# Women gets man fired for harmless joke, internet react.



## josh101 (Mar 21, 2013)

> Adria Richards, a developer evangelist for email delivery company SendGrid overheard a man sitting behind her laughing with his friends about the word "dongle," she planned to brush it off as just another dumb dick joke.
> 
> But then the speaker onstage showed a photo of a young girl who'd taken part in a coding workshop, and "I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so," Richards wrote on her blog.
> 
> ...



Full story: 

It is a bit of a biased article though.

tl:dr
Woman overhears two men joking to each-other about a "big dongle" and "forking a repo" at a tech conference ( forking a repo means stealing someones code apparently ), misunderstands, tweets a picture of them and eventually a father of three gets fired. Calls herself a "joan of arc" for it. Internet reacts, find tweets and other shit of stuff she said that was worst, DDoS the company where she works and shit, she eventually gets fired. Internet rejoices. 

Funny story and to be honest, she really deserved it. I just hope she doesn't turn into some martyr by playing the feminism/sexism card like that chick with the trope videos.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2013)

Welcome to political correctness...Hypersensitivity 101.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 21, 2013)

She sounds like a real bitch. Must be a joy at parties.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 21, 2013)

What a b*tch.
Shitty biased article.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 21, 2013)

Some words of wisdom from her:


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 21, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Some words of wisdom from her:


She's right *followed*


But I do enjoy the weekly hate women threads on NF.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 21, 2013)

it's rape time


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> She's right *followed*
> 
> 
> But I do enjoy the weekly hate women threads on NF.



Wouldn't have 'em if they didn't ask for it, sweetie.


----------



## GrizzlyClaws (Mar 21, 2013)

josh101 said:


> she eventually gets fired. Internet rejoices.



Really? She was fired? Thank god Justice is still possible in 2013.


----------



## Gino (Mar 21, 2013)

I wouldn't have this happen any other way.


----------



## Karsh (Mar 21, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> But I do enjoy the weekly hate women threads on NF.



As you said, I guess it's even worse that she's half-jew and half-black on top of being a woman, AND evangelical, talk about being the prime ball of pure evil to the internet 

Perfect for complaining


----------



## Daxter (Mar 21, 2013)

She was in the wrong, no doubt. It's not because she's a woman though, it's because she's a fucking idiot.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Mar 21, 2013)

What a cunt bitch whore. SHe should get the death penalty, seriously, fucking women need to learn their fucking place.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 21, 2013)

Gets man fired for penis joke... makes penis joke.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Gets man fired for penis joke... makes penis joke.



See this is why social networking has become a massive bane.


----------



## Ae (Mar 21, 2013)

Who cares about internet reactions?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Mar 21, 2013)

Stupid bitch 

Good luck finding a job now. No employer worth his/her salt will want an undercover journalist at their company trying to get them fired.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 21, 2013)

she got fired too, its called karma


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 21, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> she got fired too, its called karma



Where does it say she got fired?


----------



## josh101 (Mar 21, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Where does it say she got fired?


Her company SendGrid released a report that they have fired her on their site, facebook and twitter. 

Well done to them. Shame their companies name had to get run through the mud because of this, do feel sorry for them.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Mar 21, 2013)

Saw this on /b/.

Pretty lulzy to say the least. Good thing she got fired for that bullshit.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Mar 21, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Gets man fired for penis joke... makes penis joke.



Oh lord


----------



## WT (Mar 21, 2013)

Outsource the bitch to india


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 21, 2013)

I thought I was protecting a woman who was actually being sexually harrassed; I see I have to scrutinise people and carefully read stories like this in future. This is not good for men or women. Stories like this undermine the credibility of REAL FEMINISTS who need support dealing with serious problems; This stupid misandric woman is NOT doing any women favours. Next time a joke is made, people will have to scrutinise to really make sure the woman isn't just another Adria Richards. The more I read, the more I feel she deserved to get fired. She's used the power of hundreds of millions of women worldwide to get a completely innocent man fired. If ever feminazi is an appropriate word to use as an adjective, it's now.

She invaded the privacy of two people and actually took a picture of them. I think it might be planned. If a man did that to any random woman then the consequences would be worse than getting fired. They'd be accused of plotting kidnap and rape. But here's a woman, who has used social media to name and shame two completely innocent men. The consequences are worse when the public get involved. If there were any serious supporters on her side, imagine what they could've done. The men would've had death threats, people might want to rape them, their accounts might get hacked into, their families threatened and so on. Such public shaming should be outlawed. It turns out everything has turned against her this time because it appears the world isn't blind as I had thought. But then again, Adria has about 9,000 followers; surely there are hardcore misandrics in there who'll take on her case and really punish the two men... who knows what might happen now.

I absolutely do not support all the death and rape threats the retarded woman has been subjected to though.


----------



## dummy plug (Mar 21, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Where does it say she got fired?





josh101 said:


> Her company SendGrid released a report that they have fired her on their site, facebook and twitter.
> 
> Well done to them. Shame their companies name had to get run through the mud because of this, do feel sorry for them.



that, and read the OP post too


----------



## MegaultraHay (Mar 21, 2013)

Thank you madam for setting back the feminist movement 10 years.


----------



## Magician (Mar 21, 2013)

Hope she never gets a job ever again, stupid whore.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 21, 2013)

Read this:





> I saw a photo on main stage of a little girl who had been in the Young Coders workshop.
> 
> I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so.



I'm full behind gender equality, but this woman is a freak, projecting her own issues on two people joking amongst themselves.

I think it's been mentioned that the guy involved was trying to help two women get a job at his company, so instead of an imaginary girl not having a chance at her dream job, two real people lost their chance.


----------



## lacey (Mar 21, 2013)

Way to make feminists look worse than they already do.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 21, 2013)

I hope someone beats her to a fucking pulp. I hope the men sue her for defamation of character.


----------



## Mael (Mar 21, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> Read this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's misandry mixed with delusion, and at first glance the shit's actually tolerated.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 21, 2013)

She sounds like she must be Seto Kiaba's wife


----------



## Lina Inverse (Mar 21, 2013)

How do you like them dongles now woman?


----------



## Palpatine (Mar 21, 2013)

lol what a half-wit.


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Mar 21, 2013)

Mael said:


> It's misandry mixed with delusion, and at first glance the shit's actually tolerated.



Yea, it really is. At least on tumblr, misandry over there is seriously treated like a joke as far as like 98% of tumblr is concerned. They really need to stop that shit. Sure, men overall have it easier than women, but just treating misandry like it's no big deal and essentially supporting it is very detrimental to the feminist movement.

 What do these feminists think will happen to their movement if they don't see misandry as a problem anyway? That was a semi-rhetorical question, but still it perturbs me how misandry is viewed on tumblr.

And I've seen a post pertaining about this siutation that completely supports this radical woman which has over a thousand of likes and reblogs.


----------



## Darth Nihilus (Mar 21, 2013)

To sum it up nicely


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Mar 21, 2013)

Who the hell doesn't know what a dongle is?


----------



## Bioness (Mar 22, 2013)

We know she overreacted but honestly the comments in this thread are just disappointing at best and flagrant sexism at worst.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 22, 2013)

Nope. After what she did nearly every comment here is extremely appropriate.


----------



## Bioness (Mar 22, 2013)

And it is just a coincidence that many here seem a bit too enthusiastic with their use of derogatory female slurs.

I mean really comments about rape? That's just as pathetic. Insult her by all means, but don't do it in a way that makes people want to side with her for because the opposition is just as ugly.


----------



## Takahashi (Mar 22, 2013)

She got fired too?  Ha!  Fantastic.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> We know she overreacted but honestly the comments in this thread are just disappointing at best and flagrant sexism at worst.


Basically this, she overreacted, the company is at fault because she didn't personally fire them. The comments in this thread make it sound like she queefed in their mouths.


----------



## Roman (Mar 22, 2013)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> She's right *followed*
> 
> 
> But I do enjoy the weekly hate women threads on NF.





Karsh said:


> As you said, I guess it's even worse that she's half-jew and half-black on top of being a woman, AND evangelical, talk about being the prime ball of pure evil to the internet
> 
> Perfect for complaining



Sorry, but for starters, I don't see where the anti-woman attitude is in this thread. Most people even said they're up for gender equality. This same event was raised in the gender gap in IT industry threads and most people if not everyone saw it as good news. This isn't about being anti-woman, it's about one woman misunderstanding a harmless joke and acting on her supposedly feminist beliefs in order to get a guy fired. Woman or not, it wasn't fair of her to do so.



