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.
I'd take whatever she says with a grain of salt.
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.
As such, yes, I would give the accused the benefit of the doubt, at the very least until I'd heard the other side of the story.
Edit: Took me a while to find any of the actual, concrete accusations in that monster of a thread, it seems that Vic "said a number of throughout the years" which is pretty much exactly what I expected, and Rod, on at least one occasion, said something that does sound pretty damn horrible out of context. I apologize if I seemed dismissive, but I'd still like to hear the other side, such as it were.
At the end of the day, I'm mostly worried that getting the Internet at large involved in this will lead to another witch hunt in the style Donglegate.
That's inaccurate. "Third wave radical feminism" is not a monolithic belief structure, and it certainly doesn't prescribe "talking to a woman without her explicit permission". I consider myself on board with radical feminism, and I consider that an absurd definition of harassment.
I think there should be a fair investigation into the incident, but I don't think it's helpful to make dismissive remarks about feminism or the potential validity of this claim.
All the evidence that currently exists about this evidence is a quote she posted on twitter and some supporting comments from other coworkers. Attempts to determine her stance on radical feminism have no bearing on deciding whether or not her supervisor made an inappropriate remark.
Maybe I'm wrong about the recorded histories of third-wave feminism and radical feminism; can anyone care to inform me otherwise?
Disclaimer: I'm not very well educated on this at all.
I guess the benefit of the doubt only extends to men.
When your first response to a claim of harassment is "let's consider the bias of the accuser", it casts doubt on the legitimacy of the claim. I'm not saying we should jump to assuming she is telling the truth, and a real investigation should be followed to determine the legitimacy of the claim.
But regardless of the resulting investigation, I'd rather bias the initial reaction to "thank you for sharing this, sexual harassment is a problem in the workforce", instead of using her Twitter profile to cast doubt on her claim.
It is your place to listen and try to understand the world they live in, those traditional recipients of sexual harassment.
I gave you examples where people can exaggerate quotes.
edit: please drop the attitude...
Twitter and Google+ seem like reasonable places to post a complaint you want to take public.
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.
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.
You can favor this or that party but don't tell me you're disappointed in the korean takeover of alabama.
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
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.
I lost respect of her immediately after reading this.
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.
I've thought about "it", don't worry.
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.
Women still hold a tiny, tiny percentage of leadership positions. Maybe they're inferior, maybe they don't want leadership positions, or maybe the system is stacked against them.
Having spoken to multiple women in my day, I'm fairly confident the first two options aren't it. Moreover, numerous scientific studies have found the last one to definitely be the case, random Internet opinions notwithstanding.
I'm saying that we shouldn't be so quick to take her words as an unbiased, unexaggerated account of what happened
It still seems as if you're calling her a liar, though, if you're saying her account was exaggerated and biased.
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.
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.