Hacker News Reader

Comment by tvon | Hacker News Reader

> However reading the release, the gender of the injured party seems to be independent and unrelated to the injustices which relate instead to the apparently inappropriate behaviour of TPW's spouse and her unsanctioned involvement in the company.

Reading GitHub's statements on the investigation, it seems the independent investigator they hired found no evidence that sexism at GitHub. The investigator did find issues with TPW's general professional behavior which is why he resigned.

> Sexism is a highly incendiary issue in this community. How did a case which apparently was not about sexism come to be so closely related to it?

I think you answered your own question there.

> Is the report from Github incorrect or was sexism used to market this to the watching population?

That is what we call a false dichotomy. I do not see how you have narrowed it down to those two choices, and it honestly seems like a veiled accusation.

View on HN

I was just thinking the same thing as I re-read my comment. It is a false dichotomy and it was badly phrased.

The reason I asked it though is that if this is being used as a tool then it takes away from the real problem. I have no doubt that there are a lot of women in technology have experienced and do experience sexism and that is a very bad and sad thing

However, the amplitude and focus of how this story played out (in places as far as the British Sunday papers) and focussed on institutional sexism seems to be very different to the facts portrayed in the report. Such harassment and psychological pressure is of course terrifically difficult to document and I do know that there could be several different backgrounds that fit the report but there is still quite a distance between the two.

So the reason that I asked the question is that if this is the case then it's a massive disservice to those who are feeling the effects of genuine sexism and weakens their voice. I suspect that that was the net effect of what happened in the Sendgrid case and I think that is a very sad thing.

> I was just thinking the same thing as I re-read my comment. It is a false dichotomy and it was badly phrased.

Thank you for that. It's somehow very much appreciated.

As for the sexism accusations; Many, many women feel they're being discriminated at work ( and they're usually right.) Only a tiny, tiny percentage chooses to speak out about it though because of the very high costs associated with it.

My guess is that in this case Julie-Ann just happened to be one of those silent women and when things escalated with Tom it was just a case of 'now that my reputation will be ruined anyhow I might just as well get everything off my chest.'

If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal about the sexism stuff; it's just 'one amongst many' of the abuses she listed.

Also keep in mind that, assuming she's acting in good faith, it's very likely that the reverted commit was indeed very small and dubious but was accompanied, verbally or non-verbally, by something that very clearly and unambiguously communicated the real reason; but of course without leaving a paper trail.

> If you read her original post she also doesn't make that much of a big deal about the sexism stuff

I thought it was the hula hooping that was the final straw for her and the actual reason she resigned?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com