
On failing our values, our team, and our industry - zorpner
http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/06/failing-values-team-industry/
======
MartinCron
This is, in fact, a very good response to this. Mostly based on what it is
not:

It's not a "sorry if you were offended" non-apology.

It's throwing a particular person under the bus or offering his head on a
stake.

It _is_ thoughtful and direct and raises my opinion of Atlassian. Well done,
guys.

~~~
stormbrew
Yep, agreed that this is how this kind of thing should be handled, so long as
it's also actually followed up on as described.

------
shravan
Context:
[http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/06/04/318882549/women-
complain-a-lot-interrupt-developer-says-at-conference)

~~~
germs12
thanks! +1

------
simonlebo
Wow. Political correctness at its best: bring on the witch hunt! What if he
replaced girlfriend with boyfriend? Would that still be sexist? His joke was
not on the sex, but on the fact that she was his life partner. You know couple
stuff. I kind of feel sorry for him because he was not intending to offend but
just be funny. It would be sad if he lost his job over that. I find
Atlassian's response makes sense since they are walking on eggs with such a
topic.

------
slifty
First: This isn't acceptable, especially in the current ecosystem where we are
all working incredibly hard to change a sexist tech culture, and when women
have very solid reasons to feel like an objectified minority.

Second: Since part of having an open mind is attempting to empathize with
people even when they make mistakes (And understand the mentality behind the
mistake, since we are ALL IN THIS TOGETHER), I would like to try to un-
demonize this guy at an individual level -- again, not trying to detract the
larger, meta picture: jokes at the expense of women are NOT OK.

I think a lot of the outrage here comes from the fact that we are reading his
slide as though he said "Maven is like _a woman_." He didn't, he said _his
girlfriend_. The issue is that on a public presentation the goal is to say
things others can relate to, so the natural conclusion is that he was indeed
making a generalization.

I'm curious if we would have read it as a more appropriate joke if he had
replaced "girlfriend" with a genderless noun like "significant other" or
"schnuckums."

Really, though, next time you're making a slide like this spare yourself and
all of us a lot of trouble and say "my cat" instead.

~~~
MartinCron
If that slide said cat, it would have worked perfectly. Brilliant.

------
GuiA
Typical pattern: a developer associated with a company says something
racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., there is public outrage on the internet, the
company issues a nicely formatted public apology that includes all the typical
tropes: "it's not OK", "we failed our values", "we let everyone down" etc.
(someone should make a website to generate those) - all while not really
saying anything meaningful.

The developer is an Atlassian employee. He gave the talk at an Atlassian
organized conference. I would assume his talk must have been approved
internally in some way or form (unless any employee was able to give any talk
they wanted without any form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper
problem here).

So here's my question: why wasn't this terrible "joke" cut out from the slides
months ago? Why, when the guy was preparing his talk, presumably rehearsing it
in front of his coworkers, sending the PDF of the slide to organizers of the
event, etc., did no one speak up and say "Dude, that slide is sexist and
doesn't add anything of value to your talk - just remove it"?

The fact that this didn't happen leads me to believe that the internal culture
at Atlassian must be quite terrible, and very much the opposite of an
environment where acceptance and diversity flourish.

(EDIT: received 3 downvotes on this comment less than one minute after it was
posted. Looks like the Atlassian PR department is keeping watch. Hi guys! :) )

~~~
amirmc
> _" I would assume his talk must have been approved internally in some way or
> form (unless any employee was able to give any talk they wanted without any
> form of supervision, in which case there's a deeper problem here)."_

Your comment hinges on this assumption but it is ludicrous. Especially in this
context. It is the antithesis of trusting your employees (and understanding
that people sometimes screw up). It does makes me wonder about the kind of
companies you've worked at.

~~~
Xorlev
Agreed. My company does not review my slides before I present them, they vest
me with the responsibility to moderate myself.

------
guiambros
While this was a stupid judgement error (when in doubt about gender, religion
or politics, just stay clear), I wonder what would be the reaction if it was a
woman talking about her husband. Or, better yet, someone talking about the
same-sex partner.

It would be no less wrong, but I believe reaction would be _very_ different.

~~~
mst
It would, however, still be a terrible and counter-productive slide.

I feel like this isn't really a "the thought police have rejected your slide"
moment so much as a "fucking hell, dude, that was dumb" moment.

~~~
guiambros
It would be no less wrong, and would deserve the same scorn this case
received.

Still, as a thought experiment, I'd love to see how different the reactions
would be. It seems that gender discrimination is, sadly, influenced by gender.

~~~
slifty
Sure, in the same way you would water a sapling more than you would water a
tree. You need to take special care when it is needed -- right now women face
a toxic environment in the tech industry; men do not.

It isn't sad that we are training ourselves to be more sensitive to things
that worsen that divide.

