Ellen Pao Loses Silicon Valley Gender Bias Case Against Kleiner Perkins

vivaoporto writes As reported by the New York Times, USA Today and other publications, a jury of six men and six women rejected current Reddit Inc CEO Ellen Pao's claims against her former employer, the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Ms. Pao's suit, that alleged employment discrimination based on gender, workplace retaliation and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination, asked $16 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. The jury decided, after more than two days of deliberation and more than four weeks of testimony, that her formed employer neither discriminated against the former junior partner for her gender, nor fired the complainant because of a high-profile gender discrimination lawsuit against the firm in 2012. She alleged that Kleiner Perkins had promoted male partners over equally qualified women at the firm, including herself, and then retaliated against her for raising concerns about the firm's gender dynamics by failing to promote her and finally firing her after seven years at the firm after she filed her 2012 lawsuit.

Comments

slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and SJW

[r.freeman]

Need more SJW posts per day.
Slashdoit is going to a gutter.

Behold my logic

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes no sense. The internet has told me all women everywhere are oppressed by men. Obviously anyone on this jury is either an individual with internalized misogyny or is just a flat out gender traitor.

Re:One more view.

[fey000]

Jury: Kleiner Perkins not liable for Pao’s gender discrimination claims [Updated]
Trial highlighted Silicon Valley's male-dominated tech and investment culture. via http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Absolutely loving the reasoning here. There are two possible outcomes.

1. Kleiner Perkins freed of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.
2. Kleiner Perkins guilty of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.

Perhaps this could be used as some sort of Turing test for feminazis?

The perfect summary of the case:

[ckatko]

"Ellen Pao gender-bias lawsuit is a setback for women"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025377...

Written by a female ex-CEO.

In a nutshell, the case is obviously frivolous, and if it had succeeded it would have been another barrier for women in the industry because companies would see a female applicant and go, "Is she worth the risk?"

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[taustin]

Or maybe they'd go; Gee whiz, we really are hiring mostly males for these positions. Perhaps we can take a closer look at these ladies to see what they're offering.

Then they'd be accused of soliciting prostitution.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[fey000]

Or maybe they'd go; Gee whiz, we really are hiring mostly males for these positions. Perhaps we can take a closer look at these ladies to see what they're offering.

Then they'd be accused of soliciting prostitution.

Badum-tish.

Funny and informative at the same time, just like Sesame Street.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[farble1670]

yeah, i read that article. it's kind of baseless. she uses the term "frivolous" over and over, but that would imply she knew that facts and evaluated the situation. there's no facts in the article all. she's calling it frivolous because,

"A job is an exchange of services on one side for compensation on the other. If that exchange is not working for either side, then move on. If you don't like how you are being treated, what you are getting paid, your opportunities, your co-workers or any other aspect of where you are working, leave and get a new job or start your own business."

basically, she an extreme capitalist that doesn't believe in "workers' rights" at all. she's saying "hey, being discriminating on? just leave and work somewhere else. it's a free country." while that probably was an option for Ms. Pao, it's not an option for everyone. there's got to be a balance.

and this,

"leave and get a new job or start your own business."

that's just a little elitist. assuming everyone has the capital to start their own business.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[CyprusBlue113]

We already do for black females as they are more likely to cost us money bringing a claim against us for dismissing them. Either firing them or terminating their employment for various reasons.

As a small company we cannot afford to make a mistake with the whole weight of Federal and State laws for someone to crush us with so we have taken risk mitigation very seriously.

So you admit to the discrimination you are saying you don't want to be accused of? yeah, shocking that you might get sued...

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[SharpFang]

Yes, discrimination against "High-litigation-risk" minorities. The gender/race correlation against said risk makes it appear like gender or race discrimination, but in essence it's just a good business practice to avoid employees that can ruin your business.

The fact feminists thought ruining their employers is a good gender equality promotion tactics... uh.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[swb]

The irony is that the same logic applied to the job by the worker basically means -- I'm free to do whatever I want at this job, and if it doesn't work out of them they can fire me.

For the company, the logic means they can be abusive, discriminatory, dishonest and exploitive.

So for the worker then, I guess they can be lazy, dishonest, unproductive, etc. It's the worker's role to exploit the company for the maximum gain they can get. Maximum shirk, minimum work.

What's funny is, I would bet that author if presented with her own logic from a worker perspective would probably immediately launch into a diatribe about the worker's moral obligation to work hard, be a good employee, etc, yet she refuses to see any moral obligation by the employer to the employee.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[SharpFang]

I hope you realize your mindset is what caused the most recent (and ongoing) recession - "the sub-prime mortgage credits" granted to people, who were clearly classified as a high-risk group that would cause severe losses on the average due to failure to pay them - but since they happened to be covered by anti-discrimination laws, the credits had to be granted anyway.

That's when political correctness trumps plain business sense and plain scum can get privleged treatment simply based on their skin color.

The blacks, instead of trying to force more acceptance through laws, should first get to cleaning up their own backyard and simply reduce the reasons that acceptance is so hard to come by: glorification of violence and crime, the "I deserve, you owe me" attitudes, poor ethics, and above all ostracization of these of their society, who grew successful through honest means and education.

Unfortunately, all these anti-social behaviors are ingrained as their "culture" and defended fiercely; they form a self-destructive society and then they resist if the destruction of their society spills out and is fought back.

And these, who broke out of the trap, suffer mistrust and discrimination simply because they are still suspect to be "wolves in sheep skins". And the prevalent belief that they are unable to fail on their own - that all their failures are a result of discrimination - really doesn't help things.

Imagine a situation: There are two black girls that join the college. One studies, works hard and passes all the exams just fine; not brilliantly but well on par with other good students. The other doesn't. She hangs out with the low-life, she choose the life of parties and drinking. When exam time comes, she fails along with fellow white party animals, but unlike them, she submits a complaint that she was discriminated against, and threatens the school with lawsuit. The school yields and grants her the diploma.

The two show up for a job interview. They have the same diplomas. The employer knows about their skill only basing on their diplomas (needs an expert in a field he's a layman in) and has a good clue about practices of extortion of such diplomas. He may choose either of them, or a white graduate who didn't have the leverage of discrimination lawsuit. He has a good business sense, and picks the low-risk white. ...and in this equation the black girl, who worked hard, gets the shortest end of the stick. But who's at fault here? The employer, who puts good business above political correctness? Or maybe these, who allowed the situation where the party animal was able to extort her diploma? Her friends, who gave her the advice "Party on, you're black, you're safe."? Government, that created a law prone to abuse, and as result deterrent to its intended purpose? Her family and surroundings, which reinforced the "they owe me, and it's always their fault" mindset instead of giving her firm work ethics?

It's the "few rotten apples" problem, except the rotten apples are quite numerous and any attempt to "un-rot" them is touted an assault on the black culture.

Re:The perfect summary of the case:

[SharpFang]

So much for a reasonable discussion. The second your claims are challenged or disproven, you resort to verbal violence. And I'm sure if you had the opportunity, it wouldn't only be verbal. And then you rage when people don't want to treat you seriously.

So typical. Seeing the straw in other's eye...

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[Random Nobody]

This is the new Eternal September. I personally blame smartphones and twitter. The SJW is getting more extreme and bigoted by the day, hopefully it implodes soon when the facade of equality breaks down.

Re:N4N?

[ADRA]

Because surprisingly enough, most of the people on this site work, and of those workers, many work in technology. Furthermore, many work in America with jobs held by companies that are required to abide by laws. Once an important / relevant law causes a cascade of business changes (think the whole API copyright fight between Oracle and Google), people reading this site will care. A LOT.

I know you're a troll an all that, but sadly, many don't see how immediate any change like this can have to their own lives. I personally think discrimination bias should absolutely be investigated and addressed on a case by case basis, though considering they found no obvious discrimination then mission accomplished! Just like John Oliver's Infrastructure segment: "Congratulations guys, nothing happened!".

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ellen Pao comes from a culture of lying for victimhood and money. She and her kind actually make it more difficult for women to get hired, due to fear of false claims actually succeeding.

Good job.

Re:One more view.

[ckatko]

Half the juriors were WOMEN. And ALL of the Asian juriors voted against her.

When you assume every women who loses a case is because of "male domination", then nobody takes you seriously when you have an actual case of discrimination.

Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.

Wouldn't Want To Be In The Same Room With Her

[Anonymous Coward]

Man has an affair on the job, expects to get fired, woman has an affair on the job, expects $16M. Nothing coming out of this case makes it look like she had even the tiniest shred of evidence she didn't deserve what she got besides her gender.

Re:Wouldn't Want To Be In The Same Room With Her

[drinkypoo]

I got my job just because the company I work for had over twenty developers that were all male, and it looked bad on their EEO report.

Not because you were the most qualified applicant? That means the company you work for hired you not because they should have, but because they were strong-armed into it. In fact, they should not have had to have hired you, they should have been able to hire the best-qualified applicant.

Re:Wouldn't Want To Be In The Same Room With Her

[elrous0]

But the difference is that men have the power.

You might have a point if the man she had an affair with was her boss. Instead he was just a colleague. As it was, it didn't reflect sexual harassment--just very poor judgement.

Re:N4N?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

One of KP's biggest area of investment is Tech. Hell Bill Joy is a senior partner.

Re:One more view.

[ncc74656]

1. Kleiner Perkins freed of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.
2. Kleiner Perkins guilty of all charges. This highlights just how male-dominated and sexist the tech industry is.

It's kinda like "global warming," where any change in the weather (or any lack of change in the weather) is cited as proof. A Venn diagram of SJWs vs. warmistas would, I suspect, have a very high degree of overlap.

This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

I don't mean the article but this gender bias issue which is almost entirely factious and where not factious almost always radical hyperbole.

The gender wage game since the 1970s has been less then TWO percent not 30 percent WHEN you factor in years on the job. Nearly every comparison between men and women that cite a large gender pay game ignores that the women often take as many as ten years off while they raise children. To compare that person's value to the company against someone that didn't take those ten years off is either gross incompetence or calculated deceit. And that was in the 1970s and that is only when factoring for a SINGLE additional variable.

There are other variables that can easily account for the remaining 2 percent and then some.

Subject this garbage to the cold light of reality and it evaporates into nothing.

By all means, contradict me... but if you do, provide some logic and if you cite evidence, expect it to be audited.

I will accept nothing from anyone that isn't open to examination.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either?

You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?

The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.

The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men.

That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished.

Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.

All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women.

So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.

This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires.

The issue is bullshit. Nuke it from orbit.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

There's no stigma against working women with children. The stigma is against an employee not showing up for work for ANY reason. Ultimately the employer doesn't pay you to take care of your children. They pay you to do your job. You do that well and you're more valuable to the company and will be paid more. You do it worse and you're less valuable to the company and will be paid less.

That isn't discrimination.

There is a big problem with people conflating "equality of outcome" with "equality of opportunity".

Equal opportunity does not mean you're going to make the same as anyone else. It means you "COULD" have made the same.

If you make choices that reduce your earning power that isn't anyone else's fault. It isn't a civil rights issue. It isn't discrimination.

Its like blaming your employer for not hiring you to be a doctor even though you don't have a medical degree. You COULD have gotten one but you chose not to go to school for 8 years to get it. And as a result... you're not a doctor and they're not employing you as one.

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job. Which means it can't possibly evaluate if the people being hired or paid are actually equally skilled. All they're doing is looking at what people studied in college. If you studied the same thing in college and passed... those statistics consider you "equally skilled" which completely ignores so many fucking things it is beyond retarded.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Actually I said that if you contradicted me, I wanted some logic or reasoning behind your position.

Many people will just say "I disagree" and not provide any kind of rational for it which isn't constructive.

I further said that IF IF IF IF IF you cited evidence it would be audited.

That is what I said. Nowhere in my post did I demand citations.

Read it again and then apologize to me.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[sumdumass]

You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?

Fairness has nothing to do with it. The person who was on the job and loyal to the company for 10 years is likely being overpaid for the job out of gratitude for his loyalty and dependable track record. It's why a rookie will often be hired in at a wage less than the 10 year veteran regardless of their sex. That is likely the value of the job, over that and it is a reward for "time served' and "continued value added" accumulated over that time span.

Hell, even at unionized factory jobs, pay is conditioned on seniority, Everyone starts off at a certain rate and gets small performance raises and typically annual raises regardless of their performance.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[sumdumass]

Only if they pay strictly on piece meal or commission.

Every place I have worked with gave a 5% or better yearly raise each year you worked up to a ceiling limit on pay. Once you maxed out on pay, you lost the raises but were still making comfortable wages.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Anonymous Coward]

And why is it that the woman is the one to take care of children? When a man and a woman bring a life into this earth, it should be the equal responsibility of both of them to tend to that life. Unfortunately, the way society is currently structured, it *is* always the woman who is supposed to take that responsibility. This dove tails nicely into your argument about the stigma of an employee who did not showing up at work for "ANY" reason. So if you tell me that is not discrimination, I do not know how else I can put it.

And before someone says the choice the woman has about not having children, imagine a world where there is no progeny because every woman is fixated on getting ahead in her career.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[aevan]

Just to throw it out there for you: my retired grandparents did. Just as mine are doing so for my sibling's spawns.

It isn't unusual in some cultures for an extended family to care for children, thus allowing both parents to work.

May or may not result in kids with more emotional ties to the grandparents but, what can you do.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Livius]

it *is* always the woman who is supposed to take that responsibility.

It is *always* the man and woman who are expected to share that responsibility equally.

Yet 90% of the time the woman takes on that responsibility by her own choice.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[sumdumass]

Oh, I see I hit a nerve with the SJW crowd or something. It's ok, I understand you cannot help it.

Yes, you are getting overpaid and deserve it for the reasons mentioned. Its simple economics, the job pay is worth what people are willing to do it for and if someone is willing to do it for less, whether you like it or not, that is what it is worth. If the company or DoD decides to pay you more because you have 10 years in with them, you deserve that but are being overpaid compared to the going rate of anyone else who can create the same snowflake code and was just hired.

I'm also thinking maybe the only person you ever knocked down was your sister by accident and that was because you got scared watching TV and ran into her while trying to leap into your moma's arms. But that's just what I think about your tough talk.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to why the woman takes care of the children... I need to take some deep breaths here... *calms down*

Okay, first responsibility and rights go hand in hand. For women to share responsibility they must share rights... over the child. If they are doing that, then their male sperm shooting buddy will probably be sharing that responsibility.

Second, even if the guy has no rights over the child, he generally has to pay child support. Which renders your whole comment about why men don't help out completely silly.

Third, the attractiveness and value of men is tied to their utility to the family and their ability to "nest build" for women. This is why rich dudes marry poor women with big tits and poor men are not as often married by rich old women. It doesn't really happen. We're sexually dimorphic. To further address your point, if a man stops working when his wife has a child and says "I'll take care of the baby" it puts more strain on their marriage than if he keeps working and she stops working. What is more, many women literally prefer to take the time off to spend with their child. And guess what, that has career consequences... Get the fuck over it.

