
- JibberMeTimbers 12y ago
  You're right but it's still vague. It wasn't made clear on how or if they went about getting new jobs. How many resumes sent out? How many interviews? We don't know what their experience level is...etc...etc. Those questions miss the point of what you are getting at (gender/minority bias) but there is still a technical angle in getting a job.
ernave 12y ago
> being excluded in a field She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed. If the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis!" then the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. That's all it does by itself. All that about being offended and excluded and threatened, that is all baggage that she brought with her into that situation. She imagines that the joke was, "lol that dongle reminds me of penis ...and reminds me that we must continue to oppress all women muhahaha!" That's her imagination. She made that part up. Hank didn't say or imply or even think anything remotely like that. And it doesn't matter if other people share her delusion - any more than it would matter if this was a religious issue and she was claiming someone had committed blasphemy. It doesn't matter that other people share the delusion that god is real.
- interpol_p 12y ago
  > She wasn't being excluded. She wasn't being made fun of. She wasn't being oppressed. Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter. > the only significance of that joke is that it acknowledges the existence of human sexual organs. That's it. No one is arguing that the joke is not innocuous, or that the joke is somehow sinister. I've been in Hank's shoes, I've made stupid jokes about sex. I'm not arguing that Hank deserved any retribution for making that joke. He seems like a really nice guy. It was horrible what happened to him. I'm arguing that there is a problem because someone doesn't feel safe when an innocuous joke is made. And a lack of diversity is the root of this problem. Unfortunately when this topic comes up here we all question Adria's motives, we accuse her and call her delusional. We deny her feelings, and in doing so we exclude her and other women. We make the situation worse. We should be trying to understand how she came to do something so rash and question the culture and environment that brought this horrible situation about. We should give Adria the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is not a monster, then we will see where the real problem lies.
  - mreiland 12y ago
    > Unfortunately that isn't how she felt. Her feelings should matter to us just as Hank's feelings matter. It was unreasonable for her to feel that way and even the author of the article acknowledged that. She can feel however she wants, but she is responsible for herself, no one else is. It is not Hanks' responsibility to make sure she isn't offended by a simple joke. It may have been inappropriate, but that's not the same thing. There was no fairness in what she did.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
> his inability to realise how vulnerable she felt simply attending a conference because she was in the minority Aren't we granting too much power to minorities? Let me tell you a story that happened to me. I once went to a Java developers meetup. I'm a Lisper, probably the only one that was attending, so I was a clear minority (that was 3 years ago, back before everyone jumped onto functional programming bandwagon and started replacing 'A's in their company logos with lambdas, etc.). I actually only went there because my friend was giving a talk about Git. That, and they had free pizza. But I digress. Anyway, there was this guy showing an interesting library for Java, name of which I can't remember now, that was aimed at seriously reducing the amount of cruft and boilerplate one has to write, replacing common patterns with annotations. I thought it was a great idea, and wanted to congratulate him, but suddenly, the entire audience started criticizing. That it's wrong, it's not "the Java way", etc. I voiced my opinion, that it clearly improves readability, for which I heard that I "don't get the Java way of doing things". I think I might also heard someone telling me, "you're a Lisper, this is different, you won't understand". Now should I be offended at that reaction? Well, I felt bad, but should I cry foul, and vent out on the obvious discrimination of concise languages? Should I Tweet about how misolambdic the people on that conference were? How they hate metaprogramming? Should I get someone fired from their job because they told me I'm a Lisper, and thus don't understand Java? I'm a minority after all. I can't even get a job in the field I love, and have to code PHP to earn my bread. I don't think anyone would find affirmative answers to above questions reasonable. And yet in some cases, it's apparently fine to overhear a random joke and turn it into a mess that gets two people fired from their jobs, just because you're a part of a minority. Do we want a society that's afraid of minorities? Because in a way, it validates discrimination - when people see that the smaller group has a disproportional ability to cause damage, it makes people hate them, not welcome them. Moreover, I believe that not being easily offended is the sign of being a mature person. You shouldn't let some passing airwaves upset you to the point of losing control.
- chongli 12y ago
  Aren't we granting too much power to minorities? Why should we be the ones who have the ability to grant power?

pcthrowaway 12y ago

Adria's immediate comment on the situation [1], conveniently not mentioned in the article being currently discussed, expressed anything but hatred for Hank. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047

jrochkind1 12y ago
Yeah, it's odd her opinion in the interview didn't seem to match that public HN comment, which I remembered too (thanks for finding it). I'd guess the article author didn't notice/find the HN comment, or he would have asked her about it, I'm curious what she would say (she never meant it, she was just trying to save her own job? She changed her mind? She has complicated feelings?)
- pcthrowaway 12y ago
  To be honest, I'm a little bit skeptical of the honesty of the interviewer. Even if she said the things in this article, it's possible many of those statements were taken out of context. Someone here linked to this blog post [1] from someone apparently close to Richards, where the writer is classified as being manipulative and duplicitous in order to obtain 'the first interview' with Adria Richards. [1] http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false-equivalencies.html http://www.shakesville.com/2015/02/the-falsest-of-false-equi...
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    Hm, you/they think the interviewer intentionally made Richards look as bad as they could, or something? I don't really know. The article you link to is worth reading -- it's critiquing a different article by Ronson in the NYTimes Magazine, not the OP by the the same author in Esquire. Obviously he used the same research for both though, and the critique might apply to both. The NYTimes one indeed reduced Richards to 'an anecdote', it was not focused just on this case, like the Esquire one was, and the Esquire one is a lot more clear about the consequences Richards faced. I think he did a somewhat better job of depicting the fucked up stuff that happened to Richards in the more recent Esquire one, but perhaps it's still not fair. Obviously Richards has actually suffered way worse 'retribution' than 'Hank', and it is indeed illustrative. But I'm struck by Richards comment in the article you link to: "This has been my M.O. for several years, and it's how most people who run blogs operate: You experience something that generates strong feelings; you wrote a blog post. Pretty straightforward." Yet she blames 'Hank' for tweeting about his own strong feelings about getting fired. I have no idea if he was wrong to tell the joke or not; I am absolutely sure she was right to complain to conference if she felt threatened by it. I think the conf hosts did the right thing -- they didn't kick him out, they just told him, hey, cool it. It's fucked up that he got fired; and it's even more fucked up that Richards got fired, and harassed and threatened by a mob, and had her career ruined way more than 'Hank'. What happened to Richards is definitely instructive, and that women in tech _know_ that there's an internet mob of misogynists waiting to try and ruin their lives... provides some context explaining where she's coming from, for sure. I'll admit I don't think she was or is responding compassionately or entirely rationally... but I understand why.