
On Github and Speaking Out - jejune06
http://www.globalnerdy.com/2014/03/17/on-github-and-speaking-out/
======
akerl_
The initial premise of the article appears flawed. Based on my reading of the
community response to Horvath's post and Github's response, most people were
in the camp that the founder's wife's actions were outright ridiculous, the
coworker's actions (reverting her commits) were asinine, but that the article
did not appear to portray sexism, because her only provided example of sexism
was ~"some women were hulahooping, I saw some guys gawking at them, the guys
thought it was ok". If she had a case for more pervasive sexism at GitHub, I'd
like her to lay it out in the open so we can address it.

There's a minority of the community who are assholes and will always be
assholes. Without becoming a censorship society we can't outright extinguish
their ability to make noise. But the vast majority of responses I saw were
sympathetic to Horvath's position, if not her sexism angle.

~~~
pron
> If she had a case for more pervasive sexism at GitHub, I'd like her to lay
> it out in the open so we can address it.

She did. Yet it seems like every effort is made _not_ to address it, including
flagging of two articles on HN today, both incidentally or not by women, so
that they wouldn't make it to the front page (one did, briefly)[1], [2].

> But the vast majority of responses I saw were sympathetic to Horvath's
> position, if not her sexism angle.

That's right. Many of the comments of HN were disappointingly sexist. Just to
give you an example of how cleverly sexism can be masked (even, and
especially, if it's unintentional masking of unintentional sexism), the very
same people who were quick to assign blame in the NSA/Snowden story, or the
Aaron Swartz story, all of a sudden called for restraint until further "data"
is obtained in this case so they could form an "informed" opinion, while views
supporting and expounding on the sexism claims were dismissed as "emotional".
Actually this masking of sexism is so banal, that it is, in fact, anything but
clever.

[1]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7416189](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7416189)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7418029](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7418029)

~~~
chc
I'm sympathetic to the problems women face in this industry, but the fact that
HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is something that
should be encouraged, not shamed. Maybe people were able to show restraint in
this case because they felt less close to the issue due to sexist tendencies,
but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should be
the ideal across the board.

Also, neither of those articles are by Horvath and they barely even go into
her accusation of sexism, so I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate
that she did elaborate on her accusation. Are you sure you linked the right
ones?

~~~
pron
> the fact that HN did not leap to unwarranted conclusions in this case is
> something that should be encouraged, not shamed

Well, that it did so using the most banal chauvinistic terms makes it kind of
shameful.

> but the modicum of restraint shown is not itself sexism — it's what should
> be the ideal across the board.

Yes, but the fact that restraint is shown only when women and sexism are
involved is in itself sexist (actually, this is not quite true; I seem to
recall similar calls to restraint of judgement back when Uber's employees
picketed the company).

> I'm not sure how they're supposed to illustrate that she did elaborate on
> her accusation

They're not. Her accusations of systemic sexism are clearly laid out at the
top of the original TechCrunch story, but have been largely ignored in the
discussion. The flagging of those two stories is just another example of the
commendable (yet strangely exceptional) restraint HN is showing today :)

... aaaand this very article just mysteriously dropped off the front page.
Another fine example of admirable (albeit selective) restraint.

~~~
chc
I just reread the article to be sure I hadn't glossed over it, and I
personally do not see any clear account of sexism. She says it was there, and
I believe her (because sexism at a tech startup is about as surprising as ants
at a picnic), but she doesn't clearly describe it at all. None of the specific
grievances she cites have any clear connection to her gender.

PS: Sorry people are hating so much on your reply. I do appreciate your
overall point.

~~~
pron
This isn't rape, you know. Sexism isn't an event. It's an atmosphere. She
describes the atmosphere. Short of providing hours of videos or recordings,
I'm not sure how much more clear she could have put it. Of course, if she had,
those would have been generally dismissed as aberrations, or, more likely, as
her "misunderstanding" the situation, or "natural in a competitive
environment".

But that's not surprising either, because the HN community is sexist, and
those are textbook responses to allegations of sexism.

~~~
akerl_
If she does not give examples of the sexist atmosphere, we can't accurately
form opinions about GitHub and GitHub can't address her concerns.

If I'm missing an actual example of sexism from her post, other than the
hulahooping situation which I've already noted and addressed, please enlighten
me.

~~~
pron
"aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked
with respected and valued my opinion"

"character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull
requests and issues"

"she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her
gender and not the quality of her work"

These are _actual_ examples of sexism. I don't know what exactly you were
expecting. Pictures of men dropping their pants? Because that's not sexism;
that's sexual harassment. Sexism is an atmosphere and a culture which she says
she experienced. Please read up on what sexism is before placing yourself in
the role of the lawyer for the defense. Just ask yourself this: were you
displaying the same sort of skepticism in the Aaron Swartz case, or were you
inclined to believe his accounts or the accounts of those close to him? If the
answer is that you weren't skeptical back then, then you're displaying sexist
behavior right now even if you don't feel like you are or it's not your
intention.

When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you
don't see it, precisely because you _can 't_ see it. It's just like someone
telling you you've got something stuck in your teeth. When someone tells you
you've got something stuck in your teeth, you don't assume they're lying, but
you go look in the mirror; if you don't, you run the risk of looking stupid.
Sexism is exactly the same: if someone tells you you're sexist, you go look in
the mirror long and hard. If you deny it, you just look stupid, because how do
you deny something that you can't see?

