That's well put. Jesus Christ, I didn't realize it could get this bad. This is like if someone took the usual sexism stories, magnified them beyond all possible imagination, and made it reality. Somehow I must've been lucky, but I don't feel like I've ever met anyone who would act anything like this...
(To be fair, I'm reading one side of the story via the link above, but assuming that the facts there are actually true...)
Thanks for the link. The exhibits really paint an appalling portrait of the guy. He's acting like an insecure 14 year old.
I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but the whole situation seems to have been really mishandled (and that's a feeling I'm getting from a court complaint from her side). Again, I'm not saying she asked for it or anything, just that pursuing an ongoing relationship might not have been the best idea.
In any case, that seems to be a terrible working environment. I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.
If that's how it came across I probably really expressed myself improperly because that wasn't my point at all (English being my second language probably doesn't help and I really hesitated to post because I knew there was a chance I wasn't properly formulating my argument).
So let me clarify: I don't believe it was her fault in any way. Quite the opposite, I believe 100% that the guy is at fault here. My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight. I probably should have chosen a better word than responsibility seeing as it was more a comment aimed at the apparent lack of capacity to adequately disengage from unhealthy situations a lot of adults seem to exhibit. We're not used to saying "no" and to moving on. I was only saying this because similar situations happened to me in which I wished later that I could have disengaged and saved me some heartache.
I believe (only from reading this complaint) that the behavior exhibited by Mateen is unacceptable and reprehensible and that he's clearly at fault. My intention was not to blame her but merely to express a general observation regarding a lot of relationship failures I witnessed. So if this came across as victim blaming I sincerely apologize. It wasn't the intent.
The point is that reading something like this, the least interesting topic is what the complainant could have done differently.
The principle discussion is: never shoulda happened. Inappropriate, unacceptable. Not second guessing the strategy of someone in an impossible situation.
I have to disagree that it's the least interesting topic. A relationship is never a one way street and while in this situation one of the party clearly seems to be at fault, it's not always the case. Of course it never should have happened but it has and so the discussion about damage mitigation is still a valid one.
I wish I was taught any kind of disengagement skill when I was being bullied as a kid, even though it never should have happened (and since I can foresee the uproar here, I'm in no way implying the two are equivalent but merely noticing similarities).
It's a shame that "here are some tips to protect yourzelf from assholes" only come up after a case like this. Because in this context it does feel a little bit like victim blaming, even with all the caveats.
That's because it should read "here are some tips to avoid being an asshole". "Here are tips to protect yourself from assholes" is very much victim blaming no matter the context.
Sure, some of it - most of it - might be good advice (e.g. don't date cofounders/coworkers) but in the end that advice in itself won't do anything if the other person is an asshole. Whitney could have avoided a relationship and tried to defuse things as best as she could, but Justin could still have been an ass and harass her for rejecting him.
So are police victim-blaming when they give advice about the number of cars stolen from petrol station forecourts (because people fill up, then go and pay, but leave the keys in the ignition and the doors open) and suggest that people should be a bit careful?
Certainly in this thread any advice is victim blaming.
But that doesn't make the advice useless or pointless or harmful.
And it's certainly on topic for HN - psychology of dealing with difficult people applies to work and suppliers and customers and regulators and yes, unrepentant assholes.
Victim-blaming implies someone has blamed someone else for their circumstance. Telling someone how to avoid assholes is not victim-blaming, its education that all [young] adults should receive, because it helps people make informed decisions and be responsible adults.
All adults maintain responsibility for their own actions. That goes for both the assholes and the victims. Ideally, everyone would get exactly the same training, because everyone has the capacity to be either an asshole or a victim.
Of course we know that in our particular society (as in many others) women are at higher risk for being abused, and men are more likely to be the abuser. So it seems like there should still be an equal amount of education, but that men should probably receive greater feedback about how (and why) not to be an asshole, and women should receive greater feedback on how to protect themselves from assholes.
maybe not so much 'least interesting' as 'not the right moment'. It's kind of like bringing up that one should avoid dangerous neighborhoods right when someone got mugged and killed.
It's a valid point, and it doesn't mean you're blaming the victim, but it's perhaps not the best time bring it up, and people might easily misconstrue what you're saying.
>>My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight.
We don't have any indication that she lacked the capacity to disengage. She was dating her boss, and may have feared retaliation.
That's one reason dating your superiors or direct reports is a big no-no. The power dynamic can only be managed by the most mature couples, and even then it's a huge liability for the company.
The finer points of their relationship are none of our business. That he took a the consequences of a personal relationship into the workplace, is where it becomes our business. Who's at fault in the relationship - none of our business. That no HR anything was available as a resource to mitigate the situation, is what is all of our business — and something that as an industry, we need to step-up to the plate to change. More from me on that, when I launch...
This isn't an article about sexual harassment though. It's one side of the story, involving an obviously messy inappropriate relationship.
Is it wise for two founders to date? I'd say no. She must share some of the blame, and who's to say what his side of the story is, and what exhibits he has showing her in a bad light?
This isn't an article about sexual harassment though... She must share some of the blame
In your world, calling someone a whore in front of their co-workers is both acceptable and not sexual harassment?
