I think the implication is that none of this would have happened, or at least would not have been tolerated, if she was male. And it sound like the basis of her relationship with the founder's wife being "crazy" was that she was a female employee. So I'd say sexism played a significant role here.
Uhm, it was female on female. Is male on male intimidation, sexism? Because men are the primary victims of violence, and their sex being highly relevant to that, is that sexist? I don't think you would say that in this case it is.
Not to say there can't be girl/women on girl/women sexism.
What? The sexist part of this isn't the Founder's Wife's behavior(that sounds standard crazy), it's everyone at Github's behavior.
/*
Let me preface this by saying we have only seen half the story at this point, so I wouldn't make absolute judgements yet and the below is based on the hypothetical situation in which the linked article is 100% factual.
*/
If my founder was female and her husband was coming into work regularly to harass employees(or even at work at all...?)he would be dealt with _fast_. It seems that in this case(if the situation was anything close to as described) the founders wife was sitting next to a programmer for long periods of time and it wasn't dealt with.
So yeah, while this does appear to be more of a, "damn that founder and his wife be crazy" situation, we shouldn't forget that societal perceptions of gender are always influencing how these situations are handled. Creating an environment where situations like this are handled differently between genders is definitely to be avoided.
It's also worth considering that we have no idea if the founder's wife was also doing this to other male employees. She may have been - and gender perceptions being what they are, we're even less likely to hear about it.
There is plenty of woman on woman/girl on girl sexism. Women are socialized into the same world as men and tend to underestimate other women the same way as men do.
If you have been raised to think you can not do x cause you are women, you will assume that other woman are unable too.
It sounds like the male founder initiated the interaction, so the implication would be the cause of the problems was his sexism. I was not actually saying the wife's behavior was sexism.
The term 'girl' refers to a female between birth and when she reaches the age of adulthood. I'm pretty sure both parties in this case are adults, so I assume that's the reason behind the correction.
I mean, while technically true, the interoperability between the gendered nouns isn't complete.
Man / Woman
Boy / Girl
Guy / ???
Some people would say ??? = Gal, but most would find that very informal, especially when writing. The usual female equivalent to guy is girl, which is not referring to a younger age but merely a less formal sex descriptor.
Secondly, I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. If the guy is talking about girls, it makes sense, if he's talking about about women, it doesn't? I'm still lost there.
> I STILL don't see how that changes the point any.
Okay, fair enough. Nest time you see a black man over 20 and under 50 years of age, try calling him "boy". See how he reacts. But before you do, write that last will and testament you've been meaning to finish.
This girl on girl/woman on woman semantics you are calling out is unnecessary and distracting--even an uncharitable reader would have a hard time ferreting out sexism in the parent comment.
And by the way: your insinuation that a black man would automatically kill/cause bodily harm someone who says something racist to him is in and of itself racist and is far more perverse than anything else I've read on this thread by a very, very wide margin.
>Nest time you see a black man over 20 and under 50 years of age, try calling him "boy". See how he reacts. But before you do, write that last will and testament
Still can't see it? Yes you can.
>Next time you see a black man... try calling him "boy"... But before you [see how he reacts] write that last will and testament
Either your English is pretty limited (in which case, avoid getting into semantic arguments like 'woman' vs 'girl'), or you're being disingenuous. There is no universe in which that does not mean "because he will murder you." You say that he will need a last will and testament after the black man reacts. What the fuck else could that possibly mean.
The reason you're being picked on and downvoted in this comment thread, by the way, is because this kind of bullshit is a harmful distraction. There are plenty of serious issues to talk about in this thread. Horvath has revealed some toxic shit going on in a very popular, well-loved SV startup.
Using 'girl' instead of 'woman' for 'young female adult' is NOT one of these serious issues. As a young male in tech I know a lot of young females in tech; of the minority who actually give a shit about this petty nonsense, they all prefer 'girl' and feel uncomfortable with 'woman.'
EDIT: also, equating "fasten your seatbelt before driving" and "write a will before insulting a black man" as "common sense advice" is SUPER FUCKING RACIST
Is the above the "real truth"? No, of course not -- it's just as reliable an indicator of what people think as your view. The problem is that you have no conception that there's any view on this issue apart from your own.
> The reason you're being picked on and downvoted in this comment thread ...
Oh, I know the reason very well. It's well-established that downvoting inevitably follows the posting of a simple truth. The simpler the truth, the greater the number of downvotes.
Historically, in countries such as the U.S. and South Africa, "boy" was not only a 'neutral' term for domestics but also used as a disparaging racist insult towards men of colour (especially of African descent), recalling their subservient status even after the 20th century legal emancipation (from slavery, evolved to race segregation, viz. Apartheid) and alleged infantility, and many still consider it offensive in that context to this day since it denotes that men of colour (especially of African descent) are less than men.
That's easy to answer -- they're all ways to unfairly single out people based on traits that shouldn't be used to distinguish people, ways that are now illegal in some cases -- age, race, gender.
> That's not a strawman, that's a direct implication.
A what? A "direct implication"? Those words are antonyms. You do understand the difference between "direct" and "implication", yes? An implication is by definition indirect.