~~~
theorique
_When someone accuses you of sexism, then you are probably sexist even if you
don 't see it_

And isn't that convenient?

This is the reason why people are scared to death of a mere _accusation_ of
sexism or racism.

Of course, we can joke about it, and quote Avenue Q ("everyone's a little bit
racist..."), but it's just about as easy to defend against as being accused of
being a Communist in 1950s Hollywood, or being accused of being a witch in
1620s New England. Once the taint is attached to a person, especially in a
high profile or scandalous case, it hangs around for a while.

In reality, all that we can determine when A accuses B of sexism, is that A
_experiences_ something B is doing as sexist (or _thinks_ they do). But A
could be mistaken, A could have an axe to grind with B, or it could simply be
a difference of opinion about what is sexist and what is not. To say otherwise
is just jumping to conclusions.

~~~
pron
> And isn't that convenient?

Sexism is anything but convenient to its victims.

> In reality, all that we can determine when A accuses B of sexism, is that A
> experiences something B is doing as sexist (or thinks they do).

Yes. That's usually what sexism is. What A experiences.

> But A could be mistaken

In theory - yes. In practice, chances of that are low, especially in tech. You
see, tech is _such_ a sexist environment, that if _anyone_ experiences sexism
in your company, it's probably there. Even if no one experiences it it's
probably there. Unlike Communism in the 50s, though, it's no biggie. You
listen, try to understand, identify and empathize and fix whatever needs
fixing. That's not "jumping to conclusions", but realizing that this is a very
serious problem in tech right now, and all you need to do is try and fix it.
No one is getting blacklisted or going to jail.

And it's not a "taint", unless the allegations are of something far more
serious than simple sexism (like sexual harassment).

What I don't understand is why would anyone, when faced with the accusation
that some of their employees feel unsafe or bullied, would try to fight this.
If someone tells you the atmosphere in your company makes them uncomfortable,
you better listen. You shouldn't take offense by someone calling you sexist
because chances are that you are. Why? Because we are flooded with sexist
ideas starting in kindergarten and everywhere else since. Think of it is a
vestigial social appendage. Everybody has it. It's ingrained in us. If someone
points that out to you, you should be thankful, because you're seeing
something that you're not accustomed to seeing. It can be truly eye opening
and enlightening, and unlike some interesting fact about the big bang, this
knowledge can make living in our society a lot better for everyone.

~~~
theorique
I think part of the challenge is that people are conditioned by media to view
"sexism" or "racism" only in the grossest extremes, as things that are only
done by truly evil people. For example: "sexism" as the boss who gropes his
female subordinates and proposes sexual services in exchange for special
treatment or promotions; "racism" as the cross-burning Klansmen or curb-
stomping skinheads.

As such, admitting to "a little" sexism or "a little" racism is viewed by many
as a one way slippery slope of perception where their friends and colleagues
will soon be viewing them as those aforementioned examples of undiluted evil.

Additionally, from a tactical / practical point of view, it may be unwise to
admit anything in front of HR, which generally exists primarily to protect the
company's ass from liability, and only incidentally to protect the employees.
No one wants to be written up or sent to sensitivity training.

------
vezzy-fnord
Interesting. I didn't see that much negative attitudes after the story was
cleared out, actually most were sympathetic. The main disagreements were how
the story was massively pinned everywhere as one of sexism, when the main
conflict involved another woman, and then the man who reversed Horvath's
commits appeared to hold a grudge, not necessarily sexist attitudes.

Sorry about the incident you describe, but I'm having a hard time
extrapolating it to systemic racism. It appeared that it was an uneducated
punk trying to impress a love interest through the only brutish way he knows:
violence. He also needs to intimidate you somehow, and your race stands out.
So what do you think he's going to do, in that case? Comment on your race, of
course. People of lower caliber tend to focus on these superficialities.

Oh, and they also tend to be highly effective insults. There's that, too. If
your goal is to offend, racial slurs are an invaluable tool.

But even if we were to assume that this arbitrary incident from over 25 years
ago is evidence of current events, I still cannot take your claim that the
tech industry is "as welcoming to women as medicine and law were a century
ago" at face value.

Secret WASP classes, indeed. Most higher education today is the polar opposite
of that ideologically, but there you go.

~~~
pron
> the story was massively pinned everywhere as one of sexism, when the main
> conflict involved another woman, and then the man who reversed Horvath's
> commits appeared to hold a grudge, not necessarily sexist attitudes.

That is not true, that's just what the nitpickers here focused on. To quote
the TechCrunch story:

 _Horvath claims: “I had a really hard time getting used to the culture, the
aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with
respected and valued my opinion,” she wrote in an email to TechCrunch._

 _Why did Horvath work for GitHub? She “loved the idea of GitHub because it
was the place people went to make things for people who make things.”_

 _In light of that, Horvath told us that she “participated in the boys’ club
upon joining,” but when her “character started being discussed in
inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues,” the situation
changed._

 _In short, Horvath said that she felt she was being treated differently
internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work. She calls
her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub
employees a “serious problem.” Despite GitHub hiring more female developers,
Horvath said she struggled to feel welcome._

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Ah, I guess one could have an argument for that, in that case. It still sounds
like it was just a very informal and competitive environment, much like
Bungie, where there are no idols and people are free-for-all, but I can
definitely see how some can be put off by it.