It's nonsense to suggest that somehow he was forced hurl such insults at her.
The only person responsible their own actions is that same person; you don't get to abdicate responsibility for your actions just because you dated someone.
>>You're still ignoring the fact that this is one sides account of an obviously messy situation.
Because it's irrelevant.
>>What happened before he called her a whore? Did she bait him, did she harass him, did she cheat on him, etc etc
It was his choice to call her a whore in front of their colleagues (and note: this is just one example from the harassment claim, there're plenty of unsavoury actions quoted).
Words said or past actions don't give you the right to demean someone at the workplace.
>>My point was when you date someone, there's often blame on both sides when things turn sour.
Which, again, is irrelevant to creating a hostile working environment.
When you're a grown-up, you accept responsibility for your actions, and that the only person making decisions about what you do is - guess what? - you.
If you've had a messy breakup, well, honestly, that really really sucks.
It absolutely does not give you the right to harass the other person.
* This is only one side of the story.
* It's completely plausible that she did bad things as well.
* It's for the court to decide. Not random internet lynch mobs based on biased one sided information.
Hopefully your black and white view of the world changes someday.
EXCUSE ME, this is very MUCH a story about sexual harassment.
One founder was removed from the "Founder's Suite," because it was believed that having a woman as a founder would work against the company's valuation/brand-equity. That is black and white sexual harassment. It is discrimination based on gender. Period.
Secondly: Founders date. Employees date. Subordinates and Managers, date. It happens. It's not "should they," it's that "they do" and there are appropriate methods to mitigate this. What is personal, is personal—and what is professional, is professional.
HR departments have methods to mitigate this. Startups being "above" or "too cool" to engage HR professionals early in their lifecycles, are to blame for most of these kinds of problems. GitHub, now Tinder, and many others I can't think of off the top of my head. HR exists to keep the personal, personal—and the professional, professional.
There is NO blame for a relationship going sour, at the professional level. None. Our industry has a ways to go. We all need to be in on that, together.
> I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.
Maybe it's not so surprising if your idea of human interaction is based on a binarized version of hotornot.com
I've never understood Tinder this way. To me, it's simply a pre-screening filter: you and everyone else throws out all the people who you would never want to date anyway, and then you're left with the set of people who have expressed mutual non-disinterest. From there, you get to know one-another as normal.
Basically, it's less like a dating service, and more like meeting someone on the street--with the proviso that you never have to question whether the other person feels attracted to you.
From what I understand of Tinder, it intrinsically plans on user's social insecurities in dating and other social media by removing risk from the situation.
I thought Tinder's inherent mutual interest-based design was a step in a good direction for online dating. I had to set my okcupid profile to "women only" and then eventually deleted it because I was really tired of men I have nothing in common with messaging and harassing me. Forget other sites - they weren't any better. Mutual interest is a powerful thing. If overanalyzing Tinder will help create better dating apps so be it, we'll all be better off for it.
disclaimer: I know a Tinder co-founder (not the one in question) but I'm married anyway, not in the dating pool ;)
Dumb apps, products and services do incredible complex social things and have involved consequences to our psychology all the time -- even without any specific intent from their owners.
It's not because the apps are smart and complex -- it's because WE, humans, are smart and complex.
I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess
Honestly, I don't think it's that simple; some people are so insecure, you can run away to a different country and they'll still find a way to spoil your day with their obsessiveness.
Would this have ended differently if she'd not pursued things after a couple of months, a month, a week?
I'm not convinced; all it takes is for the person on the other end to be even a tiny bit obsessive, and it's game over.
What might have helped is someone taking the guy aside and saying, "Mate, come on, you're taking this too far. I know you want to stay in touch, and that you still kinda like the girl. That's not healthy for you, though. You need to be the bigger person[1], and you need to move on."
[1] A minor bit of ego stroking can help
I genuinely believe that oftentimes, people don't realise that they're being scarily obsessive, and a trusted friend holding up a mirror can do wonders.
'disengage from situations like this' is a rather casual and insulting way to depict the idea of bailing out on founder/co-founder status on a startup you care about just because one of your cofounders turned out to be a piece of shit.
Arguably her course of action was the correct one. She tried to resolve things quietly by being an adult, and tolerated a little bit of abuse in the hopes that the job could keep working and the startup wouldn't be undermined - obviously she cared about it.
When it became clear that this shit wasn't going to stop, she resigned, and sued them. The best hope for Tinder as a company at this point is for the problematic founder(s) to be ejected so the company can be run by actual adults. For her to just roll over and quit would be unacceptable - they'd get to continue their abuse on other employees - and for her to just sit there and take it would also be unacceptable.
It looks like somebody put an iPhone on a photocopier to take screenshots. Is that what happened? Is there a legal reason why this was done versus using the home button/power button combo?
It may well have been taken using the usual screenshot mechanism, but legal documents often end up in printed form, passed around and photocopied. People working on the case may not have the original image files, only paper copies or (gasp) scans of the same.
You'd be amazed how much stuff is printed out and trucked around for lawsuits.
