Do we really need to judge the quality of her code in order to evaluate her point of view? One doesn't have to agree with how she continues to handle things, or

Do we really need to judge the quality of her code in order to evaluate her point of view? One doesn't have to agree with how she continues to handle things, or take offense at the joke oneself, in order to perceive that another might have different thoughts about it. I think that the whole ordeal is/was overblown, but to come away from this article merely thinking that she's racist and sanctimonious (I'll agree a bit with the latter) is missing an opportunity for critical self-evaluation. Getting riled up at her reaction ("bet money", "pain in the ass") does nothing to deepen mutual understanding in the workplace. Seeking out and lambasting those that make it their mission to get back at the "man" is an "eye for and eye" -- I think we've come a bit further than that in 4000 years. Also, for one that says "I can't speak for her" and "I don't know her," you seem quite willing to go all out to discredit her as being the stereotypical irrational woman. [1] She herself isn't necessarily present in the discussion. What is the point in eviscerating her as you've done? Playing armchair psychologist does nothing to make workplace interactions better. This whole situation seems like a great place, at the unfortunate expense of Hank and Adria, for the tech industry to meet in the middle between "making dongle jokes is cool, get over it" and "the white-male hegemony needs to be dismantled." [1] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HystericalWoman http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HystericalWoman