Fourth, what makes your statement about men abandoning women so mind numbingly painful to listen to is that there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened. Another fun example, some lesbians asked a guy to donate sperm so they could have a baby. The understanding was that he would not be responsible for the baby. He either shot it in a cup or has sex with one of them until she got pregnant. After birth, the other lesbian abandoned her partner and her partner went on welfare. Then the people at the welfare office said she had to declare the father for paper work reasons. Then the welfare office demanded child support from the guy that donated his sperm to the lesbians. And from this you conclude that men are just let off the fucking hook?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore... there are far too many retards.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Anonymous Coward]

Because while the employee remains employed, the company is responsible for the welfare of the employee and their dependants.

What a sick thought. This isn't a feudal society where we labor and expect our company to care for us. This is a free society, and the company and the employee are peers making a fair transaction. Labor for money. Nothing is owed except what both agree on.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to something getting people upset on slashdot, that is not evidence that it is a good topic. Especially since most of the comments are "oh this shit again".

You know those sad attempts by Dice to insert job advertisements into the news stream? They get the exact same response. "oh this shit again."

So no. The fact that it is getting a negative reaction is not evidence of it being a something important that we need to talk about.

As to people lacking introspection, in what way has what I PERSONALLY have said lacked introspection? I'm sure you can find someone on the board that has said something stupid and I have no control or interest in that comment.

You commented to ME. You are implying that I personally lack introspection. Alright... how?

As to this notion that I should accept something from YOU that is not open to examination or "I" am arrogant, maybe it is you that should get the fuck over yourself.

Who the fuck are you that you can expect me to accept something you say that is not open to examination?

I wouldn't expect you to accept anything from me on that basis and you expect me to accept such from you?

Your comment is baffling either in its ignorance or arrogance.

I'm assuming ignorance because I don't think you're that fucking arrogant. Let me clue you in, when you have a discussion you need to provide sound reasoning for why you hold a position if you want anyone else to take your position seriously. And if you're offering evidence, then that has to be something people can check out.

Lacking either of those you're just shit posting and I'm entirely justified in judging your post to be of no constructive value and ignoring it.

So... did you want to try again? Please do... I'm sure with all sincerity that you have something useful to contribute. But if you don't make an effort to share it, then all anyone else is going to see is the bullshit you posted above.

Yes, this is slashdot. Welcome to the party. :-)

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

... none of which matters because it has nothing to do with sexual discrimination.

Next issue.

You show sexual discrimination... that is discrimination that is not correlative with other factors but caused directly by gender or you have nothing.

The issue is that when women have children their careers get put on hold which means their male peers make more money at the end of their careers than women do that took large portions of their career off.

That is what happens.

It is not sexual discrimination and there is no gender pay gap. This has been known since the 1970s. As of the 1970s, excluding the effects of child birth, the difference between male and female pay is less then 2 percent.

This has been known since then and with almost no research you can pull that up. And yet the same tired myth is spread around that there is this gender pay gap.

Why? Politics. No one wants women exploited and anyone that wants to exploit the gullible, ignorant, and idle will throw this shit around to stir up as many stupid people as they possible can to intimidate anyone else into giving them whatever they want or they'll turn the fucking stupid peasants loose on everyone else.

We can be better than that. The fact that you're making excuses for this shit is probably the most disturbing part of this conversation for me. there is no excuse. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. And the people that push that shit are liars that lie and coming up for reasons why it is okay for liars to lie about lying is only going to turn you into some flavor of liar yourself.

Just stop. Separate the bullshit from the truth. It is less slippery and shit covered ground.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[s.petry]

haha, well done!

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

No, it was a typo... I meant fallacious.

As to your conclusions... these are non-proofread comments on an internet forum. Put your grammar nazi dick back in your pants. No one wants to see that.

This is a casual environment and I'm not going to suffer getting brow beaten by people making observations a word processor would flag as if they're revealing the mysteries of the fucking universe.

If that comes off overly hostile... i'm been dealing with more than my fair share of idiots on this board lately and I have a low tolerance for the spelling and grammar corrections. Give us all a break, cupcake.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

The employer is in no way responsible for either of those things.

Your employer is not your liege lord, you fucking filthy peasant. :D

You are in a contractual relationship where the employer provides a set wage or salary in return for a set service.

They are not responsible to take care of your children if you die unless they somehow caused your death.

What is more, your point doesn't address the fact that you are conceding a difference in the value of work between group A and group B.

It is merely your contention that it is "need" which should determine compensation and not "WORK".

Corporations are not run on communist or feudal lines. Your entire point is bizarre and I don't know how to really address it in detail.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

This is false equivalency.

  This notion that someone is automatically being overpaid simply because of seniority.

You don't know that. Just because the company replaces someone that is paid X with someone else that is being paid X/2 does not mean that the person replacing them is doing the same work or quality of work as the previous employee. You really don't know.

Go look at a job listing and you'll see they tend to all say "DOE" under the wage/salary section.

That stands for "Depending on experience". Which means practically every job listing scales the pay based on the experience of the worker they are hiring.

That means companies obviously do appreciate experience. They pay more for it internally and they pay new hires that have more of it.

If you have less experience you get less money.

And if you took ten years off for some reason then you're going to have less experience then someone that didn't... male or female. This is not a gender issue. It is a work experience issue.

If a man takes ten years off work to go find himself in Tibet then when he comes back he is not going to be making as much as the man or woman that didn't leave.

Just what is... complaining about that is trying to eat your cake and have it too. Which is the aspiration of a crazy person.

You're not crazy... so you don't want to do that.

Case closed

*slaps gavel down*

Next issue.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[BoberFett]

No they're not. They're responsible for paying the employee an agreed upon rate for their work. You make it sound like the company is supposed to act like everybody's mommy and daddy.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[sumdumass]

You don't know that. Just because the company replaces someone that is paid X with someone else that is being paid X/2 does not mean that the person replacing them is doing the same work or quality of work as the previous employee. You really don't know.

It's pretty reasonable to assume they are in most jobs like line workers at a factory or whatever. There simply is not that much variance in requirements for the jobs and often the jobs or slip shifted with similar results being expected. But it doesn't matter because the claim, equal pay for equal work would definitely suggest two performances were at or near identical. Otherwise the HTML programmer for the website would be requesting the same pay as the Java coder who makes the product being sold.

Go look at a job listing and you'll see they tend to all say "DOE" under the wage/salary section.

That stands for "Depending on experience". Which means practically every job listing scales the pay based on the experience of the worker they are hiring.

That means companies obviously do appreciate experience. They pay more for it internally and they pay new hires that have more of it.

I am not sure what gave you the idea that I was ruling that out. If all things are equal except the seniority, seniority has to be the determining factor for differences in pay (unless the claim of sexism is true). Remember, the assumption being pushed is that all things are equal except time left on the job.

And if you took ten years off for some reason then you're going to have less experience then someone that didn't... male or female. This is not a gender issue. It is a work experience issue.

I agree it's not a gender issue, but it also is not limited to experience either. Companies are not generally in business long if they pay for experience when the level of experience is not needed to complete the tasks. What they will do it pay for seniority with which experience at that company is implicit.

If a man takes ten years off work to go find himself in Tibet then when he comes back he is not going to be making as much as the man or woman that didn't leave.

And if a man or woman works at Google for ten years and gets hired in at Cisco, even with the same levels of experience, the 10 year veteran of Cisco will likely still make more than the new hire. This is even more illustrated in factory type jobs

Either way, the pay gap is generally completely is explained without pulling discrimination strings.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Anonymous Coward]

lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.

A bigger issue than that, I think, is the gender imbalance in prisons. Almost everyone serving time is a man. By SJW logic (with which I disagree), courts should be reducing the sentences of men and increasing those of women until the prison system reaches parity.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

In fairness the men in prison are there mostly because men tend to commit crimes with greater frequency and when they do they tend to commit more serious ones.

It is important to be fair so that when you pass judgement it has meaning.

If you judge impulsively or unfairly then your judgment is of diminished value.

Keep that in mind and keep your comments fair.

The homeless comment is fair. The prison comment is not.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[AmiMoJo]

Your view is that of a dedicated capitalist who sees workers as tools for business and nothing more. The reality is that society needs children. Look at Japan where due to the things you mention the birth rate is very low. It's a huge problem for them because and their population is set to fall by 30m in the next 40 years.

More over most people do want children at some point in their lives. Most people are supposed to make the rules (democracy) so companies are going to have to respect that and make allowances for them.

Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off, or that people who do have kids should get some benefits because the burden they accept is beneficial to society and as we can see in Japan society needs to encourage that behaviour. Society wants well brought up kids too so making parents choose between work and their offspring isn't desirable.

How about people like you get a tax break, on the condition that in 30 years time you can't see any doctor under the age of 55?

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

Yes it does. I'm yet again going to crank out that PNAS argument that we argued over before. Last time you eventually conceded that the article was valid, yet here you are denying the same facts.

For those of you new to this: they made fake CVs with identical experience and the ones with female names attached were routinely rated as less competent and routinely offered less money. There is no way the women had "less years on the job" because the women and men in the study were all fake and otherwise identical.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

They sent those to both male and female employers.

What is more, it was exclusively in academia. You don't know how that would be received in other institutions.

What is more still, we're talking about wage gaps that tend to form over time. Your entire premise is based on the notion that at hiring the prices people are paid are different and you're not taking anything beyond that into consideration.

Your study while interesting is hardly definitive of anything... even in academia.

There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.

This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.

If I don't hire a woman because I'm afraid she's going to sue me for example that isn't discrimination against women. That is fear of lawsuits.

You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence. It isn't remotely enough.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

No, my view is of someone that understands the employer employee relationship.

As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.

What is more, the community does help women. Again, about 90 percent of government medical subsidies go to women. Why is that?

What percentage of homeless people are men versus women? Why is that?

Women are taken care of far better by our society than are men. We recognize that women must be protected. But no one owes you a job. And if you show up with this entitlement that you should be paid more than you are worth, then you are in for disappointment.

You will be paid what you are worth. What you get beyond that will be charity.

Furthermore, if the point is for women to have children, then why are we putting women into the labor force and encouraging them to have careers? This does not help women have children.

What is more, why do we not encourage women more strongly to be bound into some sort of sexual relationship with the opposite sex? It would help the birth rate.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say society should give you a career because society needs babies. That is not an argument for giving women jobs. That is an argument for denying them jobs, compelling them into the kitchen, and giving their male partners the jobs instead.

The argument for giving women careers is EQUALITY. Not babies. Equality. And equality means you get paid what you are worth.

You cite babies and I have to ask how giving you a career helps society get babies? Limiting the opportunities of women has a proven track record of improving birth rates. Actually, the more opportunities women have, the lower the birth rate becomes.

Think about it.

You can't use babies in this argument. If society really needed the babies then the last thing it should do is give women anything to do besides have babies.

Again.
Think.
Be.
Rational.

As to your various welfare recommendations, that is fine. The government can raise taxes and give more women welfare and subsidies. That is however not the company's responsibility. You can tax the company and use those taxes for various things. But as an employee you're going to get paid what you are worth.

Crying discrimination when you're not being discriminated against is dishonest and foolish.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Okay, so her first issue is that there are a lot of men in tech.

That isn't a valid complaint or evidence of discrimination. Do men in the fashion industry or any female dominated business have the right to whine about discrimination because they're surrounded by women? Obviously not.

next issue.

Her next point about computer science degrees and women 30 years ago is a half truth. Yes, women were getting those degrees but it was because at that time the job was seen as clerical and like typists, women tended to dominate such professions at that time. When the personal computer came around and programming stopped being about managing the giant business computer in the basement... it stopped being seen as a clerical position and so not part of the traditional female jobs. The lack of women in programming these days is not due to companies not wanting to hire women. It is due to women not thinking that they need to CS because they don't think it is part of that traditionally female career path.

There is no discrimination there.

Next issue.

She then busts out with an out of context quote from a 1980s silicon valley programer saying that he didn't have time for women... He was mostly talking about girlfriends and relationships... not female peers in his industry.

Next issue.

She then blames it on lack of role models. Which begs the question of who are the male role models? The thing about technology is that you get into it because you love it. You don't do it because of role models.

How is lack of female role models the fault of MEN? That's on you ladies. Women have to take some responsibility for themselves. Providing their own fucking role models is a pretty low standard to meet. I mean, if they really can't then we men can of course provide such role models for them. However, they will be abdicating that choice to us. Comes with the territory.

I don't see how this issue is the fault of men or even society.

She talks also about games marketed to men forgetting that the game companies have tried to market to women all along. THey've just not been very successful at it. It isn't that games for women aren't made. It is that women don't buy them. That is until Candy Crush came along and now women love all those facebook games. But that won't stop people from complaining that there are games made that men like. Why is that a problem? There are books and movies made for men. And there are books and movies made for women. there are also games made for men and games made for women. These various markets meet different levels of success.

So yet again, no discrimination.

And that got me past 10 minutes.

I want the last ten minutes of my life back. X-(

Re: This whole issue needs to be buried

[buchanmilne]

And why is it that the woman is the one to take care of children?

I don't know if you have noticed that men and women are different. Women happen to be more suitable for taking care of babies because they can do one thing men can't: breastfeed.

At least, that is one of the reasons why my wife took 6 months maternity leave, and luckily in those 6 months our situation changed so that we could manage without her working. And we have had more children since, so she is still at home.

Of course, we do realise that she will have fewer years of work experience when/if she returns to work, and this also not earn what she would have if she had continued working. However, the investment in our kids/family life is worth it.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

Yep, it was about academia, but it demonstrates that your claim that wage gaps is only due to years served is not universally true.

There was also no follow up to find out why any of that happened. The could be correlative problems associated with female applications.

So in other words, they're judging based on something other than their skills and experience but it's OK because reasons? A clue: whether or not it's OK it's still judging based on gender. That is more or less the definition of sexism. You're therefore not arguing that it's not sexist, you're arguing that sexism is OK.

That's a perfectly valid point to argue, even if I disagree with it, but I do wish you'd be honest about what you're actually arguing.

This recent lawsuit by a woman against a company has already been noted BY professional women to be damaging to women because it increases the RISK of hiring women.

Surely a logically made point wellsupported by evidence ought to be independent of gender? Why do you insist on bringing gender into things all the time?

You can't damn our entire society using that one flimsy study as evidence.

Again, you're obsessed with bringing in unrelated things such as wild claims about "everything". I'm simply debunking your claim that wage differences are only due to years served by finding an example where that's not true.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[drinkypoo]

The reality is that society needs children.

The reality is that you are asking employers to pay for that, but making children isn't their business. If society needs children, then society should pay for children, through income redistribution. Oh wait, guess what? We already give people a tax break for having children. I've known people who made more than me but paid no taxes because of their children. Now you want employers to pay again?

