[rPlayer6554]

The author has the conclusion that she was wiped from the history books because she's a woman. But her husband worked almost the exact same amount (if not more - because he was always a full time employee.) and he got equally erased from the history books. Competitive environments can be cutthroat and she and her husband let Gabe become the face of the company because they left.

[gyropants]

Additionally, she had to be less visible because her primary contribution was marketing. She describes in detail how much time and effort was necessary to create advance buzz around the game (seeding stories to the press, the "game of the year" posturing before they actually had a game).

Her contributions were major to be sure, and I don't mean to downplay her efforts towards Valve's success. But by necessity, the machinery of marketing needs to be mostly invisible, because the manipulation doesn't work when people are conscious that they're being manipulated.

[nox101]

Agreed, how many marketing people can you name from Hollywood? Me, zero. But you can probably name some of the people who created the movie (actors, directors, producers, musicians, etc....)

[ofrzeta]

I don't know many producers, maybe with the exception of the Broccoli family who are producing James Bond :) I know some directors of photography, though, because their work is defines an aesthetic characteristic of movies. However I was/am a film buzz for a long time and don't think the layman will know any directors of photography.

Related it's also interesting that in German the directory of photography is only called a "Kameramann" (camera guy) while the English term emphasizes their "directing". And it's true. They are typically not the ones operating the camera but have operators for that like "focus pullers".

Sorry, I got carried a away with the topic a little bit :)

[quadyeast]

The (film) camera dept, led by the cinematographer, encompasses the camera operators, the electricians led by the Gaffer, the grips led by the key grip, and the camera assistants which includes loaders and focus pullers.

[nox101]

I knew of Jerry Bruckheimer, Joel Silver, and Kathleen Kennedy. They were realtively famous in the past. Not sure if there are any famous producers now

[stubish]

She makes no claim about being wiped 'because she's a woman'. Her anecdote is that another woman 'essentially said that the only other woman during her tenure there was an office manager'. She is citing, with video evidence, a case where her omission seemed an almost deliberate wipe, rather than an accidental or deliberate omission.

[rPlayer6554]

> I’m also proud of the work I did while recognizing that my biggest contributions to Valve’s business went largely unnoticed and unrecognized within the industry. Part of that was due to the bro culture of the software business, part of it was that I receded to support my husband in a partnership where he was effectively the lesser partner, and part of it was that women, especially in tech, often seem to disappear when the story gets told.

Nope the second and last sentence are pretty clear.

[fennecbutt]

Don't worry dude, some of us totally get you. There's defo bias in parts of the industry, but to cry wolf about it and use it as a crutch is lame for her to do.

If there was more evidence to support her point then sure, but otherwise it's the protected class effect kicking in; she can be called out and her claims can be called out, just as we would call out any man. To give someone concessions for race, gender, sexuality, etc is actually playing into biases, not helping dissolve them.

As a gay dev, I'd hate it if I was treated different. Diversity hires...I'd be horrified if I was ever hired over someone better than me because "eh good enough, plus he hits our x quota". Granted, I haven't ever seen a company with an lgbt quota, only race and sex.

[chis]

This article contains 7000 words and exactly one paragraph is about being a woman at Valve, mostly it's just a depiction of the early days there and how Gabe ended up as the sole remaining founder. I truly doubt you read the article.

[rPlayer6554]

That's a pretty lame response. If I hadn't read the article, how would I know she wasn't always a full time employee but became one. (If I hadn't, I wouldn't have said her husband was always a full time employee) It's buried halfway through that she did switch eventually. Maybe respond to the content of my argument.

In fact the article was a fascinating look at the inside of how Valve started, but the conclusion did not fit with her own story of what happened.

[zackmorris]

Yours is an off-color take that does a disservice to the HN readership. I'm saddened that it's currently the top comment.

Here's what I saw:

  As the months went on and Valve's costs continued to escalate, it became clear that Mike and I were maxing out on our financial commitment. Rather than renegotiate the contract with Sierra, Gabe, who had started at Microsoft much earlier than Mike and me, began funding the ongoing development costs, set up as a loan against future company profits.
  ..
  By the summer of 1999, Mike was researching trawler yachts, I was immersed in figuring out Valve's potential business opportunities, and Gabe was doing deep thinking, leading the team and communicating with customers. In the meantime, because of the way Gabe and Mike had structured the ownership, where employees could earn equity over time, Mike's and my ownership stake was effectively shrinking.
  ..
  In a nine-page document, I proposed that Valve and Amazon team up to create a new online entertainment platform. I scaled the business opportunity within four years at $500 million dollars. The gist of the idea was to create a made-for-the-medium platform that would bring users together in a sticky, compelling entertainment experience, with digital and offline content sales. I wanted Amazon's financial backing as a way to gain first mover advantage against Microsoft and Electronic Arts, then the major PC games players. I didn't see a role for Sierra. If pushed, we wouldn't create any new games ourselves, and instead would team with outside developers so that they could distribute content not subject to an 85% publishing fee. At the time, I considered it an act of rebellion against the traditional publishing dynamic where independent developers took on huge risk, and the big publishing houses reaped the rewards.
  ..
  We had a great discussion, and a couple of weeks later, a champagne bottle appeared at Valve’s door.
  
  It was exhilarating and scary at the same time. We had an offer from Amazon for a minority stake, but the dynamics within the company were tricky. Amazon could help propel Valve to the next level, but the partnership would not be without costs. Valve’s culture was still evolving. A partnership with a major outside player could help but it could also hurt what we’d all built.
  
