Washington Post fires reporter Felicia Somnez who objected to misogynistic tweets

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this fired reporter, but from where I'm standing the Washington Post looks bad, because they seem to be supporting the first reporter who made an unacceptably misogynist remark. Like PP said, that kind of comment does not exist in a vacuum - for someone to actually type and send this, it means he often thinks like that, and feels secure enough in his employment and colleagues to publish those remarks. It means the Post is a shitty place for a woman to work. He should have been fired first.

This is an uninformed take. The reporter who retweeted the joke (retweeted, he didn't take the time to type it and send it) apologized, took the tweet down, and was suspended for a month without pay. That's hardly "supporting." Speculation that he has don't this repeatedly is just that - speculation with no foundation. Somenz wasn't terminated because the chastised Weigel, she was terminated because of a continued public back and forth on Twitter, including subsequent interactions with other Post reporters.

I tend to agree that she either was hoping to be fired, or thought she was bulletproof because of her prior lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. Anyone watching this unfold knew she was aiming to get fired so she could bring another lawsuit against the post. And she’d directly made far more insulting remarks about men than the other reporter who got suspended for merely re-Tweeting a joke that wasn’t nearly as malicious.

I don't know. Tweeting about all women being either "bisexual or bipolar" seems pretty hostile to me. I would be pissed to work with someone like that too, and think it's good she called him out.

My understanding is that he deleted it and apologized after she called him out on it. Had she dropped it at that point it would have been fine, but I believe she continued on a Twitter rampage. I think people forget they don’t have to put every thought of theirs on line.

And he was a friend of hers who had previously defended her. She was already suing her employer and she would have continued to create drama as long as they kept her around. Time to rip the band-aid off.

That's the part that fascinates me! How was she able to stay at the Post after suing them?

Because it it illegal to fire someone because they engaged in protected conduct, which includes suing your employer for discrimination.

And, just so I don't have to post again, protected conduct does *not* include tweets or other social media posts complaining about sexist retweets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

[Anonymous]

No one has the right to never feel uncomfortable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She deserved it. If you have an issue with someone at your employer, you take it to your manager or HR, you don't go blasting it on Twitter. She was warned more than once about this, and continued to do it. That's a good reason to terminate.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

I don’t think he is getting a huge pass - he was suspended a month without pay
But it is embarrassing that someone who retweets stuff like that works at what was once (and for so long has not been) a great paper. Journalism really is in a sorry state and reporters undermine themselves with foolish use of social media.
Don’t forget that nonsense hit piece the Post did on its own staffer Tom Toles, which led to a very long thread here.
Just embarrassing for journalism all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

Really? You agree that "and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist." So she was fired for her initial response to Wiegel's tweet?

You either are not telling the truth, or you really haven't read anything about this.

[Anonymous]

Google "the Streisand Effect." If she had talked to the guy privately, he would have apologized and the whole thing would have blown over. Instead, the whole world knows this lame joke, making fun of women.

[Anonymous]

She has very bad judgment and should not be a journalist at all. Impressed that the Post has the nerve and the lawyers to finally can her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know nothing about this fired reporter, but from where I'm standing the Washington Post looks bad, because they seem to be supporting the first reporter who made an unacceptably misogynist remark. Like PP said, that kind of comment does not exist in a vacuum - for someone to actually type and send this, it means he often thinks like that, and feels secure enough in his employment and colleagues to publish those remarks. It means the Post is a shitty place for a woman to work. He should have been fired first.

+1

I was just in the process of getting a Post subscription and I’ve decided against it after this.

Yup, I do have a Post subscription but I'm not happy with this. Fire the woman reporter for being a loose cannon, ok. Not firing the man who sent the sexist tweets, not ok.

I would have continued my subscription if both had been fired. But suspending him with a slap on the wrist for a deeply misogynist tweet while firing her? No, I don’t need to give that clearly sexist institution my money.

It wasn't "deeply misogynistic" - it was a dumb joke that he retweeted. Weigel isn't some guy with years of history of saying and doing sexist things. He's a smart reporter who also sometimes has a dumb sense of humor. And he was suspended for a month without pay - after he deleted the tweet and made a sincere apology. How much punishment does he need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. Anyone watching this unfold knew she was aiming to get fired so she could bring another lawsuit against the post. And she’d directly made far more insulting remarks about men than the other reporter who got suspended for merely re-Tweeting a joke that wasn’t nearly as malicious.

I don't know. Tweeting about all women being either "bisexual or bipolar" seems pretty hostile to me. I would be pissed to work with someone like that too, and think it's good she called him out.

She had made more insulting comments about white men as a category in contexts that clearly were not jokes, so her over-the-top responses to the re-tweet eventually became too much for even the Post to countenance. Tough sledding when a narcissist with a giant blind spot decides to be a crusader. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1 she went scorched earth - and kept going scorched earth even after repeated warnings that reporters should stop tearing each other apart on twitter. she showed no proportionality or judgment. she was insubordinate and exercised extremely poor judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this is the right outcome.

He should not have retweeted that stupid joke, but let’s keep things in perspective. Retweeting is a pretty minor thing that has very little to do with his job and he apologized for it. He should have apologized for it, but that should have been the end of it.

She was probably even fine pointing it out once on Twitter but really should have just pointed it out to him privately and maybe to the HR department if he didn’t immediately remove it. Everything after that was harassment on her part. Her response should have been in line with the nature of the offense. Demanding that a person get fired over a minor offense and then continuing to harass him publicly over something that should be an internal HR issue was grounds for her getting fired. None of us is perfect and we do not want to live in a world where silly minor things are blown up to be career-ending scandals.

+1

He tweeted something nasty about women, and she called it out on him. Why does he get a pass for maligning 50% of the population publicly, and she gets dinged for "lack of collegiality" for pointing out he's a misogynist. There's something wrong with that.

Seriously, have you read nothing about what actually happened? Maybe try that before spouting off. Good grief.

That seems to be an on-point description to me and I’ve read a lot about it.

She does seem to have had a long history. But he is clearly getting a huge pass for doing something appallingly sexist, and she’s getting fired for pointing it out.

It was one dumb tweet. And a RT at that. It wasn't "appallingly sexist" - it's about as small potatoes as you can get, as far as these things go. Especially since he immediately took it down and apologized. He's not some repeat offender who is constantly tweeting and saying gross things.

[Anonymous]

She acted crazy on Twitter. Coworkers shouldn’t be blasted online like that.