Let's not let the outcome of this specific case affect the idea that there is an institutional bias - conscious or unconscious - against women entering and thriving in male-dominated fields like this one.
Just as one flurry in April doesn't disprove global warming, one dismissed lawsuit doesn't disprove a deep but sometimes subtle sexism. It's the same with other powerful prejudices that have endured for centuries or millennia.
There are many factors acting against women, just as there are many working against people of color, the poor, and those who do not cleave to traditional sexual or gender norms. Please do what you can to support these people in your life, in all their endeavors.
If you know the principals involved, or saw everything the jury saw (including legal instructions from the judge), you might have a valid opinion on why any particular legal result is either scandalous or righteous.
But if you're just a distant spectator, cheering a team based on general affinities to the kind of people on either side, or general causes without regard to the case specifics... then you're actually part of the problem, making workplaces and communities unfair to real people based on superficialities and acquired prejudices.
> Ms. Pao, it emerged in testimony, compiled a “resentment” chart of colleagues who, she believed, wronged her.
Wow. How petty. There's so many things that came from this case that make me question how much of the testimony from her is real and how much of it is in her head.
Another example, from a recent re/code article:
> Ellen Pao said she filed her gender discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partly because of three female administrative assistants who had been discriminated against because of their gender
> There is only one problem: No one in the courtroom seems to know where these admins are. No one seems to know the details of their grievances. No one in court, including Pao, even knows all their names.
And then:
> Pao also said she was told by Kleiner Perkins talent partner Juliet de Baubigny that Nazre was a “sex addict.” To her, that pointed to a larger unspoken history. “I thought she must have additional information and maybe about the administrative assistants,” Pao said.
> Asked on the stand today whether she ever called Nazre a “sex addict,” de Baubigny replied, “No, that is completely ridiculous.”
That article isn't trying to remain impartial at all.
By about half way down they gave up all pretence and started arguing that Pao's case was valid/accurate even if the jury disagreed.
You'd almost think the author forgot she actually lost. 12 people decided she had no case, what would be enough for this author? 20? 50? I doubt even that would do it, they've pre-decided what actually occurred.
>That article isn't trying to remain impartial at all.
I have not seen one single article on this trial that hasn't been very heavily biased in favour of Ellen Pao. Not one.
I'm not surprised this isn't the case yet again. The media are calling this institutional misogyny regardless of the facts or the judgement by the jury. If she wins, it's institutional misogyny, if she loses it's institutional misogyny.
At this stage I'm convinced that tech journalism is the lowest form of journalism available today.
Not to say I agree or disagree with this jury, but a dismissal or acquittal does not necessarily mean the case had no merit. OJ was acquitted, after all, and many, many people are wrongfully found guilty.
1. They didn't decide "she had no case". Deciding whether or not a claimant "has a case" isn't even the jury's job. They're there to decide whether or not the evidence supports the claims.
2. You might want to re-check the jury poll again. (Hint: not all 12 jurors decided against Pao.)
I found this to be surprising about the entire coverage of the case.
Following tech blogs and checking HN links, you would've thought that Pao's case was bulletproof, with some minor nuances and qualifications. After reading the full details of the arguments on both sides, I now understand why the jury ruled the way it did.
The article speaks to the larger issue of discrimination of women in the valley in general. Just because Pao's case didn't convince a jury doesn't mean everything is peachy.
And even in her case there's a grey area where discrimination can occur without it being illegal. In that case, you can win in court but lose the trial of public opinion.
David Streitfield writes anti-tech hit pieces almost exclusively, and sometimes forgets to try to remove his opinions from what would otherwise appear to be factual articles.
I encourage everybody to read the closing arguments liveblog at http://recode.net/2015/03/24/live-closing-arguments-in-ellen... to see the defense's side of the story that is at least based on facts established during the trial before believing seriously biased mainstream news stories unquestioningly repeating Pao's initial claims (or HN posters jumping to conclusions with their claims of "damning" testimony or "sexual harassment.") The VCs might be assholes and there is real harassment happening but there was just no evidence of discrimination in this particular case and if it was decided differently, it would have been a setback to both men and women in the workplace.
Good time to be woman in tech.
My company has a special program to identify and promote specifically women to management roles. Not meritocracy. Even a male in a team works and performs better, he loses because the policy is to get some percentage of women into leadership. Let the down voting begin.
100% agree with you. I actually regularly tell my female friends that their is no better time for them to get into the tech industry. As long as they can match the "average ability" then they can pretty much get their pick of the jobs, as well as countless benefits in their schooling.
