going by that post it seems that for some reason she thinks it is appropriate to use the word "Fuck" on stage and inappropriate for people to complain about it.
That post is more about audiences who, when men and women talk and cuss the same, are shocked, wilting like flowers. They expect the women to be sweet, dainty and lady-like.
The whole of: When men cuss on stage, they're commanding. When women cuss on stage, they're unprofessional.
That post is more about audiences who, when men and women talk and cuss the same, are shocked, wilting like flowers. They expect the women to be sweet, dainty and lady-like.
I understood the context may be that or made out to be that, but in reality it isn't really appropriate for anyone. I am sure men have been criticised for the same thing, so I do not believe it is some sexiest ideology. It may be that some people believe that speakers should be professional.
Well, "fuck" is okay too (for some people apparently). As in "Fuck you, pay me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U (not by anyone from github, but still industry related).
Awesome, I must thank you for that link. I've thought about it several times over the past year, but could not remember his name or the video's title. So, thank you.
This is a company whose presentations have used the word “fuck” on more than one occasion, who just today have released a blog entry that discusses their chatrooms and how often the word “fuck” was said, including how often by their Hubot, (“our robot has something of a potty mouth”), so if that was the claim, I think she’d feel justified in expressing a little surprise.
This is a company whose presentations have used the word “fuck” on more than one occasion
Hey I understand your position, but she is criticising the "bullies" (whom I gather are audience members) in that statement, not the company.
The irony of this is she goes on to mention Adria Richards who became infamous for tweeting the private conversation of two people whose language was also inappropriate, and suggesting it was a difficult time for Richards.
So I am confused by the messaging in the post, it is ok to say "Fuck" but wrong to criticise someone for saying it, but it is ok to criticise someone for innuendo for forking a repo.
Umm, conversations in a public meeting which are easily overheard by others are not private conversation.
To have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an otherwise public area, one must make some sort of effort to establish that privacy. For example, by speaking so softly that no one else can listen in without technological means, or move to a room with solid doors and walls so that the eavesdropper must place one's ear against the door to hear the conversation.
This applies everywhere. Homes are considered private areas, and having sex is (usually) considered a private act. But if I hear my neighbors talking dirty while having sex, then if I want I can complain to them or tell others about the problem, even if they mean for it to be a private act in a private area.
You see this breakdown of public/private conversations all the time. Someone talking on a cell phone while on a bus may consider the conversation private, but if 1/2 the bus can hear the speaker, it's certainly not private even if the custom is to ignore the speaker.
My own opinion: unrelated to the issue at hand, but I'm sad at how technology in the world's brightest innovation sector is being used as I imagine it would be among high schoolers who had the power to invent and acquire millions in funding.
My own opinion: She is a terrible person to work with, in response to this [1] outing of her behind the scenes behavior decided to deflect everything back at GitHub with public tantrum filled with false allegations.
harassment is a pretty strong word in my opinion, so I hope she proceeds with blogging as to what constituted that harassment and why she endured it for so long.
On other hand if she was so bad as the Secret screenshot claims, why wasnt she fired. Of course this whole incident could be a result of a slow firing process where the employer has to collect enough documentation in order to protect itself from any discrimination lawsuit.
Of course truth be told we simply may never find out what really happened since each party will try to protect its image.
Horvath isn't so much protecting her image as she is heaping dirt upon it. She's allegedly harassed in the workplace, and the first place she goes to is Twitter? Nowhere in the flowchart of "how to deal with workplace issues" will you find a square that says "whine on Twitter." "Blog about it" is also conspicuously absent.
Flowcharts are only guides, not requirements. The law is very clear. Complaints about harassment are not constrained to only a specific set of actions. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html :
A complaint or protest about alleged employment discrimination
to a manager, union official, co-worker, company EEO official,
attorney, newspaper reporter, Congressperson, or anyone else
constitutes opposition. ...
