Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

> But from even reading the title, I do know one thing - Julie is about to get a lot of negative attention directed at her personally

And this is why people who understand the political nature of jobs and who find themselves in a toxic culture just move on and leave the company to rot.

There is zero upside to what she just did both legally and professionally.

Next she will be complaining sexism in that nobody will hire her. Go figure--how many companies would hire a man who caused this kind of public stink? (see: Zed Shaw for the male example).

View on HN

No, yours is a defeatist attitude. The more people dare speak about workplace abuse the less downside there will be for future ones who do, legally and professionally. We're engineers, we shouldn't accept a rotten status quo and "move on", we should fix it. We should strive for a better society, even if it means some of us will be worse off for having done so. No pain, no gain.

> We're engineers, we shouldn't accept a rotten status quo and "move on", we should fix it. We should strive for a better society

Why should we fight a battle against an entrenched enemy? Leaving and making a better company elsewhere is FAR more effective. This isn't like fighting a government where we are stuck because of geographic place.

One of the many reasons why people form startups is to get out from under business culture that they perceive as oppressive.

She would be better off founding a company that shares her values where she can push them from the top rather than fighting from underneath inside one that does not.

This. A lot of the reason current startups have such fun cultures is because people who saw an opportunity to create a business consciously decided to build the type of company culture they want to manage.

If she wants the world to have more of the type of culture she wants to foster then she should go ahead and start a company and be the leader for once.

I'm certain that being at the top would temper her views of how much of her negative experiences were the result of actual active sexism and how much is inherent result of the manager/subordinate relationship.

I get asked to work for companies all the time, even asked to be CEO of a few. But I usually turn them down because I'm working on my ambitious and personal works at the moment, or I'm not actually qualified for the job.

What I don't get is asked to work at companies that have something to hide, which is fine by me. The real professionals have no problem contacting me about work.

Edit: The point of me saying that (before accidentally hitting submit) is to point out that no, speaking out about the industry does not prevent you from getting work. The people in power simply tell you that so you won't rat them out. If you're honest and have evidence to support you claims then other honest people will respect you for what you say. The others are simply people you don't want to deal with anyway.

Without taking any position on this specific case, there have been times where I wished I blew the lid on a horrible situation instead of just walking away.

I know a man who just got accused of sexual harassment and said (in effect) "fuck this" and walked away from the job. (Everyone I talked to, even extremely progressive women, thought that the accusation against him was bullshit.) It wasn't worth it to him to prove himself right because doing so would have opened up the accusation to the public and a bunch of people would have thought him guilty, even without evidence.

It was the right decision for him and his family. But if this person doesn't need to support a family, maybe it's the right thing for her to do.

> There is zero upside to what she just did both legally and professionally.

For her personally, yes. As for the rest of society, there is a lot of up-side longer term.

This is typically how it works in civil rights movements. Some people have to step up and pay the price. Those that denigrate their efforts are part of the problem.

> For her personally, yes. As for the rest of society, there is a lot of up-side longer term.

Is there up-side? What's a realistic victory condition? Firing all the executive staff? Making her CEO?

She just spent a lot of political capital on a fight that has no real victory condition. At best, one person gets fired and some "sensitivity training" get instituted. Was that worth the political capital she just expended?

If she is really that dynamic an individual, I would rather she expend the energy making a company that shares her values rather than fighting one that does not. That's a real victory and real up-side.

Huh?

If more people are brave enough to speak out about harassment I wouldn’t argue that it’s inconceivable for harassers to be more careful. I’m speaking in the abstract here. If harassers know that ex-employees might be willing to speak out against them they might be less likely to do it in the future. It’s pretty simple. That’s pretty much how societal change works.

That’s also why one person doing it is not enough.

> If more people are brave enough to speak out about harassment I wouldn’t argue that it’s inconceivable for harassers to be more careful.

Sure, but there are shades here. Overtly sexual stuff needs to be wiped out. But what about promotions and support?

Jeri Ellsworth had a problem at Valve, but it didn't seem to be related to her gender. It was that she was outside the entrenched power structure which is a problem for both men and women at Valve.

However, there is collateral damage. If this kind of problem can sink your company and you have to be too careful, you can avoid the problem by not hiring women. Oops ... unintended consequence.

> If more people are brave enough to speak out about harassment I wouldn’t argue that it’s inconceivable for harassers to be more careful.

Why can't you see that this doesn't fix the problem?

Laws and social approbation can stop someone from grabbing your ass. However, they can't make someone respect you as a colleague.

At some point those people will go into retirement and die.

I never said this is a fast process, ok? Stuff like that takes generations.

For sure. In the case of the African-American civil rights movement it took many generations.

But whenever someone minimizes an individual effort, finds excuses why they shouldn't have fought back, questions whether they really deserved it or not, or nit-picks their stories they are setting things back and slowing things down. Often the most rational people are the worst. They love to ignore context, pose what-ifs, and explore every edge case. But really they are just biased.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com