Of course the rules should apply equally to both genders. You could argue that people who don't have kids should get more time off,

Or you could argue that people who do have kids don't deserve to get paid for their time off. A person who doesn't have kids is worth more to their employer. If people can't afford to survive while they have kids (they can) and we need more people (we don't) then it would be worth it to pay people to have kids. Big problem with that is there are too many humans on this planet already, at least while we operate in our current mode. You want more people made, but that's the opposite of what we need.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to universal truths, actually your study doesn't prove anything. Do you have a study that shows what women working in academia are paid compared to men? Those actually hired and actually working because they're actual people doing actual jobs?

That introductory offer might not reflect anything more than an introductory salary that is increased to some average rate upon proof of competence. Possibly the grades of women in academia are known to be inflated? I don't know... but that could be a reality for all I know. As such, perhaps scientists have to be a bit more careful when hiring women for that reason? Any number of such reasons are possible and none of them would technically be bigotry. It is only rational to try and manage risks as you perceive them. If a woman is walking through a bad part of town, is it sexism if she feels threatened by a group of men walking down the street but not threatened when a group of women walk down the street? It is just rational threat assessment. That isn't bigotry and complaining about it is completely pointless because it will never go away... ever. Any society that banishes rational threat assessment will destroy itself, devolve into barbarism, the anarchy will cull anyone that doesn't know how to manage risk, and the society that forms from the chaos will be wiser.

Trying to remove rational threat assessment is about as clever as lobotomizing yourself. It won't happen and if it did you'd destroy yourself. Pointless.

And once we have that bit of information, if there is a wage gap... I will want to separate out the women that have children versus not to see if the wage gap remains. I understand your study, I am saying what happens to the wages when they actually get the job... and what happens to their wages over the course of their career given different choices and how does that compare to the men.

Absent any ability to evaluate these things, we do not know enough about the situation to draw any firm conclusions.

I grant that it is intriguing and I'd love to see a more exhaustive study. However, that study is not proof of anything. It is too thin. I cannot emphasize enough that I do completely agree that this study should be expanded upon to figure out what is actually going on. We have some data here that is suggestive but we don't actually know what would happen if we really dug into these institutions and figured out what was really going on.

As to reasons... here are some non-sexist reasons:

1. Liability. Female workers might involve different legal and ethical strictures and thus increased risk.

2. Commitment. It is possible that female workers get hired, work for a short time and then quit to start a family or something requiring the people that hired her to go find someone else. This is avoided to some extent by just hiring a man.

3. Overwork. Men are known to overwork. This is one of the reasons men dominate programming and a few other fields. They don't go home at 6pm. They obsesses and invest themselves. Not all men... but certain personality types that tend to be the sorts of men that dominate given fields. Overwork is valuable to companies and is generally compensated in various ways. It also implies a flexibility in the worker in that they will do what is needed to get the job done even if that means coming in on week ends and working through the night.

And I can come up with other reasons as well.

This is not sexist because it is correlative. It is based on an assumption that a given worker is going to follow a given pattern of behavior based on the past experience of the person hiring. The reason for hiring or not hiring in this case is not because of their gender but because of those assumptions about what they'll be getting in a worker.

That said, that is only applicable in your study.

And I would point out again that it is very thin and there were lots of women in that study showing the same hiring pattern. You say I am arguing that sexism is right... I would point out that if I w

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

I didn't say anything about blacks. I said men.

I'd rather not let you cloud the issue with your tangent. If you want to drift into sophistry then you can do it without me.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

It is entertaining that you try to blandly state universal truths without so much as a shred of evidence, but when I post counter examples, the onus is suddenly on me to prove that I'm disproving you.

Then you wall 'o text me a hundred reasons why sexism is justified and why it's not sexism because it's justified. Here's a clue for you bucko, it doesn't matter whether it's justified or not, this is literally the dictionary definition of sexism:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Notice how the word "unjustified" never enters into is. What you're doing is strenuously arguing that discrimination based on gender is justified. You should stop being a coward and simply admit you're sexist, and then try to defend that, rather than tying yourself in knots trying to redefine a perfectly well defined word.

And this attempt to call pretty much all of society bigoted is offensive.

Here's how many shits I give about being offensive: .

You don't have a right not to be offended. Get over it.

As to bringing up gender all the time... Okay, all topics of gender are now forbidden then... We'll just shut this topic down and any like it ever again.

Ah taking words intentionally out of context. The lowest of the low. The quality of an argument has nothing to dowith the gender of the person making it. You tried to use the person's gender as a factor in the argument.

Yet another example of where you make value judgements based on gender.

I am intensely logical.

Well, I argue on the internet for entertainment. You have not disappointed me today :)

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

1. It was the women that self selected themselves into and out of that position. Neither the university nor the companies did that.

2. You're conflating two different jobs with each other. The programmers of 30 years ago were doing a very different job them the programmers of the 1980s. The "programmers" that she says women used to become were actually not programmers but people trained in data entry into those old computers. That is not a programmer. Yes, they were technically CS courses but that's a bit like confusing MS word skills with programming skills. They stopped getting involved with it when data entry didn't require those classes and the programming became actual programming.

So no. It is not a valid point. You cannot conflate data entry with programming just because they were both at one time in the CS department.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to universal truths, that is a double edged sword. Stab me with it and you annihilate this entire discussion and every one after it forever.

So by all means... do that. I'll win if you do because my real interest is in not being bothered with a stupid argument like this again. You only win by showing that your position in valid and keeping the discussion going. And that requires you to be dropping those universal truths.

As to what is and is not sexism, correlation and causation. Very simple concepts. Many things correlate with sex but if they are not caused by sex then it is not a gender issue but rather specific to that correlative variable.

This is basic logic. You either understand that or you're in no position discuss anything more complex than whether you like puppies.

As to not having the right to not be offended, okay... but that means that neither you nor these women have that right either. Their offense or uncomfortableness with something is therefore irrelevant. This works to my favor again.

I am very much more comfortable working in an environment where offense is irrelevant then is your position. Your position will inherently demand rights and concessions from mine on this basis. Since you don't have a right to not be offended anymore, that argument can no longer be used by you.

Do you feel the ratchet tightening? This is why logic wins. It is another way of describing "competent" thought.

We'll see if you have any rational rebuttals or if you're just going to fully devolve into meaningless insults.

FYI, when you do that... I win. I will have hounded you out of any pretense at logic or valid argument into the most petty childish behavior possible on these boards.

There is no higher victory on the internet.

You say you argue with people for fun on the internet? You're not very good at it.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

takes longer, but just for you:

""

No one is forgetting that. But why is the employer responsible for it either? You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair? The best way to track the effect of children on the earning power of a woman is is to compare the earning power of women that don't have children versus the ones that do.

The women that do not have children earn almost the exact same amount as men. That was how the gender cap statistic was first debunked. They just removed all the women that have children and the gap vanished. Now you say we need kids? No disagreement. But that is a different issue from gender discrimination or a wage gap.

All you're asking for now is maternity welfare. Which already exists. Nearly all the public subsidy money for healthcare etc goes to women. Roughly 90 percent goes to women. So... you're being paid. And the next time you want to talk about how hard it is being a woman, lets look at the gender imbalance in homeless people. Nearly all homeless people are men.

This issue is bullshit. It needs to be cut in to little pieces, dosed with holy water, and then buried on opposing sides of a church on holy ground. Otherwise known as another fun way to deal with vampires. The issue is bullshit. Nuke it from orbit.""

Now apparently you have to take me seriously. That was your bargain and I held my end of it.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Without defining what you're talking about I can't comment or process your statement.

Vague references are not constructive. Please be direct and rational.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

I'm not going to credit the notion that experience is of no value in labor. It is demonstrably idiotic and I feel it is a waste of my time to even indulge it.

As to your admittance that this is not a gender issue...

Then in so far as I am concerned, the argument is concluded.

It is not a gender issue.

Case closed.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

As tYou're advocating to what is and is not sexism, correlation and causation. Very simple concepts. Many things correlate with sex but if they are not caused by sex then it is not a gender issue but rather specific to that correlative variable.

You seem to be confused over what "sexism" means. Everyone who is sexist has reasons for it. They believe gender correlates with all sorts of things like rational thought or brainpower. You are advocating disciminating based on gender because you believe it correlates with other things.

And that requires you to be dropping those universal truths.

And what universal truth would that be? I lookforwards to hearing about your hallucination on this one.

This is basic logic.

Dictionary defintions are based on usage, not logic, as language is arbirtary. If you attempt to redefine a word using logic, you are doing nothing but demonstrating your lack of understanding of such.

As to not having the right to not be offended, okay... but that means that neither you nor these women have that right either. Their offense or uncomfortableness with something is therefore irrelevant. This works to my favor again.

I'm at a loss as to where or why you ever brought this up, then. So far all that's happened is you've played the offence card, I called you on it and you somehow now claim this is to your advantage. You seem to be basing that claim on the assumption that I have played the ofence card. Let me assure you that all your "logical" reasoning in the world won't actually work if you don't read the arguments you're responding to.

I am very much more comfortable working in an environment where offense is irrelevant then is your position. Your position will inherently demand rights and concessions from mine on this basis. Since you don't have a right to not be offended anymore, that argument can no longer be used by you.

It wasn't. You know when one is trying to debate something, the logical thing to do is to actually read your opponents argument. Actually scratch that: since you're doing this for entertainment, the logical thing to do is whatver pleases you. So if it pleases you to do so, by all means argue about stuff you've hallucinated that I said.

Do you feel the ratchet tightening?

Not really because your pawl snapped right off.

We'll see if you have any rational rebuttals or if you're just going to fully devolve into meaningless insults.

It's not an insult if it's true.

FYI, when you do that... I win.

lol!

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Are you seriously going to hang your entire position on that one paper or can we have a rational discussion?

Because that one paper isn't enough for you to do anything but justify further investigation.

As to the rest, as I said, I have noted your surrender of various tactics common to people defending your position. While you have not as yet used all of them, I am merely noting that should you attempt it... it will be instantly labeled as hypocrisy.

At this point, what is our disagreement? Beyond the stupid insults that are not relevant... where are we? What is your position and what do you think you have established in regards to the discussion?

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[AmiMoJo]

Children are the company's responsibility, to the extent that society requires it to be. Companies operate within the laws that society makes. If society says people get X days holiday per year, they get X days holiday and the company has no say in the matter. If society says that the employer must contribute X% to a pension then the employer must contribute X% to a pension, it's as simple as that.

You can't use babies in this argument. If society really needed the babies then the last thing it should do is give women anything to do besides have babies.

You are completely insane. Seriously, your brain if fried if you think that is a rational argument.

People are not machines that society or corporations can use to perform required tasks. People are human beings with lives and freedom to choose. Any argument has to deal with that reality, and yours does not.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

Are you seriously going to hang your entire position on that one paper or can we have a rational discussion?

That's more than you've hung your position on. Your position was that womn are paid less because of fewer years on the job. I provided an example where that is not true. You still appear to cling with desperation to your original position, and try all sorts of sophistry to try to trip me up.

Because that one paper isn't enough for you to do anything but justify further investigation.

It's more than you have.

I like how you ignored the fact that you made up stuff about what I've said and go straight for simply insulting my arguments without attempting to rebut them. Cunning.

What is your position and what do you think you have established in regards to the discussion?

My position is that your claim is crap.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to who hung what on what, I was referring to the "wage gap" statistics which respond in the manner I stated to the variable I cited.

You are citing a different study which is unrelated to what I was saying.

That study, just as any study, is going to have to be audited using the contextually relevant factors relevant to that specific study.

As to my claim being crap? Which claim? Do you want me to show you wage gap statistics that are filtered for child birth?

Because that's my argument and those statistics exist and have existed for decades.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to the companies being responsible for children because of the law... sure... by that logic, companies could be responsible for your providing you with hookers and booze if the laws were written that way.

This is tautology. Circular logic. You're saying companies are responsible because you said they were responsible.

But reality is that under the law, they're not responsible.

So, yeah... COULD write a law that made them responsible but no such law has been written. So no.

As to your continuing attempt to say women should have demanding high paying careers because that is how we get more babies... Look at countries where women have no economic opportunities.

Do they have more babies or less babies?

They have more.

Also, removing birth control helps increase the birth rate as well.

Do you really want to make the "do this because you'll get more babies" argument? Because if we wanted more babies, we'd deny women opportunities, remove birth control, etc.

We are giving women financial opportunities for two reasons.

1. Because we think it is morally right for women to have those rights as individuals.

2. Because we want the economic value of those women in the labor force.

If we wanted the babies, we'd deny those things in favor of the babies.

That is not insane. That is logical. If you can't handle that then you're too irrational to have this discussion.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

This whole "equally skilled women are being paid less than equally skilled men" doesn't take into consideration years worked on the job.

You said exactly that. I've provided you a nice example where years worked on the job was controlled for.

You are citing a different study which is unrelated to what I was saying.

Nope.

That study, just as any study, is going to have to be audited using the contextually relevant factors relevant to that specific study.

Unlike your claims which require no auditing, nor any evidence at all!

As to my claim being crap? Which claim?

Your memory is short. The one you made in this thread.

Do you want me to show you wage gap statistics that are filtered for child birth?

Only if they've been "audited using contextually relevant factors".

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[AmiMoJo]

This is tautology. Circular logic. You're saying companies are responsible because you said they were responsible.

No, I'm saying companies should be responsible because they are a social construct, something that society finds beneficial and so allows within certain rules. In exchange of being able to place certain burdens on society and benefit from things like education, law and order, public roads etc. they are expected to contribute back. The most obvious way is through taxation, but also through laws that require them to treat employees a certain way even if it isn't the most profitable for them.

There is no right to profit, no right for companies to exist. They are not people, they are there to serve society and wouldn't exist without it.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to your example, false equliviency.

My comment was in response to nation wide multi industry surveys that were addressing what REAL people doing REAL jobs were ACTUALLY being paid. Your study focused on academia exclusively, did not include anyone actually getting the job, did not include any real people, and did not include anything besides what male AND FEMALE managers were offering job applicants AT point of hire.

That's a completely different situation.

You want to argue Academic gender wage hire gap?

Okay, I'll give that to you for the sake of argument. You win that.

I will admit to the Academic Gender Wage Hire Gap.

That is all that gets you though.

As to this:
"Only if they've been "audited using contextually relevant factors"." ... I can't parse your meaning here. I can't tell whether I'm just not getting your criteria or if you're being a jackass. Clarify that for me please.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

They do contribute back... they pay your wage. That is their contribution.

They also pay taxes etc.

Once they've done that, their debt to society is paid in full.

Your crypto-communistic claptrap has grown tiresome. Companies are not obligated to take care of you literally from the cradle to the grave.

If they were then they would inherent all associated rights with those responsibilities. The only institutions that have traditionally assumed that much responsibility for people are totalitarian states. Under your logic, corporations would be responsible for as much as a totalitarian state.... and they can't really live up to those responsibilities unless you give them the same rights as a totalitarian state. So... you'd be a slave.