Daxter said:


> She was in the wrong, no doubt. It's not because she's a woman though, it's because she's a fucking idiot.



Precisely this.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Mar 22, 2013)

People like her should get shot. Too bad we have many people loosing it and shooting innocent people. Maybe we should do some orientation on whom to shoot in case you just loose it. This reminds me of the movie God Bless America.


----------



## Golden Circle (Mar 22, 2013)

Funny thing is that nearly everyone in the software industry knows that "repo" stands for "repository" as in "software repository", and that "forking a repo" is a git term. Git is a distributed version management system created by Linus Torvalds. You "fork a repo" when you want to make a local copy of the code, so you can modify it. Then you ask the maintainer of the project to pull the modified files from you so that your code will end up in the main project. It's a very elegant solution for managing distributed code.

So "I would fork that guy's repo" is a compliment to a software project, not derogative. The fact that the woman thought it was derogative says much about her technical skills. She deserved to be fired for incompetency, let alone the fact that she slandered someone who later lost his job because of it.

*tldr* he said he wanted to play with some code, she thinks he's insulting women.


----------



## CrazyAries (Mar 22, 2013)

Bioness said:


> We know she overreacted but honestly the comments in this thread are just disappointing at best and flagrant sexism at worst.





Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Basically this, she overreacted, the company is at fault because she didn't personally fire them. The comments in this thread make it sound like she queefed in their mouths.



I am not going to excuse the use of derogatory terms toward Richards, but most the commentary so far has been relatively tame compared to the thread about the complaints toward Seth MacFarlane's of hosting the Oscars.  Unfortunately, topics like these will inevitably bring about this type of speech.



Rainbow Dash said:


> Funny thing is that nearly everyone in the software industry knows that "repo" stands for "repository" as in "software repository", and that "forking a repo" is a git term. Git is a distributed version management system created by Linus Torvalds. You "fork a repo" when you want to make a local copy of the code, so you can modify it. Then you ask the maintainer of the project to pull the modified files from you so that your code will end up in the main project. It's a very elegant solution for managing distributed code.
> 
> So "I would fork that guy's repo" is a compliment to a software project, not derogative. The fact that the woman thought it was derogative says much about her technical skills. She deserved to be fired for incompetency, let alone the fact that she slandered someone who later lost his job because of it.
> 
> *tldr* he said he wanted to play with some code, she thinks he's insulting women.



This story sounds a lot like the one I remember you were talking about in another thread. 

The man never should have been fired and his bosses should have taken the time to really analyze his joke.  It was harmless.


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Mar 22, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Full story:
> 
> It is a bit of a biased article though.
> 
> ...


No,it's common FOSS(Free/libre and opensource software) terms: Repo is short for repository,which is a software database+library with all kinds of different codes(Apple calls it the Appstore!!).Which is very useful and easy to use.

Forking simply means that an offshoot is being created from the original software(like libreoffice which is a fork of openoffice.org) 

btw,that bitch is insane and need to go to a mental hospital.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 22, 2013)

In a nutshell:


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 22, 2013)

she's a black jewish female? That explains why people are so afraid of her that even the men who did nothing apologised and actually allowed her to humiliate them in public. Even the employers were easily intimidated by her social network. 

I find it kind of weird that she's a programmer/developer yet didn't really get the joke. I mean, I don't expect any random non-programmers to just go to these conferences. She has no excuses. If it was me then maybe it would be a valid misunderstanding, since I don't know the various connotations of forking and dongles. What's her excuse?


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Mar 22, 2013)

Karsh said:


> As you said, I guess it's even worse that she's half-jew and half-black on top of being a woman, AND *evangelical*, talk about being the prime ball of pure evil to the internet
> 
> Perfect for complaining



You're thinking of religious evangelicals, developer evangelicals as far as I've interacted with them are people who try to convince  programmers to use certain technologies languages.

What I don't think was stressed enough, it that it seemed she was "ok" with the joke until she was reminded _how much of a male dominated environment programming is and that things must change so that the balance corrects itself
_ which I agree with btw.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 22, 2013)

Hero of Shadows said:


> You're thinking of religious evangelicals, developer evangelicals as far as I've interacted with them are people who try to convince  programmers to use certain technologies languages.
> 
> What I don't think was stressed enough, it that it seemed she was "ok" with the joke until she was reminded _how much of a male dominated environment programming is and that things must change so that the balance corrects itself
> _ which I agree with btw.



You support discrimination?


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Mar 22, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> You support discrimination?



This is one of those things where you're going to twist the meaning of discrimination so that men are discriminated against Christians are discriminated against (in the west) rich people are discriminated against ... right ?


----------



## Roman (Mar 22, 2013)

Hero of Shadows said:


> how much of a male dominated environment programming is and that things must change so that the balance corrects itself


----------



## Zaru (Mar 22, 2013)

I already explained that those jobs are "in the tech sector" but not actually related to programming.

Female programmers are few. Those who exist are usually as good as anyone else since they must have some passion to take up such a typically male interest.


----------



## Roman (Mar 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I already explained that those jobs are "in the tech sector" but not actually related to programming.
> 
> Female programmers are few. Those who exist are usually as good as anyone else since they must have some passion to take up such a typically male interest.



That's the point. If there's an inequality, it's not because female programmers are being paid less than male programmers doing the same thing, but because their role within the industry is typically different. There's no inherent inequality.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 22, 2013)

Hero of Shadows said:


> This is one of those things where you're going to twist the meaning of discrimination so that men are discriminated against Christians are discriminated against (in the west) rich people are discriminated against ... right ?



What the fuck are you talking about? 

Companies should never make gender a reason to employ a person. By doing it, they are essentially acknowledging they are being sexist. And that's discrimination.

Are people of the world so stuck up their own political correct ass that they no longer have a functioning brain?


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 22, 2013)

Creepy Anonymous message?


Really, this article is a good resume of the situation:


This whole debacle is popcorn worthy as an outsider. It's like watching a train wreck.


----------



## Unimportant (Mar 22, 2013)

I feel that many women avoid the engineering and mathematics based professions mostly because they have an inherent distaste for engineering and mathematics. Not because programming companies are sexist. Statistically, how probable is it that a software engineering company [even in a hypothetically perfect world] would have an equal distribution of men and women?


----------



## Mizura (Mar 22, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> I feel that many women avoid the engineering and mathematics based professions mostly because they have an inherent distaste for engineering and mathematics.


I actually think the problem isn't "inherent", but cultural. Even when I was growing up, I was hearing people saying that "girls are better at language, but boys are better at maths" or "girls may have higher grades now but they can't handle the more advanced stuff later on." I was always an expatriate though, so I never got to experience what it felt like to actually experience all that while Living in the country that felt that way, and mostly shrugged it off.  But when I went to France for University, the numbers spoke for themselves: less than 20% of my math class were girls (imagine my shock: "uh, where are all the girls? O_O;; "). Yet two girls in my high school were the top two in maths and science (me and another girl, the other girl, who was #1, eventually went to MIT). In China, most of the junior maths contest winners are girls.

Historically in fact, women were mostly barred from advanced mathematics studies until what... a century or two ago? (which I only found out later) Now, I would like to say that in China, the problem is less severe, but there is another issue at work: the joke goes that if you're a girl and you studied maths and engineering, you'll scare off all the guys and never get married. That may sound funny and light-hearted, but there's a small truth in that. =_= Think how a female lawyers in the U.S. may be a lot more intimidating than say... air hostesses.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Mar 22, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> I feel that many women avoid the engineering and mathematics based professions mostly because they have an inherent distaste for engineering and mathematics.



I suspect it's actually quite different from that.

At my university we have two computer related degrees. Information Technology and Computer Science. The two are pretty much identical (in terms of courses) with a few differences. Most of the differences are in presentation.

It's pretty much accepted that the most skilled people are in computer science while the less skilled are in IT. Though there are certainly skilled people in IT there's still a difference.

Finishing a degree in Computer Science gets you a master degree. Finishing your degree in Information Technology gets you a Civil Engineering degree which can be perceived as having a higher status (in Sweden this seems generally to be the case).

IT also caters to people who are interested in management. In years 4 and 5 you can take optional courses in management, which are not available to CS students unless you jump through some hoops.

