Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits Citing Harrassment

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the hostile-environment dept.

Businesses 710

First time accepted submitter PvtVoid writes in with the story of Julie Ann Horvath alleging a culture of sexism at GitHub. "The exit of engineer Julie Ann Horvath from programming network GitHub has sparked yet another conversation concerning women in technology and startups. Her claims that she faced a sexist internal culture at GitHub came as a surprise to some, given her former defense of the startup and her internal work at the company to promote women in technology."

cancel ×

710 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That's capitalism. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503691)

Trade is by definition objectification, as you're reducing people to what they can do for you. Of course it's in men's interest to keep women subordinate so they can be more easily exploited (and it would be in women's interest to do the same to men, which is why you have "feminism" going far beyond simply asking for equality).

Re:That's capitalism. (5, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#46503723)

I'm a guy and after reading her story I would feel the same if I were in her shoes. This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem. A lot of people simply don't know how to behave civilized with other people.

Re:That's capitalism. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503773)

Meh. She just needs a good screw to straighten her out.

Re:That's capitalism. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503993)

Trying to figure out if you are a bigot, or alluding to the last Riddick movie. Hard to tell.

Re:That's capitalism. (-1, Troll)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 4 months ago | (#46504125)

Does the word "bossy" upset you? Do you need to share your struggles, to empower others to better complain? Worry not, as many people are here, including myself, to read your comments and lovingly mock. Now, please, continue...

Re:That's capitalism. (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#46503857)

Unfortunately we don't have enough information to know if it is a gender discrimination issue or not. If she had to deal with this because she is female, if people treated her differently and if there are persistent problems for women then it is sexism. If not it's just a crappy place to work full stop.

Re:That's capitalism. (1, Troll)

Stellian (673475) | about 4 months ago | (#46503887)

I'm a guy and after reading her story I would feel the same if I were in her shoes. This is not a gender problem, this is a people problem.

You would fave picked a fight with the husband of your female boss then quit you job in a hissy fit citing "a sexist culture" ? A people's problem indeed.

I wonder, can we legally go full throttle on this "borz culture" for a tech firm ? It has been proven, time and time again, that despite major effort by the companies to accommodate females they still make up no more than 10% of some firms (most gaming companies for example), and they are still rejected/discriminated/unable to fit in/whatever.

It stands to reason that a firm who openly promotes a male culture, without actively discriminating against females, would be far more productive and retain the best male talent. Unisex lavatory. Alcoholic beverages allowed and provided. Unlimited fastfood allowances. An in-house Bunny Ranch (legal for a Nevada campus). No bullshit anti-discrimination training and assorted brainwashing. Crash couches where you can chill or sleepover if you don't feel like going home. Generous basements for those of us who can't stand direct sunlight anymore. We hire females but they never stay more than a few days, with the exception of the Bunny Ranch of course. Man, I'm excited only typing this, where do I send my CV ?

Re:That's capitalism. (3, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#46503937)

That's the whole point. There is no "male culture." There's a number of "cultures" and men are not an homogeneous group that can be classified under just one of them. We're all mixed between different "cultures," spanning both genders.

Re:That's capitalism. (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#46503905)

To be honest, when I read things like

"I had a really hard time getting used to the culture, the aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion"

, I wonder how many men, if going away with perceptions like these, would be ready to ascribe it to some "them vs. me" issue. I mean, one can't conclude on basis of statements like these that some sort of improper discrimination wasn't going on, but neither can one conclude that it was.

Re:That's capitalism. (5, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 4 months ago | (#46503929)

After reading the referenced article, and the github response, I am still finding myself pretty meh.

The actual sexism in it seems overblown at best. They had a party, girls were hulu-hooping, guys stared. She seems to somehow have been shocked and perturbed by this, which makes me wonder about her. Is she shocked and perturbed by the affects of gravity or the inverse square law as well? Yet this completely unremarkable scene is cited as the 'last straw' before she left.

For the most part the real problem appears to have been a founders wife. FTFA: "In her email to TechCrunch, Horvath says she felt "confused and insulted to think that a woman who was not employed by my company was pulling the strings." She also said she felt bullied by someone with perceived power and influence over her personal relationship and her career at GitHub."

