> the story was massively pinned everywhere as one of sexism, when the main conflict involved another woman, and then the man who reversed Horvath's commits appeared to hold a grudge, not necessarily sexist attitudes.

That is not true, that's just what the nitpickers here focused on. To quote the TechCrunch story:

Horvath claims: “I had a really hard time getting used to the culture, the aggressive communication on pull requests and how little the men I worked with respected and valued my opinion,” she wrote in an email to TechCrunch.

Why did Horvath work for GitHub? She “loved the idea of GitHub because it was the place people went to make things for people who make things.”

In light of that, Horvath told us that she “participated in the boys’ club upon joining,” but when her “character started being discussed in inappropriate places like on pull requests and issues,” the situation changed.

In short, Horvath said that she felt she was being treated differently internally simply due to her gender and not the quality of her work. She calls her colleagues’ response to her own work and the work of other female GitHub employees a “serious problem.” Despite GitHub hiring more female developers, Horvath said she struggled to feel welcome.

Ah, I guess one could have an argument for that, in that case. It still sounds like it was just a very informal and competitive environment, much like Bungie, where there are no idols and people are free-for-all, but I can definitely see how some can be put off by it.

Exactly: just like Horvath said – a sexist environment, and a sexist comment. Read here[1] on the definition of sexism. Notice especially how sexism explains itself away in naturalistic and/or neutral terms, like "free-for-all" and "competitive", while not so subtly shifting the blame to those who can't cope with such an "informal" environment. Usually, "informal" actually means that those who have power feel comfortable, while those who don't feel bullied.

[1]: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de...

Informal at the places I've worked meant wearing silly shirts on Friday and harsh language was used if you screwed up. If a woman quit does that mean it was a sexist workplace? If a guy quit after being berated is that different? I don't think so.

Also, you linked to a feminist site to provide the definition of a word. Is that normally how people cite the standard/objective meaning of a word or is this story a chance to talk about something you feel very strongly about whether it fits or not?

Edit: just read the definition. Women can't be sexist? Hilarious. Let me guess, African Americans & Asians can't be racist either? Warped view of the world.

> If a woman quit does that mean it was a sexist workplace?

No. But if she quits because she felt the environment was sexist, then yes.

> If a guy quit after being berated is that different? I don't think so.

Well, male-on-male bullying is also an interesting topic and subject to research, but the topic du jour is sexism, so let's stick to that.

> Also, you linked to a feminist site to provide the definition of a word. Is that normally how people cite the standard/objective meaning of a word...?

Well, I don't know if "sexism" has an "objective" definition, but yes, words are usually best defined by experts on the subjects. Just as gravity is best defined by physicists, sexism is best defined by feminists, who have studied sexism for the past few decades. I'm a newbie to feminism, so I defer to the experts.

> or is this story a chance to talk about something you feel very strongly about whether it fits or not?

It is something I feel strongly about because of this story and others like it. Because so far all evidence suggests that "it fits", I think those trying to make it look irrelevant are suspect.

> No. But if she quits because she felt the environment was sexist, then yes.

What if she feels she's Jesus... is she therefore Jesus? She also felt a bunch of guys watching some girls hula-hooping was sexist... and that the word "meritocracy" on a rug was sexist... so perhaps you should ask yourself whether her feelings are such an accurate guide to reality before berating the HN community for their supposed chauvinism.

Feminist scholars are in this case at odds with most experts on the English language, and the topic is unfortunately word usage. This is one of the peculiarities of modern feminism that I find frustrating. It is difficult enough to persuade people that discrimination against women is a real problem that needs addressing without also having to convince them to adopt this weird Newspeak.

> Well, I don't know if "sexism" has an "objective" definition, but yes, words are usually best defined by experts on the subjects. Just as gravity is best defined by physicists, sexism is best defined by feminists, who have studied sexism for the past few decades.

Feminism is an ideology, not a field of study (well, one can study "feminism" in that you can study what feminists believe and do, but that's not the subject here.)

Yes, feminism is an ideology, but one that is universally shared among those who study gender and sexism, just as anti-racism is an ideology shared by those who study racism. You can dismiss it based on ignorance, or try to listen for a second and might learn something.

finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007

Holocaust denial theorizers have better sources.

