8 ms·

Quite a long thread but holy crap, this behavior and what is described on Kelly's twitter feed (https://twitter.com/justkelly_ok https://twitter.com/justkelly_o

• gos12- 12y ago
  For what it's worth, she describes herself as "bitchy software engineer. doing what i can to smash the patriarchy." in her Twitter bio. I'd take whatever she says with a grain of salt.
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • geofft 12y ago
    I'd describe myself as that too, if I'd quit Google last year after being sexually harassed and watching my company turn against me.
    • sayhar 12y ago
      Thank you for saying this.
    • GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
      I wouldn't describe myself as bitchy but I am a software engineer who thinks the patriarchy needs smashing.
  • obisw4n 12y ago
    Seriously, lol. Just wow.
  • electronous 12y ago
    tips fedora
  • zachwooddoughty 12y ago
    I'm not a fan of saying we should "take whatever she says with a grain of salt". It's casually dismissive of the entire situation. If you want to accuse her of having fabricated the entire story, do that and try to find evidence for it. From the limited evidence provided surrounding this incident, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence supporting her. Declaring oneself "bitchy" and wanting to "smash the patriarchy" does not mean you are inclined to quit your job and falsely call out several members of your former team.
    • gos12- 12y ago
      I definitely don't think she's lying about this, but someone with such a strongly-worded bio is definitely more likely to exaggerate or be over-sensitive to perceived sexual harassment. (Think Adria Richards)
      • detcader 12y ago
        I would hope that everyone would be "sensitive" to sexual harassment, in that they would be ready to identify when it is happening to them and others. How can a perosn "exaggerate" quotes?
        • caminante 12y ago
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_conte...
          • detcader 12y ago
            What do you think I am quoting out of context? Be specific
            • caminante 12y ago
              detcader: How can a perosn "exaggerate" quotes? I gave you examples where people can exaggerate quotes. edit: please drop the attitude...
  • detcader 12y ago
    >I'd take whatever she says with a grain of salt. If you mean this universally, then you are not in favor of law enforcement, at least how it is carried out in the modern world.
    • gos12- 12y ago
      What? I certainly hope we don't convict people based on hearsay evidence
      • Frondo 12y ago
        Do you have any reason to disbelieve the woman? Does she have a history of telling lies? It seems awfully dismissive to call it "hearsay evidence". Also, it doesn't look like the law is involved, so I don't think any conviction is taking place. My take on it: yet another creepy dude in power in a tech company. There's still a little of the "circle the wagons" attitude, but thankfully a lot less than I was expecting.
  • at_ 12y ago
    The fact you can post this after reading that twitter feed only makes me believe it harder
  • texthompson 12y ago
    Why do you think that?
  • irremediable 12y ago
    So you're saying she's a liar?
    • gos12- 12y ago
      No, that's not what I said. Don't misconstrue my words. I'm saying that we shouldn't be so quick to take her words as an unbiased, unexaggerated account of what happened
      • irremediable 12y ago
        Hmm. In retrospect, my phrasing was confrontational. Sorry about that. It still seems as if you're calling her a liar, though, if you're saying her account was exaggerated and biased.
  • skylan_q 12y ago
    "bitchy software engineer. doing what i can to smash the patriarchy." Doesn't HR vet self-proclaimed troublemakers anymore, or is it OK to hire anti-establishment people as long as they're of the right flavor? If I had "asshole software engineer. doing what I can to smash the matriacrchy" in my twitter bio, I would be figuratively destroyed.
    • Dylan16807 12y ago
      Depends on what the hell you mean by "matriarchy". The problem there isn't political views, it's when your wording implies you're so blinded by bigotry you've lost touch with reality. You can favor this or that party but don't tell me you're disappointed in the korean takeover of alabama.
      • ebfe 12y ago
        The word "matriarchy" is an accurate characterization of our society to the same extent that "patriarchy" is. The former conveys how men are overrepresented at the bottom of society while failing to address their overrepresentation at the top, while the latter does the opposite.
    • detcader 12y ago
      You would be "figuratively destroyed"? What does this mean and how do you come to this conclusion? I don't think the quoted bio describes a "troublemaker", could you explain this?
    • geofft 12y ago
      I thought we're all disruptors here. So if a company's trying to disrupt things, its HR should be hiring self-proclaimed troublemakers.
  • robterrell 12y ago
    Have you considered that she might have written that bio after these events forced her to leave Google?
