8 comments

[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 25.7 ms ] thread
It was very unprofessional of him to stoop to their level. After receiving such a rude response, he should have either let it go calmly or inquired about what their problems are. I wouldn't want someone who feeds the trolls like that to be representing my organization either.

The whole homophobic accusation was out of place from this context; as was the implication that he was fired for being "misogynist". GWC kept the "misogynist" name after the resignation, and it was unlikely that this person was the one to come up with it in the first place. I am absolutely saying that someone in that position should be more level-headed, and rightfully deserved the resignation/firing. I doubt it had a sliver to do with the ill-delivered complaint in the original reply.

Both seem like horrible people
Agreed. The whole thing just seem unprofessional. Bad judgement on both parts.
How is Amy a horrible person?
Her email and tweet kind of speak for themselves, don't they?
Rude/abrupt, yes. But 'horrible' through an email and a tweet seems like a stretch to me.
Yes, that email was rude, but not quite misogynist, and it was in response to a rude reply. Not entirely his fault, but I'd agree with krisdol that it could have been handled better.

Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the use of "Lady Pitch Night", unless there's some innuendo that I'm missing, and Amy Millard's rudeness was just as uncalled for. Here's what the organization has to say about the name: http://www.girlsintech.org/why-girls-and-not-women/

It was neither misogynist nor homophobic. It was, however, a really really bad idea.