

Tinder Sued By Former Marketing Executive For Sexual Harassment - mcos
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassment

======
x86_64Ubuntu
That, that was too much for me. I've worked at places with bad culture
(nothing even close to the article) and I can attest to how bad it can
spillover and ruin the rest of your life.

------
MarioSpeedwagon
Even without this, there was a 100% chance the guy at the helm of Tinder was a
gargantuan douche.

------
platelets
The irony is almost overwhelming.

------
chatmasta
This is yet another example of why you should never mix business and pleasure.
Starting a business with your significant other, from a risk perspective, is
simply a bad idea. While she was dating him, Ms. Wolfe probably thought Mr.
Mateen was the greatest guy ever. She probably saw the opportunity to start a
company with him as life-changing.

There is no way to predict how your significant other will handle a breakup.
Any breakup is emotionally wrecking, and seeing each other every day only
makes it worse for everybody. I do not envy either of them.

Mr. Mateen's behavior is deplorable, but not exactly surprising. There are
only a few ways to handle a breakup. Some are positive, some are negative, but
this behavior is definitely on the list of possibilities. Ms. Wolfe should
have recognized that risk when she went into business with her boyfriend.

In normal circumstances, she could just ignore him and he would (hopefully)
cool off. But obviously she can't do that when she works closely with him.

When she began dating Mr. Mateen, there was a risk she would break up with
him, and a subsequent risk he would act insane because of it. When she went
into business with Mr. Mateen, she lost her options of mitigating that risk
sacrificing her ability to ignore him in the event of emotional catastrophe.

This sucks for everybody involved, but especially for her.

This guy seems like a real piece of shit.

~~~
cowsandmilk
This smacks of blaming Ms. Wolfe for starting a company with her significant
other. Mr. Mateen also started a company with his significant other.

As shown by the first Ms. Wolfe was able to handle separating her breakup from
her duties at work. She went into starting the company knowing she would be
able to handle remaining professional at work if the relationship ended.

Mr. Mateen went into founding a company with his significant other and was
clearly unable to handle separating the company from his relationship. This
falls squarely on his shoulders.

Plenty of successful companies are built up around relationships. Plenty of
companies survive their founders ending their relationship. While it is
painful, they most frequently are able to work things out by being civil and
being able to separate their relationship from their business. This all falls
on Mr. Mateen's shoulders for not being able to separate the two.

~~~
chatmasta
Ah, the victim blaming accusation. I was waiting for this.

To be clear: Ms. Wolfe is the obvious victim in this situation. She did
nothing to deserve it, and all responsibility for it falls on the frail, slimy
shoulders of Mr. Marteen. There is no way she could have predicted that he
would act like this. However, she could have known it was a risk.

Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Marteen is 100% responsible for this situation
does not invalidate my advice. I am merely pointing out the risks of starting
a company (or joining one?) with your significant other. To paraphrase another
HN commenter:

When the police teach people not to leave their keys in their car while they
pump gas and go get a snack, is that victim blaming? No. It's advising people
to consider the risks of their actions, which could unintentionally lead to a
bad outcome.

~~~
mikeash
When you say stuff like "Ms. Wolfe should have recognized that risk when she
went into business with her boyfriend," it's extremely difficult to come to
any conclusion other than that you're blaming the victim.

I think it's possible to make the point you made without sounding like you're
blaming the victim, but you didn't do it.

~~~
chatmasta
I maintain that she should have recognized that risk. When you walk outside
without an umbrella, you risk getting wet. When you and your boyfriend go into
business without an HR department, you risk emotional trauma and possibly
harassment. It still sucks to get wet, and it still sucks to be abused by your
ex-boyfriend.

Choosing to venture outside without an umbrella does not put you at fault for
the rain. Choosing to go into business with your boyfriend does not put you at
fault for his emotional issues.

Is it victim blaming to advise carrying an umbrella when it might rain? No.

My point is that when she joined the company, there was a risk she would break
up with her boyfriend and he would go batshit-crazy. That risk always exists.
It's sad and unfortunate, but it's a risk.

She chose to take that risk, and is unfortunately suffering from its negative
consequences. But taking the risk does not put her at fault for the outcome,
and pointing out the risk does not put me at fault for victim blaming.

(By pointing out the risks of going into business with your significant other,
I took the risk of being labeled a victim blamer. Does that make me
responsible for being called a victim blamer? _Mind blown_ )

~~~
mikeash
It comes down to how personal versus impersonal advice is taken. Examples:

1\. She should have known the risk of walking down that dark alley by herself.

2\. It's important to understand that it can be dangerous to walk down dark
alleys by oneself.

The latter is just solid advice. The former is easily interpreted as "blaming
the victim".

You're right, by pointing out the risks, you took the risk of being labeled a
victim blamer. And yet you still managed to use victim-blaming language
despite being completely aware of how it would be taken. All I can advise is
to take more care with how you word posts which you know will be
controversial, and if it's pointed out, merely apologize and mention that you
didn't intend that interpretation, rather than essentially repeating your
victim-blaming mistake _again_ by blaming people who read your post for
responding to the words it contains rather than reading your mind to glean
your intent.

~~~
chatmasta
Point taken.