Now I dont know about where Julia is from, but here on Earth a  founders spouse having what might be technically inappropriate involvement in the company business is not exactly unheard of. It's also typical for that spouse to have what we gamers would describe as a great intrigue score - a manipulative deceitful personality that will bluff or lie about her current position in order to improve her position 10 moves later in her game, and who will use you up and throw you away without a hint of remorse if she sees a gain in it. This sort of woman is always scheming, and employees that just want to keep punching their clock and spending their paycheck have to be vigilant to avoid getting involved in her schemes, usually to their detriment.

Now I dont blame our heroine for being uncomfortable in that spot, Everyone is. I am just saying it's odd that she would actually be surprised by something so common, and odder still that she would attribute it to sexism.

Github indicates the spouse in question has been dealt with, so frankly it sounds like they may have won on both ends of the deal. Seems an easy bet that at least some of the employees are breathing much more easily in the office today with both of these ladies gone from it.

Re:That's capitalism. (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 4 months ago | (#46504133)

Whilst the journalistically juicy part of the story is the relationship between the crazy founders wife and Horvath, there could be more points about sexism that didn't make it in to the story, after all - she was hired in part to deal with this issue.

Re:That's capitalism. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504169)

true it's just that men a rarely in womens shoes... at work...

Re:That's capitalism. (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503791)

Stop abusing the phrase "by definition". You can only use "by definition" if the definition includes some mention of the thing you're claiming belongs to the class "by definition".

The definition of "trade" doesn't including anything about objectifying anything so you can't say "by definition".

Re:That's capitalism. (4, Insightful)

Bazman (4849) | about 4 months ago | (#46504141)

Which is why in civilised countries we have unions and employment law. If I have a grievance like she did with my employer, I go to my union, I don't resign. They understand employment law, contract law, case law, and I have a right to a union rep at meetings with management. Why resign? Does she have a legal case for suing the company? Because I know that's how you leftpondians prefer to do it.

Re:That's capitalism. (2)

genik76 (1193359) | about 4 months ago | (#46504145)

Of course it's in men's interest to keep women subordinate so they can be more easily exploited (and it would be in women's interest to do the same to men (...)).

I fail to see why - what has this to do with gender? Does your statement still make sense if we replace "men" or "women" with "people"? Do you believe that men are women are natural enemies?

Time to fork Git? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503709)

This is really bad, especially given the high adoption of Git. I really like Git, but being so closely connected to GitHub will probably make a lot of projects move to competing version control systems if this type of behaviour continues. Anyone know how much of Git's source code that is open, can it easily be forked to rely less on GitHub?

Re:Time to fork Git? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503741)

Git doesn't rely on github, at all. It is also completely open source (GPL) so if you wanted to fork it for some reason, you could.
What would make a lot more sense would be creating a community run alternative to github itself. Something without a business behind it.

Re:Time to fork Git? (3, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#46503785)

Aaaand the Millennium Technology Prize goes to Anonymous Coward.

Re:Time to fork Git? (2, Insightful)

EthanV2 (1211444) | about 4 months ago | (#46504077)

GitHub relies on Git, not the other way around. There is nothing stopping you (apart from technical expertise) from starting your own GitHub clone.

Re:Time to fork Git? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504113)

This is really bad, especially given the high adoption of Git. I really like Git, but being so closely connected to GitHub will probably make a lot of projects move to competing version control systems if this type of behaviour continues. Anyone know how much of Git's source code that is open, can it easily be forked to rely less on GitHub?

No worries, Mercurial here to save the day! ;)

And anyway, Bitbucket is nicer... and works with both Git and Mercurial.

One side of the story (3, Interesting)

abies (607076) | about 4 months ago | (#46503727)

So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side? Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work? "You are saying that this code is bad not because of the code, but just because I'm a woman". It would be nice if somebody could anonymously 'leak' some of her pull requests plus entire conversation around it - and then we could see how much harrasment was from reviewer and how much unfair pushing from her side.

Problem is that GitHub is at lost position. However bad she was, they will be always painted bad boys for throwing dirt on her, so they will probably keep silent...