That's pretty much the price of any institution offering you cradle to grave responsibility for all your life's needs.

If you don't have to do anything and the company has to hire you, has to pay you, has to take care of you, can't ever fire you, has to take care of all the members of your family that aren't even pretending to work for the company... then the only way to make that work is if you're a slave of the company.

Obviously you don't like that idea. You want something for nothing. I understand that. That would be nice. Reality requires some sort of profit on the part of the company otherwise they can't stay in business.

And that means not paying the employees more than they are worth TO THE COMPANY. The value of those people to society is another matter and not the company's responsibility.

Just jack your tax rate up to 200 percent and expand your welfare system until you're happy.

You can't ask the company to do these things and expect them to actually hire anyone.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

what male AND FEMALE managers

Why do you keep bringing that up? What has that got to do with anything? Or do you believe that women are incapable of holding biases?

Okay, I'll give that to you for the sake of argument. You win that.

Ah so you do conceed then that the difference in wages is not solely due to time served on the job? I'll bookmark this so I can point to your admission next time you make the claim.

I can't parse your meaning here. I can't tell whether I'm just not getting your criteria or if you're being a jackass

I'm being a jackass in that I'm requiring that you meet your own standards.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to whether I think women are incapable of holding biases, I do not think women are systematically bigoted against women... no.

Your argument would require that women are systematically... not a woman... but most women... are biased against women.

And not only that, but you're saying female scientists managing research departments in universities are biased against women.

We're told all the time about how hard it is for women to get ahead in STEM. One would think that women if anything would look out for the interests of other women and try to help them out knowing that it is harder for them? Right?

But far from that, your study suggests that women are intentionally short changing and sabotaging women in academic research.

I mean... Really? The study itself is likely suspect. I don't know how but it doesn't make any sense. Its like saying that fish flew to the moon or something.

As to difference in wages? I only concede that the Academic Gender Wage Hire Gap appears to be real. Your study is highly contextual and you can't associate that study with the wider society absent those variables.

It is in academia.

It is only referring to what people are paid at hire.

And it does not in any way reflect what anyone is paid even a week after they take the job.

So. Sure. You can have that.

As to you being a jackass, my statements made contextual sense when I used them. I don't think you can literally use the same thing verbatim in a different context.

Regardless, I'm happy to cite the statistics if you like. I'm just not going to bother if your mind is closed on the issue. There's no point in me bothering to cite anything if you're not actually listening. I feel like this is almost entirely an ideological issue for you. And that's sad. But I can't rationally argue against a belief system.

*shrugs*

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

We're told all the time about how hard it is for women to get ahead in STEM. One would think that women if anything would look out for the interests of other women and try to help them out knowing that it is harder for them? Right?

[citation needed]

You're just speculating about psychology here. Since you love providing alternative exoanations to me, I shall provide one to you: if there is a systematic societial bias, one would expect both genders to pick up on it.

Besides, there's a whole field of study called unconscious bias.

The study itself is likely suspect. I don't know how but it doesn't make any sense.

You appear to not like the results on an emotional level. I can't argue against that because you're not bringing anything of substance ot the table.

As to difference in wages? I only concede that the Academic Gender Wage Hire Gap appears to be real. Your study is highly contextual and you can't associate that study with the wider society absent those variables.

Yes you can because academia is part of the wider world. For instance, it disproves your claim that the ONLY reason for wage gaps is the number of years served on the job. Next time you make that claim, be sure to exclude academia from your claim, and allow for the possibility that the results from academia may apply more widely.

It is only referring to what people are paid at hire. And it does not in any way reflect what anyone is paid even a week after they take the job.

Ok so in magic Karmashock land, wages are renegotiated within the first week of employment, because that's a good way to "debunk" the study. Back in the real world, I've never met anyone in academia who renegotiated salary week into a job.

Regardless, I'm happy to cite the statistics if you like.

Sure, but only if your statistics meet the same rigorous auditing that you're demanding from mine, otherwise you are showing very strong double standards.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[AmiMoJo]

Once they've done that, their debt to society is paid in full.

Says who? There is no natural law that says wages+taxes are the end of it. In fact that isn't even the case today, where companies are required to provide things like safety equipment, toilet facilities and so forth. You are delusional if you think they do that stuff out of the kindness of their corporate hearts.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[goose-incarnated]

The reality is that society needs children.

Too bad. If society wants to encourage children then it needs to get its fucking act together.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[goose-incarnated]

This is tautology. Circular logic. You're saying companies are responsible because you said they were responsible.

No, I'm saying companies should be responsible because they are a social construct, something that society finds beneficial and so allows within certain rules.

Make up your mind - *should* societies force companies to be responsible for this, OR do societies *already allow* this? You're saying both things and they're contradictory.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[goose-incarnated]

We went from 35% of CS degrees going to women in 1985 to about 18% now. That needs to be explained, and if you just look at the data you it will be.

This statement of yours has been explained multiple times yet you still keep saying it. Let me provide the correlation that I provide every single fucking time you say this:

High numbers of women in CS is highly correlated with societies which limits the options for women. Societies that give women more freedom had fewer women in CS, such as Iran, India and USA-circa 1985. Societies that give women more freedom have fewer women in CS, like USA-circa 2015 and most of Western Europe today.

This is like the 5th time you've been told this, the first three times I even linked to the actual charts and numbers. Don't you get tired of being corrected all the time? You should find a new line other than "The difference in numbers from 1985 needs to be explained" because it's been explained to you now repeatedly.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[meta-monkey]

She talks also about games marketed to men forgetting that the game companies have tried to market to women all along. THey've just not been very successful at it. It isn't that games for women aren't made. It is that women don't buy them. That is until Candy Crush came along and now women love all those facebook games. But that won't stop people from complaining that there are games made that men like

This really gets me. Today the average gamer is a middle aged woman. She's playing farmville or candy crush or whatever, and the game companies are raking in the dough. That's great!

And yet the gaming industry keeps getting bashed because they're also making games that males like. It's not enough that they're already making more games that women like, that there's more opportunity to make games for women and that there's more money in making games for women, no, we must stop them from making games that men like. Fuck that. Women, go play candy crush and knock yourselves out. But keep your stinking paws off my GTA. You play what you like and I'll play what I like.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[tehcyder]

there are instances of women literally drugging men, tying them up, raping them, the man reporting the rape, nothing happening to his rapist, her giving birth, and then him having to pay child support for her rape baby. That has literally happened.

This is the classic right wing false equivalence argument, like saying that you once saw a black guy being offensive to a white guy, so there's just as much anti-white as anti-black racism.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[tehcyder]

As to society needing children, yes... but it is not the corporation's responsibility to do that. That is up to the family and the community. Not the company.

Families, communities and companies are all part of society. You can't ringfence one element and say it has nothing to do with the rest.

Well, you can if you're of the Ayn Rand school, of course, but I'm talking about non-psychopathic views of the world.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Why would a company have workers not work when they're willing to work?

And how is that fair to the men that want to work? If I can work and I want to work... then who are you to say I can't?

What is more, your concept is unfair to WOMEN that don't have children. Lets say you are a career woman that doesn't want to have kids. You're going to put her on the same level as the woman that took 10 years off to take care of her kids?

That's unreasonable.

The wage gap is a myth. It is merely the price of having children. And that isn't the company's fault.

Do I really have to explain the point of marriage and the financial benefits of having a two parent household?

When the woman takes that time off, the man keeps working. And everything he makes is shared property. She gets the benefit of his labor.

Here you might say "but what about single mothers?!"... I don't really understand why we'd want to encourage single motherhood. The statistics on it are horrific. A large portion of the male prison population came almost exclusively from single mother households. Really... it isn't working out very well.

Just saying.

This is going to make me sound horribly regressive and conservative but I'm neither. I'm merely pointing out an idealistic notion that turned out to not make any sense. Get a husband or someone in your life... a female partner if you're a lesbian... someone that will help you raise the child. Women with children do poorly without a social support network. They tend to raise their child poorly and then rather than her contributing another useful citizen to society, we tend to get some hooligan that has to be kept in jail at the expense of everyone else.

It isn't working. Get a husband or have some kind of support network to help you. The government welfare checks are never going to substitute for that.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

I see, so anyone that doesn't buy into crypto communist claptrap is a a big ayn rand supporter?

Fuck you.

We're done. I'm not going to make an effort to have a discussion with someone that drops into ad hominem whenever they get backed into a corner.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

Why would I bother to make a company if my reward is getting hassled by fucking retards that say I have to give over 150 percent of all my profits?

You say there is no natural law, but there is... supply and demand are natural laws.

My interest in building a company, hiring people, expanding, making new products etc is based on the profit motive.

IF you take all the profit away then I have no incentive to do any of these things.

An employer pays a worker what it costs to get a worker to show up and work. Just as when I go to the store to buy a jug of milk, I pay the store what I must to facilitate that exchange.

What you are attempting to do is negotiate after the fact. It would be like the man from the store calling me up two weeks after I bought the milk and said "you should give me more money because my cows are sick."

Your sick cows are not my responsibility. Now what you can do is charge me more for the subsequent jugs of milk. And if you ask for too much money, then I'll look to see if I can get that same jug of milk for a lower price. And if I can, then I will just stop doing business with you because your prices are not competitive.

It is a natural force. That is why communism lost and why it will never win. Because for all of Marx's knowledge of capitalism, he apparently didn't appreciate that the system is not something someone just came up with yesterday for fun. It is a system modeled around the natural forces of supply and demand. You can't fight it.

You can either learn to manage it or get crushed by it. Your choice.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to your request for citation that we are told all the time about how hard it is for women to be in stem... you must be fucking kidding me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

There is even a fucking wikipedia article. Don't waste my time asking for citations that the sun is hot. It is annoying.

As to unconscious bias, there is a theory for anything. Psychology itself is one of the weakest sciences and unconscious bias is a weak theory in quasi science. You're half way into astrology with that garbage.

As to you being able to associate one small study with everything, no you can't. Everyone knows that. Its basic to statistical science.

As to what goes on in magic karmashock land, wages tend to change rapidly after hire. There is an orientation phase where new workers are tested and trained. And after that they tend to get wage bumps.

My personal income tends to go up between 20 and 50 percent within the first few months on a new job. So yeah. that happens.

As to rigorous auditing... I WAS DOING THE FUCKING AUDITING. How can you apply MY auditing to anything I'm not auditing? What I required was that I be ABLE to audit them. You are of course very welcome to audit any statistics I offer. And I am perfectly willing to only show you stats that you can audit. But the auditing and standards must be enforced by YOU just as my standards are enforced by ME.

Now, do you want the statistics or should I not bother because we both know my stats are valid?

Because you know my stats are valid. You know it and I know you know it. But if you'd like me to cite them anyway, I'm happy to do that.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

As to your request for citation that we are told all the time about how hard it is for women to be in stem... you must be fucking kidding me:

That only indicates that some women look out for others. It doesn't do anything to support your case that on average, women are biased positively in favour of other women. It's incredible how you demand fully audited statistics from my claimes but make the most half-assed unsupported claims yourself.

As to unconscious bias, there is a theory for anything. Psychology itself is one of the weakest sciences and unconscious bias is a weak theory in quasi science. You're half way into astrology with that garbage.

Well, this is veering into ad-homenim, frankly. Don't bother to argue the point, insult the entire disciplin and use that as a way of dismissing the arguments.

BTW: if psychology is bullshit, then all of your claims that "women want to help other women" must also be bullshit because that too is psychology. Cuts both ways, you see.

My personal income tends to go up between 20 and 50 percent within the first few months on a new job. So yeah. that happens.

And you're an academic are you?

As to rigorous auditing... I WAS DOING THE FUCKING AUDITING. How can you apply MY auditing to anything I'm not auditing? What I required was that I be ABLE to audit them.

Did you ask the authors to send you the raw data for you to audit? Did they refuse you?

Now, do you want the statistics or should I not bother because we both know my stats are valid?

Go ahead. I'd be interested to see your auditing results too.

Because you know my stats are valid. You know it and I know you know it.

No, I really don't know it.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

That only indicates that some women look out for others. It doesn't do anything to support your case that on average, women are biased positively in favour of other women. It's incredible how you demand fully audited statistics from my claimes but make the most half-assed unsupported claims yourself.
Nor does it support your claim that women are systemically biased against women.

Your statistic would require that women are systemically biased against women.

Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?

Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.

Here you're probably going to start talking about "unconscious" bias which has about as much proof behind it as subliminal messages which have been repeatedly proven to not work. The advertising people did extensive research to see if it actually worked. It doesn't.

You're pushing junk science.

Well, this is veering into ad-homenim, frankly. Don't bother to argue the point, insult the entire disciplin and use that as a way of dismissing the arguments.
As to ad hominem, technically I am not conducting ad hominem. Ad hominem is against a person. An argument against a discipline is totally different. And not actually a logical fallacy. So... try harder.

And you're an academic are you?
As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?

I feel like I'm playing chess against someone that is playing tic tac toe. If you undermine my ability to associate my career with this on the basis that I am in the private sector and this refers to academia then you support my original position that this study can't be applied outside of the context of academia.

You just picked up a gun and shot yourself in the foot with it.

I'm sort of embarrassed for you now.

Did you ask the authors to send you the raw data for you to audit? Did they refuse you?
As to raw data, the data is as good and readily available as climate change. So... tell me how that isn't enough. I'm pretty sure your standards are going to slip around hilariously on that point.

As to what you pretend to know for the sake of rhetoric, ask for the studies. They've been on file since the 1970s. This stupidity has been debunked since it started.

Make my day.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

Why aren't men systematically biased against men? Explain this to me?

I have to give you pshchological insight in order to explain statistics now?

Your whole premise requires systemic bias of men and women against women. That is a tall order to prove.

And yet that article showed it within its scope.

You're pushing junk science.

Ah so all of psychology is junk science according to you? If you can't argue logic, resort to ad-homenim.

And not actually a logical fallacy.

Yes it is because you're not using logic, reason or evidence. You're just hurling insults at it and expecting me to agree.

As to whether I'm an academic, so you're NOW saying that your study can't be applied outside of academia?

Good to see you can't read, or perhaps you're quoting out of context intentionally. I'm saying your claim that maybe the salary went up in the first week is pure junk. That's not how things work in academia. So that point of yours can be completely dismissed as "false".

blah blah

Ah so you never even tried to audit the statistics. You dismiss them as "not auditable" and yet you've present no evidence. If you contact the authors and they refuse, I might believe you (depending on how you make the contact).

It's entertaining to watch you twist and squirm and yet fail so miserably.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to what you have to do... make a coherent argument. You can't just cite that study without analysis and sit there with your arms crossed.

That's just a forfeit on your part.

Engage or disengage. Choose.

As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.

As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility. I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.

There is no concrete evidence for it. And I could no more prove it doesn't exist by finding it then you could prove God exists or any other negative.

As to your assertion that I'm taking you out of context, I admit I am... intentionally. But only after you have taken your study out of context.

Your study applies to academia. That is its context. You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.

