Hm, you/they think the interviewer intentionally made Richards look as bad as they could, or something? I don't really know.
The article you link to is worth reading -- it's critiquing a different article by Ronson in the NYTimes Magazine, not the OP by the the same author in Esquire. Obviously he used the same research for both though, and the critique might apply to both. The NYTimes one indeed reduced Richards to 'an anecdote', it was not focused just on this case, like the Esquire one was, and the Esquire one is a lot more clear about the consequences Richards faced. I think he did a somewhat better job of depicting the fucked up stuff that happened to Richards in the more recent Esquire one, but perhaps it's still not fair.
Obviously Richards has actually suffered way worse 'retribution' than 'Hank', and it is indeed illustrative.
But I'm struck by Richards comment in the article you link to:
"This has been my M.O. for several years, and it's how most people who run blogs operate: You experience something that generates strong feelings; you wrote a blog post. Pretty straightforward."
Yet she blames 'Hank' for tweeting about his own strong feelings about getting fired.
I have no idea if he was wrong to tell the joke or not; I am absolutely sure she was right to complain to conference if she felt threatened by it. I think the conf hosts did the right thing -- they didn't kick him out, they just told him, hey, cool it.
It's fucked up that he got fired; and it's even more fucked up that Richards got fired, and harassed and threatened by a mob, and had her career ruined way more than 'Hank'. What happened to Richards is definitely instructive, and that women in tech _know_ that there's an internet mob of misogynists waiting to try and ruin their lives... provides some context explaining where she's coming from, for sure. I'll admit I don't think she was or is responding compassionately or entirely rationally... but I understand why.
"and it's even more fucked up that Richards got fired"
I'm not as sure. The article posted a somewhat misleading explanation, that it was capitulation to stop DDoS attacks and other harassment of SendGrid. But it wasn't mentioned that Adria used and name-dropped SendGrid and her "power" there to vocalize the issue, and that wasn't something SendGrid authorized or employed her to do.
Come on, you really think every time an employee mentions their SendGrid employment in a blog post about their personal opinions about something, they get fired?
Yeah, this kind of argument you are making on the internet is indeed an example of how many people were piling on to somehow blame her for... following the conference's policy on such things, basically.
This is a boring debate, but it is, yes, super fucked up how Richards has been treated, and she has been treated much worse than 'Hank', who was also treated poorly and unfairly.
> The article you link to is worth reading -- it's critiquing a different article by Ronson in the NYTimes Magazine, not the OP by the the same author in Esquire. Obviously he used the same research for both though, and the critique might apply to both.
Both articles are adapted from a book he's writing called "So You've Been Publicly Shamed"
The article you link to is worth reading -- it's critiquing a different article by Ronson in the NYTimes Magazine, not the OP by the the same author in Esquire. Obviously he used the same research for both though, and the critique might apply to both. The NYTimes one indeed reduced Richards to 'an anecdote', it was not focused just on this case, like the Esquire one was, and the Esquire one is a lot more clear about the consequences Richards faced. I think he did a somewhat better job of depicting the fucked up stuff that happened to Richards in the more recent Esquire one, but perhaps it's still not fair.
Obviously Richards has actually suffered way worse 'retribution' than 'Hank', and it is indeed illustrative.
But I'm struck by Richards comment in the article you link to:
"This has been my M.O. for several years, and it's how most people who run blogs operate: You experience something that generates strong feelings; you wrote a blog post. Pretty straightforward."
Yet she blames 'Hank' for tweeting about his own strong feelings about getting fired.
I have no idea if he was wrong to tell the joke or not; I am absolutely sure she was right to complain to conference if she felt threatened by it. I think the conf hosts did the right thing -- they didn't kick him out, they just told him, hey, cool it.
It's fucked up that he got fired; and it's even more fucked up that Richards got fired, and harassed and threatened by a mob, and had her career ruined way more than 'Hank'. What happened to Richards is definitely instructive, and that women in tech _know_ that there's an internet mob of misogynists waiting to try and ruin their lives... provides some context explaining where she's coming from, for sure. I'll admit I don't think she was or is responding compassionately or entirely rationally... but I understand why.