Some of these are definitely screenshots as they have the ellipses to indicate the other party is typing. It seems like these are scans of printed images in some cases.
Wow. The whole co-founder thing is pretty disgusting.
> "he said that holding her out as a co-founder “makes the company look like a joke” and “devalues the company.” Mr. Mateen tried to justify the situation by saying “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders, it just makes it look like Tinder was some accident.”
There are so many things wrong with that, especially given that Tinder exists because she was the one pushing for it over the Cardify thing. (assuming that's true).
Sean Rad may not have called her names and been as over the top and insane as Justin Mateen, but he is very much in the wrong as well.
From the sound of it, Mr. Mateen didn't even earn his spot in the company. He was just "long time friends" with the CEO and so got a job as Whitney's boss. And then she is the one that gets shafted? I would be so upset.
Seriously, just skim it; it's not boring legalese:
>1. The founders of a red-hot technology startup named Tinder engaged in atrocious sexual harassment and sex discrimination against Whitney Wolfe, the young woman who co- founded Tinder and was the face of Tinder in magazines and in Tinder’s efforts to market the company to other young women. Tinder’s Chief Marketing Officer Justin Mateen repeatedly called Ms. Wolfe a “whore,” including in front of CEO Sean Rad, and he told Ms. Wolfe that he was taking away her “Co-Founder” title because having a young female co-founder “makes the company seem like a joke” and “devalues” the company.
>
>2. Mr. Mateen and Mr. Rad subjected Ms. Wolfe to a barrage of horrendously sexist, racist, and otherwise inappropriate comments, emails and text messages, including describing one person as a “liberal lying desperate slut” and others as “middle age Muslim pigs” and referring, for example, to “fucking” the wife of a prominent blogger, and a text depicting IAC Chairman Barry Diller as a penis. Although it is tempting to describe the conduct of Tinder’s senior executives as “frat-like,” it was in fact much worse- representing the worst of the misogynist, alpha-male stereotype too often associated with technology startups.
>
>3. Although Ms. Wolfe repeatedly complained to CEO Rad, he ignored her complaints, dismissing her as “annoying” and “dramatic,” and threatened her job. Ms. Wolfe finally broke down the night that Mr. Mateen called her a “whore” at a company event, and she offered to resign in consideration for modest severance and the vesting of her stock. Mr. Rad snidely rejected the offer and fired her.
Let's lock up all people who make penis jokes. The world has had enough of this shit. Let's outlaw fraternities, too. In fact men shouldn't be allowed to reveal their gender in public.
"Big enough for corporate training" is the golden ticket. No company should have to be big enough, for training to be available. Yes, I am actively changing that... stay tuned.
From reading the texts, I've decided that none of these people know how to type. And I can't understand someone that high profile not realizing that these things are going to come to light at some point.
I immediately lose all respect for anyone who can't be bothered to type out "you" instead of "u", especially anyone over the age of ~21, and especially in professional contexts.
Of course these idiots also apparently have no concept of "professional contexts".
I'm really glad that lawsuits like this are becoming more common, or at least more publicized. I see it as a sign that people are becoming better at recognizing inappropriate workplace behavior and finding the courage to litigate over it. It sets the right example for others who are in similar situations.
You can tell from the beginning of those texts that she was planning this all along, or at the very least - preparing for it. She uses legal language throughout and says little else: 'stop threatening me' 'this is harassment' 'you are effecting my working environment' etc etc.
Slimy is telling a woman she can't be called a cofounder because "she's a girl". Slimy is threatening to fire a subordinate if they won't date you. Slimy is ignoring complaints from an employee about sexual harassment. Slimy is firing someone for trying to exercise their rights to not be harassed.
Using clear language to communicate boundaries isn't slimy at all. It's reprehensible that she (allegedly for the pedants in the crowd) even had to say those things. Building a case when no one does anything about a pattern of continued discrimination and harassment it's slimy at all; it's exercising your basic human and legal rights.
What was the alternative? Not documenting the abuse so that it could get dismissed as a he said/she said argument? Deciding between putting up with the abuse or throwing away all the hard work she put into the company?
Apparently her options were to be slimy by documenting her case, or to get dismissed as a bitter woman who was blowing things out of proportion because she got dumped. Nice.
Right. Because when someone replies to one of your texts with "Stop harassing me" for whatever reason, you simply continue as you are.
Here's a tip for everyone. If one party in the conversation begins using words like 'harassment' with respect to your behaviour, then back the fuck off (whether you believe you're in the clear or not). You are a complete moron if you continue to engage the same way.
I used to know this girl (Whitney). I knew her for many years, and I have to say that she was probably baiting them at the very least. The guy is clearly slimy and should lose his job, and of course, people change... but over a year ago, another friend and I predicted that something very similar to this would happen. She has played this role in the past.
She's a WOMAN, not a girl. Sorry—no intent in being PC, but as a female in the biz, it's just profoundly abrasive to read "girl" all over the place.
In a social context, a woman cam be a "girl." In business, she's a woman. Always. Period. This is a business matter, where personal stuff got inappropriately smeared-in to the business, which is the premise of the lawsuit.
Guys: We don't call you boys at work. Woman, please please please.
