[cowsandmilk]

This smacks of blaming Ms. Wolfe for starting a company with her significant other. Mr. Mateen also started a company with his significant other.

As shown by the first Ms. Wolfe was able to handle separating her breakup from her duties at work. She went into starting the company knowing she would be able to handle remaining professional at work if the relationship ended.

Mr. Mateen went into founding a company with his significant other and was clearly unable to handle separating the company from his relationship. This falls squarely on his shoulders.

Plenty of successful companies are built up around relationships. Plenty of companies survive their founders ending their relationship. While it is painful, they most frequently are able to work things out by being civil and being able to separate their relationship from their business. This all falls on Mr. Mateen's shoulders for not being able to separate the two.

[chatmasta]

Ah, the victim blaming accusation. I was waiting for this.

To be clear: Ms. Wolfe is the obvious victim in this situation. She did nothing to deserve it, and all responsibility for it falls on the frail, slimy shoulders of Mr. Marteen. There is no way she could have predicted that he would act like this. However, she could have known it was a risk.

Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Marteen is 100% responsible for this situation does not invalidate my advice. I am merely pointing out the risks of starting a company (or joining one?) with your significant other. To paraphrase another HN commenter:

When the police teach people not to leave their keys in their car while they pump gas and go get a snack, is that victim blaming? No. It's advising people to consider the risks of their actions, which could unintentionally lead to a bad outcome.

[mikeash]

When you say stuff like "Ms. Wolfe should have recognized that risk when she went into business with her boyfriend," it's extremely difficult to come to any conclusion other than that you're blaming the victim.

I think it's possible to make the point you made without sounding like you're blaming the victim, but you didn't do it.

[chatmasta]

I maintain that she should have recognized that risk. When you walk outside without an umbrella, you risk getting wet. When you and your boyfriend go into business without an HR department, you risk emotional trauma and possibly harassment. It still sucks to get wet, and it still sucks to be abused by your ex-boyfriend.

Choosing to venture outside without an umbrella does not put you at fault for the rain. Choosing to go into business with your boyfriend does not put you at fault for his emotional issues.

Is it victim blaming to advise carrying an umbrella when it might rain? No.

My point is that when she joined the company, there was a risk she would break up with her boyfriend and he would go batshit-crazy. That risk always exists. It's sad and unfortunate, but it's a risk.

She chose to take that risk, and is unfortunately suffering from its negative consequences. But taking the risk does not put her at fault for the outcome, and pointing out the risk does not put me at fault for victim blaming.

(By pointing out the risks of going into business with your significant other, I took the risk of being labeled a victim blamer. Does that make me responsible for being called a victim blamer? Mind blown)

[mikeash]

It comes down to how personal versus impersonal advice is taken. Examples:

1. She should have known the risk of walking down that dark alley by herself.

2. It's important to understand that it can be dangerous to walk down dark alleys by oneself.

The latter is just solid advice. The former is easily interpreted as "blaming the victim".

You're right, by pointing out the risks, you took the risk of being labeled a victim blamer. And yet you still managed to use victim-blaming language despite being completely aware of how it would be taken. All I can advise is to take more care with how you word posts which you know will be controversial, and if it's pointed out, merely apologize and mention that you didn't intend that interpretation, rather than essentially repeating your victim-blaming mistake again by blaming people who read your post for responding to the words it contains rather than reading your mind to glean your intent.

[chatmasta]

Point taken.