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.

Anonymous wrote:Funny. I was thinking about canceling my WaPo subscription, but now I’m definitely keeping it.

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.

Exactly. We should all complain to the Post.

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.

He didn’t get a pass, he was suspended for a month. She didn’t get dinged for pointing out misogyny, she got dinged for tweeting non-stop about it and airing WaPo’s dirty laundry.

So she was fired for whistleblowing? Even worse.

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.

He didn’t get a pass, he was suspended for a month. She didn’t get dinged for pointing out misogyny, she got dinged for tweeting non-stop about it and airing WaPo’s dirty laundry.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.