This is obviously kind of delicate, but as someone who has referred to young-ish women as girls before, I'll at least attempt to explain my confusion.
Men are often called "guys" - and the connotation to me is just a more informal way of saying "men".
What is the female equivalent of "guy"? Is it chick? Chick certainly doesn't seem right and (to me) kind of has different meaning associated with it as compared to any extra meaning "guy" has when compared to "man".
"Woman" usually seems very formal to me in the same way that "Man" does. So...what do I use instead? Sometimes I do use girl in its place because it seems less formal but (I thought) not offensive.
If someone says "do you know who John Doe is" in a work context, I will probably say something like "oh he's a guy working on XYZ"
If someone asks "do you know who Jane Doe is" in a work context, I will sometimes say "oh she's a girl working on XYZ". I admit there is some extra thought process in choosing the pronoun:
---1. Who am I speaking to?
---2. How old is the person they are referring to?
IDK. Kind of just a brain dump, but just wanted to explain where I come from. But I'll internalize the fact that this may actually be irritating to the women I'm referring to. And that was never my intent.
Edit: I just realized that even in your comment you used "Guys" and not "Men". Basically case in point as to the 'conflict'. Why didn't you type Men? it just feels kinda formal, right? But maybe I should just bite the bullet and go the formal route if my attempt to be less formal just ends up being offensive...
All the things she said sound like they are true though. After only reading the texts she did exactly the right thing. She told the guy what he was doing was wrong. She let him know that it was really bad for her work. He kept going! How is that bait? She gave him all the information he needed to stop and he didn't. Throwing in a few of those 'legal' words should have pulled him right up, but he just threatened her. He's an idiot.
This woman has nothing to be embarrassed about, although I'm sure she is. Going public must have been a terrifyingly difficult thing to do. It certainly would have been for me.
They were dating and they broke up. This is all a teenager break up story. Just they have the money and publicity to tell the whole world about it.
Hes still guilty of harassment. But I'm sure if more records were released We would see a lot that makes her look bad and probably guilty of similiar crimes if not the same ones.
This is why no established company allows dating in the work place. Break up arguments are now workplace harassment charges.
People saying "she planned this" or that "she writes all legal-y" don't understand how this works.
Consider that this is only a tiny snapshot of the entire (horrible) ordeal, selected by her lawyers to reflect the egregious components of their behavior, placed in contrast to her requests to cease. Of course they include the ones where she says stop, and the aggressor(s) persist.
There could be, and likely is, far worse interactions, where she didn't say stop, that they didn't include in their exhibits. They will come to light later if this suit progresses.
There are also probably texts that make her look bad, too. Where she lets it go, or even plays along. Maybe she was too tired that day to argue. Maybe she hoped it would stop if she answered questions. Who knows? I don't.
But that doesn't make her guilty of any wrongdoing, or absolve them of their erroneous ways. People have a right to work in a harassment-free workplace, and employers have a duty to ensure it operates that way. That's all that will matter at the end of this.
And from what's included in the suit, my quick read is that they are in a very bad spot, both ethically and legally. Sean Rad seems like a woefully and perilously unqualified CEO.
"horrible ordeal" - I'm sorry, but if you dislike your workplace, you can always quit. That's not to justify sexual harassment, but the picture you evoke of a "horrible ordeal" just seems next to impossible. An ordeal would have to go on for quite a while, and then the question really is why don't you quit.
Sorry but have you actually worked before because it's never that black/white.
You may love/hate any combination of work, boss, people, culture, location, pay, politics, perks, title etc. Maybe it was the perfect job except for the sexual harassment. In which case just quitting isn't so simple.
Well than the "horriblity" of her ordeal seems to have a price limit. It can't have been infinitely horrible.
Also not sure what kind of contract a co-founder has. Supposed she stopped coming to work and "worked from home" - could they take away her options for that?
Do you think that lets Tinder off the hook? She can still take legal action - an environment so horrible that a person feels the only option is to quit means "constructive dismissal" becomes a legal option.
I said nothing about letting Tinder off the hook. I just took issue with the "horrible ordeal" suggestion. I take issue with the whole fantasy that is going on in people's minds when they hear "accusation of sexism". I think it is going to the courts now? Why not wait until both sides have been heard.
It seems conceivable to me that women can be unpleasant to work with, too. There was a relationship involved, so some claims simply can not be true - if everything was so horrible, why were they in a relationship? Because women always fall for the jerks? Hardly...
I've been following your comments on HN for a while now -- I originally noticed that almost all of them are facepalm-worthy -- and you sound like a really angry, bitter person who hates women. So, let me ask out of genuine curiosity: do you get a kick out of continuously posting nonsense? Some sort of adrenaline rush maybe?
I certainly don't hate women. I also think this Tinder-CEO sounds like a jerk. I just can't stand it if people jump to conclusions and form a mob without even bothering to listen to both sides of the story. And the way people don't even consider the implications of what they are saying. Like if they complain that somebody behaves like an insecure teenager - what does that mean, really? Should they be banned from ever holding a job? Should a squat team be called in to take him out, or perhaps a lynch mob of volunteers recruited on HN? People are only human. And here there was a relationship involved. Maybe people on HN just lack experience?