CS generally has the geeky people. IT has the bussiness people.

What's my point?

There are NO. WOMEN. IN. CS. All the women are in IT despite some of the differences between CS and IT being that IT includes two additional math courses not taken by CS students and IT goes deeper into the electronic aspects of computer design. CS mostly ignores the circuit hardware level.

In short. I think while dislike for maths and physics is probably part of the issue, there has to be something more and I suspect this "something more" is heavily related to how the degrees are presented. This issue with all the women picking IT over CS has existed at this university since the early 2000.

Basically CS has a geeky image while IT has a business/management image (and of course there are lots of geeks in IT too).


----------



## Unimportant (Mar 22, 2013)

I get what you mean, I am a coder after all. 
My interest didn't change based on other people though, not really...
It seems rare for me to find women who share my interests, but you're probably right.


----------



## Hero of Shadows (Mar 22, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Companies should never make gender a reason to employ a person. By doing it, they are essentially acknowledging they are being sexist. And that's discrimination.
> 
> Are people of the world so stuck up their own political correct ass that they no longer have a functioning brain?



What I'm getting at is that it's not only the industry which has these problems, you can't get into the industry if you're not taught but you can't get taught if this attitude exists beyond the industry(the CS academia), which it does.


----------



## GrizzlyClaws (Mar 22, 2013)

Mizura said:


> In China, most of the junior maths contest winners are girls.



And in my school the 3 best pupils in languages were boys, yet from all experience i and many of the people i talked to made makes it appear clear that girls are genereally better at languages than boys. And the same experiences made it clear to me that boys are genrally better at maths and stuff. A indian friend of mine made the same experience, so i don't think there is a cultural difference. Seeing how the general public consensus seems to be that girls > boys in languages and boys > girls in maths, i would say that what you experienced in China and what i experienced in my school regarding the 3 boys were rather exceptions.


----------



## Drums (Mar 22, 2013)

There are feminists and then there are stupid women. I dont know what to say about this woman other than she should have more important things to occupy herself with while in a professional conference, as she called it. And if the two men kept her from focusing she could always have told them to stop talking. She went too far. What is worse is she presents herself as someone who did this for the good of others because she doesnt even have the guts to admit she did out of her own butthurt. In other words, she's a hypocrite, and it got her fired in the end. Not that I agree with it. I think neither side should have been fired for this.


----------



## Revolution (Mar 22, 2013)

There is a possibility that we don't know the whole story, especially with a biased title that makes up your mind for you and an article that probably does not tell the whole story in the first place.

You should all know about media bias but this is more of a gossip tale then information


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2013)

Bird of Paradise said:


> There is a possibility that we don't know the whole story, especially with a biased title that makes up your mind for you and an article that probably does not tell the whole story in the first place.
> 
> You should all know about media bias but this is more of a gossip tale then information


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 22, 2013)

StrawHeart said:


> There are feminists and then there are stupid women. I dont know what to say about this woman other than she should have more important things to occupy herself with while in a professional conference, as she called it. And if the two men kept her from focusing she could always have told them to stop talking. She went too far. What is worse is she presents herself as someone who did this for the good of others because she doesnt even have the guts to admit she did out of her own butthurt. In other words, she's a hypocrite, and it got her fired in the end. Not that I agree with it. *I think neither side should have been fired* for this.



You don't think defaming people in front of thousands, possibly millions of people is bad? If the massive amounts of distress isn't bad enough caused on innocent people, what about her employers having to protect against security breaches from hackers all because of her stupidity? 

I think she should not only be fired but she should be jailed. Her actions are completely unacceptable. She has possibly ruined the lives of two men for something so childish. Do you think there won't be reprisals for what's happened to this woman by her own supporters?


----------



## Roman (Mar 22, 2013)

Bird of Paradise said:


> There is a possibility that we don't know the whole story, especially with a biased title that makes up your mind for you and an article that probably does not tell the whole story in the first place.
> 
> You should all know about media bias but this is more of a gossip tale then information



It's been established multiple times throughout this thread what the 'joke' the guy got fired for actually meant. There's no need for you to make shit up seeing as there's actual evidence in this very thread proving you wrong.


----------



## Mael (Mar 22, 2013)

Freedan said:


> It's been established multiple times throughout this thread what the 'joke' the guy got fired for actually meant. There's no need for you to make shit up seeing as there's actual evidence in this very thread proving you wrong.



Freedan I think it's long been established that Sarahmint cannot do this thus her posts are to be treated in a uniform manner.


----------



## Drums (Mar 22, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> You don't think defaming people in front of thousands, possibly millions of people is bad? If the massive amounts of distress isn't bad enough caused on innocent people, what about her employers having to protect against security breaches from hackers all because of her stupidity?
> 
> I think she should not only be fired but she should be jailed. Her actions are completely unacceptable. She has possibly ruined the lives of two men for something so childish. Do you think there won't be reprisals for what's happened to this woman by her own supporters?



No, what I think is you're overexagerating this. Do you realise how ridiculous this whole situation is? I know it's horrible that she defamed those people for just a stupid joke but I dont think she ruined their lives, since they will probably get a new job in the future and I dont really believe her own supporters will go too far for her, especially in this case. I mean, I'm sure the majority of the people can see that she handled this very poorly and that she's in the wrong, supporters or not. Plus, if we go by your logic, her own life is  ruined as well with all those people being angry at her for her reaction and her getting fired. What more do you want? I think this should just die down already.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 22, 2013)

Thread title should be renamed to "Women gets man fired for harmless joke, internet gets her fired as well"


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2013)

Please replace the stupid, badly written fucking article in the OP with this one that tells a clearer story and actually shows the Tweet she sent. 

She went on to later say she didn't think they should be fired and it wasn't her intention. 



This article gives a much better idea, I don't know why the OP got the article he did.

And the Tweet was much less harmless than if she had turned around and did something, I mean I think that in the moment we'd less likely confront these two than tweet about it. Society teaches us to conduct ourselves without being over confrontational, she was using Twitter as an outlet. The picture also shows the situation in better light, because you realize that they're basically in a conference talk thing where there's hundreds of people around.


----------



## Jena (Mar 22, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> I think she should not only be fired but she should be jailed. Her actions are completely unacceptable.


  

What about the people sending her rape and death threats? That's ok? Tweeting a passive-aggressive picture is criminal. Good to know. You better start working on that, you're going to have to lock up about half the internet.

She was clearly wrong in this situation but she's obviously been punished for it (being fired and bombarded with rape/death threats). She reacted cowardly by tweeting it instead of just telling them to shut up or telling someone in charge of the con that she was upset, but she also didn't intend for the men to be fired. This is also a pretty obvious case of companies overreacting for fear of not being PC. The men really shouldn't have been punished like they were, the comments warranted them being kicked out of the con for violating the codes of conduct but definitely not getting fired from their jobs. I'm not going to say that she shouldn't have been offended (even though I personally think she overreacted) but she shouldn't have gone to twitter about it in lue of actually confronting them. It's likely that if she said something they would've cut it out and then none of them would've been fired.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Please replace the stupid, badly written fucking article in the OP with this one that tells a clearer story and actually shows the Tweet she sent.
> 
> She went on to later say she didn't think they should be fired and it wasn't her intention.
> 
> ...


Because the OP only had about 4 articles to chose from as this was not as blown up when he made the topic. 

Sure she said it wasn't her intention but she never apologised or recognised her mistake that she misunderstood the joke. She called herself "joan of arc" and later used the publicity to publish her blog and try get her askew agenda across. I laughed at when someone quested her on twitter that what she effectively had done was start a "lynching" campaign against these men, she didn't answer that it wasn't her intention, she said the man was being racist for using the term "lynching" to a black women.  

And no, it wasn't. If she turned round and asked them to stop with the sexist jokes, they could of either explained to her they weren't sexual jokes - problem solved. Or just said they will stop - problem solved, two jobs saved. Instead she turned around, smiling at them whilst she took their picture and shared it to the world without their consent. She and her friends have described herself as a "vocal person" who isn't afraid to shy away from confrontation. She used this situation to try and cause a scene, seemingly for some material for her blog or something.

