If only there were another woman to whom very similar events had happened at GitHub...someone well-respected, like, I dunno, the very first hire they ever made...if only she had an incredibly similar story to tell that ended with her leaving and then winning a settlement from the company for the abuse she suffered...OH WAIT
"We've confirmed with a GitHub employee that "the wife" is in fact Theresa Preston-Werner, making her husband complicit in covering up (or at least condoning) repeated allegations of harassment and abuse at the company he helped create. We're told this is certainly not the first time the Preston-Werners have treated a female employee this way: Melissa Severini, the company's very first hire, was allegedly paid to sign a non-disparagement agreement after being victimized by Theresa Preston-Werners and subsequently terminated. Other employees have been pressured to do pro bono work for Theresa Preston-Werner's own startup, Omakase."
(From ValleyWag, March 17th)
According to Severini's Twitter feed (as of early April), the "investigator" never contacted her.
That's not a post by Theresa, that's an anonymous post. Hard to say how much credit to give it as it could have been written by anyone inside or outside of Github.
I know you're not supposed to feed the trolls, but I can't stop myself ... as the father of a mentally handicapped son, I'm offended by your use of the 'tard suffix. As the father of two daughters, I'm also offended by your characterization of feminism (and feminists) as radical activists. These do exist (even some that lie as your example implies) but don't impune those that believe in gender equality with such a horrendous label. If you can't resist, at least be man enough to post using a real account.
Feminists are radical activists, feminism is not about equality, and although everybody deserves respect and consideration as an individual, men and women are not equal and no amount of belief will change that scientific fact.
I dont understand why you're being downvoted for quoting from the chick's twitter where she accuses all men of one of the most heinous crimes one can commit. She doesnt sound like a champion of gender equality to me, based on this absurd tweet.
maybe it's satire. i'll try to give her the benefit of the doubt.
>men and women are not equal and no amount of belief will change that scientific fact.
Equality used in the context of gender studies generally means "equal and fair treatment". I know people like to split hairs with their definitions for the sake of argument, so maybe you can elaborate on why you think that women are not equal to men and never will be, what the science says on that, and how any of that applies to not treating both men and women fairly (read: equally).
Feminism was originally about equality (e.g. suffragettes for voting law, domestic violence law) but it has exceeded its mandate long ago and become primarily a tool to secure legal advantages for women.
A true "humanism" or "equalism" would seem to keep things fair for both men and women.
>Feminism was originally about equality (e.g. suffragettes for voting law, domestic violence law) but it has exceeded its mandate long ago and become primarily a tool to secure legal advantages for women.
Again, that is not what feminism is or means. That's more of a re-definition of the word to support a personal assertion.
>A true "humanism" or "equalism" would seem to keep things fair for both men and women.
You're absolutely right here. This is why you see fewer and fewer colleges offering classes in 'feminism' anymore. Of course, the classes are still being offered and the content is the same, but the programs are now called 'Gender Studies' increasingly, to reflect the very notion you are describing.
A close friend of mine is a got her PhD from Rutgers and has taught gender studies at a variety of universities over the decades. Looking at the entire body of feminist philosophy and output over the years, a central truth that her work and the work of many of her peers seems to reveal in talking with them over the years is that when you abstract their philosophy to its very core, all that you are left with is equality. And it goes beyond equality for both men and women as you say, but for all genders and eccentricities as well. If I had a dollar for each time I've heard a feminist talk about how there was not much difference between their discipline and say, African American studies, or Native American studies I'd be rich, because at the core of each of these disciplines is a quest for tolerance and equity.
But wrapped around this core is the study of the history of the treatment of these classes over time. There are attempts to measure the degree to which equality was present. And based off of that, there is activism to achieve equality where common sense and/or measured study revealed it to be lacking.
It is this last part, the action or activism that gives people the most problems I think. The setting out to 'set things right'. It is here that tempers flare, lines are crossed, and toes get stepped on. Here is where people disagree where the lines should be, and here is where some people make the claim that feminism has gone too far and isn't about equality but actually about grabbing special treatment and privilege. They've achieved equality in their past efforts and now they want more than that.
I get why people feel that way. The activism is the hardest because society doesn't agree on what victory through equality looks like. You see it with women's rights, minority rights, and religious rights every single day in my country.
But any feminist who deserves the name will tell you that it's a big umbrella, and activism is only one part of it, and it is really the result of the study of gender and it affects people's place in our society. Make no mistake, -feminism IS about equality, both by definition of the word and in practice in the field of study when you look at it as a whole. Don't get too hung up on its application by some actors under a large umbrella. Most feminists I know would be right on board with your definition of humanism and equalism, again, it's the very reason the names of the programs have been changing over time.
Oh look, you are another one of those ignorant people who treats feminism as a whole because it suits them. I know a fair few people who fight for "equality" and condemned of Adria Richards being a colossal jerk.