And I am tired of the sexism sob story. I think the opposite is the case, really. People are falling over themselves to hire and to please women.
Being opposed to feminism is not "hating women" or being against equality. I am opposed to feminism because I think they hurt both men and women and they got their story completely wrong. Feminism has nothing to do with equality whatsoever.
Edit: OK, I'd really like to know: please show me one sentence that seems to show I hate women. Or what makes you think that I hate women?
>>I just can't stand it if people jump to conclusions and form a mob without even bothering to listen to both sides of the story.
Dude, this isn't a "he said, she said" scenario. We have written evidence, in the form of SMS messages and much more, that paints a very clear picture of the situation.
I read the beginning of it now. It certainly sounds as if they were angry at each other.
What do you think: they called her a whore just because she is a woman?
I don't like people who call women whores. As I said, I also don't like the mob mentality on display here. I am sure all those things didn't happen just because she is a woman, there has to be some history.
While it would never occur to me to call somebody a whore, I wonder how many people here who were ever in a relationship before never had a fight with their partner and never said anything mean to them?
Of course washing dirty laundry in front of the company is completely stupid and out of place. Still - what is the appropriate punishment?
And you haven't answered: what makes you think I hate women?
I wonder how the typical co-founder ousting among male co-founders plays out. Do they typical just "agree to disagree" and stay friends? Or do they sometimes call each other names and start hating?
>>What do you think: they called her a whore just because she is a woman? I am sure all those things didn't happen just because she is a woman, there has to be some history.
That's not the point. The "history" does not matter in this context. At all.
She was discriminated against only because she is a woman. This is all over the evidence presented. They denied her co-founder status despite the fact that it was her marketing efforts that made Tinder successful. Joe Munoz, the guy who made the app, wrote to her: “I credit you 100% with the growth of Tinder and I think that sending you around the US to visit sororities was absolutely the best investment we could possibly have made on the marketing side.”
>>While it would never occur to me to call somebody a whore, I wonder how many people here who were ever in a relationship before never had a fight with their partner and never said anything mean to them?
Again, that's not the point. Calling her a whore during a private conversation outside of work would have been the couple's business. Calling her a whore at work, in front of other people, made it a hostile work environment. We also have evidence that the guy abused his authority and threatened to have her terminated.
>>And you haven't answered: what makes you think I hate women?
Maybe "hate" is a too-strong word. You just sound grossly ignorant. You seem to believe that people are demonstrating "mob mentality" and defending her simply because she's a woman. Whereas if Wolfe was Marteen's superior and subjected him to the same treatment, it would have been equally objectionable and illegal.
"They denied her co-founder status despite the fact that it was her marketing efforts that made Tinder successful"
And that claim is proven because they called her a whore? Or how? The "I credit you 100%" statement is not really the same thing, and anyway might have been made at a different time in a different context.
But I must admit I didn't read all the 70 pages. In any case, why not wait for the verdict of the court? You have only seen the claims made by one side.
>>In any case, why not wait for the verdict of the court?
Since the evidence is so overwhelming, it is very unlikely that it will come to a courtroom battle. The most probable outcome at this point is a settlement out of court.
Well that would be the equivalent to verdict of the court.
Another question that came to mind: if they fired her out of sexism, why did they co-found with her in the first place? Did they only get sexist overnight?
93 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadhttp://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
(To be fair, I'm reading one side of the story via the link above, but assuming that the facts there are actually true...)
I don't want to downplay the situation but I feel like it's your responsibility as an adult to disengage from situations like this faster than she did. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess but the whole situation seems to have been really mishandled (and that's a feeling I'm getting from a court complaint from her side). Again, I'm not saying she asked for it or anything, just that pursuing an ongoing relationship might not have been the best idea.
In any case, that seems to be a terrible working environment. I also find it kind of ironic that the co-founders of an inherently social app like Tinder appear so poor at handling interpersonal/romantic relationships.
Article about sexual harassment on HN. Came to comments expected victim blaming, 2nd sentence in 2nd comment.
Well done.
So let me clarify: I don't believe it was her fault in any way. Quite the opposite, I believe 100% that the guy is at fault here. My point was more related to the fact that we (myself included) tend to maintain relationships that are clearly unhealthy in hindsight. I probably should have chosen a better word than responsibility seeing as it was more a comment aimed at the apparent lack of capacity to adequately disengage from unhealthy situations a lot of adults seem to exhibit. We're not used to saying "no" and to moving on. I was only saying this because similar situations happened to me in which I wished later that I could have disengaged and saved me some heartache.
I believe (only from reading this complaint) that the behavior exhibited by Mateen is unacceptable and reprehensible and that he's clearly at fault. My intention was not to blame her but merely to express a general observation regarding a lot of relationship failures I witnessed. So if this came across as victim blaming I sincerely apologize. It wasn't the intent.
The point is that reading something like this, the least interesting topic is what the complainant could have done differently.
The principle discussion is: never shoulda happened. Inappropriate, unacceptable. Not second guessing the strategy of someone in an impossible situation.
But you led with that.