Re:One side of the story (5, Interesting)

schappim (656944) | about 4 months ago | (#46503769)

They haven't kept entirely silent. They put a post on the issue up here: https://github.com/blog/1800-u... [github.com]

Re:One side of the story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503821)

Ohh... 'wife'... sounds like some serious drama~

Re:One side of the story (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 4 months ago | (#46503781)

Not true. If they are upfront and transparent and in the right they can easily win back the day. The question is are they in the right. Did a single creepy and jilted co-worker (who aggressively professed his love) remove her code? Is there a data trail to prove this one way or the other? Does the founder's wife act like an employee? If so, I bet other employees have similar stories. When someone acts that unhinged at a company it generates a lot of eye witnesses.

If I was a C-level guy at github, I'd come right out with as much info as I could to counter the claims, or to address them seriously and productively, as soon as possible.

Re:One side of the story (2)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 4 months ago | (#46504035)

Did a single creepy and jilted co-worker (who aggressively professed his love) remove her code? Is there a data trail to prove this one way or the other?

Did you ever try to rewrite the git history so that really no trace of a commit can be found? Sounds interesting. I would like to know how this can be done.

Re:One side of the story (1)

thejynxed (831517) | about 4 months ago | (#46504191)

I would imagine that such info is kept in some sort of database using variables. Such metadata is more than likely easy to manipulate or make "disappear" if one has enough knowledge of how the entire system works. I would also make a guess that there are also some master keys and master locks in the entire thing where they can change the access level of such metadata, where by all intents and purposes it vanishes and never exists unless you've been assigned the permissions to access it.

I don't use git or github, so have no inside knowledge of how it works specifically, but I've seen similar systems in use on the backend at enough corporations to know how some of these systems work (and have seen entire data trunks seemingly vanish out of the streams when someone up the chain made it so).

Re:One side of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503807)

So we know one side of the story. But what about the other side?

I just RTFA. If so much as 1/4 of the allegations are true, Github have a lot to answer for.

Re:One side of the story (5, Informative)

Alarash (746254) | about 4 months ago | (#46503837)

GitHub's CEO has posted something [github.com] on this:

This weekend, GitHub employee Julie Horvath spoke publicly about negative experiences she had at GitHub that contributed to her resignation. I am deeply saddened by these developments and want to comment on what GitHub is doing to address them.

We know we have to take action and have begun a full investigation. While that’s ongoing, and effective immediately, the relevant founder has been put on leave, as has the referenced GitHub engineer. The founder’s wife discussed in the media reports has never had hiring or firing power at GitHub and will no longer be permitted in the office.

GitHub has grown incredibly fast over the past two years, bringing a new set of challenges. Nearly a year ago we began a search for an experienced HR Lead and that person came on board in January 2014. We still have work to do. We know that. However, making sure GitHub employees are getting the right feedback and have a safe way to voice their concerns is a primary focus of the company.

As painful as this experience has been, I am super thankful to Julie for her contributions to GitHub. Her hard work building Passion Projects has made a huge positive impact on both GitHub and the tech community at large, and she's done a lot to help us become a more diverse company. I would like to personally apologize to Julie. It’s certain that there were things we could have done differently. We wish Julie well in her future endeavors.

Chris Wanstrath
CEO & Co-Founder

Re:One side of the story (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46503901)

Looks like something went seriously wrong there. Does not necessary mean there was a cultural problem though, might just have been a few big egos with small social skills that nobody reigned in. These exist everywhere, not just in the tech field.

That said, I think what Julie Ann Horvath did was highly unprofessional. You do not badmouth your former employer, no matter what they did. You may sue them or come to an agreement that makes suing them unnecessary. I would not hire her now for the sole reason that she seems to believe discretion and loyalty to a company becomes optional after you leave. Not so.

Re:One side of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504097)

>I would not hire her now for the sole reason that she seems to believe discretion and loyalty
>to a company becomes optional after you leave. Not so.

WTF? Professional discretion, yeah, but loyalty after departure? Follow one's agreements, but in today's "at will" environment the only ass you have to cover is yours.

Re:One side of the story (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46504149)

No problem. After you said that, I would not hire you either.

Re:One side of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504171)

Looks like something went seriously wrong there. Does not necessary mean there was a cultural problem though, might just have been a few big egos with small social skills that nobody reigned in. These exist everywhere, not just in the tech field.