The work environment was allegedly sexist, and sexist comments were allegedly made, based on the word of a disgruntled former employee who in the recent past complained that the word 'meritocracy' is sexist.

Somehow I think the most reasonable opinion to hold is that of extreme doubt towards someone who probably encounters hundreds of 'horribly, deeply sexist' situations in every-day life.

You've almost gave a perfect example of ad hominem there, attacking her character without offering proof & using that as just cause for dismissal of her claims.

Fact of the matter is, it's too early to say whether she was wrong or not - that is the most reasonable opinion, which yours veers far off of. You weren't the one who experienced the things she claimed, so to dismiss it so quickly without offering anything nearing the level of claims she did speaks to your character more than hers.

You may be right. You may be horribly wrong. Whatever the case, you definitely don't fall under rational/reasonable though.

It's not an ad hominem at all. She made claims that are, for random internet speculators, fundamentally unverifiable. Indeed, her claims simply cannot be proven either way via discussion. It's little more than "he-said-she-said." In situations like this, you have nothing to go on but perceived trustworthiness. Prior events that might damage trustworthiness are not irrelevant.

>Fact of the matter is, it's too early to say whether she was wrong or not

Obviously, but you can speculate and weigh the possibilities.

We have a disgruntled employee (who is no longer with the company) writing a piece attacking her former company and some people working there. That brings a lot of doubt over the validity of her claims already.

Add to that the hilarious debacle this employee created a few months ago over a rug that so brazenly included the terrorizing, offensive, gross word 'meritocracy' on it.

If someone thinks 'meritocracy' is sexist, might they also think a totally ordinary workplace happening is sexist?

My bet is on her claims of sexism being a waste of time (you do know that you can speculate on something without being totally sure, right?).

For the rug thing: http://www.google.com/search?q=meritocracy+github+rug

Just so you know, the word "meritocracy", is in fact a parody, but because bitter irony has led to its being seriously adopted by some people recently, there is general consensus among people actually studying sociology (rather than some dudes with opinions) that "meritocracy" really is sexist as well as racist. If you care to learn something new, you can look it up and understand why, rather than dismiss something based on ignorance.

Ah, HN.

"I have a different interpretation of a situation which I was not involved in": check

"You can't extrapolate from analogous situations over to tech": check

"This wasn't sexism, it involved another woman!": check

"Racial slurs are an invaluable tool": This is a new one to me, actually.

I'm sorry, but if a person posts their article online up for debate, then yes, I will comment on how I interpret what they've given of their story. That's how public discourse works, I'm afraid.

You can, but you need to have convincing argumentation. The statement that "tech treats women like medicine and law did a century ago" is a blatant provocation.

Most of Horvath's story detailed a power struggle.

If your goal is to offend. Context matters, people. Stop deliberately trying to get offended by everything, please. It's not that I agree with offending people, but it's what the person in the OP's story seemed to be going for, and since racial slurs are highly offensive, they are very useful in that.

> since racial slurs are highly offensive, they are very useful in that.

I agree! And the context of this is important, as you note -- as verbal constructions, racial slurs are more effectively offensive than pretty much any other available words, and one can often easily use them after just having looking at someone. And, after having these verbal weapons leveled at him, and being in a subsequent fistfight, he was essentially told that "boys will be boys".

This should tell you something about how the power structures in play deal with minorities.

>And, after having these verbal weapons leveled at him, and being in a subsequent fistfight, he was essentially told that "boys will be boys". This should tell you something about how the power structures in play deal with minorities.

The "boys will be boys" mentality has traditionally applied to all men involved in fistfights, not just minorities.

And by fistfight You mean that one party does all the fighting and the other being all the unconscious?

One-sided assaults included, yes. The "boys will be boys" mentality is not big on the details.

Or perhaps it was simply them trying to brush off an inconvenient situation? That's something many institutions do, it's not just done exclusively when it concerns racial issues. Hell, the fact that it was a racial issue gives them more incentive to keep silence.

As for his friends, they might have simply decided it wasn't worth expending energy on a lowlife punk.

Two white guys (or two non-white guys) getting into a bit of a fight isn't going to make the local newspaper, let alone even the student newspaper. A racially motivated assault (which this most definitely was) just might.

Also consider that racially motivated slurs mostly have their power when used against minorities, rarely the other way around.