That's why you got called out.
I wish I was taught any kind of disengagement skill when I was being bullied as a kid, even though it never should have happened (and since I can foresee the uproar here, I'm in no way implying the two are equivalent but merely noticing similarities).
Sure, some of it - most of it - might be good advice (e.g. don't date cofounders/coworkers) but in the end that advice in itself won't do anything if the other person is an asshole. Whitney could have avoided a relationship and tried to defuse things as best as she could, but Justin could still have been an ass and harass her for rejecting him.
Certainly in this thread any advice is victim blaming.
But that doesn't make the advice useless or pointless or harmful.
And it's certainly on topic for HN - psychology of dealing with difficult people applies to work and suppliers and customers and regulators and yes, unrepentant assholes.
All adults maintain responsibility for their own actions. That goes for both the assholes and the victims. Ideally, everyone would get exactly the same training, because everyone has the capacity to be either an asshole or a victim.
Of course we know that in our particular society (as in many others) women are at higher risk for being abused, and men are more likely to be the abuser. So it seems like there should still be an equal amount of education, but that men should probably receive greater feedback about how (and why) not to be an asshole, and women should receive greater feedback on how to protect themselves from assholes.
It's a valid point, and it doesn't mean you're blaming the victim, but it's perhaps not the best time bring it up, and people might easily misconstrue what you're saying.
We don't have any indication that she lacked the capacity to disengage. She was dating her boss, and may have feared retaliation.
That's one reason dating your superiors or direct reports is a big no-no. The power dynamic can only be managed by the most mature couples, and even then it's a huge liability for the company.
Is it wise for two founders to date? I'd say no. She must share some of the blame, and who's to say what his side of the story is, and what exhibits he has showing her in a bad light?
In your world, calling someone a whore in front of their co-workers is both acceptable and not sexual harassment?
It's nonsense to suggest that somehow he was forced hurl such insults at her.
The only person responsible their own actions is that same person; you don't get to abdicate responsibility for your actions just because you dated someone.
What happened before he called her a whore? Did she bait him, did she harass him, did she cheat on him, etc etc
My point was when you date someone, there's often blame on both sides when things turn sour.
Because it's irrelevant.
>>What happened before he called her a whore? Did she bait him, did she harass him, did she cheat on him, etc etc
It was his choice to call her a whore in front of their colleagues (and note: this is just one example from the harassment claim, there're plenty of unsavoury actions quoted).
Words said or past actions don't give you the right to demean someone at the workplace.
>>My point was when you date someone, there's often blame on both sides when things turn sour.
Which, again, is irrelevant to creating a hostile working environment.
When you're a grown-up, you accept responsibility for your actions, and that the only person making decisions about what you do is - guess what? - you.
If you've had a messy breakup, well, honestly, that really really sucks.
It absolutely does not give you the right to harass the other person.
You are aware that an argument of self-defence is used whilst being tried for murder, right?
Anyway - inappropriateness of your comparison aside - fine, you don't believe in taking responsibility for your own day-to-day actions.
I hope that changes someday.
But you did not say "perhaps", or "plausible". you used the word "must" - "she must share blame".
One founder was removed from the "Founder's Suite," because it was believed that having a woman as a founder would work against the company's valuation/brand-equity. That is black and white sexual harassment. It is discrimination based on gender. Period.
Secondly: Founders date. Employees date. Subordinates and Managers, date. It happens. It's not "should they," it's that "they do" and there are appropriate methods to mitigate this. What is personal, is personal—and what is professional, is professional.
HR departments have methods to mitigate this. Startups being "above" or "too cool" to engage HR professionals early in their lifecycles, are to blame for most of these kinds of problems. GitHub, now Tinder, and many others I can't think of off the top of my head. HR exists to keep the personal, personal—and the professional, professional.
There is NO blame for a relationship going sour, at the professional level. None. Our industry has a ways to go. We all need to be in on that, together.
Maybe it's not so surprising if your idea of human interaction is based on a binarized version of hotornot.com
Basically, it's less like a dating service, and more like meeting someone on the street--with the proviso that you never have to question whether the other person feels attracted to you.
disclaimer: I know a Tinder co-founder (not the one in question) but I'm married anyway, not in the dating pool ;)
It's not because the apps are smart and complex -- it's because WE, humans, are smart and complex.
Honestly, I don't think it's that simple; some people are so insecure, you can run away to a different country and they'll still find a way to spoil your day with their obsessiveness.
Would this have ended differently if she'd not pursued things after a couple of months, a month, a week?
I'm not convinced; all it takes is for the person on the other end to be even a tiny bit obsessive, and it's game over.
What might have helped is someone taking the guy aside and saying, "Mate, come on, you're taking this too far. I know you want to stay in touch, and that you still kinda like the girl. That's not healthy for you, though. You need to be the bigger person[1], and you need to move on."
[1] A minor bit of ego stroking can help
I genuinely believe that oftentimes, people don't realise that they're being scarily obsessive, and a trusted friend holding up a mirror can do wonders.
Let's outlaw insecure 14 year olds. Everybody who can't grow up emotionally in time should be eliminated from society and put behind bars.
