[tnone]

Assuming this is all true, it would confirm my suspicion that when people talk about techbros, they're talking about the rich 0.001% handling the money rather than the vast bulk of the sector. Conflating the two is eminently useful to some, but it has no bearing on most of the people here. It's a fight of the elite, using popular talking points and media influence to wage a battle using the reputations of tens of thousands as crass collateral.

Aside from a workplace fling with one sleazeball, apparently there's a seedy pleasure trip she didn't get invited on and a plate of cookies. Then the corporate ass covering when she started making a fuss in a company handling millions of dollars.

However, let's face it, competing at that level requires a certain kind of drive and ruthlessness, and it'd be naive to assume Pao is somehow exempt from this.

It's an excerpt from her book, published to promote said book. Of course it's going to be 100% sympathetic. Here's a more neutral take on things, which includes the portion conspicuously omitted here: the lawsuits her husband's embroiled in, and the plus hundred of millions he potentially defrauded pension funds of, which incidentally lines up with Pao's sought damages.

They sound like they deserve each other, and are eminently capable of playing their victim cards for full effect to paper over their own mistakes.

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletc...

[matt4077]

Yeah, she explicitly mentions that vanity fair article.

Among other things, she calls out vanity fair for questioning her marriage, based on the fact that her husband had had previous relationships with men.

It's also somewhat strange how you're trying character assassination by proxy. And that this is a four-year old article, so the story apparently didn't actually go anywhere.

I also believe she does a good job of outlining how the treatment of women is distinct from a general "you have to be aggressive" style of workplace behaviour. What often strikes me most unfair is how women get told to be aggressive ("own the room", as it's called in the article), but then easily faulted for being too aggressive. "Shrill" is one of these words reserved for women only.

[tnone]

And chauvinistic and sexist is a word reserved for men, but few seem to notice that. Equality goes both ways.

I looked around for a follow up to the lawsuits but the Vanity Fair article is still the most informative. Her husband's problems did go somewhere: he lost and is now appealing.

You can call it character assassination by proxy all you want, but the company people keep is still relevant, especially someone whose finances you are legally tied to, and when he's made exactly similar claims of discrimination over matters he had more than a professional interest in.

I allow for the fact that she's a victim, but the article above is not going to let us decide that. I do not listen and believe.