In any case, it is quite clear you're not interested in an actual discussion. You just commented to shit talk. You're neither very good at it, nor do you know anything I don't already know.

You're therefore boring to me and since the only reason I comment here is to entertain myself... you have no value to me anymore.

This discussion is concluded.

Good day.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

By the way: I'll probably stop replying soon because It's nearly reached the bottom of my list of comments, and when it drops off the bottom it will be hard to find. Nonetheless, given past history, I figure we can continue where we leave off in another thread in future :)

As to the article's proof, I provided a variaty of reasons for it. And really, your disinterest in the reasons and motivations of the female employers is disturbing. It displays an incurious mentality.

Nope. You have no evidence to support any of those conclusions either. The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is, nor do I have any information about it. Also, the reason for their behaviour does not alter what the behaviour actually is.

But you always do this: you try to change it from an argument about actual facts to speculation about motivations. Ultimately the only thing with any effect is people's actions, not their motivations. With motivations you might be able to better effect a change, but it doesn't alter the facts.

As to your assertion that attacking a theory is inherently ad hominem... that's not what those words mean. You say I'm not offering reasons? They don't have evidence. The whole thing is at best a pseudo science. That is not an insult. That is a challenge of the the discipline's credibility.

So, basically attacking the discipline by calling it "pseudoscience", but not providing any argument as to why it's pseudoscience, or alternative actual science is essentially ad-homenim. So again: you're arguing via insults not reason.

I cited that related theories have been debunked quite intensely and the only reason subconscious bias survives at all is because the concept is so nebulous that it is like trying to attack smoke.

Firstly, you claimed it was debunked, you didn't give evidence. Second, debunking one theory doesn't make the whole discpline bad. Plhogiston has been deunked, but chemistry carries on fine (better actually).

You apply it outside of that context and YOU are taking it out of context.

Except I didn't. You claimed a general truth which was that the ONLY reason women had lower salaries was fewer years on the job. I provided an example where that is not true.

Therefore your claim is false and needs to be fixed.

Good day.

Catch you in another thread then. Until then, all the best.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

The reason for their behaviour is interesting, but I don't know what it is

And checkmate.

You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.

The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices.

The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.

The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination. It does not prove that it is not however it does suggest that.

The only theory to the contrary would be your subconscious bias theory which is incredibly thin.

At best, what you have is grounds to do a more involved study and make contact with the managers to ask them why they offered one price to one person and another price for another.

Until that happens you don't have "why" which means the underlying motivations shall remain unknown.

Which is the best evidence you've got so far apparently. Unknown. *golf clap*

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

You don't know the reason for the behavior. And absent a "why" you can't cite bigotry or prejudice.

Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.

The "why" is critical. And without that you can't speak to the motivations of anyone making any of those choices

I wasn't speaking about the motivations. You are the only one doing that.

The allegation is sexual discrimination. You don't know that. You know that decisions are being made on a single variable but you don't know WHY.

No, I don't know why, but the actual reason is of cold comfort if you're being discriminated against. For example, when women were denied the vote by virtue of being female, the ultimate motives for the denial are immaterial.

The fact that both sexes are making the same choice suggests that it is not discrimination.

Nope. Plenty of women disagreed with universal sufferage. Most people like to stick with the status quo.

But this is typical of you: first you try to deny the existence of discrimination. Once it's been shown to exist beyone any reasonable argument you insist that it's all invalid unless you know the motivation of the people involved.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

You are just addicted to logical fallacies apparently...

Nope. Case in point: I don't need to know why someone says "all men are smelly violent thugs who will rape women given the opportunity" to know that they're a bigoted fool.
False equivalency. You have evidence of behavior but not attitudes. Your example also was giving REASONS for why someone should be avoided while the study included no reasons at all. A reason is a why.

Your study includes none of that.

A better example would be:

""we have evidence that women will cross the street statistically in when groups of men approach.""

That includes no why or reasoning. We can infer it but those inferences will be suppositions and not conclusive.

What is more, my example like the article includes no context. For example, in my study what is the significance of the danger in the neighborhood itself? Maybe in my study, what is going on is that women do that in bad neighborhoods but not good neighborhoods. And simply because it happens in bad neighborhoods, if you combine the two data sets, the average is still that women tend to do that.

In this way, you'd have misrepresented the data by implying that the casual factor is that it is men and not that it is men in a bad neighborhood.

Statistics are complicated and really most people don't have the logical discipline to be able to deal with them. People tend to mistake their biases and assumptions for being causal evidence. It doesn't work that way.

You're reading more into the data than is actually there.

As to you not speaking to motivations, then you can't cite bias or prejudice. That is a why.

As to reasons being of cold comfort, the reasons would give you the ability to address any problem if it exists at all. Absent reasons you don't know why it is happening and you don't know how to fix it. You just have some statistics. Absent the why you can't criticize or point to this as being evidence of prejudice.

The why is quite important, I am afraid. You need it to morally and ethically judge the issue.

You are attempting to use this study to make a moral and ethical point. You can't do that without the "why".

As to plenty of women disagreeing with universal suffrage, the majority of MEN agreed with it or women wouldn't have it today.

We're talking about statistics. Statistical outliers are not going to help you because we're talking about averages. You can't cite the possibility that some small portion of women might be biased against women when the study was showing that the women are JUST as likely as the men to do it and that they were doing it with some consistency.

You're not rational enough to have this discussion. You need to be much more anal and literal with your data... or you really can't delve into statistics to this degree. I know that comes off as insulting and that isn't my intention. The issue is that you're not taking the data seriously enough or limiting your conclusions to the scope of the data itself. If you don't do that then you start spewing bullshit.

I'm regret that this has become hostile and personal and that you're going to feel badly towards me here after. That was not my intention and I regret the inevitability of it.

I ask only this going forward... consider what the data actually is LITERALLY saying and process it literally. I'm struggling for examples to express the problem. It is sort of like when you play minesweeper or sodoku and you mistake a high probability of something for conclusive proof of it. It works out most of the time but the likelihood of something is not evidence of it. And every so often when you just run on those hunches and assumptions you screw yourself because it turned out the assumption was wrong.

Keep in mind, I don't want anyone to be discriminated against. I believe in the equality of the sexes and if and when there are problems there, I think we should look into them so we can address those problems.

However, it is important to remembe

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

I'm not going to reply to most of you post because I think it's getting unproductive and one part has more interesting to discuss than the rest combined.

However, I do wish you'd drop all the accusations of "moral crusader" and whatnot because you're basically inventing motivations for me and trying to divert the topic into mud-slinging.

However, it is important to remember that equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equality of outcome

I never claimed it was. However, I still dispute your point that the ONLY reason for the salary gap is because of years on the job. The reason I dispute it is there appear to be examples of unequal opportunity.

Some jobs require a given personality type or philosophy to be successful or even competent. And for various reasons the sexes have different distributions of these personality types which in itself is going to lead to statistical differences.

Quite possibly.

However, people are terrible at statistics: if there is a genuine statistical bias across genders (I'll accept that in this section for the sake of argument), then in the absence of any information, picking based on gender is the best you can do. Of course no one makes blind hires. If you have additional information on the quality of the person then the gender provides no further information.

I suspect you already know that.

The problem arises in that people are not good at statistics and make the assumption of independence and so after assessing quality using other measures then multiply in the effect of gender. Not everyone does this: I've had one conversation with someone who was making this mistake. Of course the person didn't know about statistical independence and marginals and conditionals.

You can see evidence of such errors in other things, such as the CIA's "Casio terrorist watch", which was frankly embarrassing. It's the bloody CIA: they ought to have one person on staff with a basic understanding of statistics!

Naturally people think they're being rational---actually they are when they make these decisions. It's rational to make decisions based on evidence. However their lack of understanding of statistics leads them down the wrong path.

Anyway, backing up from that, a genuine statistical difference also exacerbates other problems. Assuming men and women are equally sexist in a male dominated field, women will experience more sexism than men and vice-versa:

http://blog.ian.gent/2013/10/t...

The interesting thing about that is that it requires only (a) a base level of sexism [it applies equally well to any -ism] and (b) an imbalance.

What things like that lead to is that for people in the minority, they will likely experience more bias against them than people in the majority. The interesting thing is I don't think that depends on any gender issues at all. It in one case depends on people misunderstanding proability and statistics (you'd have to provide a MOUND of evidence to convince me people do understand them) and in the other case, not even that.

So even without people being ethically or morally bad about something, you can still get biases cropping up pretty much as emergent behaviour.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

In regards to moral crusading, there is no other motivation for you to behave in the way you are behaving. Contradict me. I perceive an ideological investment and that is problematic.

In regards to the only difference being years on the job, all but two percent of the wage gap vanishes when you exclude women that have had children. That has been known since the 1970s when this wage gap crap was first pushed. The "wage gap" was almost instantly debunked but it is trotted out whenever various political elements find it to be politically useful.

Hillary Clinton is likely to run for a presidential election, so much of this is being driven a precursor to her presidential run. We're seeing far greater activity from politically connected women's groups as well as endless articles in the newspapers etc which are all related to this issue.

Here you will claim I am spinning conspiracies only a conspiracy is not required. They don't need to have a big meeting and decide this together. The winds change and they go with the winds.

Her presidential bid, if successful will mean we'll probably be subjected to more of this biased idiocy for years as a means to bolster her political support, suppress political opponents, capitalize on her power, etc. The reasons for it are legion. If her bid fails, then after a bitter condemnation of anyone that didn't vote for her as a sexist... it should calm down again.

That is what we're dealing with... the endless gender articles that have cropped up in the last year or so are not a coincidence.

The "wage gap" was debunked. A 2 percent wage gap which is what is left after you exclude women with children is so small as to not worry much about. Though even that can be explained by a host of other factors. Once you've dealt with those, you might even argue that women are over paid not under paid... issues like "over work' which is a male phenomenon of working beyond the normal number of hours. Taking work home, etc. And men do that with greater frequency than women. Many other issues. Men tend to take more dangerous jobs, tend to take more socially isolating jobs... and those jobs being dangerous and socially isolating have fewer people trying to get them and so the wages paid for that are higher.

It depends on how you factor the statistics.

Most wage gap statistics just look at what people take in college, see if they're employed, and then average their salaries on that basis. They often don't even factor which industries they're in or bother to figure out what jobs they perform in those industries. The stats on this tend to be politically motivated instead of actually interested in what is going on.

We both know there is such a thing as a biased study or a study set up to conclude a predefined conclusion for a political gain. It should not surprise you that some of these studies are just that.

As to no one making blind hires, your study had people making blind hires. They got some boiler plate resume along with a name that inferred a gender. I doubt they said "man" or "woman" on the thing... it was more that it said my name is "tom" or "janet". There were no interviews in your study. Just a resume for a fake person. And a resume doesn't really tell you what your personality type is... does it?

As to your notion that this is not an issue of anti female bias but an issue of people assuming that whatever is prevalent in the area is inherently superior by its very prevalence.... that would imply that this is equally a problem in any female dominated profession?

To demonstrate that this is not a political or moral crusade, I'd appreciate equality of interest and enforcement in those areas thus as you encourage businesses that hire more men to hire more women, encourage businesses that hire more women to hire more men.

In this you would have a more equal and less biased interest in the matter.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

In regards to moral crusading, there is no other motivation for you to behave in the way you are behaving.

https://xkcd.com/386/

you made a factually incorrect statement. Duty calls, as always.

That is what we're dealing with... the endless gender articles that have cropped up in the last year or so are not a coincidence.

I think they are. I mean, they happen over here in the UK as well, and there's not the same cause. Not that a presidential candidate wouldn't stir up divisiveness for their own benefit.

As for the pay gap: I had a search around. There's an awful lot of hot air from pundits and journalistic sources and precious little in the way of actual hard evidence either way.

As to no one making blind hires, your study had people making blind hires.

I meant blind as in knowing nothing but the person's gender: no qualifications/skills/experience. Gender only.

that would imply that this is equally a problem in any female dominated profession?

Pretty much. I gather sexism is rampant in nursing, and, frankly male primary school teachers seem to be regarded with suspicion. And it's got worse as the gender gap has widened. I think both of those are in a much worse state than tech. However since I'm not in either of those industries, and I don't have any real interest in them and slashdot is a tech focussed site, you won't hear much from me apart from a general agreement that "wouldn't be nice if it was fixed".

From purely practical reasons more male nurses are needed as sometimes you need someone strong to deal with mobility impared heavy people, and physical strength is certainly generally a male trait. That of course ignores other things.

And for primary education, I think a lack of male role models, or more specifically a lack of *balance* is not good.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

I may have "triggered" you, but it was not an inaccurate statement that did that.

As to things crossing the pond, we share a highly interconnected media and political system. These articles have spiked in your own media as well largely in sympathy with the US media response. Whether we even have distinct cultures at a certain point will be debatable. Any difference you point at between yourselves and us may well be less than the cultural differences between various parts of the US. Consider the deep south versus a place like new york or san francisco. Very different cultures and yet the same country.

You can find other examples of something becoming a media sensation in the US and then spreading to associated cultures.

We are more one than you realize. This conversation you and I are having right now is further evidence of it.

I read your newspapers. You likely read US media. Would it be surprising to you if UK journalists read US journalists and vice versa? Because they do.

There is much the same between London and New York.

If you wish to look at political interconnections, I would direct you at various political organizations in the US that routinely invite similar political figures from the UK to speak or debate. I can't speak to whether organizations in the UK do the same thing for US political figures, but I assume the likes of Bill Clinton etc has gotten around in the UK.

The world shrinks, does it not?

In regards to hard evidence, you find so little of it because the only people still talking about it are political hacks. As I said, the "data" angle was settled in the 1970s. Everything after that has mostly been hamming it up for the idiots.

As to hiring someone without knowing qualifications... you'd have to focus on really low level entry level jobs for that. I struggle to think of any job where they really don't care. The people that don't ask for resumes tend to like to have an interview at the very least.

Here are a couple jobs that do blind hires in the US... Manual labor... typically illegal manual labor. And I think meat packing plants especially for chicken tend to use similar types of labor. That kind of thing is kept as casual as possible because any kind of formal process is a liability if you're audited. The best defense in such situations is "I didn't know"... and the only way to not know is to not check.

In regards to primary school teachers, there has been a big push as well to "feminize" education. that is structure the education around social patterns that girls find more inviting. The consequence is that these patterns are generally alienating to boys.

I think a more reasonable solution would be to segregate the sexes until college. Not socially of course but give them different classes. You could even have them in the same building if you really wanted to but the nature of the classes should be tailored to the way each sex thinks.

We are sexually dimorphic and it isn't just externally. We are neurologically different. That is a neurological fact. And note, I am not saying either one is superior to the other, however we do have different temperaments and if you want to get the best out of little boys you're going to have to structure the class differently than if you want the best out of little girls.

The statistics on that are quite evident. The decline in male performance in US schools correlates quite well with the push to feminize the social structure.