That said, I think what Julie Ann Horvath did was highly unprofessional. You do not badmouth your former employer, no matter what they did. You may sue them or come to an agreement that makes suing them unnecessary. I would not hire her now for the sole reason that she seems to believe discretion and loyalty to a company becomes optional after you leave. Not so.

Let's assume her story is true. If you as a woman in tech want to raise awareness that this is a real problem. Or is a whistle-blower on any issue really. How would you go about that if discretion to former employer is the most important thing?

Re:One side of the story (2, Insightful)

Truth_Quark (219407) | about 4 months ago | (#46503963)

Maybe she was really bad worker and used 'discrimination' card each time to defend her work?

The articles seem to refer to her as Influential developer [readwrite.com] .

I don't think that "really bad worker" is likely.

And her story isn't incredible. There is a lot of sexism in the industry.

Problem is that GitHub is at lost position. However bad she was, they will be always painted bad boys for throwing dirt on her, so they will probably keep silent...

Their response (linked by others) is probably the best they could do. But also it looks like they are taking her allegations seriously themselves.

Re:One side of the story (4, Insightful)

abies (607076) | about 4 months ago | (#46504103)

Their response (linked by others) is probably the best they could do. But also it looks like they are taking her allegations seriously themselves.

This is my point. Even if she is wrong, they would have to pretend she is right. There is no way of them saying "She overreacted and tried to play 'harrassed woman' card when in reality she was just bad'.

And regarding 'influential developer'... "influential developer known for helping make GitHub a more attractive place for women programmers to work". Sounds like she was known for being women activist and influencing the view of the company in female circles, rather than influencing the code base/architecture/whatever. She _might_ be a very good developer - I just don't see it claimed anywhere yet.

Issue is that it is not any longer possible to say "this particular woman is horrible and crap programmer" without being understood as "all women are horrible programmers and I'm chauvinist pig". And while I agree that industry is quite sexist and in many cases attacks are underserved, I refuse to give special handling to a worker doing bad job just because he/she comes from some opressed minority.

To be honest, I would find it a lot more sexist to give the hell to the guy producing bad code routinely, while being all time calm, smiling and forgiving to woman doing same thing. I'm probably 'chauvinist' enough to put a line at physical violence (like effectively defending myself against physical assault of man versus assult of women), but I'm not going to hold back on opinions just because of gender (or color of skin, disability or sexual orientation).

Again - not saying she is bad. I'm just stressing that in current PR climate, we will probably never learn, because it will be always better for company to sacrifice a good male programmer than try to fight to expose bad female programmer publicly.

eye of the tiger, rocky, eye of the tiger. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503729)

http://i.imgur.com/gpX8nar.jpg [imgur.com]

no relation to this story but i had to post

Niggers and Jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503731)

Niggers and Jews
Isn't it strange
they're at opposite ends of the IQ range

Niggers and Jews
Isn't it odd
That one loves gang warfare, and the other loves God

But given this
it's no surpriese
That niggers will sink, and Jews will rise

So in fair society
where none can cheat
You'll find Jews in the boardroom, niggers on the street

Maybe, but (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503739)

Men can be very rough to their coworkers and subordinates.

Women often think that the rough behavior they're enduring is specific to their sex. It's not. If gender is involved at all it's simply as a pretext. It could just as well have been height, hair length, or anything else that makes one a little different from the crowd.

The ruthless men (and a few women) of the business world only care about gender or race or any other difference only to extent that it helps them climb the ladder to the top.

This attitude seems foreign to most women.

If you really want to know how bad it can get, watch Glenngarry Glen Ross.

"Boo-hoo! People give me attention! Wah-wah!" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503745)

Females are fucking stupid. Us males would *kill* to get the kind of attention from the opposite sex that any female does. A girl on the Internet is still a superstar, especially if she is good looking. I'm sick of females always getting all the attention and praise and yet are the ones constantly complaining about everything. They are never satisfied.

Re:"Boo-hoo! People give me attention! Wah-wah!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504059)

Females.... They are never satisfied.

