I'm sorry to offend but she is incredibly full of herself and quite immature. Like she's on some sort of pulpit, spouting things she thinks people give a shit about. I mean, she quotes herself numerous times in this post. She indirectly hints how her lifestyle is so similar to other rich CEOs. Also, from what everyone else says, she seems to be begging her "friends" to donate to her charity as to validate or eclipse her husband's success.
Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people. I'm saying "for real" because it seems their social perspectives are heavily skewed inward and towards themselves.
Also, it's super odd because towards the end of the post, the lines get blurred; she seems to be equating her husband's success with her own. She had literally zero to do with the success of Github.
Part of me is nodding in agreement, but another part is wondering 1) am I (unfairly?) biased against the author due to the story from Horvath and 2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice? Are we unfairly expecting her to be polite, not powerful and proud? Her husband's post was very proud and he didn't get the same criticism, though I think he did a slightly better job apologizing and focusing his message.
Not criticizing. Just sharing my own mixed feelings.
Definitely agree that it's more socially encouraged to see a woman's egregious faults than a man's. And her husband and his buddies clearly had more power.
On the article though, the aristocrat-wannabee pseudo-fears of "being misunderstood in their motivations as their companies grow", is ridiculous compared to the employees' fears: wasting their one life, humiliation, unemployment, impostor syndrome, abuse, etc.
2) is this another example of a woman being criticised for having a voice?
No, it is not - it is rather that you fear it's the case. It's no wonder given the growing emphasis on PC in recent years. Compare the OpenSSL/OpenBSD affair - nobody gave a true shit about attitudes years ago; whereas todays some harsh git commentaries generates a multitude of comments on many blogs; spawns two to three camps sometimes creating cute flamewars and a wikipedia section "Controversies" on an individual's article. And gender didn't even come into play.
Then again, I don't know all of the commentaries on that piece.
I think you're right. I've worked and been close friends with both people like her, and with people who have had a rough ride at work like Julie Horvath - and although we'll probably never know what really happened in the end - I have a lot of trouble believing Ms. Werner's side of the story after a write up like this.
She seems to vaguely admit fucking up, but that any sort of passionate founder eventually leaves to work on something new and exciting anyways, or that "even when their company was at the height of success [...] they try their hands at something different". I think that's total bs, and that it's certainly not necessary to plug the name of your charity 3 times in this post, because this whole situation has nothing to do with your charity.
I agree except we haven't really had a direct response from the cofounder. It could be that he was just naive enough to let the other two work it out amongst themselves. That doesn't work so well when you're dealing with certain personalities. Laissez faire people can get taken advantage of, like to pimp someone's startup internally, or by backstabbing social manipulators. That stuff needs to be proactively kept in check.
You put a vague feeling I had while reading her piece somewhat into words; but IMO, the attribute immature suffices. All I thought after reading was "For the love of $DEITY. Please just grow up.". And I do not consider myself very grown up.
> Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people.
I my opinion, the whole affair, and a whole another in the IT/incubator society where the average (not median) age hovers around 25, are sufficiently summarized with these words.
> I'm sorry to offend but she is incredibly full of herself and quite immature. Like she's on some sort of pulpit, spouting things she thinks people give a shit about. I mean, she quotes herself numerous times in this post.
I'm confused. What do you find wrong with her quoting herself? If she had been quoting herself for her wisdom or wit, the way one might toss in quotes of Thomas Jefferson or Mark Twain, then yes, that would qualify as being full of herself. That's not what she was doing. The self-quoting here was part of the narrative. For instance, she wanted to write about something that someone said in answer to a question she asked. She quoted herself to tell the reader the question.
What i cannot understand is why the co-founders wife is so involved with the company when she is not an employee there? I would find this very awkward, does anyone know why she is so involved with Github, is there any other ceo's with this precident?
How can you be so judgmental? You have read all of a few paragraphs and you think you know her? You have no idea what these people are like. I know people who, if you listen to them, sound like the most arrogant people you'll ever meet, but if you actually get to know them, really arent that arrogant and are actually really nice. Furthermore, in situations like these, people understandable tend to get really emotional so it is even harder to determine what they are really like.
In fact, your post comes off as arrogant and immature. For example, you say "She had literally zero to do with the success of Github." I dont know how many relationships you've been in, but women I have dated have helped me keep my sanity and my happiness while doing difficult things. That in and of itself has helped me do better and therefore increased the chance of success of whatever I have been working on. There are also many historical examples of this effect at work. In short, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Honestly, this whole situation shows that all three of these people don't know how to interact socially, like for real, with other people. I'm saying "for real" because it seems their social perspectives are heavily skewed inward and towards themselves.
Also, it's super odd because towards the end of the post, the lines get blurred; she seems to be equating her husband's success with her own. She had literally zero to do with the success of Github.