 - A good article to read. This isn't the first time she has done this and you can see from that woman's article that this woman is a flat out bully.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Because the OP only had about 4 articles to chose from as this was not as blown up when he made the topic.
> 
> Sure she said it wasn't her intention but she never apologised or recognised her mistake that she misunderstood the joke. She called herself "joan of arc" and later used the publicity to publish her blog and try get her askew agenda across. I laughed at when someone quested her on twitter that what she effectively had done was start a "lynching" campaign against these men, she didn't answer that it wasn't her intention, she said the man was being racist for using the term "lynching" to a black women.
> 
> ...



The thing is that given how people react to women in these situations, I don't think confrontation is always the best option. People are going to react differently depending on who tells them to be quiet and how they do it too. 

Call the idea that someone might react to a woman differently as me being sexist if you will, but it's true.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Call the idea that someone might react to a woman differently as me being sexist if you will, but it's true.


Of course she'd get treated differently.
She was a black woman and those guys were scrawny white males, in a public space. They'd immediately see the minefield and wouldn't dare to react negatively in any way.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The thing is that given how people react to women in these situations, I don't think confrontation is always the best option. People are going to react differently depending on who tells them to be quiet and how they do it too.
> 
> Call the idea that someone might react to a woman differently as me being sexist if you will, but it's true.


Then if she was "scared" of two programmers reaction (  ) to her asking them to be quiet, she could have easily ignored it or moved. There is no reason for her to break the ToS of Pycon as well. To be honest, her whole job is about knowing programmers and programming code, so for her to even misunderstood the joke baffles me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 22, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Of course she'd get treated differently.
> She was a black woman and those guys were scrawny white males, in a public space. They'd immediately see the minefield and wouldn't dare to react negatively in any way.


True she is black, it might be an advantage or disadvantage depending. White people have gotten all bold since Barack Obama. I heard a white guy say ^ (use bro) at the store last night. That shit would have never happened in 2006.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 22, 2013)

Jena said:


> What about the people sending her rape and death threats? That's ok?



Why do you think I would be ok with that?  



> Tweeting a passive-aggressive picture is criminal. Good to know. You better start working on that, you're going to have to lock up about half the internet.



Slander, libel, intimidation etc are all illegal especially when the target can be identified. Half the internet never use anything identifiable and when there's invasion of privacy shit ends up in court; take celebrity invasions of privacy for example or women's boobs and/or faces. Why should celebrities be protected and not ordinary citizens?  Why should women be anymore protected than men? Fact of the matter is this woman has illegally obtained a photo without the permission of those men only to destroy what little dignity they had left after already being fired.



> She was clearly wrong in this situation but she's obviously been punished for it (being fired and bombarded with rape/death threats). She reacted cowardly by tweeting it instead of just telling them to shut up or telling someone in charge of the con that she was upset, but she also didn't intend for the men to be fired. This is also a pretty obvious case of companies overreacting for fear of not being PC. The men really shouldn't have been punished like they were, the comments warranted them being kicked out of the con for violating the codes of conduct but definitely not getting fired from their jobs. I'm not going to say that she shouldn't have been offended (even though I personally think she overreacted) but she shouldn't have gone to twitter about it in lue of actually confronting them. It's likely that if she said something they would've cut it out and then none of them would've been fired.



Getting fired was the bare minimum that should've happened. I think there are millions of women who are sick of wannabe feminists destroying peoples lives. That's not what feminism is about. Feminism is supposed to empower women not ruin men's lives. Ruining men's lives under the guise of feminism is misandry and damages all the work women put into improve the lives of women. Surely you don't disagree with this? Do you feel this woman has done anything to improve anything for women?


----------



## Legend (Mar 22, 2013)

She got what she deserved for being nosey


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Mar 22, 2013)




----------



## Shock Therapy (Mar 22, 2013)

bitches like these need to stop being fucking bitches.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 22, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Please replace the stupid, badly written fucking article in the OP with this one that tells a clearer story and actually shows the Tweet she sent.
> 
> She went on to later say she didn't think they should be fired and it wasn't her intention.
> 
> ...


Taking a photo and plastering it over the internet is less harmful than telling someone in person that you find their joke inappropriate? Well I'll be /sarcasm. 

Also the tripe about her 'I don't think they should have been fired' is the shit you'd expect from someone who does not want to accept blame or responsibility for their actions. That's one of the things that makes me more disgusted with her, the fact that she is too much of a coward to stand by the consequences of her actions.


----------



## Jena (Mar 23, 2013)

♚Sōsuke Aizen♚ said:


> Why do you think I would be ok with that?


Because you didn't make any mention of it.



> Half the internet never use anything identifiable and when there's invasion of privacy shit ends up in court; take celebrity invasions of privacy for example or women's boobs and/or faces. Why should celebrities be protected and not ordinary citizens?  Why should women be anymore protected than men? Fact of the matter is this woman has illegally obtained a photo without the permission of those men only to destroy what little dignity they had left after already being fired.


She didn't take an invasive photo, she took a photo of people sitting at a convention. If you want to argue that there should be laws against taking pictures of people in public, that's a separate issue. Right now it's not. What you're talking about with celebrities is illegal because the pictures are invasive.



> Getting fired was the bare minimum that should've happened. I think there are millions of women who are sick of wannabe feminists destroying peoples lives. That's not what feminism is about. Feminism is supposed to empower women not ruin men's lives. Ruining men's lives under the guise of feminism is misandry and damages all the work women put into improve the lives of women. Surely you don't disagree with this? Do you feel this woman has done anything to improve anything for women?


Slow down there.

Whether or not I think that feminism has become too extreme or that branches of it have gone in unsavory directions has no bearing on this case. I'm not trying to pull my own prejudices into this because, well, mostly I don't feel like writing out some huge post about my feelings but also because it shouldn't matter what _I_ think about this case, just about what happened, what should've happened, and where the fault lies.


----------



## Karsh (Mar 23, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Sorry, but for starters, I don't see where the anti-woman attitude is in this thread. Most people even said they're up for gender equality. This same event was raised in the gender gap in IT industry threads and most people if not everyone saw it as good news. This isn't about being anti-woman, it's about one woman misunderstanding a harmless joke and acting on her supposedly feminist beliefs in order to get a guy fired. Woman or not, it wasn't fair of her to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely this.




this is a non-story and people are making a big deal out of this just to complain about feminism and downgrading it's validity, just like when stories about any group of people are doing something stereotypical somehow validates any disrespect towards them.

"See, see? This is how they ALL are!"

Run of the mill really.

Besides, there are better articles about this to read as opposed to the OP.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

From the guys’ points of view:
Guy A made an innuendo using the word “dongle” (piece of hardware) in a private conversation with his friend.

From the woman’s point of view:
She overheard Guy A make an innuendo in a private conversation with his friend, and misunderstood another expression (forking someone’s repo) as a sexual joke.

She was on a crusade, they were just convenient scapegoats:


> “I know I don’t have to be a hero in every situation”
> 
> “The stuff about the dongles wasn’t even logical and as a self professed nerd, that bothered me. Dongles are intended to be small and unobtrusive.”
> 
> ...



This was neither an issue of harassment and gender. Someone else at the same conference made a comment about her shaved private parts and she joked around with him.

She took a picture of the guys and made them look like sexual predators on her professional twitter account, the same account where she made an actual sexual joke during the same conference (“@skwashd you should put something in your pants next time...like a bunch of socks inside one...large...sock. TSA agent faint”).

She had to be held accountable for her behavior. You can't just damage someone's reputation on a whim. This has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with her being a douchebag.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Jena said:


> Because you didn't make any mention of it.


Because it's not really an issue. The death/rape threats have been hugely exaggerated by people clutching on straws to defend this women. I know it's wrong, but where anonymity is involved, this stuff is going to happen. With fame comes trolls, and when that fame comes with controversy then they flock in numbers. Even so, in that place where you would expect most this abuse to come from the people were saying not to abuse her, as they learnt from happened with that trope chick, and just to report her to her company or whatnot. 

Having seen she already had quiet a large base of followers and decent youtube views, she has deal with this stuff before. I'm sure the point of this story, that she lost her job, is affecting her a hell of a lot more than some poorly worded threats of violence. 



Jena said:


> She didn't take an invasive photo, she took a photo of people sitting at a convention. If you want to argue that there should be laws against taking pictures of people in public, that's a separate issue. Right now it's not. What you're talking about with celebrities is illegal because the pictures are invasive.


PyCon disagree. Firstly, since all this, they have changed their ToS on taking invasive pictures of others without their consent, and definitely uploading them without permission. But even before that, they had a rule apart harassing someone with the use of photography, which this would be a prime example of. 