  It was after the Amazon offer that Mike revealed to Gabe that he wanted to leave. With an offer in-hand, it didn’t take long for us to figure out the outline of a deal.
  ..
  As I look back on the huge success Valve has become, I'm proud of what the team accomplished. I'm also proud of the work I did while recognizing that my biggest contributions to Valve's business went largely unnoticed and unrecognized within the industry. Part of that was due to the bro culture of the software business, part of it was that I receded to support my husband in a partnership where he was effectively the lesser partner, and part of it was that women, especially in tech, often seem to disappear when the story gets told.
  ..
  I know that Valve wouldn't have been successful without Mike. It wouldn't have been successful without Gabe. And it wouldn't have been successful without me. A friend of mine who knows the full story once said to me, "you were a founding partner" and in hindsight, I agree. From the beginning, I invested time, treasure and industry expertise to make the company a huge success.

So what really happened is that Gabe Newell (the cofounding partner with the most money) carried the company.

Mike Harrington (the other cofounder) and his wife Monica (the author) didn't leave, they were squeezed out, due to their contract shrinking the equity they owned, "because of the way Gabe and Mike had structured the ownership".

-

Even though she contributed considerable capital and was the one who sealed the deal with Amazon to create Steam, that wasn't enough to overcome the rampant sexism in tech (demonstrated by the actions of the men around her), so her contribution was erased from history.

All that matters in (American) capitalism is who has the most money. Labor falls second to that. I've experienced this several times in my own career. Also losing out through agism, not selling my strengths well enough and not protecting myself from financial losses. It would have been doubly hard without the random privilege of being a white middle class male.

This is why your take sounds right, but is only part of the whole story, conveniently sweeping injustice under the rug to preserve your own ideology, rather than raising awareness to help others avoid becoming victims in the future.

And your take is amplified on the national stage, at the center of the current political debate, creating an even more insufferable climate of denial for those who are already suffering under the aftermath of US colonial patriarchy.

[knighthack]

> Part of that was due to the bro culture of the software business, part of it was that I receded to support my husband in a partnership where he was effectively the lesser partner, and part of it was that women, especially in tech, often seem to disappear when the story gets told.

Why is sexism being conflated with cutthroat business decisions?

She and her husband didn't make the cut - doesn't mean that she was specifically excluded because of her gender. Look, the fact that she then mentioned "... privilege of being a white middle class male" made it very clear that she wanted sexism as a key ragebaiting element.

As the article author relied on sexism as the concluding answer, there's nothing wrong to call her out on it.

[zackmorris]

I just want to clarify that I was the one who said "privilege of being a white middle class male", not her.

There's a lot of room for misinterpretation in long articles and comments, and risk of ragebaiting, as you pointed out.

But the reason I came down hard on the parent commenter is that after reading the whole article, they basically said that her being a woman had nothing to do with her treatment.

I've heard that veiled sexism my whole life, and racism, and agism, today it's classism.

What the parent may not realize is that by writing off her story so dismissively, they made her point. It's clear for the rest of us to see.

But if the rest of us let that stand, then it perpetuates a culture of ignorance.

There's been a lot of perpetuating these last few decades.

Which is why in 2024, despite all of our technology and progress, we are facing a presidential election between a woman and a man who openly expresses every ism and still gets 50% of the vote.

[ViktorRay]

But maybe the parent commentator was right. Maybe her treatment was not the result of her being a woman.

Someone might say something happened in their life because of sexism but that doesn’t mean it’s “veiled sexism” to disagree. We should be able to disagree or be critical with someone’s assertions on anything.

The stuff about politics you bring up like the election is not relevant to this. It’s essentially rage bait that would essentially derail the thread when you bring up stuff like that.

You also never actually addressed the specific things that people in the thread said. The fact that her husband’s contributions were also mostly ignored and that we mainly know him just as a cofounder. Or the fact that the work she did was in marketing and people generally don’t know the names of marketers.

“ What the parent may not realize is that by writing off her story so dismissively, they made her point. It's clear for the rest of us to see.”

When you say things like this you imply that disagreeing with someone when they say something happened to them because of an “ism” then you are automatically being “ist”. That’s silly. Sometimes people are right. Sometimes people are wrong. You should be able to disagree with people when you think they’re wrong. About this or anything else. Without automatically being labeled as an “ist” or promoting a veiled “ism.”

[zackmorris]

I've been trying to understand why I got triggered by the comment(s). I was in college in the 90s and it was very similar to the movie PCU:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110759/

Back then, sexism was blatant and rampant. The ratio of men to women in my engineering classes was roughly 30:1. It was almost unheard of for women to reach prominent positions in tech or any other male-dominated field for that matter. Yet we all had a sense that sexism and racism were finally on the verge of becoming a thing of the past.

Fast forward 30 years and I can't believe what's tolerated today, especially in politics:

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/stat...

On a personal level, bigotry may be lower today than in the 90s. But on the national stage it remains as polarizing as ever.

The saddest part about that for me is that it's creating division that was almost healed. Many women feel threatened after the Roe v. Wade rollback and countless other affronts, so masculinity is often portrayed as toxic. Then men, many of whom are struggling and unheard under patriarchy as well, feel like they are being lumped in with chauvinists and turn towards the Andrew Tates and Jordan Petersons and Joe Rogans of the world for validation. Which feeds their egos in ways that many women find insulting, creating a vicious cycle.

So when I see comments that being a woman has nothing to do with it, I think that sentiment feeds into the division. Whether it's true or not is beside the point, what matters is the intentional avoidance of empathy.

Unfortunately objective takes are given more credibility in these times than the subjective ones that I believe hold the insights. So even though this is a hill I'm dying on, there's no way for me to really win the debate. Which to me is the very essence of what the Harris/Trump presidential race is getting at.

[Hikikomori]

The Amazon deal was never signed. But it seems like it formed the foundation of what became Steam.