A complaint about an employment practice constitutes protected
opposition only if the individual explicitly or implicitly
communicates a belief that the practice constitutes unlawful
employment discrimination\13. Because individuals often may not
know the specific requirements of the anti-discrimination laws
enforced by the EEOC, they may make broad or ambiguous
complaints of unfair treatment. Such a protest is protected
opposition if the complaint would reasonably have been
interpreted as opposition to employment discrimination.
"Whine on Twitter" and "Blog about it" are examples of "a complaint or protest .. [to] anyone else", and so constitutes opposition. If "harassment" here was meant to imply discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex - which seems to be the general consensus of this thread - then it would easily fall under "broad or ambiguous complaints of unfair treatment."
You can make up whatever ideas you want on what someone should or shouldn't do, but if you read the actual court cases you'll find that your views would protect workplaces with illegal discriminatory practices, including workplaces which actively support sexual harassment.
btw, she seems like a very driven and talented lady: she made a move from a marketing intern in 2010 to a marketing manager to a designer and finally(not represented in her LinkedIn profile) to a developer at Github.
I have no doubt of her abilities since Im assuming Github is pretty good at their interviews. Its too bad something got broken professionally or personally that resulted in this outcry
Lots of people seem to be taking the opportunity to jump on Github for "toxic culture" and so forth, but until we know what actually happened, they seem to be jumping to conclusions.
Some people might call this victim blaming, but until we find out who the actual victim(s) is/are in the situation, how can we know who is to blame?
A company could be the victim of a disgruntled ex-employee who wants to drag the company's name through the mud. And a company could have treated an ex-employee bad enough that she quit. The uninvolved public simply don't know enough facts to take a side one way or the other.
See the rest of her related tweets: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore
Here is one of her blog posts expressing frustration, although still vague: http://julieannhorvath.com/2013/03/22/there-is-no-emoji-for-...
going by that post it seems that for some reason she thinks it is appropriate to use the word "Fuck" on stage and inappropriate for people to complain about it.
That seems a little backwards to me.
That post is more about audiences who, when men and women talk and cuss the same, are shocked, wilting like flowers. They expect the women to be sweet, dainty and lady-like.
The whole of: When men cuss on stage, they're commanding. When women cuss on stage, they're unprofessional.
I understood the context may be that or made out to be that, but in reality it isn't really appropriate for anyone. I am sure men have been criticised for the same thing, so I do not believe it is some sexiest ideology. It may be that some people believe that speakers should be professional.
Yeah, if only she knew that the proper form of the word, for public talks, is "fucking", as demonstrated by Zach Holman, senior Github engineer http://zachholman.com/talk/if-only-i-knew-this-shit-in-colle...
Well, "fuck" is okay too (for some people apparently). As in "Fuck you, pay me" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U (not by anyone from github, but still industry related).
Awesome, I must thank you for that link. I've thought about it several times over the past year, but could not remember his name or the video's title. So, thank you.
This is a company whose presentations have used the word “fuck” on more than one occasion, who just today have released a blog entry that discusses their chatrooms and how often the word “fuck” was said, including how often by their Hubot, (“our robot has something of a potty mouth”), so if that was the claim, I think she’d feel justified in expressing a little surprise.
Hey I understand your position, but she is criticising the "bullies" (whom I gather are audience members) in that statement, not the company.
The irony of this is she goes on to mention Adria Richards who became infamous for tweeting the private conversation of two people whose language was also inappropriate, and suggesting it was a difficult time for Richards.
So I am confused by the messaging in the post, it is ok to say "Fuck" but wrong to criticise someone for saying it, but it is ok to criticise someone for innuendo for forking a repo.
Umm, conversations in a public meeting which are easily overheard by others are not private conversation.
To have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an otherwise public area, one must make some sort of effort to establish that privacy. For example, by speaking so softly that no one else can listen in without technological means, or move to a room with solid doors and walls so that the eavesdropper must place one's ear against the door to hear the conversation.