It may not be illegal, but it's highly immoral and then further using it to further your blog or whatnot is just outright disgusting. 



Jena said:


> Slow down there.
> 
> Whether or not I think that feminism has become too extreme or that branches of it have gone in unsavory directions has no bearing on this case. I'm not trying to pull my own prejudices into this because, well, mostly I don't feel like writing out some huge post about my feelings but also because it shouldn't matter what _I_ think about this case, just about what happened, what should've happened, and where the fault lies.


Fault lies mainly with her. Then some with the employer who fired the man. That's all.


----------



## Jena (Mar 23, 2013)

josh101 said:


> PyCon disagree. Firstly, since all this, they have changed their ToS on taking invasive pictures of others without their consent, and definitely uploading them without permission. But even before that, they had a rule apart harassing someone with the use of photography, which this would be a prime example of.
> 
> It may not be illegal, but it's highly immoral and then further using it to further your blog or whatnot is just outright disgusting.



I agree it is, but the argument was about whether or not she deserves jail time for what she did. Which is excessive in this case. I think what she did was absolutely unacceptable, but she shouldn't be locked up for it.


----------



## josh101 (Mar 23, 2013)

Jena said:


> I agree it is, but the argument was about whether or not she deserves jail time for what she did. Which is excessive in this case. I think what she did was absolutely unacceptable, but she shouldn't be locked up for it.


Oh, I see. Yeah, there's no way this could be construed for her to receive jail time, that's just overkill.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Mar 23, 2013)

Why is there so much misogyny?
Who really knows what the men were talking about.

She must of been really offended. 

And if not then the businesses wouldn't have dismissed them.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 23, 2013)

Red Queen said:


> Why is there so much misogyny?
> Who really knows what the men were talking about.
> 
> She must of been really offended. And if not then the businesses wouldn't have dismissed them.



Read the fucking article.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Mar 23, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Read the fucking article.



I did. It said nothing about their conversation.
nothing remotely specific.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 23, 2013)

Red Queen said:


> I did. It said nothing about their conversation.
> nothing remotely specific.



You can be excused for not reading up on the vast material that was unearthed about this case in the last few days. But the facts are like this:

She was not part of the conversation, she eavesdropped. They made tech insider jokes behind her in a public space. She was offended by something that was not even intended to be heard by her, because she had no idea what they're talking about and chose to interpret it as offensive to her. 
She then didn't tell them anything in person like a decent adult would, she took a pic and slandered them online.

In comparison, it's like sitting in front of two mexicans in a theatre and you mishear something spanish that sounds like "^ (use bro)", and then post a pic of them to your tens of thousands of followers on twitter stating that they are racists.

And to top it all off, the guy who got fired even apologized, while she didn't.


The reason why Richards got such a gigantic negative backlash from the internet wasn't that there's some male circlejerk feeling threatened about their ability to discriminate women, it was because she's a symptom of the horrible culture we created where people get offended over everything and can ruin people's lives because of their "feelings".


----------



## αce (Mar 23, 2013)

IM A STRONG WOMAN FIGHTING THE PATRIARCHY


----------



## Zaru (Mar 23, 2013)

That being said, things went a bit overboard as usual. While she was a horrible cunt, graphic death threats and other such harrassment are going overboard (plus she can now act like a martyr)

Side comment: People investigated (because they were bored) and found out she grew up in an abusive household. Both her black father and her black boyfriend were abusive assholes and probably turned her into the feminist she is. Yet she's one of those anti-white social justice warriors. Oh the irony.


----------



## Morgan (Mar 23, 2013)

Well, that's a shame.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Mar 23, 2013)

Zaru said:


> You can be excused for not reading up on the vast material that was unearthed about this case in the last few days. But the facts are like this:
> 
> She was not part of the conversation, she eavesdropped. They made tech insider jokes behind her in a public space. She was offended by something that was not even intended to be heard by her, because she had no idea what they're talking about and chose to interpret it as offensive to her.
> She then didn't tell them anything in person like a decent adult would, she took a pic and slandered them online.
> ...



  Honestly I think this happens a lot in corporate america and if people believe that this is only one horrid case then they are mistakened.

I've been in the lower end of this kind of situation an too many times and it sucks when you have no one to behind you. Yes it sucks. 

This happens in schools. Happens at jobs. This happens in churches. It happens in family gatherings, clubs, and stores. Hell, it happens in court cases. Why is this story being blown up? It makes the situation worse especially when it's on the internet.

Look at how much hatred is going around. The public is heavily responsible for it's love for revenge.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

After reading up on and investigating this case, I can say I agree with Richard's intention to bring the underground male dominance in the tech industry to the forefront for discussion. In the past years, she has been of the mind to create and cultivate an open forum for discussion to be made about the nonfinancial problems that face women in her industry; one-up privileges, one gender having more perceived integrity as well as competence, gap in work ethic to recognition ratio, etc. These are all things that need to be faced head-on and talked about for awareness and, thus, change.

However, I don't agree with Richards' method in doing this. Many people who side themselves so much with one cause (be it feminism, or political stances, or even team fandom) tend to avoid the logical and rational pros and cons of their opponents' (or perceived opponents') argument and instead aim for any technical faults that may be present and proceed to magnify them on a larger scale and run with it. This leads to false analogies, fallacies, generalizations, defamation of character and a myriad of other counter-productive things. It seems Richards fell down this path in this incident. 

Put Succinctly, you have a group of people (all men) discussing a topic that could have been deemed sexual harassment if proper procedure was followed- that is, letting the men know what you interpreted them as saying and how you felt, then reporting them to management if they proceeded on despite your initial talk- instead, Richards' action was to slander them. This was made worse because current society has a theme of being harsh on men if they are mean to women (even if women do the same to men), thus the men were hated by unknown internet users and forced to apologize to Adria and then fired.

Aftermath: If you think this makes Richards look bad, think again; she has been idolized even more and has been offered over 10 jobs by competing organizations. Til this day she has yet to give a formal apology to the men she slandered (she gave a general apology on her blog to 'people [she] may have harmed.')

The men on the other hand are still in the dark as what has been done will not change their reputation no matter what they do; they have to work hard just to get back of having the nonexistant reputation they had before this event. 

So even in the end, Adria Richards wins. 

Also, detective work shows that Richards was abused by both her father and uncle as well as a few of her male lovers in the past; this gives credence to why she is the way she is in some part.

On a side note, she looks beautiful


J


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

> Put Succinctly, you have a group of people (all men) discussing a topic that could have been deemed sexual harassment if proper procedure was followed



Nope. One man told a dongle/penis joke to his friend that she happened to overhead. That's not sexual harassment. She just made it more difficult for women dealing with real sexual harassment, and reinforced the image that women should be handled like delicate flowers less you want to face a lawsuit.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> Nope. One man told a dongle/penis joke to his friend that she happened to overhead. That's not sexual harassment. She just made it more difficult for women dealing with real sexual harassment, and reinforced the image that women should be handled like delicate flowers less you want to face a lawsuit.


Apparently you misunderstood that part you quoted;_ Put Succinctly, you have a group of people (all men) discussing a topic that could have been deemed sexual harassment if proper procedure was followed_

If you overhear something that offends you sexually, it can be deemed sexual harassment if you follow procedures. If you see me hug a woman in front of you, that is possible sexual harassment if you tell me it makes you sexually uncomfortable and I hug her again in front of you. 

Telling a dick joke is sexual harassment to all those who hear it and become uncomfortable. Current training videos and guides explain this extensively.


J


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Apparently you misunderstood that part you quoted;_ Put Succinctly, you have a group of people (all men) discussing a topic that could have been deemed sexual harassment if proper procedure was followed_
> 
> If you overhear something that offends you sexually, it can be deemed sexual harassment if you follow procedures. If you see me hug a woman in front of you, that is possible sexual harassment if you tell me it makes you sexually uncomfortable and I hug her again in front of you.
> 
> ...



So... if I warn someone that watching him/her eating a banana makes me uncomfortable, and he/she continues to eat in front of me, he/she might be guilty of sexual harassment? I'm aware that I'm really pushing it, but calling sexual harassment because of a "big " joke is nearly in the same ballpark. That's a childish comment worthy of a ten years old, nothing salacious.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> So... if it makes me sexually uncomfortable to watch people eat bananas, someone eating a banana in front of me is guilty of sexual harassment?