  • rosser 12y ago
    Ad hominem. EDIT: Really? Sometimes, HN makes me sad. "Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy." [1] "Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them." [2] "It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person's reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim." [3] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Abusive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Abusive [2]: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/ http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/ [3]: http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html
    • 6d0debc071 12y ago
      The woman making the claim isn't, as far as I can tell, making an argument on this point. She's making a statement. In statements the credibility of the person making the claim is important. Like if I lied every single time I spoke, and you knew me to do so, and I said that I definitely was going to give you £100, you would be right to be sceptical of me. Nost arguments have two parts: Factual claims that may or may not align with how the world actually is, and a logical structure. If X then Y, X therefore Y. Would be an example of one such structure (modus ponens being the underlying rule.) Another example would be If X then Y, not Y therefore not X (modus tollens.) Something where the structure is an example of a way of reasoning that preserves truth values is called 'valid,' and something where the structure does so and the claims that are made using that structure are true is called 'sound.' Now if I, being an always-liar in the original assumption, used one of those structures, my character would have no bearing on the validity of the underlying logic. The example of logical form would either be a valid way to argue; preserving the truth states of my predicates; or it wouldn't. And one can lie within the constraints of a logical form or not. 'Logic is true of any world, so it doesn't tell you where you happen to be.' Likewise, it is incorrect to say that when someone just lies a lot that their character absolutely means that what they're saying will always be a lie. So you can't directly state that because someone's character is low that when they use a logical form they are, of necessity, expressing something false. In these latter two senses it would be a mistake to equate - on a 1-1 basis - the soundness of someone's argument with the content of their character. However in the latter of those two senses, it is only a fallacy to state that someone's argument is equated on a 1-1 basis. It is not a fallacy to say that someone, for example, lies a lot so the claims in their argument are less likely to be true. So, someone comes along and makes a fairly direct claim and someone challenges their credibility, saying that they'd take it with a pinch of salt because the claim favours what they take to the claimant's previously expressed political interests. That's not a fallacy. If they said that she was obviously lying, then that would be more than is warranted by the evidence, but the form of the statement they're making isn't an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
  • urda 12y ago
    > she describes herself as "bitchy software engineer. doing what i can to smash the patriarchy." I lost respect of her immediately after reading this.
    • detcader 12y ago
      Why? If you don't actually elaborate, why does this matter to anyone else?
      • urda 12y ago
        That's completely unprofessional and demonstrates a poor lack of understanding. This illusion of a "patriarchy" is silly. That shouldn't require that kind of elaboration to the common individual. There's a reason why this article is trending downward on HN, think about it.
        • detcader 12y ago
          "Silly" "unprofessional" and such is all relative. I think identification and resistance to the social condition called patriarchy is legitimate, demonstrates a clear understanding, and would reflect neutrally if not positively on a person's ability to conduct themselves profressionally. Hey look, we are nowhere new than where we were before asserting these things at each other. I've thought about "it", don't worry.
          • urda 12y ago
            > "Silly" "unprofessional" and such is all relative. To some extent, but in a technical field such as this being unable to determine that such a tag line as "bitchy software engineer. doing what i can to smash the patriarchy." being unprofessional demonstrates a deep, deep failure to understand the social implications. > I think identification and resistance to the social condition called patriarchy is legitimate It actually isn't at all, given females have been given more and more options in the workplace. This is 2015, not late 1800's. Thinking as such again demonstrates a failed understanding. > I've thought about "it", don't worry. Yeah I don't think so at all, and given that this article has fallen off the frontpage and [flagkilled] confirms my claim. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't get you to drink. Nevertheless, I can't waste anymore time on your flawed understanding of reality.
  • mark_l_watson 12y ago
    There is nothing wrong with that tagline. She is stating that she is a feminist. I took Google's ethics training and it seems clear that their policy is to have a very large tent where diverse people can feel comfortable working together. If her accusations are true, then it sounds like there is a bad apple in the barrel in upper management.
• nostrademons 12y ago
  Yonatan Zunger's comment on the G+ post is illuminating: "Damned straight, I wouldn't. But at this point numerous legal issues kick in so I can't say anything further in public, including any of the obscenities I'm thinking right now." My read on that is that he doesn't consider it acceptable, but any public show of support or acknowledgment that the incidents in question occurred would be construed as an admission of guilt by Google, which would open them up to a sexual harassment lawsuit. So ironically, the same laws that are designed to protect women in the workforce strip them of support from anyone who is a high-ranking official in the company that employs them. I wouldn't be surprised if the eng director in question got a private reprimand, but doing anything career-affecting (like removing him from a management chain, or firing him) requires significant documentation of a pattern of behavior...which is hard to generate when his accusers (quite understandably) leave the company.
  • detcader 12y ago
    What would be the consequences to Zunger if he did elaborate? Why must he protect Google from a lawsuit?
    • nostrademons 12y ago
      He doesn't have to on a personal level, but on a professional level, he is an agent of the company and must act in the company's best interests. If he doesn't, he's not doing his job and can be fired. The irony is that if you escalated to Larry I bet he'd think that the quotes documented here are appalling - and his hands would still be tied. Because he has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Google Inc, and it is not in their interests to get sued by an employee. Which again goes to show how dumb the idea of "maximizing shareholder value" is, but then, it's the environment we live under.
      • detcader 12y ago
        According to your analysis then, he is currently protecting himself. Even though, from how I see it, if action were taken against him, it would generate a lot of publicity and support for him and he would not necessarily sacrifice his lifestyle and living means (this is arguable, but I think it's an important argument as to what extent it matters)