4 ms·

Your glee in the baseless speculation that a woman was a) naive and b) lying to cover up some perceived indiscretion, is unsettling. It's another example of th

• zizee 12y ago
  Did the parent poster change their post? I ask because nothing in their post indicated to me that they were focussed on this person being a woman, that they were naive or that there was a suggestion of an indiscretion. That is not to say that the parent poster and their employer/company does not sound sociopathic, just that we needn't bring sex warfare into this. I have to say though, if the parent is being truthful (i.e. not trolling), it is a pretty sad state of affairs and pretty disappointing. If you ever find yourself working with/for such actors, start looking elsewhere. There are plenty of great employers/people in the world that you needn't waste your time working with scrooge-like caricatures.
• rootlocus 12y ago
  He said: > "Why pay someone double when you can find another sucker to work for half the pay?" I see no mention of a "woman". Just because the person of interest was a woman, that doesn't make the comment sexist. Where I work (not in America), women get the exact same treatment as men. And when a women / lady gets a bad code review, she doesn't attribute it to being sexism and threaten to sue. She has the common sense to acknowledge her mistakes and improve upon feedback. From my perspective (again, I'm not American), sexism is becoming a poor excuse for getting preferential treatment. And that's absurdly ironic.