I'm currently in school now majoring in computer science. I'd say its about 70-30 guys to girls in my comp sci classes, but 65-35 girls to guys in the whole school(Of course no one gives a shit that there is basically 2 girls for every guy in the school). Every week I receive emails from my faculty that are along the lines of "Come to this event to promote women in technology" or "Come participate in this high school event to get girls more interested in technology". As well the amount of women only benefits is astonishing. This includes numerous scholarships, special tutorials, private talks etc..
Anyways the school is fairly well known for its computer science program and has very good connections to the tech industry. If you are top of the class you will most likely get a job at any of the big companies. If you are a girl and around average you will also likely get a job at any of the big companies. This isn't to say their are some very talented girls who deserve it.
Last thing that I find pretty hilarious. Lets say for example Google is hosting an event where you can ask questions and get to know the recruiters. They will also hold a separate event the next day which is for women only. And it's not only Google I'd say its pretty much every big company that does this. They don't even hide the fact you have a huge advantage in getting the job you want just because your female.
What really ?
I have one co-worker who seems to really resent me, and I couldn't figure out why.
I feel like I'm tired of trying to prove myself to the guys over and over, but just thinking that their feelings could be reasonable makes me feel sick.
Then I think about all the corporate advice books I've read, which basically say life is tough, limited spots available. You have to constantly prove yourself to every person you meet to get ahead. . .
Firms that are bad to their employees get busted fast.
Firms that are bad to their employees - that comes from the top people who set the tone and culture. If the people at the top were bad, KPCB would have been kaput LONG LONG AGO.
KPCB has been around for FORTY THREE years. If the people at the top -- who are still there after all this time -- were bad to their employees, we'd have heard about it a LONG time ago.
John Doerr runs the firm. John Doerr has been there for Thirty-Five Years. We would have known long ago if KPCB was bad to their employees, because the same people have been at the top running the firm all this time.
After you've been in the workplace (and this may not apply if you're just an 'individual contributor' type of person) and seen the narcissism up close -- and seen it more than once -- and you've read the description of the 'narcissistic personality disorder' profile -- you'd see Ellen Pao all over:
* Pretending to be more important than they really are
* Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
* Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
* Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
* An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
* Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
In short, she had problems with others at KPCB. The jury saw that John Doerr very gently tried to help her. That was all the way back in 2006, at her very first review.
From 2005 until she was fired, she was working there on borrowed time. Anyone else with the consistently bad teamwork skills would have been let go LONG ago. Only because the head of the firm, John Doerr, tried over and over to help her 'get over herself', was she able to remain employed there.
Again, if you've ever worked with this type of personality, you'd have known, after reading her history (link below), that her lawsuit was the narcissist' siren call, "I know I did well, and no one else thinks I did, so they need to be punished".
I think it is very clear that there is an environment in tech world that is off putting to women and it probably discriminates against women in general.
But it isn't at all clear to me that Ellen Pao got rejected from partnership because she was a woman.
I assume that is why the jury sided with Kleiner Perkins.
I only followed this from afar, but my understanding is that the defense did a terrific job and that's the main reason Pao lost. They were able to successfully paint her as someone who is very unpleasant to work with and not entirely honest either. Once her character was assassinated, it was easy to sway the jury against her.
if there was something to assassinate... Pao was complaining that her colleague's assistant was sending from the office brain scans of dying from brain cancer mother.
This is a hypothetical question: given the public information Ellen Pao was going spend a couple of weeks on this trial, plus a lot of other distractions that came with the trial, would the Reddit board have been biased if they had not picked her as interim CEO, with the reason being that she might not have devoted enough time and mental effort to running the company?
It's a hard problem. Good leaders get crushed by forces outside the business, and it's not always practical to say "take a vacation or downshift duties for a while".
Personally I have a low faith in outsider CEO hires anyway, though
I was totally sympathetic to Ellen Pao therefore I'm interested to hear why the jury sided with the defense. Does anyone know if there are any undisputable facts or was it basically he said/she said?
I've always liked the analogy to Barry Bonds for this kind of thing. There's a famous quote out there that goes something like, you can't point to any specific home run and say "he hit that one because of steroids," but you can be sure he hit more home runs because of them.
I think that kind of reasoning applies equally here. You can't necessarily point to bias for any given case (or at least not this one), but that doesn't mean the bias isn't there.
> ... the freewheeling ways of the male-dominated technology industry increasingly drew scrutiny.