~~~
pron
Exactly: just like Horvath said – a sexist environment, and a sexist comment.
Read here[1] on the definition of sexism. Notice especially how sexism
explains itself away in naturalistic and/or neutral terms, like "free-for-all"
and "competitive", while not so subtly shifting the blame to those who can't
cope with such an "informal" environment. Usually, "informal" actually means
that those who have power feel comfortable, while those who don't feel
bullied.

[1]: [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-
de...](http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/)

~~~
reallyseriously
Informal at the places I've worked meant wearing silly shirts on Friday and
harsh language was used if you screwed up. If a woman quit does that mean it
was a sexist workplace? If a guy quit after being berated is that different? I
don't think so.

Also, you linked to a feminist site to provide the definition of a word. Is
that normally how people cite the standard/objective meaning of a word or is
this story a chance to talk about something you feel very strongly about
whether it fits or not?

Edit: just read the definition. Women can't be sexist? Hilarious. Let me
guess, African Americans & Asians can't be racist either? Warped view of the
world.

~~~
pron
> If a woman quit does that mean it was a sexist workplace?

No. But if she quits _because_ she felt the environment was sexist, then yes.

> If a guy quit after being berated is that different? I don't think so.

Well, male-on-male bullying is also an interesting topic and subject to
research, but the topic du jour is sexism, so let's stick to that.

> Also, you linked to a feminist site to provide the definition of a word. Is
> that normally how people cite the standard/objective meaning of a word...?

Well, I don't know if "sexism" has an "objective" definition, but yes, words
are usually best defined by experts on the subjects. Just as gravity is best
defined by physicists, sexism is best defined by feminists, who have studied
sexism for the past few decades. I'm a newbie to feminism, so I defer to the
experts.

> or is this story a chance to talk about something you feel very strongly
> about whether it fits or not?

It is something I feel strongly about _because_ of this story and others like
it. Because so far all evidence suggests that "it fits", I think those trying
to make it look irrelevant are suspect.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Well, I don't know if "sexism" has an "objective" definition, but yes, words
> are usually best defined by experts on the subjects. Just as gravity is best
> defined by physicists, sexism is best defined by feminists, who have studied
> sexism for the past few decades.

Feminism is an ideology, not a field of study (well, one can study "feminism"
in that you can study what feminists believe and do, but that's not the
subject here.)

~~~
pron
Yes, feminism _is_ an ideology, but one that is universally shared among those
who study gender and sexism, just as anti-racism is an ideology shared by
those who study racism. You can dismiss it based on ignorance, or try to
listen for a second and might learn something.

------
programminggeek
It seems like whenever something like this happens publicly in our industry, a
lot of people get all up in arms for a few days on blogs and twitter and then
people forget until the next one happens. I suppose that is the way of the
world, but it seems like people are more invested in being upset by things
like sexism, racism, spying, or whoever sold for a billion dollars than they
are in doing anything about it. I think a lot of people like complaining and
being unhappy, even if the problems of the day have nothing to do with them
directly.

------
Bahamut
I have experienced similar sorts of crap behavior in the past (racial,
violent, etc.) - my only recourse in some cases were to respond to violence
with violence unfortunately, although it did have a net positive effect that I
somehow gained respect & the reputation that I would fight back, so that no
one would mess with me. The downside is that sometimes you end up having to
continually prove yourself at various points in your life.

Violence is not my preferred method of retaliation though - violence in itself
does not prove a point, except that I am not willing to be trampled on. It has
also backfired on me in the past at times (ex. fracturing my hand while in
boot camp from retaliating over getting punched in a stressful moment - the
initial punch I took was due to some mythical blame that I was at fault for
the platoon getting jacked up). Sometimes you cannot do anything else when a
bully attacks you directly - the only thing such people understand is meeting
power with power, that is the state of their brutish mind. They don't ascribe
to the fundamental premise of mutual respect, even when you have not done
anything that should have provoked it. You're just used as an excuse to vent
out frustrations over self-deficiencies or failures.

This is why we, the new privileged class of tech, should be doing everything
to abet this behavior, and show that we should be welcoming - we should be
showing that there is a better way than repeating the same old animalistic
behavior in a new form. Behavior like this or what Julie experienced is
abhorrent, and commentary should take into account that we are talking about
people who have experienced what no one should experience ever.

------
hueving
The second paragraph is a complete strawman of the discourse that occurred
here. It's so unrepresentative of what I witnessed that I thought it was a
joke. How can you post something like that and expect any of your post to be
taken credibly after that?

