The "Tinderslut"[1] comment says a lot about how Rad and Mateen view the women who use their app. It's consistent with Wolfe's claim in her complaint that Mateen told her it would be "slutty" to be a female Tinder co-founder, because it was an app people used to hook up.
As an aside, Mateen exhibits the textbook Madonna-whore dichotomy. To him, women are either someone he can see being a wife (Wolfe pre-breakup), or a whore/bimbo/slut (the women on his Instagram feed). When she rejected him, in classic fashion she went from the former bucket to the latter. This is a case study for a gender-studies paper.
>says a lot about how Rad and Mateen view the women who use their app //
Isn't the point of the app to enable promiscuity. "Slut" is a word for a promiscuous woman, sometimes used for a prostitute, sometimes used of men (in UK at least). Surely they viewed the women who use the app as wanting to have free and easy sexual encounters, ie behave like sluts?
When the slang that associated their app with the actions of those using it, viz "tinderslut", was popularised were they not justified to consider that an achievement - the app was clearly notorious for enabling promiscuous behaviour, exactly the behaviour it was designed for.
There seems little controversial in them calling active users of their app sluts (men or women).
For me there is much to hate about the app morally but it seems rather silly to get upset that the designers of the app that people use to seek out promiscuous sex consider their users to be in to promiscuous sex?!
It's ironic that Mr. Rad went to such great lengths to keep his friend Mr. Mateen from facing the consequences of his behavior for so long. Because by putting his friend above his company, he ended up hurting both even more.
If Rad had just forced his friend Mateen to resign earlier on for "creative differences" before his behavior got out of hand, everyone -- including Mateen! -- would have been strictly better off.
And this definitely isn't the first time that this has happened (Rap Genius, and I'm sure there are others too...)
TL;DR: Do your sexist, racist friends a favor by getting them out of your workplace.
(By the way, to be clear, I don't feel bad for any of these guys. They deserved what happened. But this sort of thing really shouldn't be happening again, and again, and again...)
While the allegations are shocking, it was irresponsible for the journalist to add the little bit in the very last paragraph on the third page about one of the founder's former startups having an FBI investigation as a kind of final pot-shot. How was that relevant to the thrust of the rest of the article? What did it add? Was it fair to include it without elaborating?
Worse still is the implication that he was complicit in the uploading or transmission of illegal images. Any messaging or image based app is going to have to deal with that - young apps are especially vulnerable to abuse because it's expected that they not have robust security or a large enough staff to close the floodgates.
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
It seemed like he learned a number of odd things about the founders during his research and now that they were in a lawsuit and were confirmed as being giant dicks he felt justified in throwing a few rocks. The "take note lawyers" bit and the bunch of juvenile social media pictures were the same way, not needed except to fill in the picture he was painting.
It was absolutely relevant. The entire article was about the character of the founders. If you had a business that had to be shut down by the FBI because of the extent of child pornography it reflects on your character.
"Here is the truth as I see it, having spoken to nearly everyone who was involved in the project: What made Tinder Tinder was the work of a team:"
You could replace "Tinder" with any company and find that the above statement holds true. Twitter isn't Jack or Ev or Biz, it's the combination of the three. Facebook was mostly Zuck, but not all. Apple was indeed [very] heavily influenced by Steve Jobs, but Apple wasn't Steve Jobs.
I've found the idea of a single genius founder being behind anything is largely a myth; they're just the public face of a company that is doing great things in the background.
We tried to edit the title to make it less linkbaity, but only partly. If anyone can suggest a better one (i.e. accurate and neutral), we can change it again.
Yes people. Please flag [EDIT, as in write "NSFW" when applicable. Thanks shawnz]. The article feels that is going to be serious, which it kind of is, but then the pics. What was the point of that? The writer could not have simply mentioned the pics?
You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
We're talking about co-founders here. There is no HR director to bring down the policy hammer.
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
> Dating an direct report is essentially sexual harassment in the eyes of the court.
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
This is usually handled in large companies by moving the lower-ranking employee out of the management chain of the higher-ranking one. At smaller organizations, someone is asked to leave.
I remember somebody telling me this (that they weren't a "real" startup, and owned by the company behind Match), and then they came to my school to talk about their company - and spun it so seriously that I assumed the guy telling me was wrong.
Not cool for companies to lie about their history, even if a lot of them do it.
There is something interesting about the fact that conversation is, again, revolving around the men in this scenario instead of the woman. Just an observation.