And note that despite boys performing worse in US schools than girls, despite fewer boys graduating high school or getting college educations... what are we subjected to by these political hacks? More bullshit about how we need to help girls out.

Why? Because they're not equally represented in the halls of power and boardrooms. Never mind that they're not equally represented on street corners picking food out of trash cans either. Never mind that women are not equally represented on death row waiting to ride the lightning.

Those that call

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

I may have "triggered" you, but it was not an inaccurate statement that did that.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

These articles have spiked in your own media as well largely in sympathy with the US media response.

Not my observation. These articles always come by on a regular basis. We have our own politicians with their own agendas over here and they bring up stuff like this semi regularly. Besides it makes good copy and encourages people to buy papers.

As to hiring someone without knowing qualifications... you'd have to focus on really low level entry level jobs for that. I struggle to think of any job where they really don't care.

You seem to have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. By focussing on the minutae of the example you lose sight of the bigger picture on how people estimate things badly due to a lack of understanding of probability and statistics.

I think a more reasonable solution would be to segregate the sexes until college. Not socially of course but give them different classes. You could even have them in the same building if you really wanted to but the nature of the classes should be tailored to the way each sex thinks.

Firstly two things. What you have proposed is anti-male. Boys do better in mixed classes, where as girls do better in single sex classes.

Secondly, you're doing the classic damaging thing of "women are different on average to men" == "all women are different from all men". They may have different means, but the variance is large and so there is a lot of overlap. If you uniformly treat girls one way and boys another you do a strong disservice to a very large fraction of both.

The correct thing to do of course is to tailor it somewhat to the person in question.

Why? Because they're not equally represented in the halls of power and boardrooms. Never mind that they're not equally represented on street corners picking food out of trash cans either. Never mind that women are not equally represented on death row waiting to ride the lightning.

There is so much wrong with that I don't even know where to begin. The answer to inequality is not more inequality. If women are undrerepresented in power, that is a problem. If there are too many men on death row, that is also a problem. One doesn't balance out the other, it just makes the world twice as fucked up.

You don't get karmic justice fucking up a few guys to counterbalance a few guys in power in order to somehow make it average out relative to women.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

In regards to your statement that they have not spiked in your media, I read your media. They have.

In regards to what is and is not anti male, the male achievement statistics are tanking under this regime. They were doing better previously. That is a matter of statistical record and not up for debate.

As to the answer to equality not being more inequality, you've confused yourself.

You've conflated equality between the sexes with equality between classes.

What one means by equality in each context is very different. If we had perfect equality between the sexes, then you should see the same number of women on death row as men. If we had class equality then you should see an equal number of people as CEOs as there are people living on the street... or you'd see everyone with exactly the same amount of money, power, and social status.

Neither kind of equality is possible in the real world and neither kind is really desirable or reasonable.

The point is that if you ask for equality between the SEXES that means you are comparing ALL men against ALL women. That means you've got to factor the men that die in wars or live on the street or fight in a war only to live on the street. If you don't do that when you're doing your little comparison then your comparison is biased by definition.

What tends to be the whine is that there are not as many women in certain high status/high pay jobs as some women that generally don't work in those positions would like. And that's fine. However, if you want to talk about equality between the sexes, then you're not going to pick and choose who gets compared in the sexes.

When you compare the sexes you're comparing ALL men against ALL women. You want to limit it to scientists or CEOs? How is that even possible? How many female CEOs are not permitted to be CEOs? By definition all of them have to have been CEOs at some point or they wouldn't be female CEOs. You can't talk about all the women that weren't picked to be CEO without involving some larger nebulous group and that just makes everything horribly muddied.

Again. this is the recurring problem here. You are not taking the literal logic seriously enough and you are making silly logical errors.

That last error conflating classes with sex was typical of what has been going on here. This is not to offend. It is just not possible to logically analyze these issues unless you analyze things with a bit more seriousness. You're making silly errors that will turn any conclusion into garbage.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[serviscope_minor]

In regards to your statement that they have not spiked in your media, I read your media. They have.

You seem to be under the impression that such topics weren't already a regular feature. They were.

That is a matter of statistical record and not up for debate.

I like how you ignore every single point I make, invent a point I never made and then go and rebut that very firmly.

You've conflated equality between the sexes with equality between classes.

Nope. You're the one who seemed to point out that the solution to inequality was more inequality to even things up.

However, if you want to talk about equality between the sexes, then you're not going to pick and choose who gets compared in the sexes

Huh? Again with the inventing random crap. Way to go.

Re:This whole issue needs to be buried

[Karmashock]

As to my impressions, I've read your media for many years. We'll just leave that there.

As to ignoring your points, no I'm not ignoring your points. My points are just not 180 degrees from your points. I don't need to either adopt your point or adopt the exact opposite point. You can't control my position. You can't determine what my point has to be simply by making your own point.

You say boys do better in a mixed environment? I have no stats on that what so ever. What I do know, that the new feminized system is hurting boys. You say they'd be better in a mixed environment? Well, understand that any mixed environment is going to be a feminized environment in the 21st century. That's just a given. You are not going to get a more male friendly environment in the 21st century in this political climate. The only chance the boys stand is getting their own space where they can't legitimately be policed to make things easier for girls because there are no girls there at all.

So on that basis, my solution is superior. If your stats are correct, then my solution might not be ideal... but let us not make the "perfect the enemy of the good". A segregated situation would alleviate most of the problem. And I am totally unaware of your mixed class room stats so for all I know those are bogus as well since you've bought into some other stats that were also bogus... no offense. I mean bogus by the way in that you've read things into the stats that are not there.

As to your assertion that you didn't conflate class and sex. That is the only way you could make the argument that having equal numbers of people in various states is not equality.

You're saying that it is equality for women to have a high status job like some percentage of men but not equality for women to be homeless like a lot of men. Equality is a double edged sword. In that context, it is not inequality to have equal numbers of women going to the electric chair. You can only call it inequality by conflating the point with class or social status. Which is an obvious logical error on your part.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[Mashiki]

They're starting to enclave up in videogames, much like what happened with the atheism movement. It took a few extra years but the "atheism+" crap is now collapsing under it's own corruption and regular atheism is going along just fine still. And of course there's now a similar thing to gamergate starting in comic books and heavy metal. Everything they touch they turn into a political issue, and when they don't get their way they claim sexism, bigotry, racism, or whatever else to try and make people back down. Funny enough, many of them actually sexist, bigots or racists and that can be easily seen in their social commentary on twitter or facebook.

Re:N4N?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Hell Bill Joy is a senior partner.

. . . and if anyone wants to file an editor gender suit . . . Bill Joy wrote vi . . .

That one would be a hoot and a half in court. None of the jurors would really understand what it was all about, and the court case would be finished, before emacs loaded.

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership.

For reporting the jury's verdict? The phrasing is very much "legal-ese": The jury held that KP is not liable for her claims. Don't see why that bothers you so much.

The subtitle is a statement of why the case was even remotely interesting: it is an indisputable fact that the tech industry and investment banking are "dominated by" men. Men make up the overwhelming majority of people in both of those industries, and the skew is even more pronounced at the executive levels. And at question during this trial was the behavior of those men towards women: which means... the trial DID highlight the male-dominated tech and investment banking cultures in Silicon Valley. That was the FOCUS of the case.

By describing the tech and investment banking industries as "male dominated," they are, in fact, being as absolutely factual as if they were writing a story about the "female dominated" nursing field. There was nothing in the article about "male domination" being the reason for Ms. Pao's loss; nor was there any presumption that "male domination" somehow influenced the jury. I think you need a refresher course in reading comprehension, friend. Your sense of outrage is clearly cutting off your oxygen.

Pao was told she needs to own the room

[JoeyRox]

But instead she just got owned by the room.

Pao is like her husband with lawsuits

[Sara Chan]

For some great background on how corrupt Pao and her husband are, see "Some Thoughts on Ellen Pao’s Marriage", by Richard Bradley. Basically, Pao's husband has a history of dubious lawsuits, and Pao seems to have gone along in his family suing business.

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been working in the tech industry for 25 years. Before that, all of my managers were female. Even within the tech industry, at least 30% of my managers have been female.

I hear stories like she espouses, but always from "news sites". I don't know if I can believe them; I don't know. I am more likely to make female friends than male friends (I am male). The people I respect at my current job are are about 50/50 male and female (though the total representation of employees is more like 80/20 male to female). (disclaimer, I don't actually have any friends, I just know who I respect).

I worked construction and landscaping when I was in my teens. These kind of stories would have made sense there. There the women would (and did) even have participated in the gender discrimination. I have NEVER seen anything like what she claims in a technical environment. Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe there are outliers. Maybe I'm just deluded.

I work for a 12k+ workforce now and this sort of thing just doesn't happen as far as I know. The most feared/respected people I can think of that I work with are women.

On the other hand... the people with the most power who absolutely shouldn't have it are all men.

That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[Futurepower(R)]

That seems correct. A lot of companies will think: "Don't hire women. They may accuse someone of "gender bias" or "sexual harassment". In the U.S. at present, that is an easy way to get money without earning it.

A long time ago, I was dating an attractive woman who had 2 jobs in traditionally male areas. I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote) I questioned her and learned that opinion of hers was very strong and rooted in considerable experience.

She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.

Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[Anonymous Coward]

"She always dressed in a way that made people respect her."

That's horrifying.

I'm a middle-aged male. I have waist length hair, a huge beard and never iron anything. I definitely don't dress so people respect me, but people respect me because I am an expert. Why should women have to dress so people respect them to be valid people?

Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not what people look like that matters. It is the decisions they make. Skin color is not a choice, but wearing leggings and showing cleavage (as a random example) when everyone else wears suits shows a very particular kind of choice.

Good choices?

Standing out is what you want in business every time. Why particularly you stand out is of course deserving of closer inspection, but the fact that you stand out is already a good sign regarding business decisions.

For a developer or IT consultant, attention to technically pointless details like clothing or hair style shows the wrong priorities. Sure, it's prejudice, you don't know the guy or girl's priorities just by looking at their clothes, but wtf we always prejudicate - it's unavoidable, decisions about people are made (and have to be made) constantly without enough facts.

That aside, women will always get male attention. When they don't, the race will come to an end. I've worked with attractive women, and I can both give them "male attention" and respect them for their skills, it's not just one or the other.

As all things, moderation is key. Sexual tension at work is something to accept and to keep in check if you want a sexually diverse workforce, not something to eradicate. But it does need to be kept at a reasonable level, if only to make the working place a comfortable place for all. And no, women are probably not comfortable having to dress like men, so if they go with skirts (most women I know tell me they're very comfortable), as a man, you have to deal with it. It's like telling me to wear a suit - I'd quit if they made me. Same for them.

Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

I think it is an unfair to say a woman dresses to be respected. It's more that some women refuse to dress in ways that get them disrespected.

How much respect would you earn if you wore assless chaps?

Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[serviscope_minor]

I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote)

Nope, there's no problem at all with generalising what one woman said to 50% of the population. Nosiree, no stereotyping there at all. Anyway, I can duel with anecdotes and find women to say exactly the opposite.

Hell, I've observed exactly the opposite at a computer science.

One female presenter being followed round by a gaggle of lost puppies including one guy who waited for about 10 minutes[*] outside the toilet. Now that's some serious creeper stalking. How was that wanted exactly?

She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.

Oh yes the slutty harlot was dressed in jeans or possibly trousers and a shirt or t-shirt, just like everyone else.

[*] toiled was quite near the buffet, so I had the opportunity to observe him while I was talking to other people. He was still there when I wandered off about 10 minutes later, so he could have waited considerably longer.

Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP.

[tehcyder]

Standing out is what you want in business every time.

So you go to meetings dressed in just crotchless lace panties, a rubber basque and a swastika headband?

Re:Wasn't it 3 out of 4 claims denied?

[russotto]

4th claim isn't a gender bias claim, but a claim she was fired out of retaliation for filing this lawsuit.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[Anonymous Coward]

SJW is only used by a smallish group, so it makes sense that the group that sticks together and acts as if there's a big conspiracy against them come to the same definition. These people sit around waiting for some slashdot story to roll about social issue just so that they can jump out and shout SJW! at someone. It's kind of pathetic.

I like SWT myself for the anti-SJW derps - Single White Troll.

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since ARS Tek got bought-out by media cosmopolitans it has been pimping the SJW screed like any good stiletto-heeled NYC slut.

Re:N4N?

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

IIREC his name is also on some elisp files.

Lost in court? Can still win and make some money

[Tanuki64]

She just has to claim she got because of this law suit rape and death threads and had to leave her house. In no time she is a twitter star and.....?????? ..... Profit.

Damage has been done

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter win or lose, the lawsuit itself has done much damage to the Silicon Valley

In the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work on and create marvelous new and fancy and profitable ways to boldly forge new pathways towards the next technological frontier

No

The Silicon Valley, thanks to the feminazis like Ms. Pao, has turned into a place where one can get sued just because one bases one's hiring on the best qualified candidates - and not on the basis of creed, gender and/or racial background

The world today that we live in the Silicon Valley is no longer the only place where the investors can find talents - nowadays there are so many options for the investors - They can also go to Europe or India or Korea or Japan or China or Singapore or even Africa / South America

If America does not stop these kind of frivolous lawsuits from happening, it gonna make the Silicon Valley a very unwelcome place for those with money to invest - and investors in general do not like to invest in places where 'political minefield' are abound

Re:Damage has been done

[Anonymous Coward]

I dislike the militant feminists as much as you do but my feeling is that verdict here was not right.

The proper verdict would have been to destroy both the KP partners and Pao as they all horrible human beings.

I won't state why Pao is a horrible person as I'm sure it's been stated before. However, let's not forget the things within KP that were, in my opinion, outrageous. These incidents were garbage regardless of whether Pao was a man or a woman.

1. The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.

2. The board seat on one of the startups Pao challenged was given to a loser instead of Pao. The reason? The loser "needed a win." How would anyone feel if part of their bonus was taken away and given to a bozo because the bozo otherwise would get nothing and thus "needed a win?"

3. Dipping one's pen into the company inkwell. Pao was stupid to sleep with the Indian sleazebag and that probably gave her a reputation in the office. But let us assume she's an utter whore and slut. Do the married men in the company have absolutely no control over themselves? Here I'm talking about the married man who gave her a book of erotic poetry.

All I can say is, "Kill them with fire. All of them."

Re:Damage has been done

[Anonymous Coward]

From your posting history, you don't like gays and you don't like "uppity" women. How sad is that to go through life?

Re:Damage has been done

[Shompol]

Well, the article is shit, so I will have to go with the sparce details I have so far:

The jury deliberated for 2 days, so there were some serious arguments to deliberate about, and thus this was not a frivolous lawsuit.

Lawsuites like this impose a cost of litigation but in the long run they give us something more important, something other places like Korea or China lack. This advantage is the prime reason the Silicone Valley exists in the Valley as opposed to some shithole where laws are questionable and judges go to the highest bidder.

