... am I misreading [2] or did Ashley file an office Nerf war under an "Assault and Battery" complaint to HR?

I'm not saying there aren't some legitimate potential instances of concern documented here, or at least grey areas (director inviting Ashley to drinks alone, 'looking sad' when she brought a friend and talking about his ex-wife) - but they are glossed over, and instead the focus is on sensationalizing some things I would consider trivial. The things I would consider particularly concerning are deemphasized in Ashley's narrative [2].

I suspect some of her 2015 concerns amounted to her manager and team really just not liking her very much. I suspect the behavior Ashley is pointing to wasn't sexism (from her female manager) but rather that she went over her manager's head to the director and shit-talked her. Naturally this was filed under a "Quid-pro-quo" complaint to HR.

It appears she had an open conversation with HR for almost six years complaining about many of the folks she'd ever worked with.

If seen this pattern happen where people get into little gossip circles where they ruminate on slights and offenses so much that they become magnified in their minds. Looking at it from outside that circle things seem pretty mild or not like anything to be concerned about, but when you dwell on them constantly and surround yourself with people consistently reinforcing the validity of dwelling on them, it takes on a life of its own.

Then when the seed is planted everything the gossip target says it does gets put under a microscope to confirm the suspicion that they hate you or are discriminatory or are retaliating over something or other.

I don’t really know what the fix is. I think the basecamp furore recently might be the way. Just discourage this sort of clique formation around airing grievances. But then that has the effect of not giving space for valid grievances.

> It appears she had an open conversation with HR for almost six years complaining about many of the folks she'd ever worked with.

Some people think they are hated because they are in $OpressedGroup, when in reality they are just insufferable.

Holy moly she wants to get Apple on a RICO Racketeering charge and a two year long false imprisonment?! da fuq?! [2]

Honestly when her own story ([2]) makes her seem unhinged, it really damages her credibility. It's hard to read some of this and not see an entitled, selfish person.

Update: from reading through some of this, as well as her "I thought I was dying" article (https://sfbayview.com/2021/03/i-thought-i-was-dying-my-apart...) I honestly think she's having some kind of mental health crisis. Some of the logical leaps she makes are bizarre and she seems extremely paranoid.

>With that disclaimer out of the way, I would have serious concerns about a male employee with 'valley girl' rising terminals in meetings. According to Wikipedia [1] while there are differences between the way men and women 'valleyspeak' it does in fact apply to both. I would address both the same way, seeking to understand - in open dialogue - whether there was a basis in (lack of) confidence and trying to find ways to support them further in their career development. Maybe suggest public speaking classes, especially if available through work.

I don't particularly think that the original complaint has much merit, (ie, being coached is not sexist) but that said I also find this sort of attitude wholly unhealthy. Is room full of paid professionals unable to distinguish the content of someone's speech from the quality of their delivery? Particularly in a case where we're just talking about tone of voice, and not difficulty with word choice or articulation? I believe it says more about the audience if they are unable to analyze an idea on its merits rather than using body language to evaluate the value of an idea.

Communication involves much more than the words said. Body language and tone are equally important to effective communication. That's human and transcends paid professionalism.

I think if you ran a business, and cared about the health of your business you'd be incentivized to hear the best quality idea, not necessarily the one you liked hearing the most. There are plenty of things we do that aren't "human" or "natural," but benefit us quite a bit all the same.

Sure, but why not then have the dialog just all text to speech? Businesses are made of people. The right thing to do for the business and the employee is to coach and train the employee to communicate effectively. This removes an unnecessary barrier between the idea trying to be communicated and the audience.

Despite my rhetoric, I'd bet I agree with you more than I've made it sound. ie, I know the difference between professional and unprofessional communication, and agree that professional communication inherently sounds better, and it's what people would strive for. A less extreme version of my argument might be that although it's important to help coach people to communicate effectively, but it's also important for managers and executives to understand the value of an idea even if someone is less able to speak professionally.

Also, plenty of communication works better via text. For example, a book has a very different format than a speech, precisely because of the strengths of the two formats. The same is true of something like a small talk vs. a technical document. And people, with their reliance on body language of course benefit from books and technical papers quite often.

Anyhow, this is a sore point of mine, and I seldom see much agreement on my position. So, thank you very much for your polite discourse on the topic.

Your views on this matter seem, to me, to be virtuous and empathetic. I suspect that being influenced by presentation is ineluctable however, which might be part of why you don't see much agreement.

> you'd be incentivized to hear the best quality idea

It's not humanly possible to do this, which is why it's such a false narrative. No one ever really knows what the "best quality idea" is, and expecting regular people to have mystical powers isn't helpful.

It’s only spicy if you are ignorant of the actual suicide rates at Foxconn versus other employers in China. The reality is you were significantly less likely to attempt or commit suicide working at Foxconn than other companies in the industry. Foxconn is a Taiwanese company so I would expect Chinese disinformation campaigns about their environmental health and safety.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/media-gets-its-facts-wrong-wor...

Sorry I forgot to mention the alternate to spicy in this context is foaming at the mouth.

> With that disclaimer out of the way, I would have serious concerns about a male employee with 'valley girl' rising terminals in meetings.

If you had two employees, one man and one woman, and they both spoke like a “Valley Girl” which would you judge more harshly? I suspect the man, for fairly to conform to expected gender norms/stereotypes.

That’s exactly why it’s sexist.

after reading about high terminal in the NY Times a long time ago I started using it myself, specifically when I was not sure of something, as a way to indicate lack of confidence. After a while I noticed people never picked up on it so I stopped.