The article does as well. In this case, I suppose the heart of the story is about how douchebaggy the guys are -- there seems to be no question that Wolfe deserves credit for what she's done, but since she declined to comment, we only have the actions of the men involved to work from.
What seems like a side story is actually, I think, quite indicative.
Tinder isn't a real startup, but a manufactured success for a couple of well-connected douchebags (who behave as if they're above the law). It's the Disneypreneur phenomenon (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/silicon-valle...). If you look into it, both of these guys are invaders from the MBA culture.
These phony startups, that are actually pre-arranged by powerful players in the mainstream corporate/McKinsey world, are becoming a lot more common and they're often difficult for genuine, old-style startups to compete with. (They blow up big, suck up a lot of talent and attention, then fail and lose credibility, so their inferior capability still leads to a both-lose outcome.)
This is going to blow up big in a couple of years: this massive proliferation of propped-up junk businesses and pseudo-startups run by incompetents. We're already seeing the embarrassing-but-not-yet-devastating fuckups. We haven't seen an Enron yet. But that's going to come, and it's going to have massive effects (and probably negative ones, on good and bad players) on the startup scene.
Does one really lose the freedom to express themselves once they are VC backed founders? Tinder is a hook up app, and yes, perhaps Tinderslut is too revealing and direct about what any female or male users do with it, but, if he were to use promiscuous tinderian and have a gender neutral tone: would there be that much controversy? If I love naked women and art do I have to throw naked men and art in the mix to not be called a misogynist? The author exaggerated his article with those pictures. Tinder, being male dominated, will naturally have a slight chauvinistic culture. She wasn't pushed aside for being a female, the author hasn't provided evidence to support such a claim. As one of my favorite YouTuber said in his video [1], "if a women has a skill and passion for something she is already pursuing it." Thus, to not be brushed aside she had to battle for relevancy like anyone else does with skillful work instead of lightly accepting her irrelevancy and looking for the media to gain an undisclosed agreement.
Edit: As usual, anything not supporting the usual response gains downvotes.
You're right, she totally should have "battled for relevancy" despite being called a "slut" and a "whore" while the CEO does nothing about it. Obviously, she just wasn't trying hard enough.
Not to pile on, since you've already been downvoted, but have you actually read the abusive texts that started this whole shitstorm? Nothing in this article speaks well to Justin's character, but I don't think any of it would be getting attention if it weren't for the can of batshit misogynist crazy he opened up on a female co-worker. I think the social media behavior documented here is pertinent context for those allegations.
Hmmm so i wondered if this reporter went through many other successful start-up guys in their early to mid 20s (even late 20s) instragram and twitter feeds would he find similar stuff?
Their actions aren't right, but they are not surprising based on age and level of success.
Misogyny is pretty ubiquitous in the current state of the world. Most people get away with it under the "that's just the way boys are" blanket of protection you just mentioned.
It's unfortunate that it takes a case like this for people to question if slutshaming is accetable behavior.
It's very brave of her to file the lawsuit. Whatever shitparade the other founders and dealing with, I'm sure hers is ten times worse.
...and now I have no reason to believe either her allegations or his defenses. People are simply unreliable witnesses in matters concerning former romantic partners that they are not on good terms with.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
As an aside, Mateen exhibits the textbook Madonna-whore dichotomy. To him, women are either someone he can see being a wife (Wolfe pre-breakup), or a whore/bimbo/slut (the women on his Instagram feed). When she rejected him, in classic fashion she went from the former bucket to the latter. This is a case study for a gender-studies paper.
[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tinderslut
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|11 years ago|reply
Isn't the point of the app to enable promiscuity. "Slut" is a word for a promiscuous woman, sometimes used for a prostitute, sometimes used of men (in UK at least). Surely they viewed the women who use the app as wanting to have free and easy sexual encounters, ie behave like sluts?
When the slang that associated their app with the actions of those using it, viz "tinderslut", was popularised were they not justified to consider that an achievement - the app was clearly notorious for enabling promiscuous behaviour, exactly the behaviour it was designed for.
There seems little controversial in them calling active users of their app sluts (men or women).
For me there is much to hate about the app morally but it seems rather silly to get upset that the designers of the app that people use to seek out promiscuous sex consider their users to be in to promiscuous sex?!
[+] [-] dbloom|11 years ago|reply
If Rad had just forced his friend Mateen to resign earlier on for "creative differences" before his behavior got out of hand, everyone -- including Mateen! -- would have been strictly better off.
And this definitely isn't the first time that this has happened (Rap Genius, and I'm sure there are others too...)