In this example, the lawsuit tries to establish equal treatment of men and women in the workforce. Women comprise over 50% of population and any country that can tap that talent (and most countries cannot) suddenly has access to 2x the number of capable candidates, a tremendous advantage. Most of these lawsuites are impossible for lack of proof, but if something is so obvious that it is provable in court it would be a waste not to persue.

Now imagine a society where all the respectable and compensated positions are given to communist party member's cousin's son-in-laws. All their talent rots in slums. This is the current situation at some 75% of the world. Good luck starting any successful ventures there.

Re:Damage has been done

[Jane Q. Public]

In the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work on and create marvelous new and fancy and profitable ways to boldly forge new pathways towards the next technological frontier

And they would largely be correct.

The Silicon Valley, thanks to the feminazis like Ms. Pao, has turned into a place where one can get sued just because one bases one's hiring on the best qualified candidates - and not on the basis of creed, gender and/or racial background

But not for that reason.

The world today that we live in the Silicon Valley is no longer the only place where the investors can find talents - nowadays there are so many options for the investors - They can also go to Europe or India or Korea or Japan or China or Singapore or even Africa / South America

Or, even easier: Oregon or Washington or South Dakota or Texas.

Re:Damage has been done

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Are you equating a book written by Leonard Cohen with an issue of Penthouse?

Re:Damage has been done

[serviscope_minor]

n the eyes of the investors the Silicon Valley no longer represents a place where technology means everything, where one can get the best talents to work

Is this the same silicon valley that has the quite astonishing ageism problem as well? Silicon valley has never been just about the technology.

Re:Damage has been done

[serviscope_minor]

Silicone Valley

That is something *ENTIRELY* different to Silicon Valley.

Re:Damage has been done

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like if she'd sued for sexual harassment or discriminatory practices instead of sued for not being promoted, she'd have won.

Remember, the jury would have been deliberating NOT on whether the company were a bunch of fratboy assholes but whether the case in front of them was valid.

Re:Damage has been done

[AmiMoJo]

The law doesn't work the way you think it works. Just because she lost doesn't mean she lied and cheated and is a feminazi. It just means she couldn't convince a jury that on the balance of probabilities she was discriminated against. And actually there is still one claim still to be decided upon.

Let's wait and see if the judge brands her a feminazi, shall we?

Re:Damage has been done

[elrous0]

The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.

Maybe that was because the partner recognized that Pao was just the kind of sensitive narcissist who would do things like keep enemies lists and sue people who she perceived as wronging her. Yeah, having someone like that along would in fact be a pretty big "buzzkill" for any fun retreat.

Pao was stupid to sleep with the Indian sleazebag and that probably gave her a reputation in the office. But let us assume she's an utter whore and slut. Do the married men in the company have absolutely no control over themselves?

That argument, of course, cuts both ways. It could as easily be rephrased as "Do the women at KP have absolutely no control of themselves when it comes to married men?"

Re:Damage has been done

[Rob Y.]

And this is venture capital - not technology. Just because they're investing in technology, don't assume they all need to be technologically savvy. VC is as much about showmanship and cooking the books in prep for the IPO as it is about the underlying tech they're hawking. Of course, that's an entirely different (and perhaps bigger) problem...

Re:Damage has been done

[Anonymous Coward]

But it may very well be useful here, because the Asian broad is likely flat as a board without it, and so very hard to fap to.

Re:Damage has been done

[rjlieb]

Starting in the 1970's many symphony orchestras began using "blind auditions" to hire musicians. Applicants performed behind a screen which shielded them from the judge's view. Since this practice began, the number of woman in American orchestras increased from about 10% to 35%. Studies conducted since then attribute about 50% of this increase to the use of blind auditions.

If you had asked these orchestras what criteria they were using to select musicians back then, I'm sure they would have told you that they were hiring the "best qualified candidates." And yet we now know that there was a clear, although possibly unconscious, bias in their selection process.

Putting aside the merits of Ms. Pao's particular case, the notion that Silicon Valley has been hiring and promoting the "best qualified candidates" all along has no real supporting evidence. You could argue that technology firms do the best they can with the information available to them. But, that's not a valid argument to maintain the status quo.

Re: Damage has been done

[cthulhu11]

Agree with much of this. She is already a millionaire and part of the 1% and has trampled countless others to get there. Insisting on even more is only greed.

Re: Damage has been done

[cthulhu11]

Equal treatment is exactly what this suit and others like it did not want. They want preferential treatment for possession of ovaries, which is bullshit.

Re:Damage has been done

[zapadnik]

And you don't seem to like Free Speech and are intolerant of Diversity of Opinion. How sad it is that you are so narrow minded you cannot accept that others may have different worldviews than merely following the herd-like Leftist ideology.

Re:Damage has been done

[tehcyder]

And you don't seem to like Free Speech and are intolerant of Diversity of Opinion. How sad it is that you are so narrow minded you cannot accept that others may have different worldviews than merely following the herd-like Leftist ideology.

You reactionaires are hilariously consistent in pulling out the "freedom of speech" card every time someone criticises one of your obnoxious right wing opinions.

You are free to say what you like, and I am free to criticise what you say. Being open minded doesn't mean not having an opinion on anything.

Re:Damage has been done

[nephilimsd]

https://xkcd.com/1357/

Re:Damage has been done

[zapadnik]

Nonsense. The parent demonstrated intolerance for Diversity of Opinion. I'm guessing you are also an authoritarian that believes there is a 'right' position on the unilateral and Orwellian re-definition of 'marriage' by the Left - and thus you pull out your XKCD as a justification for your support of shutting down the Free Speech of religious people via the Heckler's Veto.

You are part of the problem. I don't agree with positions of many people, but shutting them down by implying they are 'a$$holes' or 'sad' because they have a different opinion is wrong. Address their arguments, not the person.

Re:Damage has been done

[zapadnik]

I am not a 'reactionary' (a term only use by the Marxists of the Extreme Left). I am a Classic Liberal, and I follow the dictum commonly attributed to Voltaire:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

I may or may not agree with the Christians that the unilateral and Orwellian redefinition of 'marriage' by the Far Left is right or wrong - but they are certainly well within their rights to express their desire to resist this tyrannical change.

one of your obnoxious right wing opinions.

Actually, I find your support for Collectivist totalitarian enforcement of ideological conformity utterly repulsive, and an affront to all the gains of the Enlightenment. But we say nothing because we Classic Liberals **actually** practice Free Speech, instead of you hypocritical oppressive totalitarians.

You are free to say what you like, and I am free to criticise what you say. Being open minded doesn't mean not having an opinion on anything.

Your statement is true. However you attacked the person as 'sad' for merely different in opinion with the new (Nationalist) Socialist orthodoxy. I bet you don't even get how you are the bad guy here. You think you are being 'tolerant' for homosexuals with your enforcement of intolerance of others. That's how the fascism of the Left always works (and Fascism is a Leftist ideology because it is Statist and Collectivist).

Why do otherwise intelligent people get sucked into the anti-Individualism of the Left? Why do you become fasicsts in your enforcement of Leftist orthodoxy, even ones as stupid as the unilateral redefinition of 'marriage' and the need to cram it down every else throats? you guys are INSANE.

Re: One more view.

[dpidcoe]

watermelons are my trigger you insensitive clod!

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's been the standard MO with feminist for a while now-

Assist women: benevolent sexism.
Don't assist women: supporter of rape culture.

Cite lack of voting rights for women: proof of misogyny.
Point out universal suffrage for men is tied to conscription: patriarchy hurts men too.

Feminism has been a wonderful exercise in mental gymnastics to where everything can be spun as proof misogyny. And even when pointing out glaring hypocrisies: there are several branches of feminism, and the particular one you are debating does not support that particular contradiction.

But then again, a woman is always free to change her mind.

Re:One more view.

[ganjadude]

Actually ars seemed to be one of the few places ive seen reporting the trial at hand throughout, and not making it all biased towards her. Ars was pretty nutral but the reporting made it seem as if she was a spoiled entitled brat.

Re:One more view.

[ganjadude]

people need to be put in some type of containment for the mentally challenged. Starting with you though

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[ganjadude]

Did you ever notice that only assholes and douchebags ARE SJWs?

FTFY

It will be interesting...

[denzacar]

...how will this reflect on her husband's Ponzi scheme lawsuits.

Those $16 million would have probably come in handy.

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is more like ordeal by water

And associating SJWs with physical scientists is absurd. 4 insightful? Really? More like -1 Troll.

Re: One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. They throw this gender bias thing around like every man on earth has horns and a pitchfork. A man got promoted before you? Guess what? He's probably more qualified in some way that you don't see. For example, maybe he's not a crazy man hating bitch that nobody wants to work for cause she slings lawsuits like dime bags. Oh and while we're on the subject, not every man on earth is a creepy sleaze bag rapist. Stop treating us like we are. It's offensive. Not everyone wants to fuck you. Get over yourself. That is all.

Yes, it is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Ellen K. Pao, with her husband Alphonse "Buddy" Fletcher , are both Harvard Educated scam artists

Read the following link to see how Ms. Pao's hubby has stolen more than $150million from many victims, including Massachusetts and Louisiana cops and firefighters

http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-hedgie-buddy-fletcher/

Re: Yes, it is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Because birds of a feather flock together.

Re: Yes, it is important

[elrous0]

And why is THAT important?

Because, if nothing else, it's a strong indicator of her poor judgement.

Is this suprising?

[SeaFox]

...and then retaliated against her for raising concerns about the firm's gender dynamics by failing to promote her and finally firing her after seven years at the firm after she filed her 2012 lawsuit.

Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?

Re:Is this suprising?

[gnasher719]

Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?

Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career. It's different if you file a lawsuit and it turns out it is all based on lies.

Re:Is this suprising?

[SeaFox]

Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career.

She's costing her employer time in a legal defense either way. What company wouldn't get rid of a troblemaker like that?

Also, I would think filing a lawsuit for poor treatment by an employer while continuing to work there would only hurt her case, unless she's going to claim she has some form of Stockholm Syndrome with them.

Re:Is this suprising?

[AmiMoJo]

When did she lie? It seems like she just interpreted what happened differently. The facts don't seem to beer disputed, only the interpretation of them.

Re:N4N?

[PopeRatzo]

tech how?

It's not, but Friday night is #GamerGate and MRAs night on Slashdot, when 8chan empties out and all the manbabies meet here to cry about how the feminazis are taking away their games and comics and action figures.

Look back a few months. It happens every Friday. There is a story about gender or sexual orientation or something that can be construed as violating the natural order of the primacy of white men. Then, the tears start to flow and it all ends in the gators and the MRAs in one big group hug.

It's harmless, really. If it keeps them off the streets, I'm all for them having their own neckbeard hugbox.

Re:One more view.

[ShanghaiBill]

Ellen Pao comes from a culture of lying for victimhood and money.

Well, she is a lawyer, so that is stating the obvious.

Re:One more view.

[ShanghaiBill]

Half the juriors were WOMEN.

You should not assume that women are more pro-woman. Many female managers will tell you they have a lot more problems with female subordinates than with males. This is especially true if there is a significant age difference: if a talented young woman is put in charge of a team that includes older women, you will often have a lot of friction.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[Random Nobody]

I disagree, the term is popping up in mainstream news articles and non-internet related matters. "SWT" is a racist generalization if I've ever heard one.

Re:I love...

[I'm New Around Here]

What about the women who work for women? As in those companies founded and governed by women? Are all their female employees discriminated against by the female management?

Re:One more view.

[jazman_777]

Ars is totally infiltrated with SJWs, the place has turned to garbage.

Talent != Raw Number !

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir/Madam,

Do you understand the definition of Talent??

Women comprise over 50% of population and any country that can tap that talent (and most countries cannot) suddenly has access to 2x the number of capable candidates

Of course the female folks comprise over 50% of the population, but your attempt of equating raw numbers to the availability of real talent is seriously flawed!

Re:One more view.

[tompaulco]

I have worked in Tech for over 25 years as well. I would say that it has been my experience that there are more males involved in tech, but that it is far easier for a woman to be promoted to management than for a man. Also, pretty much all of my managers in tech, whether male or female, were not very tech savvy.

The unkempt person in the high level meeting...

[tlambert]

"She always dressed in a way that made people respect her."

That's horrifying.

I'm a middle-aged male. I have waist length hair, a huge beard and never iron anything. I definitely don't dress so people respect me, but people respect me because I am an expert. Why should women have to dress so people respect them to be valid people?

The unkempt person in the high level meeting is either the client or a technical expert.

The client is unkempt because, hey, screw you, you want their business, you put up with them.

The technical expert is unkempt because They Can Get Away With It Because They Are The Expert. It's actually part of their robes of office.

In other professions, there are other uniforms. Finance people always have very expensive clothing because they want to exude an aura of money. Do you trust a finance person in a Grateful Dead T-Shirt? Maybe, if you are scoring weed from them at a concert, but in a business meeting, you expect Warren Buffet will be in his suit and tie.

Everyone else "dresses for success".

Re:The unkempt person in the high level meeting...

[RivenAleem]

What I feel is horrifying, is that the poster felt that the level of respect she received should be on the condition that she dresses a certain way. Like someone else said, if she wore "slutty" clothes, would it be okay to respect her less?

What we need to revive are the phrases "Well-groomed", "well-shod" and "well-kept". To signify that you are dressed appropriately for what you are doing. Or at the very least, you are hygienic. I used to have long hair and beard. It was forever flaky and greasy. After numerous attempts to wear the look cleanly, I gave up and now I have very short beard/clean shaven and short hair.

SJW easily defined

[Anonymous Coward]

Professionally Offended

Re:One more view.

[Nemyst]

Or alternatively making up strawmen from all the stuff you dislike does not turn them into real human beings. They're still straw.

Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[s.petry]

You claim to dislike the article because it provides no facts, and follow that up with two of your own assertions which appear to be nothing more than slander. I am assuming you have facts which back these two statements.

basically, she an extreme capitalist that doesn't believe in "workers' rights" at all.
she's saying "hey, being discriminating on? just leave and work somewhere else. it's a free country."

I make no claim that you have to agree with her opinion, but I do claim that poisoning the well with slander is a pathetic way of garnering agreements with your own opinion. Placing the proverbial icing on the cake, your last statement is completely irrational.

"leave and get a new job or start your own business."
that's just a little elitist. assuming everyone has the capital to start their own business.

Notice that your short rant omits exactly half of the text which _you_ quoted. She stated very clearly "get a new job or start your own business" according to your quote.

Surely I agree that finding a new job is not always easy, but it is an option that the majority of people take when they dislike something at their place of work. Good grief, the exodus from Michigan was massive after the automotive collapses so people (including myself) packed up and moved thousands of miles to find better working conditions and jobs. Choices are not always easy to make, but there certainly are choices. Further, there are good employers out there. I'd agree that it's not a majority but there are quite a few. Call my personal anecdote and yours a wash and we could say roughly half.