Your dick's to short

Not sexism, but bitchiness (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503751)

Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife.
So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503883)

Her problem wasn't sexism, it was with the founder's wife (so she says). 75% of the article talks about her problems with the founder's wife. So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

well, even if you think it is ok for a wife that doesn't work there to have such access as described here, there is also the minor detail of a male co-worker pulling her code contributions without notice or stated reasons after she turned down his attempts to date her.. and HR/management ignoring these issues.

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (3, Insightful)

3247 (161794) | about 4 months ago | (#46503955)

So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another.

That's a sexist remark, you know?

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (2)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 4 months ago | (#46504067)

That's a sexist remark, you know?

Much less than her claim.

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (5, Insightful)

Draugo (1674528) | about 4 months ago | (#46504073)

How? If the matter was about two men and AC had said "It's a tale of one man being asshole to another" you would never have raised the sexism flag.

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504151)

But the matter wasn't about two men, and AC said (and I quote) "So it's just a tale of one woman being bitchy to another. Nothing to see here. Move along." implying that women being bitchy to each other was normal & expected, because they were women ... which is about as sexist as it gets.

Re:Not sexism, but bitchiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504185)

"Implied". Let me rephrase GP's question - if someone said "So it's just a tale of one man being a dick to another. Nothing to see here. Move along", would it imply that men are dicks to you?

PS: I'd make a comment about her barking up the wrong tree, but I'm afraid someone like you'd go all "So, you're implying she's like a dog - way to go, you just called her a bitch!"

Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503753)

It would be funny, if it was not true. BUT, i know about even worst examples of men abusing women at work, in more obvious ways, and in more subtle ways....

Serious and Worth Reading (2)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 4 months ago | (#46503757)

The article details some serious allegations, and is worth reading in it's entirety. I'm eager to read github's side of the story as well. Some of the claims ought to give users pause about trusting their private data with github. That's hugely problematic. Other claims show an unprofessional and hostile environment, and a company whose HR department (if they have one) is screwing up very badly. I hope they are able to resolve all of this, as I am a very big fan of git, and of github. But at the moment the claims sound plausible and distressing.

your rights end at feelings? no! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503761)

Another case of a stupid, selfish piece of trash, that couldn't hack it. Another example of a moron that thinks peoples rights end at their feelings. Hope she rots.

A bit slow Slashdot? (3, Informative)

mystuff (1088543) | about 4 months ago | (#46503763)

There's already an update to this story here: Update on Julie Horvarth's Departure [github.com]

Re:A bit slow Slashdot? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503801)

So they admit she was let to sit in the office...W.T.F? Really? She is not employee. If she was anyone else, i would be happy to tell her, get tha f&&& out of here biatch. But as the story goes, she is the WIFE, and she is the BIATCH. From now on, i will revoke all of my github accounts, and move to some other normal companies.

Re:A bit slow Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504065)

Wait, so you were fine to use GitHub while that happened, and now that she's been banned from entering the premises you decide to "move to some other company" where, for all you know, the exact same thing is going on...?

Logic, meet Anonymous Coward.

Re: A bit slow Slashdot? (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 4 months ago | (#46503805)

Doesn't really tell us anything and certainly doesn't deny any of what Julie has alleged.

Re: A bit slow Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503891)

It tells us how they're responding to the situation, and isn't intended to deny anything.

Re: A bit slow Slashdot? (1)

fendragon (841926) | about 4 months ago | (#46503907)

Doesn't really tell us anything and certainly doesn't deny any of what Julie has alleged.

It doesn't deny it, but it does suggest that the problem is restricted to one or two people and not represent GitHub's office culture generally. It may not be quite as simple as that, of course, if the claims of chatroom spying turn out to be true.

she's a nutcase (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503777)

There was a party at Github headquarters attended by employees and their friends. There was music and probably alcohol. Also, hula hoops.

Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub.

Yes, those MEN had the GALL to WATCH two women hula hooping. Which made her feel unsafe. In other words, she's a lunatic and you can safely ignore anything she says.

Re:she's a nutcase (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503811)

Idiot. Do you need me elaborate? Idiot. Not enough? Idiot.

And because you are an idiot, we could ignore anything you say.

Idiot.

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503839)

This sounds like the ramblings of a lunatic.