TL;DR: Do your sexist, racist friends a favor by getting them out of your workplace.
(By the way, to be clear, I don't feel bad for any of these guys. They deserved what happened. But this sort of thing really shouldn't be happening again, and again, and again...)
[+] [-] WoodenChair|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickS|11 years ago|reply
While the dude's clearly a jerk, his first startup sounds like it died a death that was out of his hands, not a result of his being a predator.
[+] [-] MattGrommes|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigdubs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bahamut|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] austenallred|11 years ago|reply
You could replace "Tinder" with any company and find that the above statement holds true. Twitter isn't Jack or Ev or Biz, it's the combination of the three. Facebook was mostly Zuck, but not all. Apple was indeed [very] heavily influenced by Steve Jobs, but Apple wasn't Steve Jobs.
I've found the idea of a single genius founder being behind anything is largely a myth; they're just the public face of a company that is doing great things in the background.
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
Also, NSFW Instagram images.
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hyperliner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpeg_hero|11 years ago|reply
I am adding "anti-fraternization" policy to my employee handbook today.
Seriously, does anybody know how to handle the hr on discovering a supervisor / direct report are dating?
I've been told that best practices is to immediately suggest one or the other resign, and if they don't, fire both for violating policy.
How does one handle this situation?
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
You can make all the policies you want but human nature does not care much for policies.
The best cure is an immediate transfer to another department of either of the two. That way you avoid all the claims of favoritism and possible fall-out in case the relationship goes sour. Also make sure that managers know that such relationships should immediately be reported to upper management. (Hard if the 'upper management' is in fact one of the parties). Any evidence of pressure from the higher-up should result in immediate termination. Again, that's pretty tough but it is much better than the possible alternatives.
[+] [-] dasil003|11 years ago|reply
In this situation the real problem is a you have sexist fuckwad of a partner who is basically a loose cannon and going to get you in trouble eventually. If you really want to build a company with someone like that you need to start telling them to tone it down early and often, but of course that's easier said than done.
[+] [-] ColinCera|11 years ago|reply
That's not even remotely true. No court has ever held that merely dating a subordinate is ipso facto sexual harassment. Accordingly, many companies do not have an official policy against it.
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] protonfish|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skittles|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henryw|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clay_to_n|11 years ago|reply
Not cool for companies to lie about their history, even if a lot of them do it.
[+] [-] bearnun|11 years ago|reply
EDIT: Referencing top comments.
[+] [-] jlees|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
It's likely that current events help explain some oddities in Tinder's past.
[+] [-] saraid216|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] afterburner|11 years ago|reply
Founder or nothing these days, eh?
[+] [-] jessaustin|11 years ago|reply
I wish I could believe this isn't the actual reason that Mateen is gone.
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelochurch|11 years ago|reply
Tinder isn't a real startup, but a manufactured success for a couple of well-connected douchebags (who behave as if they're above the law). It's the Disneypreneur phenomenon (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/silicon-valle...). If you look into it, both of these guys are invaders from the MBA culture.
These phony startups, that are actually pre-arranged by powerful players in the mainstream corporate/McKinsey world, are becoming a lot more common and they're often difficult for genuine, old-style startups to compete with. (They blow up big, suck up a lot of talent and attention, then fail and lose credibility, so their inferior capability still leads to a both-lose outcome.)
This is going to blow up big in a couple of years: this massive proliferation of propped-up junk businesses and pseudo-startups run by incompetents. We're already seeing the embarrassing-but-not-yet-devastating fuckups. We haven't seen an Enron yet. But that's going to come, and it's going to have massive effects (and probably negative ones, on good and bad players) on the startup scene.
[+] [-] jessaustin|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjsz|11 years ago|reply
Edit: As usual, anything not supporting the usual response gains downvotes.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dRt00ufp4
[+] [-] stmchn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pauleastlund|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jw_|11 years ago|reply
You are still free to say whatever you want, and people are free to call you an asshole and distance themselves from you.
[+] [-] surprised12|11 years ago|reply
Their actions aren't right, but they are not surprising based on age and level of success.
[+] [-] mwetzler|11 years ago|reply
It's unfortunate that it takes a case like this for people to question if slutshaming is accetable behavior.
It's very brave of her to file the lawsuit. Whatever shitparade the other founders and dealing with, I'm sure hers is ten times worse.
[+] [-] tzs|11 years ago|reply
...and now I have no reason to believe either her allegations or his defenses. People are simply unreliable witnesses in matters concerning former romantic partners that they are not on good terms with.
[+] [-] mrjaeger|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply