"She overreacted as did the man's employer, and she has not shown any remorse."
The problem is that people are attributing to her certain actions that she was not involved in. She didn't fire the guy; the employer did, based on his interpretation of the actions.
If calling attention to potential misogyny results in a witch-hunt or in victim-blaming, the underlying problems won't be addressed.
"We need to be able to call out bad practices. People deny doing this stuff, they say we should report it, they say we should report it non-anonymously. Sadly every time we do... the same thing happens as a result."
The problem is that people are attributing to her certain actions that she was not involved in. She didn't fire the guy; the employer did, based on his interpretation of the actions.
I am continually perplexed to see this argument. Two guys made inappropriate jokes in a public place and the same people who agree that "we didn't mean any harm" is not a valid defense for them offer a "she didn't mean any harm" as a defense for Adria's decision to publicly broadcast her complaint.
I applaud Adria for standing up and not tolerating unacceptable behavior, but I strongly disagree with the way she stood up. As she writes on her blog, she "began to contacting the PyCon staff via text message" and "PyCon responded quickly not just with words but with action". That would have dealt with the problem, without escalation that resulted in one of the guys getting fired.
the same people who agree that "we didn't mean any harm" is not a valid defense for them offer a "she didn't mean any harm" as a defense for Adria's decision to publicly broadcast her complaint.
You misinterpret the reaction. I'm not suggesting that the guys meant any harm. It's in their right to make the joke, and it's in her right to respond, and anyone telling you that the guys meant harm but she didn't is applying a double standard.
"escalation that resulted in one of the guys getting fired."
If this were escalated but didn't result in one of the guys getting fired, we wouldn't have this conversation.
You misinterpret the reaction. I'm not suggesting that the guys meant any harm. It's in their right to make the joke, and it's in her right to respond, and anyone telling you that the guys meant harm but she didn't is applying a double standard.
I guess I didn't express clearly what I meant. When someone makes an inappropriate joke in a professional setting, a lot of people agree that "I didn't mean to offend you" is not a valid defense and point out that they just shouldn't have made that joke in the first place.
Yet a lot of those same people claim that Adria bears no responsibility whatsoever for one of the guys getting fired. That's the double standard I'm referring to.
>If calling attention to potential misogyny results in a witch-hunt or in victim-blaming, the underlying problems won't be addressed.
What misogyny? From what I understand, they made a joke about the word dongle in a gender-specific way. Does a play on words about your gender's anatomy really equal misogyny? Maybe some people need to learn what misogyny actually means.
Offensive or even offensive to women doesn't mean misogyny. Misogyny is a hatred of women. Nothing in his comments comes close to demonstrating a hatred of women, or even intent to offend women.
The problem is that people are attributing to her certain actions that she was not involved in. She didn't fire the guy; the employer did, based on his interpretation of the actions.
If calling attention to potential misogyny results in a witch-hunt or in victim-blaming, the underlying problems won't be addressed.
lizzard (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5411276) wrote this earlier:
"We need to be able to call out bad practices. People deny doing this stuff, they say we should report it, they say we should report it non-anonymously. Sadly every time we do... the same thing happens as a result."