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503879)

Think think GP is a parody but then again Poe's law

Re:she's a nutcase (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503909)

Maybe evidence that what she says is true will emerge. At this time, however, we only have her word and her words, quoted above, demonstrate that she is not a reasonable person. Therefore, it is perfectly rational and not at all idiotic to discount her other statements.

She got bent out of shape and felt unsafe because men failed to avert their eyes when women were hula hooping. Why shouldn't I believe the rest of her story is more hyperbolic ranting from an unduly sensitive and neurotic person?

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503947)

Back to Dumblr with thee, fecesbaroness.

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503949)

No I have to agree with the parent on this one. Of all the things she said in the whole story, the only one that could be considered sexist was this one and... well unless the women were being forced to hula hoop for the entertainment of the men or something, this seems normal enough to me. Were they whistling and wolf howling too?

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504043)

You need to check MY privilege... /leer

Re:she's a nutcase (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#46503825)

There was a party at Github headquarters attended by employees and their friends. There was music and probably alcohol. Also, hula hoops.

Two women, one of whom I work with and adore, and a friend of hers were hula hooping to some music. I didn’t have a problem with this. What I did have a problem with is the line of men sitting on one bench facing the hoopers and gawking at them. It looked like something out of a strip club. When I brought this up to male coworkers, they didn’t see a problem with it. But for me it felt unsafe and to be honest, really embarrassing. That was the moment I decided to finally leave GitHub.

Yes, those MEN had the GALL to WATCH two women hula hooping. Which made her feel unsafe. In other words, she's a lunatic and you can safely ignore anything she says.

This is very strange. If you have activities like hula hooping, karaoke, etc. at a party then people do it because they want to be watched. If everyone looked the other way it would be very strange - if that's what they wanted they could have set out a "hula hooping cubicle" where people could do it in private - but its not very party like!

Re:she's a nutcase (2, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 4 months ago | (#46503913)

I can see how a situation where female employees were encouraged to gyrate their bodies while the male employees watched and gawked at them could be off-putting. I'm male and I'd find that uncomfortable to watch.

If it was just a bunch of people of both genders hula hooping that would be fine, but it sounds like there was a very different atmosphere. Where do you draw the line? Most people would probably say that hiring strippers would be unacceptable, but there is a huge grey area of acceptable behaviour at a work function.

Re:she's a nutcase (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504007)

Why use the word "gawking"? According to a dictionary that means "to stare in a stupid way", how do we know that they weren't just casually observing or just simply admiring the beauty of the women?
Additionally it seems that the actual hulahoopers didn't seem to mind but that this problem was created exclusively in the mind of one induviual.

One good rule for if something is a real problem or not is to ponder if it would continue to be a problem if you stopped thinking that it is a problem.

Re:she's a nutcase (3, Insightful)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 4 months ago | (#46504041)

Too right, what next, dancing and showing their ankles? Parties and alcohol clearly need to be banned.

Note: you changed "were hula hooping" to "were encouraged to gyrate their bodies".

Drunk people are often embarrassing, but the uncomfortableness that is embarrassment is something that a reasonable adult puts up with when they see that the other people are having harmless fun.

Re:she's a nutcase (3, Insightful)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about 4 months ago | (#46504101)

Anyway, I decided to break with form and RTFA. It's not about sexism, it's about one of the founders and his wife being bonkers and victimising the woman, she probably has a good case of constructive dismissal.

The hula thing is a red herring and this amounts to victim bashing.

Even worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503931)

If they'd averted their gazes away from the two possibly drunken hula-hooping dancing girls due to vast amounts of DO NOT WANT (or even just vastness), she would have been doubly as insulted.

Re:she's a nutcase (4, Informative)

joe545 (871599) | about 4 months ago | (#46504049)

Julie Horvath complained and had removed a rug at GitHub which she objected to because of the word "meritocracy". As that would imply that the fact there were so few women in IT and in GitHub in general was because women were not as good as men.

She also headed-up a female-only lecture project within GitHub.

Take these facts into consideration when considering her claims of hula-hoop-sexism.

Source: http://readwrite.com/2014/01/2... [readwrite.com]

Re:she's a nutcase (1, Troll)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 4 months ago | (#46504127)

Interesting. In other words a typical feministic parasite. Meritocracy really must be evil. Makes it obvious that women are underachiever.

