Hacker News Reader

Comment by gadders | Hacker News Reader

I think it's amazing to compare the handling of this case with that of James Damore. Whatever you may think of what he wrote, he never physically assaulted anybody.

View on HN

You're right. It doesn't make sense unless there are many people at Google that prefer sexual harassment to people that think and say the wrong things.

Either that or Damore just had less social standing than this person and therefore was treated differently.

No, but for many Damore is guilty of wrongthink, and deserved his fate.

The fact that your comment was downvoted without comment seems quite telling.

Right. Nowadays, physical altercations can be swept under the rug. Ideological ones, not having drunk sufficient amounts of kool-aid, generally cannot be.

No, he didn't physically assault someone, he just created a toxic work environment. Which, in the great at-will employment state of California falls under the "You can be fired for any reason, including no reason whatsoever" employment clause.

But yes, it would be nice if companies actually published their HR procedures, and expectations, so that they could be held accountable for how they carry out (Or fail to carry out) disciplinary action.

So that you can actually know that there is a double standard for the rank and file, versus the thought leaders, instead of having to infer it from reading tea leaves.

Well, accused of creating a toxic work environment by sending a dispassionate email with citations about the gender balance in technology. After the HR department specifically asked for feedback.

Again, he could be talking rubbish, but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.

You say it's a dispassionate email, I say it's ten pages of dogwhistles, junk science, and other nonesense, that spelled out that his co-workers are biologically incapable of doing their jobs, because <citations of research that makes no such claims>.

> but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.

Oh, I'm by no means defending Andy, here. That he got a pat on the back, and an exit bonus is unconscionable. There's clearly a problem here.

At least we agree on one thing :-)

> that spelled out that his co-workers are biologically incapable of doing their jobs, because...

Can you point me to where it said that? I don't remember reading anything like that in his paper.

It's his incorrect conclusion that women are inferior to men.

You read his memo, right?

Yeah, I did, which is why I'm asking. I never saw anything saying that women were inferior to men, or that "his co-workers are biologically incapable of doing their jobs"

Can you point it out?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com