Why would someone read this whole post, and the main takeway they get from it - enough to post a hackernews comment - is to question the poster's claims of interest in anonymity. (And - let's be honest - therefore trying to discredit her whole story one chip at a time).
People like you are the problem.
The thing that strikes me, is that regardless of if this is 'verified' or not, that this sort of thing is not beyond the imagination or, indeed, the experience of most of us who have female staff/coworkers..
Even if the story is totally fabricated, the bigger point here is that this sort of thing really does go on, and I'm really not sure why. I've had staff who were totally normal and who I actually quite liked whom I've had to let go / perm shitlist for behaving in ways I could never have predicted them to, as soon as I added a female engineer to the team..
What's up with all this? Sad as it is, I always have a sit down with new female staff on my teams and try to let them know that they can come to me with anything like this which goes on and we'll work out how to deal with it together. It's a sad fact, but I've never discussed this topic with a female techie who doesn't have at least one story..
It's on all of us to stop this shit from happening.
Just... Have each others backs, folks!
Not a problem at all. People should always question credibility of random things on the internet.
Even though you just tried to #identity_politic someone with blind belief, I'm not going to say people like you are the problem. Just tone down your zeal a bit and approach the problem rationally.
Branding someone's concern for the well being and liberty of others as "identity politics" (or in other context "political correctness") suggests an interpretation of the world where the only reason anyone would empathise with others is to win credibility and acceptance from peers. It's a very cynical worldview.
That's not remotely close to what the parent comment was saying...
Being genuinely puzzled by someone's actions is not by definition an attempt to discredit them. I was also puzzled by her detailed description of herself. It wasn't clear to me wether she believes that it isn't enough detail for uber to identify her, or if she doesn't care if uber is able to identify her she just wants to be anonymous to the public. Neither of those cases undermine her story even slightly.
Its not discrediting, its asking for proof. There are some very harsh accusations here. And if there is one thing that I learned about the Internet, that its full with trolls. Just look at some Reddit dramas on what lengths people will go to troll others.
The proof is all the other women who are going to come forward.
The individual cases don't matter, because that can always be pushed off with "bad apple" arguments.
What matters is the trend. And there is DEFINITELY a trend. Every female Uber engineer will tell you that.
Indeed. Fowler already came out in public and said this is a systemic problem. If you accept that Fowler is a credible source, which I think is a fair assessment considering she's a talented and well regarded engineer who has nothing to gain from accusing Uber of such serious claims, then any other women who come forward can be given the benefit of the doubt that their experiences are real.
Also if you know women at Uber, you can also establish a trend.
>People like you are the problem.
Not exactly healthy discourse.
People have had a decade to get used to the idea of institutional discrimination, unconscious biases, unintentional discrimination and sexism.
I don't expect the average rural Trump voter to have become aware and gain an in-depth understanding of these concepts over that time, but well-educated, well-connected, big-city techies that frequent hackernews have NO EXCUSE.
There is no room for healthy discourse when the default reaction from so much of the privileged side is to pick apart, dismiss, and discredit.
If your instinct when you hear a woman coming forward with stories of sexism in the tech industry is anything but to listen, understand, and empathize, you are part of the cause, not the solution.
I can both listen, understand and empathize while at the same time engaging my critical thinking skills. The former does not preclude the latter.