Re:she's a nutcase (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504055)

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein, "if some men like to stare at women hula-hooping, then at least some women must enjoy hula-hooping while being stated at by men, otherwise there is something fundamentally wrong with the human species".

Being offended by proxy is a totally self-inflicted punishment. If that was the thing that made her leave (and not the behaviour of the co-founder's wife), then indeed she is a nutcase. If that wasn't the trigger, but it's what she's using as an excuse, then she's a manipulative hypocrite, trying to blame "sexism" simply because she hopes it'll get superficial readers on her side, and generate more bad press for GitHub.

Re:she's a nutcase (4, Insightful)

Craefter (71540) | about 4 months ago | (#46503847)

I wish I could mod the parent up. Really, she was offended because men were men and woman were woman. If they didn't like to be the center of attention they should do their hula hooping exercises at home, with the blinds down, doors closed..... in the basement.

That being said, maybe she had some other more valid issues but it seems that this is a case where she blames the world for her own sensitivities.

Re:she's a nutcase (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 4 months ago | (#46503985)

That being said, maybe she had some other more valid issues

Most likely she is already on the way to make them up.

Re:she's a nutcase (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503885)

This ends the case for me. Female employees were dancing in the *public space* in the office, and then you expect the men to turn their face away? Come on. Agreed with the parent post - she's a nutcase and a *liability* in every company she works on. I for one wouldn't be feeling secure working with her knowing her attitude. It is sexism all right - from a woman toward men!

Re:she's a nutcase (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 4 months ago | (#46503927)

Indeed. If you do things in public, others have the right to watch. Get used to it.

If people are staring, tell them off. Form my experience, I have seen significantly more women staring inappropriately than men, usually at behavior they did not like.

Sexism angle way overblown (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503827)

Having read all of that, it seems like maybe 10% sexism and 90% people just being horrible in a completely gender-neutral fashion. Inexcusable either way, but pitching this as a "culture of sexism" seems a bit over-the-top given that most of the negative interactions mentioned in the article are between two women.

Re:Sexism angle way overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503933)

Considering its females that decide whom with they sleep&have kids... you've understood sexism completely wrong :D
 

Re:Sexism angle way overblown (1)

Noah SILVA (3457047) | about 4 months ago | (#46503961)

Maybe the boss's wife was sexist? She was nice to all the hot guys and a bitch to the only girl?

Re:Sexism angle way overblown (1)

Noah SILVA (3457047) | about 4 months ago | (#46503969)

At any rate, in all seriousness, I agree that most of the complaints seemed to be of a general nature. Specifically of what I would call "Small Company Syndrome", where companies are small enough that gossip about people's personal lives permeate 100%, and there is no independence between departments like HR, IT, etc.

If you can't take the heat... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503841)

...stay outta the kitchen!

So hula hooping at work is okay, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503843)

but people watching the spectacle with interest is not?

Re:So hula hooping at work is okay, (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504129)

Watching the men who are watching the hola-hoopers is however just fine. As long as you look at them in scorn and not lust ofcourse.

If you can't take the heat, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503875)

in this case, get into the kitchen, where you belong!

Re:If you can't take the heat, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503899)

I take offense to that statement and politely request that you keep her out of mine!

Sincerely
A Male Chef.

Yet another reason to not hire a woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503877)

Oh wait, she didn't actually fucking work there. Lmao.

Really Bad Title + Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503897)

When I first read the title, I thought it mean she has stopped citing harassment as the reason for her quitting. Instead it means the opposite of that: she quit and is claiming harassment as the reason why. Well, assuming harrassment is supposed to be harassment...

What I don't understand stand in these situations is why don't the people wear a wire and record the harassment, then sue the company and/or person. That's a valid reason for suing. Instead they rage quit without providing specific details so we're left to wonder if their claims are true, embellished, revenge driven, taken out of context, or poor communication between workers. The people doing the harassment keep their jobs, become better off, people mimic them to become their buddies and get ahead, and ultimately hurt the reputation of the industry.

Since I had to wait to post this as AC I've read the article and she does point out some specifics. Good for her. Though one of the main people in this affair is another women.

Psychotic wife (5, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | about 4 months ago | (#46503945)

It seems the lion's share of the problem was a founder's psychotic wife, who basically stalked her - which doesn't seem to have anything to do with gender discrimination, and all to do with one person being a nut-job.