Only if you're not a straight (white) male


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> So... if it makes me sexually uncomfortable to watch people eat bananas, someone eating a banana in front of me is guilty of sexual harassment?



Do you mean to stretch this out so thin it looks ridiculous? One is telling dick and possible sex jokes (the example I gave was hugging which is non-professional grade contact) and you use eating a banana as an example.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and take it that you are being serious. If someone eats a banana in a way that can generally deemed as sexual: licking the tip, stroking it with your hand or mouth, deep-throating it, etc- it can be seen as sexual harassment when someone is made sexually uncomfortable and confronts the banana eater.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 23, 2013)

Bishop said:


> I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and take it that you are being serious. If someone eats a banana in a way that can generally deemed as sexual: licking the tip, stroking it with your hand or mouth, deep-throating it, etc- it can be seen as sexual harassment when someone is made sexually uncomfortable and confronts the banana eater.



Why the FUCK do we cater to these people's feelings?
Where did society go wrong and allows those fragile snowflakes to ruin other people's lives because they get butthurt over everything?

This quote sums my opinion on this up:


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Why the FUCK do we cater to these people's feelings?
> Where did society go wrong and allows those fragile snowflakes to ruin other people's lives because they get butthurt over everything?



It is a law reinforced back in 2004 to better aid women in gaining equality in the workforce.

There are 3 steps to get to sexual harassment if not quid pro quo

1: Action that makes one uncomfortable (has to be reasonable)

2: Offended person _has_ to verbally tell the offender how it made them feel and ask them to stop

3: Offender _has_ to do it again within a reasonable time frame.

The reasonableness is decided in courts or by the local society (cases like "she's a woman so she must be telling the truth, fire him", etc)

J


----------



## Zaru (Mar 23, 2013)

Equality = You're not allowed to say anything that women or minorities might hear and dislike, or you'll get fired

It's over, we're done for.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Do you mean to stretch this out so thin it looks ridiculous? One is telling dick and possible sex jokes (the example I gave was hugging which is non-professional grade contact) and you use eating a banana as an example.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and take it that you are being serious. If someone eats a banana in a way that can generally deemed as sexual: licking the tip, stroking it with your hand or mouth, deep-throating it, etc- it can be seen as sexual harassment when someone is made sexually uncomfortable and confronts the banana eater.



I was more thinking that what makes someone uncomfortable can vary from person to person. I’m having a tough time seeing a “big dongle joke about a fictional piece hardware that identified as male,” childish humor between two persons in a private conversation, as sexual harassment.

Women are as guilty as men. They adjust their bras/skirts/whatever, talk and complain about their boyfriends/periods/whatever. These actions can be seen as sexual harassment should you be seen or overheard.

This definition of sexual harassment forbids casual talk.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> I was more thinking that what makes someone uncomfortable can vary from person to person. It’s just that I’m having a tough time seeing a “big dongle joke about a fictional piece hardware that identified as male,” childish humor between two persons in a private conversation, as sexual harassment.
> 
> It’s not limited to men, women are as guilty of this kind of behavior as men, they adjust their bras/skirts/whatever, talk and complain about their boyfriends/periods/whatever. These actions can be seen as sexual harassment should you be seen or overheard.



Please refer to the post below



Bishop said:


> It is a law reinforced back in 2004 to better aid women in gaining equality in the workforce.
> 
> There are 3 steps to get to sexual harassment if not quid pro quo
> 
> ...



Explained in more detail at the official site:

J


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Please refer to the post below
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The "(has to be reasonable)" is interesting, my definition of reasonable doesn't include a childish joke between friends, but I might be in the minority. Adria also forgot step 2 and 3, which in my eyes are particularly important in this case, as I doubt the guys intended to make anyone uncomfortable.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> The "(has to be reasonable)" is interesting, my definition of reasonable doesn't include a childish joke between friends, but I might be in the minority. Adria also forgot step 2 and 3, which in my eyes are the particularly important in this case.



It's because she ignored step 2 and 3 that she was fired, that legal ramification is coming to her by both the men, and why the men have the ability and the justification to sue their former employer.


----------



## Unimportant (Mar 23, 2013)

@Bishop
Did you even read the link you provided?
It absolutely does *not* support your point.



> Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal  or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when  this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's  employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work  performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work  environment.


This law is in place to protect women. The way you are perverting it is disgusting.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> @Bishop
> Did you even read the link you provided?
> It absolutely does *not* support your point.
> 
> This law is in place to protect women. The way you are perverting it is disgusting.



Maybe you misunderstood either my point or the site, that very portion you quoted is what I used, specifically the implicit portion. As someone who taught sexual harassment, I highly doubt I am perverting anything but it's not impossible. Please elaborate.


J


----------



## Unimportant (Mar 23, 2013)

You make it sound like you can get a man fired just because he's mildly offensive.

The law exists so that guys can't constantly say demeaning things or awkwardly flirt when you just want to work. It's not meant to oppress them, and making it a law that oppresses freedom of speech is perverting the law and working against any power we may have gained.

Why would you support this?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> You make it sound like you can get a man fired just because he's mildly offensive.
> 
> The law exists so that guys can't constantly say demeaning things or awkwardly flirt when you just want to work. It's not meant to oppress them, and making it a law that oppresses freedom of speech is perverting the law and working against any power we may have gained.
> 
> Why would you support this?



Your entire post is wrong.

Never have I implied about getting anyone fired nor mention it as solely for a woman's protection. If you read my posts, you will see that I only went as far as to explain the proper procedure to having something deemed as sexual harassment. Sexual harassment doesn't get a person (which can be a man or a woman) fired automatically- many times there are disciplinary measures taken.

You are also wrong in your explanation of what the law is for. It is not to prevent 'guys' from doing anything; the law exist to uphold a healthy work culture. You say it is not there to oppress as if I ever mentioned it was or even implied that it was when that is false. Also false is your assumption of that point as this law has been used to oppress men which is the reason the law is still being revamped and is also the reason for this thread: a woman used the law to get men to apologize and end up fired.

Sexual harassment can happen to both men and women and is now used to protect both men and women. 

You say the law exist so men can't "constantly say demeaning things or awkwardly flirt when you just want to work" that in itself can be seen as sexist as it also exist so women can't constantly say demeaning things or awkwardly flirt when men just want to work- it makes me curious why you only show it's protection for women and not men.

J


----------



## Unimportant (Mar 23, 2013)

I seem to have angered you, and for that I'm sorry.
I'd like to restart, by first saying, regardless of the man's word, we don't know what their jokes were actually about. Why should I believe they aren't downplaying their own humor? Maybe their jokes were more lewd and obvious than we're being lead to believe? Why is the woman necessarily wrong and misheard? You don't see me jumping down Adria's throat, now do you?

You're implying this law wasn't created to serve women and minorities? That's in error...

To me, the intent of this law is quite clear. The way I see it, your position will weaken the law, because it oppresses freedom of speech. I'm not suggesting you feel this way about your own opinion, that's absurd. I'm suggesting it will because you are changing the law's context, to imply that anyone can raise a legal issue based on their opinion of random speech, which is oppressive based on our constitutional rights. You can twist the wording to mean that, but that doesn't serve the original intent of JFK.

If you abuse the wording of the law such that it deprives people of the freedom of speech, the law will just get changed. That would be a shame, because *right now the law prevents a lot of sexual harassment where tighter wording might not.*


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 23, 2013)

I'm rather curious about the 10 job offers that she apparently received. She was a technologist where reputation plays an important role, and is even now at the center of a scandal where she has been reviled by large number of people, I have a hard time seeing anyone offering her a job in the same branch.


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Unimportant said:


> I seem to have angered you, and for that I'm sorry.
> I'd like to restart, by first saying, regardless of the man's word, we don't know what their jokes were actually about. Why should I believe they aren't downplaying their own humor? Maybe their jokes were more lewd and obvious than we're being lead to believe? Why is the woman necessarily wrong and misheard? You don't see me jumping down Adria's throat, now do you?



That's the point; I don't think you are knowledgeable of the situation. As I have mentioned, if the men said lewd things, there is a procedure, Richards did not follow it. You ask why is the woman necessarily wrong, it is because she slandered men and got them fired as well as caused them to be targeted by social media groups when they were in fact not in the wrong. She was fired for that as well.



> You're implying this law wasn't created to serve women and minorities? That's in error...