Arguably her course of action was the correct one. She tried to resolve things quietly by being an adult, and tolerated a little bit of abuse in the hopes that the job could keep working and the startup wouldn't be undermined - obviously she cared about it.
When it became clear that this shit wasn't going to stop, she resigned, and sued them. The best hope for Tinder as a company at this point is for the problematic founder(s) to be ejected so the company can be run by actual adults. For her to just roll over and quit would be unacceptable - they'd get to continue their abuse on other employees - and for her to just sit there and take it would also be unacceptable.
You'd be amazed how much stuff is printed out and trucked around for lawsuits.
> "he said that holding her out as a co-founder “makes the company look like a joke” and “devalues the company.” Mr. Mateen tried to justify the situation by saying “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders, it just makes it look like Tinder was some accident.”
There are so many things wrong with that, especially given that Tinder exists because she was the one pushing for it over the Cardify thing. (assuming that's true).
Sean Rad may not have called her names and been as over the top and insane as Justin Mateen, but he is very much in the wrong as well.
From the sound of it, Mr. Mateen didn't even earn his spot in the company. He was just "long time friends" with the CEO and so got a job as Whitney's boss. And then she is the one that gets shafted? I would be so upset.
>1. The founders of a red-hot technology startup named Tinder engaged in atrocious sexual harassment and sex discrimination against Whitney Wolfe, the young woman who co- founded Tinder and was the face of Tinder in magazines and in Tinder’s efforts to market the company to other young women. Tinder’s Chief Marketing Officer Justin Mateen repeatedly called Ms. Wolfe a “whore,” including in front of CEO Sean Rad, and he told Ms. Wolfe that he was taking away her “Co-Founder” title because having a young female co-founder “makes the company seem like a joke” and “devalues” the company.
>
>2. Mr. Mateen and Mr. Rad subjected Ms. Wolfe to a barrage of horrendously sexist, racist, and otherwise inappropriate comments, emails and text messages, including describing one person as a “liberal lying desperate slut” and others as “middle age Muslim pigs” and referring, for example, to “fucking” the wife of a prominent blogger, and a text depicting IAC Chairman Barry Diller as a penis. Although it is tempting to describe the conduct of Tinder’s senior executives as “frat-like,” it was in fact much worse- representing the worst of the misogynist, alpha-male stereotype too often associated with technology startups.
>
>3. Although Ms. Wolfe repeatedly complained to CEO Rad, he ignored her complaints, dismissing her as “annoying” and “dramatic,” and threatened her job. Ms. Wolfe finally broke down the night that Mr. Mateen called her a “whore” at a company event, and she offered to resign in consideration for modest severance and the vesting of her stock. Mr. Rad snidely rejected the offer and fired her.
> As Ms. Wolfe began to head toward the exit, she was accosted by Mr. Rad’s guest at the party who spat in her face.
This is a pure example of what happens when you do not listen to that adage.
Of course these idiots also apparently have no concept of "professional contexts".
Using clear language to communicate boundaries isn't slimy at all. It's reprehensible that she (allegedly for the pedants in the crowd) even had to say those things. Building a case when no one does anything about a pattern of continued discrimination and harassment it's slimy at all; it's exercising your basic human and legal rights.
What was the alternative? Not documenting the abuse so that it could get dismissed as a he said/she said argument? Deciding between putting up with the abuse or throwing away all the hard work she put into the company?
Apparently her options were to be slimy by documenting her case, or to get dismissed as a bitter woman who was blowing things out of proportion because she got dumped. Nice.
Calling her actions slimy was probably out of line.
Here's a tip for everyone. If one party in the conversation begins using words like 'harassment' with respect to your behaviour, then back the fuck off (whether you believe you're in the clear or not). You are a complete moron if you continue to engage the same way.
In a social context, a woman cam be a "girl." In business, she's a woman. Always. Period. This is a business matter, where personal stuff got inappropriately smeared-in to the business, which is the premise of the lawsuit.
Guys: We don't call you boys at work. Woman, please please please.
Men are often called "guys" - and the connotation to me is just a more informal way of saying "men".
What is the female equivalent of "guy"? Is it chick? Chick certainly doesn't seem right and (to me) kind of has different meaning associated with it as compared to any extra meaning "guy" has when compared to "man".
"Woman" usually seems very formal to me in the same way that "Man" does. So...what do I use instead? Sometimes I do use girl in its place because it seems less formal but (I thought) not offensive.
If someone says "do you know who John Doe is" in a work context, I will probably say something like "oh he's a guy working on XYZ"
If someone asks "do you know who Jane Doe is" in a work context, I will sometimes say "oh she's a girl working on XYZ". I admit there is some extra thought process in choosing the pronoun:
---1. Who am I speaking to?
---2. How old is the person they are referring to?
IDK. Kind of just a brain dump, but just wanted to explain where I come from. But I'll internalize the fact that this may actually be irritating to the women I'm referring to. And that was never my intent.
Edit: I just realized that even in your comment you used "Guys" and not "Men". Basically case in point as to the 'conflict'. Why didn't you type Men? it just feels kinda formal, right? But maybe I should just bite the bullet and go the formal route if my attempt to be less formal just ends up being offensive...