This applies everywhere. Homes are considered private areas, and having sex is (usually) considered a private act. But if I hear my neighbors talking dirty while having sex, then if I want I can complain to them or tell others about the problem, even if they mean for it to be a private act in a private area.
You see this breakdown of public/private conversations all the time. Someone talking on a cell phone while on a bus may consider the conversation private, but if 1/2 the bus can hear the speaker, it's certainly not private even if the custom is to ignore the speaker.
A couple of Tweets to note:
1. The OP has not yet explained what happened but says a blog post is on its way: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444649347037155329
2. Part of the problem stems from this Secret post that apparently refers to her: https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444646082857820160
My own opinion: unrelated to the issue at hand, but I'm sad at how technology in the world's brightest innovation sector is being used as I imagine it would be among high schoolers who had the power to invent and acquire millions in funding.
My own opinion: She is a terrible person to work with, in response to this [1] outing of her behind the scenes behavior decided to deflect everything back at GitHub with public tantrum filled with false allegations.
https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444646082857820160
What information is your opinion based on?
It wouldn't matter, nothing credible will come from an anonymous account that was created an hour ago.
harassment is a pretty strong word in my opinion, so I hope she proceeds with blogging as to what constituted that harassment and why she endured it for so long.
On other hand if she was so bad as the Secret screenshot claims, why wasnt she fired. Of course this whole incident could be a result of a slow firing process where the employer has to collect enough documentation in order to protect itself from any discrimination lawsuit.
Of course truth be told we simply may never find out what really happened since each party will try to protect its image.
CA is an at-will employment state. She can be let go without a reason and it would be insanely difficult to prove discrimination occurred as a result
Horvath isn't so much protecting her image as she is heaping dirt upon it. She's allegedly harassed in the workplace, and the first place she goes to is Twitter? Nowhere in the flowchart of "how to deal with workplace issues" will you find a square that says "whine on Twitter." "Blog about it" is also conspicuously absent.
Flowcharts are only guides, not requirements. The law is very clear. Complaints about harassment are not constrained to only a specific set of actions. Quoting from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html :
"Whine on Twitter" and "Blog about it" are examples of "a complaint or protest .. [to] anyone else", and so constitutes opposition. If "harassment" here was meant to imply discriminatory treatment on the basis of sex - which seems to be the general consensus of this thread - then it would easily fall under "broad or ambiguous complaints of unfair treatment."
You can make up whatever ideas you want on what someone should or shouldn't do, but if you read the actual court cases you'll find that your views would protect workplaces with illegal discriminatory practices, including workplaces which actively support sexual harassment.
btw, she seems like a very driven and talented lady: she made a move from a marketing intern in 2010 to a marketing manager to a designer and finally(not represented in her LinkedIn profile) to a developer at Github.
I have no doubt of her abilities since Im assuming Github is pretty good at their interviews. Its too bad something got broken professionally or personally that resulted in this outcry
What's actually going on?
Lots of people seem to be taking the opportunity to jump on Github for "toxic culture" and so forth, but until we know what actually happened, they seem to be jumping to conclusions.
Some people might call this victim blaming, but until we find out who the actual victim(s) is/are in the situation, how can we know who is to blame?
A company could be the victim of a disgruntled ex-employee who wants to drag the company's name through the mud. And a company could have treated an ex-employee bad enough that she quit. The uninvolved public simply don't know enough facts to take a side one way or the other.
To be honest, we may never get the full truth here. Both sides have their reputation to uphold.
There's a lot of vague-tweeting and theatrical "showing support" for both sides. Which is fine, and expected, when beefs like this go down, I suppose.
Not knowing any of the parties involved, I just can't pretend to know more about this than what is publicly visible, which is essentially nothing.
I haven't seen anyone 'showing support' for github. Just 'being disappointed' in them.
There are no facts available. This is sensationalist piece, move along.