Once again you have misunderstood a quote. You brought up why it exists not why it was created. The law is completely different now as to when it started. It exists to protect both men and women of all demographics. I never mentioned why it was created as that was long ago and many things have changed, however I did mention it was reinforced in 2004 to protect women, but it has changed since then, especially with the new installments from 2010-2012.



> To me, the intent of this law is quite clear. The way I see it, your position will weaken the law, because it oppresses freedom of speech. I'm not suggesting you feel this way about your own opinion, that's absurd. I'm suggesting it will because you are changing the law's context, to imply that anyone can raise a legal issue based on their opinion of random speech, which is oppressive based on our constitutional rights. You can twist the wording to mean that, but that doesn't serve the original intent of JFK.



You make the mistake of thinking I'm offering an opinion on the law, you are wrong. It is the law. The intent is clear to all, the method of execution is the main thing being discussed in legal circles which cause millions of dollars to be spent in courts every year. Your example is a false analogy as it goes against the points clearly stated beforehand. Nothing about opinions have been stated by me thus far.



> If you abuse the wording of the law such that it deprives people of the freedom of speech, the law will just get changed. That would be a shame, because *right now the law prevents a lot of sexual harassment where tighter wording might not.*


Refer to the above.

I see you are in the mind of believing things different than what they were intended to mean. How about this, just post a quote of mine and tell me what you interpreted it to mean and I will clarify it for you.

J


----------



## Bishop (Mar 23, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> I'm rather curious about the 10 job offers that she apparently received. She was a technologist where reputation plays an important role, and is even now at the center of a scandal where she has been reviled by large number of people, I have a hard time seeing anyone offering her a job in the same branch.



You and I both. I will try to find a voice recording on Youtube from the National Public Radio's guest tech analyst who said this. I posted that off of him stating that this buzz will end with her on top.


----------



## Cygnus45 (Mar 23, 2013)

> Funny story and to be honest, she really deserved it. I just hope she doesn't turn into some martyr by playing the feminism/sexism card like that chick with the trope videos.



Amen to that.

People need to realize this isn't the effing 60's. We HAVE made progress. Get out of all the doom-and-gloom and be happy you aren't forced to choose between washing dishes or sitting at a sewing machine.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 24, 2013)

Women like her really hurt sane feminism in the long-term. She may have made a lot of gains for *herself*, but so-called feminists as herself only serve to further drag the name of the movement through the mud in the process. It's the same as that Sarkeesian woman, she uses the banner of feminism for self-promotion and to engage not in critical discussion but divisive, often misandrist, rhetoric. It's no wonder people have such a distaste towards the term 'feminism', it has been hijacked by either self-serving, self-important individuals that look upon themselves as perpetual victims disregarding real disenfranchisement or misandrists that simply have it out for males for whatever reason. Both of which the woman in question seems to fit under.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Equality = You're not allowed to say anything that women or minorities might hear and dislike, or you'll get fired
> 
> It's over, we're done for.


Maybe men could report things that offended them if they weren't so worried about having to "man up and be macho". There have been cases where men reported shit and women got in trouble too. It's not a lack of women offending men, it's a lack of men actually being "man enough" to say something.

And as for minorities, I assure you if I called someone white trash or cracker at work I'd be promptly walked out.


----------



## Masaki (Mar 24, 2013)

Funny story, I know this woman.  She's actually pretty cool and I think at one point was going to set me up with some free Sendgrid advanced membership or something  [sad to say that never ended up happening though...].  Plus she organizes hackathons and tries to encourage women to go to them [now where will I meet them - grumble grumble].

But I still completely side with the guys on this one.  As far as I know they weren't talking to her, and they didn't say anything about rape/murder/whatever.  Even assuming the "fork his repo" joke was a sex joke, it still isn't harmful at all.

I think Playhaven's actions were the most drastic though.  I see no reason why they should've fired him.  On the upside I bet he'll get swooped up by Kixeye for this alone.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 24, 2013)

Masaki said:


> Funny story, I know this woman.  She's actually pretty cool and I think at one point was going to set me up with some free Sendgrid advanced membership or something  [sad to say that never ended up happening though...].  Plus she organizes hackathons and tries to encourage women to go to them [now where will I meet them - grumble grumble].
> 
> But I still completely side with the guys on this one.  As far as I know they weren't talking to her, and they didn't say anything about rape/murder/whatever.  Even assuming the "fork his repo" joke was a sex joke, it still isn't harmful at all.
> 
> I think Playhaven's actions were the most drastic though.  I see no reason why they should've fired him.  On the upside I bet he'll get swooped up by Kixeye for this alone.


Companies are so scared of being accused of being sexist, they don't even ask questions or work on logic.


----------



## Draffut (Mar 24, 2013)

I am tired, I'll just repeat what i've posted elsewhere on this thing:



			
				her said:
			
		

> "I saw a photo on main stage of a little girl who had been in the Young Coders workshop. I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so."



What? WHAT? because someone made a joke about a dongle, that person will make it impossible for a young girl to ever learn programming?

That has to be one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard in quite a long time.

This maniac needs to be institutionalized.


----------



## Masaki (Mar 24, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Companies are so scared of being accused of being sexist, they don't even ask questions or work on logic.



It surprises me because the company looks like a medium sized [and obviously tech] startup, and I'd figure they'd be more sensible about this sort of thing.

SendGrid's actions were still justified even on the basis that she could no longer do the job she was hired for.


----------



## Masaki (Mar 24, 2013)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> I am tired, I'll just repeat what i've posted elsewhere on this thing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As stupid as I find this incident, I'll at least say this is as far as I know an unusual thing for her.  She's _usually_ much more sensible.


----------



## GrizzlyClaws (Mar 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> but it has changed since then, especially with the new installments from 2010-2012.



Could you elaborate a little further? What exactly has changed from 2010-2012?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 24, 2013)

GrizzlyClaws said:


> Could you elaborate a little further? What exactly has changed from 2010-2012?



I may go look for it on the site, but basically:

It used to be no such thing as same-sex sexual harassment, there is now

There used to be major back-lash for men who reported women, law has harsh penalties for that now.

Environmental sexual harassment got an upgrade: Now if there are objects in the workplace that make you feel sexually uncomfortable you can file it if management doesn't take it down.

Third person sexual harassment (meaning observed someone else get sexually harassed) is made top priority to protect the person who reported it even more.

The big change is how it is handled by HR, used to be HR handled it, now they have different procedures.

Other stuff too.

J


----------



## Zaru (Mar 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> The big change is how it is handled by HR, used to be HR handled it, now they have different procedures.



HR departments are, by a notable statistical majority, female-dominated. That this skewed sexual harrassment issues in favor of women is quite obvious.


----------



## Adler123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Walk is great to increase metabolism, do walk for 30 minutes daily,
Do take whole grains, beans, vegetables and fruits more in your diet meals....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2013)

Zaru said:


> HR departments are, by a notable statistical majority, female-dominated. That this skewed sexual harrassment issues in favor of women is quite obvious.



You could claim the same if they were mostly male dominated.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Mar 25, 2013)

This is why i hate women and feminism


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 25, 2013)

First, I don't see how the comments were sexist. 
It was two men talking about big dongles, in references to penises. So if anything was being objectified it was men. 

The next comment (assuming it was meant sexually) was that "I would fork his repo" which as it was direct at a man, would be sexualizing and objectifying another man. 

Where here have women been objectified? Where have women been insulted? Where have women been degraded or subjugated?

If fact, where have women been involved at all?
They were not talking to her, they were having a private conversation. They were not direct comments to her, or make comments for her to hear. 

A comment involves sex or genitals is NOT inherently sexist. You can try and deem it inappropriate for professional setting but thats about as far as you can go. 



			
				Bishop said:
			
		

> Do you mean to stretch this out so thin it looks ridiculous? One is telling dick and possible sex jokes (the example I gave was hugging which is non-professional grade contact) and you use eating a banana as an example.
> 
> I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and take it that you are being serious. If someone eats a banana in a way that can generally deemed as sexual: licking the tip, stroking it with your hand or mouth, deep-throating it, etc- it can be seen as sexual harassment when someone is made sexually uncomfortable and confronts the banana eater.


In all honestly I don't see how the example is ridiculous at all, based on your comment about hugging. 
You statement about
"Action that makes one uncomfortable (has to be reasonable)"

Has to be reasonable seems to be a immeasurable cop-out for you to now declare anything that you want unreasonable. 
I don't consider hugging to be reasonable. 