This woman has nothing to be embarrassed about, although I'm sure she is. Going public must have been a terrifyingly difficult thing to do. It certainly would have been for me.
Hes still guilty of harassment. But I'm sure if more records were released We would see a lot that makes her look bad and probably guilty of similiar crimes if not the same ones.
This is why no established company allows dating in the work place. Break up arguments are now workplace harassment charges.
Consider that this is only a tiny snapshot of the entire (horrible) ordeal, selected by her lawyers to reflect the egregious components of their behavior, placed in contrast to her requests to cease. Of course they include the ones where she says stop, and the aggressor(s) persist.
There could be, and likely is, far worse interactions, where she didn't say stop, that they didn't include in their exhibits. They will come to light later if this suit progresses.
There are also probably texts that make her look bad, too. Where she lets it go, or even plays along. Maybe she was too tired that day to argue. Maybe she hoped it would stop if she answered questions. Who knows? I don't.
But that doesn't make her guilty of any wrongdoing, or absolve them of their erroneous ways. People have a right to work in a harassment-free workplace, and employers have a duty to ensure it operates that way. That's all that will matter at the end of this.
And from what's included in the suit, my quick read is that they are in a very bad spot, both ethically and legally. Sean Rad seems like a woefully and perilously unqualified CEO.
You may love/hate any combination of work, boss, people, culture, location, pay, politics, perks, title etc. Maybe it was the perfect job except for the sexual harassment. In which case just quitting isn't so simple.
Exactly - that is exactly what I am trying to say... I just can't stand the mob mentality on here.
Maybe her options didn't vest yet? Things aren't always simple.
Also not sure what kind of contract a co-founder has. Supposed she stopped coming to work and "worked from home" - could they take away her options for that?
It's like some messed up teenage reality TV show.
sounds a lot like
"I'm sorry, but if you don't like racism, you can always move out of the south"
Do you think that lets Tinder off the hook? She can still take legal action - an environment so horrible that a person feels the only option is to quit means "constructive dismissal" becomes a legal option.
It seems conceivable to me that women can be unpleasant to work with, too. There was a relationship involved, so some claims simply can not be true - if everything was so horrible, why were they in a relationship? Because women always fall for the jerks? Hardly...
And I am tired of the sexism sob story. I think the opposite is the case, really. People are falling over themselves to hire and to please women.
Being opposed to feminism is not "hating women" or being against equality. I am opposed to feminism because I think they hurt both men and women and they got their story completely wrong. Feminism has nothing to do with equality whatsoever.
Edit: OK, I'd really like to know: please show me one sentence that seems to show I hate women. Or what makes you think that I hate women?
Dude, this isn't a "he said, she said" scenario. We have written evidence, in the form of SMS messages and much more, that paints a very clear picture of the situation.
I mean, did you read the complaint at all?
What do you think: they called her a whore just because she is a woman?
I don't like people who call women whores. As I said, I also don't like the mob mentality on display here. I am sure all those things didn't happen just because she is a woman, there has to be some history.
While it would never occur to me to call somebody a whore, I wonder how many people here who were ever in a relationship before never had a fight with their partner and never said anything mean to them?
Of course washing dirty laundry in front of the company is completely stupid and out of place. Still - what is the appropriate punishment?
And you haven't answered: what makes you think I hate women?
I wonder how the typical co-founder ousting among male co-founders plays out. Do they typical just "agree to disagree" and stay friends? Or do they sometimes call each other names and start hating?
That's not the point. The "history" does not matter in this context. At all.
She was discriminated against only because she is a woman. This is all over the evidence presented. They denied her co-founder status despite the fact that it was her marketing efforts that made Tinder successful. Joe Munoz, the guy who made the app, wrote to her: “I credit you 100% with the growth of Tinder and I think that sending you around the US to visit sororities was absolutely the best investment we could possibly have made on the marketing side.”
>>While it would never occur to me to call somebody a whore, I wonder how many people here who were ever in a relationship before never had a fight with their partner and never said anything mean to them?
Again, that's not the point. Calling her a whore during a private conversation outside of work would have been the couple's business. Calling her a whore at work, in front of other people, made it a hostile work environment. We also have evidence that the guy abused his authority and threatened to have her terminated.
>>And you haven't answered: what makes you think I hate women?
Maybe "hate" is a too-strong word. You just sound grossly ignorant. You seem to believe that people are demonstrating "mob mentality" and defending her simply because she's a woman. Whereas if Wolfe was Marteen's superior and subjected him to the same treatment, it would have been equally objectionable and illegal.
And that claim is proven because they called her a whore? Or how? The "I credit you 100%" statement is not really the same thing, and anyway might have been made at a different time in a different context.
But I must admit I didn't read all the 70 pages. In any case, why not wait for the verdict of the court? You have only seen the claims made by one side.
Since the evidence is so overwhelming, it is very unlikely that it will come to a courtroom battle. The most probable outcome at this point is a settlement out of court.
Another question that came to mind: if they fired her out of sexism, why did they co-found with her in the first place? Did they only get sexist overnight?
Taking revenge 101...