------
blatherard
Referenced story:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7847351](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7847351)

------
nicomoto1
I read through his original slide, and I see what was wrong about it. I think
changing the name of the slide to "...is my significant other" (or some other
term that does not mention any sex) would have still got his point across (a
satirical view on (clingy?) relationships). I understand why people are upset
seeing how he made a very clear reference to one particular sex.

That being said, it is perfectly natural for him to impose his specific
preferences when talking in the first perspective (a way of story telling).
Eg. You always say gf/bf instead of significant other if you were making any
other statement about them (good/bad).

The above discussion is purely since we are at the edge of what we would
consider sexism, and although I don't know the presenter personally, I would
assume his point was to compare a clingy relationship to maven (some
software), and not to compare to girls in general or imply that girls are more
prone to (clingy?) relationships. (I am assuming the best in him)

Given the context and mood of society though I can see how this can be
perceived in the way it is being perceived. (Context being clingy seems to be
associated with girls, I cant think of any other reason why one gender should
be offended if it is perceived to be equally prevalent in both genders.) It
seems unfortunate that this is the case, but all in all he should have kept in
mind societal perceptions when making his slides. (Rule 1 of making
presentations, always keep your audience in mind).

I personally would not condone such a slide since it seems to be exploiting to
be exploiting a particular gender stereotype. We as a society are guided by
our history and perceptions. (A quick example, asking a female chef to return
to the kitchen would be considered sexist versus asking a female software
engineer to return to her computer which might be insulting but would never be
construed as sexist). We must take care to avoid sensitive stereotypes.

------
overgard
Wait, seriously?

First off; technicalities: he didn't say "Maven is all women". He said "My
girlfriend". Presumably referring to a specific person. His girlfriend has the
right to be pissed off, I suppose.

Second off, if mild gender stereotypes are worth so much hate you might as
well cancel every sitcom on TV.

~~~
pdabbadabba
> Second off, if mild gender stereotypes are worth so much hate you might as
> well cancel every sitcom on TV.

Many people (including, of course, feminists) do indeed think that virtually
every sitcom on TV is unacceptably sexist. And while I don't know that the
slide justifies "hate," I do think that it justifies widespread criticism
since it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of gender discrimination in the
industry. (Or, if you prefer, it perpetuates an unfortunate pattern of
complaining and arguing about gender discrimination. Even if you think that
there is no gender discrimination in tech, it seems like you ought to agree
that inviting that critique is itself a mistake.)

And, no, I don't think it's presumable that he is just referring to a specific
person since everything he lists is, as you note, a well worn gender
stereotype.

~~~
MartinCron
Yeah, people don't seem to get that there is a different standard for decorum
in different contexts. Late night TV? Be as edgy as you want. Conference
setting? A little more professional, please.

------
duffdevice
This is not sexist. This is anti-his-girlfriend-ist.

Some people just love being victims I guess.

~~~
srinivsn
Every time I see one of these threads, I'm unable to understand responses such
as yours.

Whether he's referring to _his girlfriend_ or women in general, he's
perpetuating a stereotype. This has less to do with sexism, and more to do
with offensive stereotyping. You could replace the girlfriend example with
anything from this page (first link i found) -
[http://examples.yourdictionary.com/stereotype-
examples.html](http://examples.yourdictionary.com/stereotype-examples.html) \-
and it's equally wrong.

He's doing it as a representative of his company, and so Atlassian needs to
acknowledge that it's wrong, and they're going to do something about it. An
employee made a mistake in a public forum - simple as that.

~~~
newaccount4228
From your link:

>The definition of a stereotype is any commonly known public belief about a
certain social group or a type of individual.

That definition kind of contradicts your point. He wasn't referring to women
in general (certain social group) or to girlfriends in general (type of
individuals). He was referring to _his girlfriend_. For you to accuse him of
perpetuating a stereotype, you would have to claim that his girlfriend
represents _all_ women or _all_ girlfriends (which is sexist).

------
newobj
"I know the engineer responsible well. I hired him. I know the slide does not
reflect his values any more than it reflects Atlassian’s"

If the slide reflects his values _less_ than it does Atlassian's, that's
pretty bad, no?

~~~
javert
Well, technically, "any more than" means it reflects his values <= Atlassians,
and <= 0 is 0.

But I got a chuckle from what you said.

------
trhway
so, the guy had bad luck with girlfriends. Now he will be witch hunted for
mentioning his experience to other people.

------
spinlock
Maven is my Feminist...

* Looks Good * Complains a Lot * Demands My Attention * Interrupts Me When I'm Working * Doesn't Play Well With My Other Friends

------
germs12
Hmmm...he was talking about his girlfriend not women in general. Who are we to
contest his relationship? Maybe she is pretty. Maybe she does complain a lot.
That's his choice to be with her. I don't see the problem. Certainly not a
sexist slide. If his girlfriend is pretty and complains then it's factual.