This is nothing but subjective BS made specifically to apply it at a personal whim. 

Let try a few examples, 
If a women wants to breast feed her child in public, is it reasonable for a man to claim sexual harassment because he feels uncomfortable?

If a gay man says that he and his husband are going to the park for the weekend, is it reasonable for a evangelical Christian who overhears to claim sexual harassment because they feel uncomfortable?

If you feel uncomfortable about something sexually that is NOT directed at you, GROW THE FUCK UP!
In this case if someone talking about their dick, make you so fucking bothered, you need to grow up. Your complete and total sexually infancy is the problem. 

The complete and total immaturity when it comes to people being able to deal with sex in this country is ridiculousness. 

Two people talking about sex and someone overhearing is as much sexual harassment as two people talking about a boxing match and someone over is physical harassment.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Mar 25, 2013)

THE WHITE MAN IS BEING OPPRESSED!


----------



## Byrd (Mar 25, 2013)

She deserves it... a damn hypocrite


----------



## Bishop (Mar 25, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> In all honestly I don't see how the example is ridiculous at all, based on your comment about hugging.
> You statement about
> "Action that makes one uncomfortable (has to be reasonable)"
> 
> ...



As noted within the conversation between Sygurgh and me, he rephrased that post as he was indeed serious. If you read the post in which you quoted me, I did in fact answer it as if the question was serious. 

As for your examples, I believe you're asking if those people are just immature and should act as adults, if I comprehended that correct, then my answer would be that I don't have an opinion on the matter that would add to the discussion, thus I won't share my opinion.

If I comprehended that wrong, please rephrase it for me as I'm not the smartest terrorist in the cave.


J


----------



## sadated_peon (Mar 25, 2013)

Bishop said:


> As noted within the conversation between Sygurgh and me, he rephrased that post as he was indeed serious. If you read the post in which you quoted me, I did in fact answer it as if the question was serious.


yes, and you went to post the three steps from which I referenced the first. Comments directed at you about the idea of the relative nature of what is offense seems to me as have gone unanswered. 



Bishop said:


> As for your examples, I believe you're asking if those people are just immature and should act as adults, if I comprehended that correct, then my answer would be that I don't have an opinion on the matter that would add to the discussion, thus I won't share my opinion.
> 
> If I comprehended that wrong, please rephrase it for me as I'm not the smartest terrorist in the cave.
> 
> ...



Well, you got it right, but not sure why you feel the need to avoid giving your opinion?

Do you not find the the subjective social normative standard for offensive to be an inherent failing of the sexual harassment policy you posted?


----------



## Bishop (Mar 25, 2013)

sadated_peon said:


> yes, and you went to post the three steps from which I referenced the first. Comments directed at you about the idea of the relative nature of what is offense seems to me as have gone unanswered.


As stated, reasonability is judged in workplace and courts. Many things go to court in which people believe are just senseless yet the plaintiff prevails.





> Well, you got it right, but not sure why you feel the need to avoid giving your opinion?
> 
> Do you not find the the subjective social normative standard for offensive to be an inherent failing of the sexual harassment policy you posted?


No, just no opinion in which I wish to share.


----------



## Raidoton (Mar 25, 2013)

Nice to see all the attention it gets 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lug2S0HzY40[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 25, 2013)

Do these same people make all these shitty videos when something really appalling happens? 

I didn't think so.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 26, 2013)

Looks like she might get the last laugh:


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 26, 2013)

> A San Francisco labor attorney named Rob Pattison (so close!)





> explained that Richards' "public shaming" tweet was completely within bounds, and that there are measures in place to safeguard people like Richards who report workplace harassment.


Unsubstantiated public shaming isn't considered harassment?





> At some point and on some level, rational thinking has to kick in, and a CEO like Franklin has to realize that the Richards incident presents an opportunity to show observers that the tech world isn't the insulated, sexist boys club it's been pegged as. Maybe, in the panoramic picture of workplace sexism, "dongle" jokes aren't a huge issue. Maybe those two hapless conference-goers didn't deserve to lose their jobs at PlayHaven and have their lives interrupted, but, then again, maybe women in the tech community deserve to attend a professional fucking conference full of professional fucking people without feeling like outsiders who have just accidentally interrupted a Halo circle jerk tournament in someone's windowless basement.


Worthless article.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Mar 26, 2013)

Sygurgh said:


> Unsubstantiated public shaming isn't considered harassment?Worthless article.


Odd, you made it through that biased piece of shit in the OP, but this is worthless. 

The point is that you can't blame someone for a picture on Twitter getting someone fired when the company could have investigated more or acted however they wanted to. They chose to be reactionary assholes though.


----------



## Sanity Check (Mar 26, 2013)

A billion vaginas wail in unison at women with no sense of humor setting womankind back decades with their blunders.  :WOW

Donglegate is waterloo for feminists everywhere who strive to vindicate women freeing themselves from kitchens spanning the globe.


----------



## Sygurgh (Mar 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Odd, you made it through that biased piece of shit in the OP, but this is worthless.
> 
> The point is that you can't blame someone for a picture on Twitter getting someone fired when the company could have investigated more or acted however they wanted to. They chose to be reactionary assholes though.




I’ve never said that the OP was a stellar article, or that the OP was the only article I read on this little case. I won’t reread the OP, but I consider this article worthless because the writer showed her longing for Twilight actor Robert Pattinson while projecting her own feeling like she was writing a comment on tumblr “… without feeling like outsiders who have just accidentally interrupted a Halo circle jerk tournament in someone's windowless basement.”

I agree that no one should have been fired, but I understand the company’s decision. The situation went out of control when part of the internet thirsted for blood and the company’s site became the target of DDoS attack. It’s not a situation that a new startup can afford to face.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Mar 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Odd, you made it through that biased piece of shit in the OP, but this is worthless.
> 
> The point is that you can't blame someone for a picture on Twitter getting someone fired when the company could have investigated more or acted however they wanted to. They chose to be reactionary assholes though.



Thing is, she's a developer evangelist, so public opinion of her critically influences her ability to do her job. Broadcasting to the world that you're a humorless gender supremacist and getting someone fired over it all negatively impacts her ability to do her job.


----------



## Grep (Mar 26, 2013)

#include <fstream>                   // For serious this isn't a dirty joke, don't fire me plz, I just want to do file i/o :'(

^This is a precaution I take at work now.


----------



## Gunners (Mar 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Odd, you made it through that biased piece of shit in the OP, but this is worthless.
> 
> The point is that you can't blame someone for a picture on Twitter getting someone fired when the company could have investigated more or acted however they wanted to. They chose to be reactionary assholes though.


What you're saying makes no sense because you're assuming that only one party can be at fault. Yes their bosses decided to react quickly but that doesn't absolve her of the blame for starting the whole fiasco by posting their images up on twitter without their consent.


----------



## Zaru (Mar 26, 2013)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Looks like she might get the last laugh:



Jezebel.com?

You know, that feminist tripe site that regularly shits out articles normal people can only laugh about?

Yeah, THAT Jezebel.com.


Also lol at how her supporters keep spouting the absolute lie that she "stood up against sexism"
Everything she touched in this matter turned to shit. Everything she said was a narcissistic lie.
But some parts of the internet and media are purposely ignoring the truth to further their agenda against men. In case you thought this was just some conspiracy theory MRAs throw around


----------



## Karsh (Mar 26, 2013)

Because this woman made a mistake it somehow invalidates all womens rights and all the good, smart and sensible women out there doing their job and whom can live in the same wavelength as men as long as they're mutual about it.

This didn't need to become a big issue but the internet has made RL to be about "agendas" and shitstorms and defense.

You guys need to relax and stop making things into some sort of conspiracy all the time.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Mar 26, 2013)

She didn't make a mistake though, it was on accident. She did it purposefully, intentionally, and somewhat maliciously; and for her specifically at least there was an agenda at hand. She herself makes that clear.


----------



## Sōsuke Aizen (Mar 26, 2013)

Please stop calling her a feminist. She is clearly not a feminist. The only way I can describe her is hater, a later who cannot stand the presence of men in the workplace. Everything about men disgusts her. Last I checked, that had nothing to do with being feminist.

Can we have any evidence of her doing something that actually benefits women? Now, I'm not asking people how often she hates men. Please ensure you all can tell the difference.


----------