Food for thought - this article is discussing JAH and GitHub. Over the last few weeks, JAH has repeatedly quoted this person. Maybe that has some relevance.
This is admirable. I wish you and your family the best.
Take a break, simmer down, and ignore the cunt that wound you up. They are just someone behind an internet connection, and they will have no effect on your life or the success of your children's lives. Unless, of course, you let them.
It takes a stronger person to rise above the rest and lead by example.
I'm not sure why I felt the need to tell you that, because I'm sure you knew already. You probably give your children the same advice. Anyway, I hope you're alright.
My guess is the downvotes are largely based on your use of the word "cunt". (HN won't let me reply to your question about the downvotes, so I'm replying here.)
It's worth nothing that the connotation of that word is very different in the UK than it is in the US. So for UK people you should realize that it is completely beyond the pale in polite US conversation and for US people you should not assume someone from the UK using it meant it the same way someone from the US would.
I don't know about the other Anglophone countries, and of course I have no idea where coherentpony is from.
I am from the UK and the C word is not allowed in a professional setting. Scottish people sometimes use it as a term of endearment, but still, never when at work. Women in the UK rightly hate it as a figure of speech. I hope coherentpony gets the message clear, it's not an appropriate thing to say here.
I am from the UK too and, indeed, "the c word" isn't used in a professional setting. Luckily, HN isn't a professional setting. The word is reserved for friends and vermin. You can probably guess which of these I classify our troll as.
Well, I didn't mean to cause offence to anyone it wasn't directed to, irrespective of gender.
1) Idiomatic speech is difficult to deviate from. So to be careful, you have to be constantly on guard for how you might be perceived. ("He" as the generic pronoun is also in this category.)
2) HN has a wide audience, including people from the US, UK, and many countries that don't speak English primarily. So understanding how others might perceive you is more important here than among a group of close friends.
I didn't down-vote you but I would agree that here in the US, the "C-word" is more offensive than the "F-word".
And as for my well-being, I certainly wouldn't call that a rant (I can rant much more effectively than that). I simply believe it's a good idea to let people know how you feel and then move on ... No increase in heart-rate was required to write that paragraph.
My wife and family are indeed happy and blessed. And my son is sitting here in the dining room with me as I type (playing angry birds on his tablet).
I'd be very interested in hearing new facts about the circumstances of Melissa Severini.
The only problem is that the only source we have on this is Valleywag, a publication whose integrity is roughly on the same level as the stuff you stock lavatories with.
If only there were some sort of communications network that might make it possible for people on one side of the country to converse with those on the opposite...
Wait, what is the "incredibly similar story"? Is that public? I thought she signed a non-disparagement agreement and we don't know the actual circumstances.
Just a question partially unrelated: Since when it is legal to make a non-disparagement agreement? It is like a wtf limitation of freedom to speech and tell the truth
Never ever heard of something like this in EU and I can find only articles related to US. Anyone can instruct me?
Imagine you want to settle a dispute with someone, and agree that you won't pursue it further in court. Generally, that's a very wise thing to do, when possible. Preparing for and doing a trial is extremely expensive and disruptive. Rarely is your own case as strong as you feel emotionally, and you truly have no flipping idea if you'll win. Even if you do win, it can be appealed. When all the appeals are done, even if you still won, can you even collect all the money? And what about the years of your life gone by?
OK great. So, you're able to settle on terms both parties find awful -- but better than the alternative. Whew. But a month after you do, your opponent might go out there trash-talking. Then you do, in response. And your whole settlement has unraveled.
As a result, it is entirely normal and appropriate for two parties who aren't stupid, to agree to remain silent.
If the settlement has one party paying the other (as is often the case), you can imagine that they will pay somewhat more for a final settlement -- one that doesn't unravel -- because that's worth more.
It's nothing to do with gags or free speech. It's just the kind of painful common sense you acquire from having gone through any sort of legal dispute -- or if you haven't, that hopefully your attorney has, and hopefully you are listening to her advice that you're paying for.
In general there is no legal or moral barrier to being paid for your silence, as long as you are not covering up an actual crime by doing so.
Keep in mind that this isn't an employment contract clause, it is a cash bribe to stay quiet. Your freedom is not impaired: you have the choice between saying whatever you like or taking the money.
No judgement on GH but isn't a cash bribe to cover up harassment exactly that - covering up a crime? California doesn't have state laws against harassment?
With the massive prevalence of twitter, facebook, tumblr and other social platforms where people not just speak about work but are actually hired in this day because of their crowd appeal, I think these agreements are a lot less about covering up crimes.
Far more torrid things have happened at the biggest companies in the world. Stuff like outright sexual favors for advancement. Just bad stuff, the big difference seems to be active HR, active corporate attorneys and the general ban on talking about what goes on at work in your social media. It doesn't take many 6 figure settlements to "fix the culture" at a place, and if fixing it means removing a highup officer, that happens too (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2012/11/13/lockhe...)