> Episodes of men behaving badly make the news frequently here, whether it is sexism or harassment in the workplace or just derogatory attitudes toward women.
So the story in the NYT is that it's a story in the NYT (unless by "here" the author means tech or SV? Either way, Narrative is a juggernaut. The thinking and the story becomes more founded in what people are saying than what is.)
As a side note, I think the current US anti-discrimination laws are probably flawed, not because discrimination is not bad but because of problems with enforcement. I am thinking of imposing anti-discrimination conditions on specific companies instead.
Moving forward, we should all work to make workplaces where everyone can feel wanted. I don't think Race or Gender matters and I would not want to work somewhere where it does. I want to work in a place where the caliber of my work is what matters, not the color of my skin or my genitals.
This is a long battle that may never be won, but it doesn't mean we should stop fighting.
>we should all work to make workplaces where everyone can feel wanted
What about "bros" who want to discriminate against women? Should they feel wanted?
Here's part of a confusing argument I had with a good friend of mine recently.
A lot of people see "bros" (I really hate that term) as a problem. Their culture is a problem, their ideas about getting drunk at work and being loud and boisterous are all problems, and these are things that need to be stopped in the name of equality and progress.
But what about the individuals there? Some of the "bros" I know who run companies where they drink a lot at work, have frequent company sponsored outings to bars, go drinking after hours, go to parties together, etc. are refugees from the world where none of that was allowed.
To them, they've created a safe space for themselves where they are allowed to be what they feel most comfortable as.
The sortof neo-progressive response to these people is that what they're doing is wrong, and should be stopped...
What's confusing and difficult to me about that is that stopping these people is taking away their safe space. Yes, their safe space is discriminatory (to people who don't desire the same space, of feel safe in that space), but is that necessarily a bad thing?
For instance: there is a meetup at a hackerspace in my state called "WTF", which stands for "Women, Trans, Femme". I, as a white, cis, male would not be allowed in the shop during that time. Assuming that gender dysphoria is equally prevalent in men and women, that event discriminates against about 50% of the population.
The justification for this, which I understand, and I think I support, is that everybody deserves to have a space where they feel safe. There is a similar motivation behind things like Double Union in SF; it is a women-only hackerspace that exists for people who will feel most comfortable in a women-only hackerspace.
Good! I am glad that all of these people are getting to have their safe spaces.
But what about my friend that runs a company full of bros? What are they supposed to do? Because it seems like a lot of people think that they shouldn't be allowed to have their space (because it's discriminatory).
>I don't think Race or Gender matters and I would not want to work somewhere where it does.
Unfortunately we work in an industry whereby the mainstream industry media very highly believes race and gender matter, and that the presence of too "many" of a certain race or gender is "problematic".
One of the stranger points brought up in testimony was how Ms. Pao, before she was married, had dated a colleague for six months without ever realizing he was still living with his wife.
It seems that male nerds are not the only archetype of social ineptitude.
[+] [-] devindotcom|11 years ago|reply
Just as one flurry in April doesn't disprove global warming, one dismissed lawsuit doesn't disprove a deep but sometimes subtle sexism. It's the same with other powerful prejudices that have endured for centuries or millennia.
There are many factors acting against women, just as there are many working against people of color, the poor, and those who do not cleave to traditional sexual or gender norms. Please do what you can to support these people in your life, in all their endeavors.
[+] [-] gojomo|11 years ago|reply
But if you're just a distant spectator, cheering a team based on general affinities to the kind of people on either side, or general causes without regard to the case specifics... then you're actually part of the problem, making workplaces and communities unfair to real people based on superficialities and acquired prejudices.
[+] [-] colmvp|11 years ago|reply
Wow. How petty. There's so many things that came from this case that make me question how much of the testimony from her is real and how much of it is in her head.
Another example, from a recent re/code article:
> Ellen Pao said she filed her gender discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partly because of three female administrative assistants who had been discriminated against because of their gender
> There is only one problem: No one in the courtroom seems to know where these admins are. No one seems to know the details of their grievances. No one in court, including Pao, even knows all their names.
And then:
> Pao also said she was told by Kleiner Perkins talent partner Juliet de Baubigny that Nazre was a “sex addict.” To her, that pointed to a larger unspoken history. “I thought she must have additional information and maybe about the administrative assistants,” Pao said.
> Asked on the stand today whether she ever called Nazre a “sex addict,” de Baubigny replied, “No, that is completely ridiculous.”