Of the other issues she raised:
* Another engineer made a pass at her, got rejected, and didn't handle the rejection will.
* Some girls were hula-hoop dancing, and guys were watching them

The first issue might have been a problem, but if it was at all proportionate to the page-space dedicated to discussing it, it sounds like a fairly minor issue, and one that should really be able to be solved by HR. The second is just, well, petty. Sounds like she'd made up her mind to hate the place by that stage, and was finding fault with every little thing.

Read the TechCrunch FA and... (2)

MikeRT (947531) | about 4 months ago | (#46503981)

I could be mistaken, but it sounds an awful lot like this is just a bad attempt to blame the big bad men for what the founder's wife did. She sounds like a bitch on wheels with a jetpack strapped to her for good measure. Sure, the one engineer was a problem, but if the wife wasn't involved and out to get her HR would probably have put him in his place if she asked.

Prominent? Not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46503989)

Shoulda just made out with the wife, that's all she wanted. Just a little petting goes a long way for the wife of a flounder.

I Can Believe That (1)

segedunum (883035) | about 4 months ago | (#46504001)

It wouldn't be the first company to have disappeared into its own fantasy world like that, especially one with ridiculous amounts of spare seed funding they don't actually need.

The hula hooping episode could have been dismissed as some high jinx but taken into account with everything else, no.

Sexism? (1)

joe545 (871599) | about 4 months ago | (#46504005)

I don't understand the clamour to define this as sexism when 90% of the alleged harassment was from the founder's wife. Simply watching someone hula-hoop in public at a works party is not harassment and paints "Julie" in a bad light when she compares it to a strip-club and that she felt "unsafe".

Re:Sexism? (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | about 4 months ago | (#46504039)

...and paints "Julie" in a bad light when she compares it to a strip-club and that she felt "unsafe".

It simply paints her as a female sexist.

Re:Sexism? (1)

joe545 (871599) | about 4 months ago | (#46504091)

She is also effectively calling her two female co-workers strippers. I wonder if she asked for their permission before airing that grievance. It'll be an awkward return to work for those two after that comparison.

Re:Sexism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504163)

She is also effectively calling her two female co-workers strippers

No she isn't. You can't just bend sentences around to mean anything. The order of words matters. (Except in Feminist Theory :p)

'twas the wife (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504079)

after reading the story it seemed to be almost nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with the wife not liking the woman. women not liking women, news at 10.

Spite of women (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504135)

This sounds more like that founder's wife had it out for her and was doing what I can only describe as the kind of hatred I have only ever witnessed amongst women. Not that men are not vindictive and petty but this specific kind of abuse and picking an "arch enemy" for petty reasons of "status" and "I am the founder's wife", I have only seen amongst women. The "old boys" would do it differently.

The "sexism" part is just an add-on to give it more news potential and really had nothing to do with the actual thing at hand: incredibly unprofessional work environment.

What I am wondering: how can you land a job at a hot-shot place like GitHub and be so completely gullible and defenseless and clueless how to protect yourself? Founder's wife is abusing you and threatening you daily at your desk? Hold a camera in her face, let's see her do it then. Whole company seems abusive? Lawyer up! Get everything you can in writing and audio proof along with it.

Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504137)

I must have read a different article then some of the other people on this forum. A culture that allows a rejected suitor to vindictively punish a woman would certainly qualify as sexist. A culture that allows a bench full of men to gawk and stare at co-workers would qualify as sexism. That the majority of the issues were caused by one of the founder's wife is irrelevant to whether there is a sexist culture. You could take it out of the article and there would still be enough to suggest that github has trouble treating women with respect and dignity.

What's the big deal (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 4 months ago | (#46504157)

Since I do not recall seeing articles about her citing harassment, I don't understand why it is such a big deal that she isn't doing so any longer.


OK, I read the summary and realize the headline is inaccurate. What they meant to write was, " Prominent GitHub Engineer Julie Ann Horvath Quits, Citing Harassment" rather than the headline they did write. All I have to say is, "Commas, learn to use them."

Too much drama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46504161)

Article read like a day in junior high school. GitHub needs adults.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>