Honestly, I'd think more start-ups would start to develop more serious twitter and social media policies. I don't know of one that didn't have some disgruntled former employees, just due to the demands and the personal nature of start-ups.
It's been legal since two individuals were allowed to enter a contract with one another. Furthermore it doesn't become illegal for someone to make disparaging comments or even breach an NDA. You don't go to jail for that. There are however consequences to those statements which were mutually agreed upon in a signed contract.
Why would it be illegal? You are not obligated to accept it. It is quite often a condition on out of court settlements and I can confirm that it is very much a thing in the UK.
She was allegedly paid to sign the agreement. Gag orders can be a normal part of out-of-court settlements - the person allegedly harmed receives financial compensation, and the entity that allegedly did the harming brings the issue to a close.
Who is the Julie Esson that also replied back claiming they were not contacted either? A naïve search doesn't show her being involved with github in any way.
This is great and all, but it's something that happened in the past and was settled, so I'm not sure how relevant it was in this case in particular. I think you're blurring a past mistake (this should have raised flags from the beginning) with the current events.
I guess I'm digging myself in a hole here since apparently my opinion isn't very popular. But I just wanted to explain why I said what I did, based on a moment of reflection:
- Founder allegations: sounds like they already came to the conclusion that TPW wasn't acting appropriately, so I'm not sure what the fact that it happened before adds to that.
- Engineer allegations: this is about people other than TPW.
- Github's working environment: Maybe Severini could have added some dishing on TPW, in particular (but not necessarily the company). But given the non-disparagement agreement and the fact that her feelings are apparently general knowledge, was another interview with her really necessary?
As @waterlesscloud says above, I'm wondering, "Is anyone disputing the activities of the Preston-Werners at this point?" The fact that it's happened before is relevant if you want to dish more on TPW's character or the fact that GH made a mistake, both of which have already been done. Adding more at this point is almost sensationalist.
Up until know, when evaluating GitHub's reaction, we assumed the other co-founders wouldn't have known about this.
If they had a similar thing happen a while ago where someone was let go, in a company that prides itself for employee retention no less, that changes our evaluation.
It just means they condoned Tom's behaviour knowing first hand that it was problematic and had been for a long time; essentially lending credence to Julie-Ann's statement that the culture was toxic.
Based on the response I'd say that there's a good chance the toxicity might have largely stemmed from the management team not wanting to oust a co-founder, so there's a good chance it's ""fixed"" now, but that still doesn't excuse their lack of inaction until now.
> Up until know, when evaluating GitHub's reaction, we assumed the other co-founders wouldn't have known about this.
I'm not sure how they wouldn't have known about the settlement with Severind, if that's what you're talking about.
For the rest of your post, yes, I agree, it means they made a big mistake (even bigger? Probably.) And that mistake probably did contribute to a bad* environment, as tons of people have already mentioned with the PWs and pressure about the wife's work. My point is that these shortcomings have already been documented and admitted. What did the fact that it's happened before add to that?
* Note: Be very careful, though, about accepting adjectives such as "toxic" at face value: she can say whatever she wants without damaging herself in this case, but people have a funny tendency to use strong words to describe things that, objectively, just aren't that big of a deal. For example, my school's newspaper had a reporter complaining about being "violently rejected" because someone didn't respond to a text. No joke.
Call my well poisoned by that experience, but based on her Twitter posts (some guy deleting her code for not f*ing her, for which there is no proof), I don't know how reliable her description is.
>- Founder allegations: sounds like they already came to the conclusion that TPW wasn't acting appropriately, so I'm not sure what the fact that it happened before adds to that.
This implies that this is an endemic behavior from tis person, and it would seem that she is an organizational cancer.
This would appear to me to be a super red-flag on her involvement in any company; ESPECIALLY given the fact that she appears to be branding herself as some sort of women-in-business-thought-leader....
From my outside, very ignorant view-point, she seems to be working exactly against what she claims to be leading in; she is an exceedingly poor example of how female business leaders should operate.
My personal opinion would be that she felt like she had some status/power and it just turned her into a horrible person where she thought that said power/status meant she could actt however she liked.
"We've confirmed with a GitHub employee that "the wife" is in fact Theresa Preston-Werner, making her husband complicit in covering up (or at least condoning) repeated allegations of harassment and abuse at the company he helped create. We're told this is certainly not the first time the Preston-Werners have treated a female employee this way: Melissa Severini, the company's very first hire, was allegedly paid to sign a non-disparagement agreement after being victimized by Theresa Preston-Werners and subsequently terminated. Other employees have been pressured to do pro bono work for Theresa Preston-Werner's own startup, Omakase." (From ValleyWag, March 17th)
According to Severini's Twitter feed (as of early April), the "investigator" never contacted her.