[+] [-] Someone1234|11 years ago|reply
By about half way down they gave up all pretence and started arguing that Pao's case was valid/accurate even if the jury disagreed.
You'd almost think the author forgot she actually lost. 12 people decided she had no case, what would be enough for this author? 20? 50? I doubt even that would do it, they've pre-decided what actually occurred.
[+] [-] borgia|11 years ago|reply
I have not seen one single article on this trial that hasn't been very heavily biased in favour of Ellen Pao. Not one.
I'm not surprised this isn't the case yet again. The media are calling this institutional misogyny regardless of the facts or the judgement by the jury. If she wins, it's institutional misogyny, if she loses it's institutional misogyny.
At this stage I'm convinced that tech journalism is the lowest form of journalism available today.
[+] [-] devindotcom|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rosser|11 years ago|reply
Factually incorrect on two counts:
1. They didn't decide "she had no case". Deciding whether or not a claimant "has a case" isn't even the jury's job. They're there to decide whether or not the evidence supports the claims.
2. You might want to re-check the jury poll again. (Hint: not all 12 jurors decided against Pao.)
[+] [-] s3r3nity|11 years ago|reply
Following tech blogs and checking HN links, you would've thought that Pao's case was bulletproof, with some minor nuances and qualifications. After reading the full details of the arguments on both sides, I now understand why the jury ruled the way it did.
[+] [-] harryh|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|11 years ago|reply
And even in her case there's a grey area where discrimination can occur without it being illegal. In that case, you can win in court but lose the trial of public opinion.
[+] [-] smackfu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dyno12345|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andylei|11 years ago|reply
where?
[+] [-] kenko|11 years ago|reply
So what? The reporter isn't obligated to think the jury was correct.
[+] [-] zone411|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enlightenedfool|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naturalrecursin|11 years ago|reply
I'm currently in school now majoring in computer science. I'd say its about 70-30 guys to girls in my comp sci classes, but 65-35 girls to guys in the whole school(Of course no one gives a shit that there is basically 2 girls for every guy in the school). Every week I receive emails from my faculty that are along the lines of "Come to this event to promote women in technology" or "Come participate in this high school event to get girls more interested in technology". As well the amount of women only benefits is astonishing. This includes numerous scholarships, special tutorials, private talks etc..
Anyways the school is fairly well known for its computer science program and has very good connections to the tech industry. If you are top of the class you will most likely get a job at any of the big companies. If you are a girl and around average you will also likely get a job at any of the big companies. This isn't to say their are some very talented girls who deserve it.
Last thing that I find pretty hilarious. Lets say for example Google is hosting an event where you can ask questions and get to know the recruiters. They will also hold a separate event the next day which is for women only. And it's not only Google I'd say its pretty much every big company that does this. They don't even hide the fact you have a huge advantage in getting the job you want just because your female.
[+] [-] MollyR|11 years ago|reply
I feel like I'm tired of trying to prove myself to the guys over and over, but just thinking that their feelings could be reasonable makes me feel sick.
Then I think about all the corporate advice books I've read, which basically say life is tough, limited spots available. You have to constantly prove yourself to every person you meet to get ahead. . .
[+] [-] feybay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minimaxir|11 years ago|reply
> The jury was 8/4 on one count, so the judge says he can't accept the verdict right now, has sent them back into deliberations.
[+] [-] dubyah|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirashii|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] youngButEager|11 years ago|reply
Firms that are bad to their employees - that comes from the top people who set the tone and culture. If the people at the top were bad, KPCB would have been kaput LONG LONG AGO.
KPCB has been around for FORTY THREE years. If the people at the top -- who are still there after all this time -- were bad to their employees, we'd have heard about it a LONG time ago.
John Doerr runs the firm. John Doerr has been there for Thirty-Five Years. We would have known long ago if KPCB was bad to their employees, because the same people have been at the top running the firm all this time.
After you've been in the workplace (and this may not apply if you're just an 'individual contributor' type of person) and seen the narcissism up close -- and seen it more than once -- and you've read the description of the 'narcissistic personality disorder' profile -- you'd see Ellen Pao all over:
* Pretending to be more important than they really are
* Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
* Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
* Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
* An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges
* Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships
In short, she had problems with others at KPCB. The jury saw that John Doerr very gently tried to help her. That was all the way back in 2006, at her very first review.
From 2005 until she was fired, she was working there on borrowed time. Anyone else with the consistently bad teamwork skills would have been let go LONG ago. Only because the head of the firm, John Doerr, tried over and over to help her 'get over herself', was she able to remain employed there.
Again, if you've ever worked with this type of personality, you'd have known, after reading her history (link below), that her lawsuit was the narcissist' siren call, "I know I did well, and no one else thinks I did, so they need to be punished".
http://www.paradisepost.com/business/20150304/john-doerr-tes...
[+] [-] rhino369|11 years ago|reply
But it isn't at all clear to me that Ellen Pao got rejected from partnership because she was a woman.
I assume that is why the jury sided with Kleiner Perkins.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] enraged_camel|11 years ago|reply
I may be wrong though.
[+] [-] kzhahou|11 years ago|reply
* She was sent to the back row during a retreat! (except the day before, when she was given front row)
* She wasn't given enough guidance and didn't have a fair shot at the firm! (except JOHN DOERR actively mentored her)
* Her harasser at the firm was not fired! (except she told the partners over email that the guy should not be let go)
etc
[+] [-] sp332|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|11 years ago|reply
if there was something to assassinate... Pao was complaining that her colleague's assistant was sending from the office brain scans of dying from brain cancer mother.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] khuey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JDiculous|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] boomzilla|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sukilot|11 years ago|reply
Personally I have a low faith in outsider CEO hires anyway, though
[+] [-] ryanackley|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imh|11 years ago|reply
I think that kind of reasoning applies equally here. You can't necessarily point to bias for any given case (or at least not this one), but that doesn't mean the bias isn't there.
[+] [-] jongraehl|11 years ago|reply
> Episodes of men behaving badly make the news frequently here, whether it is sexism or harassment in the workplace or just derogatory attitudes toward women.
So the story in the NYT is that it's a story in the NYT (unless by "here" the author means tech or SV? Either way, Narrative is a juggernaut. The thinking and the story becomes more founded in what people are saying than what is.)
[+] [-] bruceb|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh2600|11 years ago|reply
Moving forward, we should all work to make workplaces where everyone can feel wanted. I don't think Race or Gender matters and I would not want to work somewhere where it does. I want to work in a place where the caliber of my work is what matters, not the color of my skin or my genitals.
This is a long battle that may never be won, but it doesn't mean we should stop fighting.
[+] [-] blhack|11 years ago|reply
What about "bros" who want to discriminate against women? Should they feel wanted?
Here's part of a confusing argument I had with a good friend of mine recently.
A lot of people see "bros" (I really hate that term) as a problem. Their culture is a problem, their ideas about getting drunk at work and being loud and boisterous are all problems, and these are things that need to be stopped in the name of equality and progress.
But what about the individuals there? Some of the "bros" I know who run companies where they drink a lot at work, have frequent company sponsored outings to bars, go drinking after hours, go to parties together, etc. are refugees from the world where none of that was allowed.
To them, they've created a safe space for themselves where they are allowed to be what they feel most comfortable as.
The sortof neo-progressive response to these people is that what they're doing is wrong, and should be stopped...
What's confusing and difficult to me about that is that stopping these people is taking away their safe space. Yes, their safe space is discriminatory (to people who don't desire the same space, of feel safe in that space), but is that necessarily a bad thing?
For instance: there is a meetup at a hackerspace in my state called "WTF", which stands for "Women, Trans, Femme". I, as a white, cis, male would not be allowed in the shop during that time. Assuming that gender dysphoria is equally prevalent in men and women, that event discriminates against about 50% of the population.
The justification for this, which I understand, and I think I support, is that everybody deserves to have a space where they feel safe. There is a similar motivation behind things like Double Union in SF; it is a women-only hackerspace that exists for people who will feel most comfortable in a women-only hackerspace.
Good! I am glad that all of these people are getting to have their safe spaces.
But what about my friend that runs a company full of bros? What are they supposed to do? Because it seems like a lot of people think that they shouldn't be allowed to have their space (because it's discriminatory).
[+] [-] r00fus|11 years ago|reply
In a situation with strong institutional bias towards reduced diversity, it just feels wrong to me.
[+] [-] borgia|11 years ago|reply
Unfortunately we work in an industry whereby the mainstream industry media very highly believes race and gender matter, and that the presence of too "many" of a certain race or gender is "problematic".
[+] [-] wyclif|11 years ago|reply
One of the stranger points brought up in testimony was how Ms. Pao, before she was married, had dated a colleague for six months without ever realizing he was still living with his wife.
It seems that male nerds are not the only archetype of social ineptitude.