As a personal note, calling someone an "extreme capitalist" is not an insult. Adam Smith was brilliant, and Milton Friedman did a great job of modernizing his work. Attempting to blame capitalism failures on the extreme levels of corruption we have in Government is simply delusional. Unchecked corruption breaks all economic systems and forms of Government. You can check my statement against every Government in history. Capitalism and the US Republic were attempts to keep systems healthy for a longer duration, and in that respect they were extremely successful.

Lacking citations to back your seemingly false assertions, I do hope to see an apology for the slander. I have no expectation mind you, but I am occasionally incorrect judging character.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[farble1670]

yep, you caught me. what i wrote is my opinion. you're new here then?

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[tehcyder]

calling someone an "extreme capitalist" is not an insult

That's what an extreme capitalist would say.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[s.petry]

Are you attempting to claim that only a new person would point out an irrational hypocrite? I think you are the new guy.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[farble1670]

Lacking citations to back your seemingly false assertions, I do hope to see an apology for the slander. I have no expectation mind you, but I am occasionally incorrect judging character.

^^^ you said that.

no, i'm not submitting this to a journal of science. you caught me. just my opinion based on reading the article.

the fact that you are suggesting i apologize for slander either means you are being ironic, or you are very out of touch with reality.

i stand by what i wrote. the article is a capitalist rant about how workers don't need or deserve any rights written by an out-of-touch elitist. i don't claim to know that this applies to Ellen Pao, i suspect it doesn't.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[s.petry]

You failed to back your assertion regarding another person's thoughts. I realize that reading and comprehension are "hard", but nowhere does the author make the claims you said they did. You took them so out of context that you could not even follow the text _YOU_ had quoted.

Your next assertion is that facts only matter if you are submitting your opinion (delusional or not) to a specific source. What pure genius that gem is! I'm sure that Fox News would be happy that you have the same opinion they do.. it's "entertainment" that counts even if your opinion is wrong and damages other people.

You stand by what you wrote because you are a hypocrite, as well as an idiot. Good job not using punctuation and grammar as well, proving that you are a triple threat.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[farble1670]

You failed to back your assertion regarding another person's thoughts.

nothing i said is contradicted in the article. end of story. you can read between the lines about what the author meant or really thinks. that's up to you, have fun.

Re:Pot meets Kettle, only worse!

[s.petry]

Yes, it is contradicted. I gave you the contradiction not once, but on three separate occasions. Your ~oh woe as me, I can't afford to start a business~ (paraphrased) rant omitted exactly half of her text, in fact it was the FIRST half of what you quoted. The remainder of the article is not extremism, it's about using market pressure to find normalcy over time because "law" is not the problem.

Yeah yeah, reading and comprehension is not your strong point. Baseless allegations and poor communications skills, those are.

agree with one part of that

[raymorris]

Based on the technical women I've worked with, I have to agree with one thing you said:

Women comprise over 50% of population and any ... that can tap that ... suddenly has a tremendous advantantage

Kidding, of course. Seriously, what you said is true not only of countries, but of COMPANIES. Companies who hire and promote people who do well have a tremendous, almost insurmountable advantage. A company who wasted half of their good people and good candidates would quickly be beat by the competition. Therefore, tremendous successful companies like Google MUST be promoting people who are both technically and with "people skills", employees who work well with others. If Google systematically ignored half the available talent, Apple or Microsoft would wipe the floor with them. They'd never had gotten this big because Yahoo would have had twice as many really good people. Therefore natural forces are such that companies that identify and nurture effective people (effective technically and as a team member) will grow and will win.

Re:N4N?

[TechyImmigrant]

. . . and if anyone wants to file an editor gender suit . . . Bill Joy wrote vi . . .

Are you saying it's unfair that the person who wrote emacs isn't a woman?

Re:One more view.

[Jane Q. Public]

Absolutely loving the reasoning here. There are two possible outcomes.

False dichotomy.

I am not much interested THAT Pao lost the suit. I am interested in WHY she lost the suit.

Until we know that, all other bets are off. You're guessing, and your guesses are probably not correct.

Re:One more view.

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Whoosh.

Holding up the Sheldon Cooper sarcasm sign.

Re:One more view.

[serviscope_minor]

What reasoning?

You just made up that ludicrous collection of logical fallacies all by your self. If it's anyone's reasoning therefore then it's yours.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[serviscope_minor]

Ah, so Martin Luther King and Gandhi are assholes and douchebags!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

Well, if I have to be lumped together with those, well, that's a quite amazing complement and one I'm not sure I deserve, but what the hell!

She was comfortable around men.

[Futurepower(R)]

She had a not-showy manner of dressing that looked both excellent and comfortable.

She was comfortable around men. Men accepted her as someone with whom they could talk.

Most women in the U.S. show by their manner that they aren't comfortable around men.

Re:One more view.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda like "global warming," where any change in the weather (or any lack of change in the weather) is cited as proof. A Venn diagram of SJWs vs. warmistas would, I suspect, have a very high degree of overlap.

It's kinda like making up random, untrue bullshit and posting it on the internet, like claiming that climate change theory supporters use any change in the weather to support their theory.

Re:One more view.

[drinkypoo]

Ars Technica just lost my respect

Welcome to the party, it began several years ago.

Please tell me you already feel this way about Gawker.

Re:One more view.

[elrous0]

I've been here a while too. Long enough to remember when /. was so reflexively liberal and dogmatic that only one voice on any topic was ever heard. That wasn't such a great place for those of us whose views are more nuanced, who don't just parrot the party line. Here are some harsh truths that never got a voice in those days:

Not every allegation of sexism/racism/rape/etc. is true.

White, heterosexual, American males are not responsible for all evil in the world.

Sometimes conservatives are wrong, but sometimes they're right too.

It's not okay to support censorship when it comes to Islam unless you're also okay with supporting censorship when it comes to Christianity. Judaism, Hinduism, etc. too.

Bill Gates isn't a Borg and sometimes does some good in the world. Conversely, Steve Jobs isn't a flawless god, and did some bad things in his life.

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Re:One more view.

[Bing Tsher E]

Global Warming is a man?

(It's more of a Mann, actually.)

Re:One more view.

[elrous0]

Ars Technica just lost my respect and readership. If they can be this biased toward their agenda even when the facts are obviously to the contrary, they can't be trusted to report on anything.

If you think Ars Technica is bad, you should have read Wired's coverage of the case. Davey Alba was all but wearing a cheerleading outfit for Pao.

Re:N4N?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

No, but he should be forced to dress like a woman, on odd or even days, depending on whether his birthday is odd or even.

That is my simple and effective cure for sexual diversity in IT. Half the time men will be forced to dress as women, and women be forced to dress like men. Hey, presto, when someone from the government comes to do a headcount, he or she will find an equal number of men and women. Problem solved.

Jesse Jackson can be placated by having a whites wear black face and blacks wear white face policy, as well.

The most fun would be the Native American Indian role: You get to turn your cubicle into a steamy, smoky sweat box, while consuming hallucinogenic Peyote.

Um.. investors are used to this

[rsilvergun]

and there are several such lawsuits going on, they're just a bit smaller scale because this one involved a really, really rich lady. It also made the news during a slow news cycle. Really, it's not that big a deal. Investors don't care. Everywhere's a political minefield. Shit happens.

Re:One more view.

[Your.Master]

And even when pointing out glaring hypocrisies: there are several branches of feminism, and the particular one you are debating does not support that particular contradiction.

Isn't this obviously true?

Surely you can't deny that there are non-feminists who engage in human trafficking for sexual slavery. Thus, not being a feminist means you support sexual slavery. Right?

Or are there multiple branches of non-feminism?

Re:One more view.

[ganjadude]

while you are right about them being infested, i can honestly say that every bit of reporting over there seemed to be as neutral as possible, especially with those facts in play.

Re:One more view.

[zapadnik]

Great post.

ps. the cure for Islam is not censorship, it is telling the truth. And the truth is that Islam is man-made and invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik *after* the time Mohammed was said to have died. If you defeat the Narrative of Islamic ideology then the whole thing falls apart, including the motivation for the current worldwide jihad and the transformation of Western culture to be more Sharia-compliant.

As always, the answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. But the more speech has to be knowledgeable and decisive to counter the bad speech. We can defeat the jihadi but we have to know the truth about it. Tom Holland's "In the Shadow of the Sword" is a good place to start, or some of the talks by jay Smith (who is a Christian so he has 'skin in the game', but the Christians seem to be paying attention while most geeks are not):
"An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings - Jay Smith" [72 mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As an evidence-based person you might find the video interesting, especially the satellite imagery that shows the narrative of orthodox Islam cannot be true. Making this knowledge widely available is how we defeat the global jihad without resorting to the evils of censorship.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[SirLordGodfrey]

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi were not "Social Justice Warriors". They were activists willing to do a lot, sacrifice a lot, to attain equal rights peacefully. A "Social Justice Warrior" is someone that claims to be fighting the good fight, but it's just a thin veneer over their massive ego, self-entitlement, and their own form of "jewelry". They usually hail from a very comfortable lifestyle both growing up and now, and are just charlatans trying to profit from controversy. Their motives are fame and power, not altruism and a capability to empathize. To summarize - An activist may fight, and even win, to get government buildings to have wheelchair access ramps, so that paraplegics and quadriplegics can more easily access said buildings (or even to make it a part of building codes for private businesses, etc). A "Social Justice Warrior" would instead, rather, remove the stairs to look like they were doing something worthwhile and of the belief it may hurt the feelings of the disabled.

PP seems to have a... "filtered" view of things...

[denzacar]

The proper verdict would have been to destroy both the KP partners and Pao as they all horrible human beings.
...
The partner (?)...
...
given to a loser...
...
Indian sleazebag...
...
an utter whore and slut...
...
All I can say is, "Kill them with fire. All of them."

As for this part:

1. The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.

http://recode.net/2015/02/25/a...

And about that Al Gore dinner, Chien said that only 10 people could fit in the former vice president's living room, and only three of them were affiliated with Kleiner Perkins. Pao herself had actually suggested some invitees who were male: The CEOs of Yelp and Dropbox.

Chien insisted he'd never said anything about women killing the buzz. "Absolutely not," he said. Pao's filing was "the first time I had ever heard of the phrase."

And about the all-guy ski trip? Chien said he'd actually invited fellow Kleiner colleague Mary Meeker, but she couldn't make it. And besides, she has her own house in the area, he said.

...
Could Path founder Dave Morin invite a female entrepreneur from a Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers portfolio company on the firm's 2012 ski trip to Colorado, organized by then senior partner Chi-Hua Chien?

He could not, Chien said. As he explained in an email at the time, "The issue is that we are staying in condos, and I was thinking that gents wouldn't mind sharing, but gals might. Why don't we punt on her and find 2 guys who are awesome. We can add 4-8 women next year."
There were no women on the 2012 ski trip, and there would be no ski trip the next year.

Re:One more view.

[Jane Q. Public]

It is all in the TFA, folks, please read it from time to time.

I did read TFA, thanks very much. I was asking WHY her claims were rejected. We already knew THAT they were rejected.

Your comment adds nothing to the "why?"

Re:N4N?

[Mashiki]

Why do I get the funny feeling that if you were on twitter or facebook, the first thing you'd to is tell women and minorities in #gamergate that they're: misogynists, uncle toms, house niggers, they're ignorant, or they're too stupid to know what's best for them. Since your post acutely reflects what many aGGros say when someone says something that differs from their preconceived notions.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[serviscope_minor]

A social justice warrior is...

[citation needed]

SJW is a term meaning "shit I hate on the internet", and is wielded as an insult by various people. As such is wildly inconsistent. If, however you look at people, real or imagined, that actually fight for social justice, then the picture is quite different.

Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S

[theArtificial]

Gandhi refused to let British doctors give his wife a life-saving shot of penicillin, on the grounds that she should not have alien substances injected in her body. This was a death sentence for her. And yet he was willing to accept quinine when he himself later contracted malaria. He also let British doctors perform an appendectomy on him, another alien intrusion to be sure.

Anti-Western, or post-colonial, intellectuals and activists bring up the West's rap sheet not because we were uniquely complicit in slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, but because we are uniquely vulnerable to such guilt mongering. "I think it would be a good idea," Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi famously replied when asked what he thought of Western civilization, as if Indian civilization was without sin. To this day, left-wing poseurs have this line stuck to their refrigerators or use it for yearbook quotes as if it is a brilliantly insightful and humorous bon mot, when in reality the joke is on them.

Gandhi was in many respects the pioneer of exploiting Western self-loathing. For many pacifists, "What Would Gandhi Do?" is a more important question than "What would Jesus Do?" and for good reason. Jesus did believe that violent self-defense was sometimes justified (that's why he instructed his followers to carry swords). Gandhi did not.

Undoubtedly one of the most idiosyncratic world leaders in modern memory. Particularly given the prevalence of New Age pieties these days, he has become a saint of sorts. A true ascetic, Gandhi voluntarily eschewed luxurious pleasures. He found satisfaction in more humble pastimes. Indeed, among his greatest joys and fascinations was the successful bowel movement.

Paul Johnson notes that the first question he asked of his female attendants every morning was "Did you have a good bowel movement?" One of his favorite books, which e reread often, was Constipation and Our Civilization. Deprived of a sense of smell, which no doubt impaired his sense of taste his vegetarian diet was centered around the goal of a successful digestive cycle.

His advice on both personal diet and public agriculture was not merely impractical and gloomy. Had his ideas been translated into public policy they would have subjected millions of Indians to even worse starvation and even more pervasive poverty than they were already enduring. Gandhi's social and economic vision was perhaps best described as Tolkienesque. Technology was the enemy of decency, the perfect political unit was the Arcadian village, a subcontinental Shire where, instead of hobbits, Hindus would work individually on their tiny looms.

Of course, you would not know this from the film that helped cement the Gandhian legend. For instance, in Gandhi the movie, audiences are led to believe that his first hunger strike was to protest the British police's horrific slaughter of a crowd of peaceful Indian protesters. But Gandhi's first hunger strike was devoted to protesting a British effort to grand the Untouchables-India's lowest and most oppressed caste-greater rights and freedoms, including providing them with access to a form of affirmative action. That wouldn't play as well on the big screen, alas.

The filmmakers were merely picking up on a practice begun by the British foreign office. Simply put, Gandhi was a creature of the system he sought to overthrow. For years the British Empire used Gandhi as the most convenient nationalist. Unlike other anti-colonial activists, Gandhi worked assiduously to prevent violence. "The true oddity," writes Richard Grenier, "is that Gandhi, this holy man, having drawn from British sources his notions of nationalism and democracy, also absorbed from the British his model of virtue in public life. He was a historical original, a Hindu holy man that a British model of public service and dazzling advances in mass communications thrust out into the world, to become a great moral leader and the 'father of his country'."

Gandhi's accomplishments were great, but absent the con

On the other hand...

[Mr2001]

A study on anonymous hiring practices in France showed that anonymization resulted in fewer minority candidates getting hired. Their explanation is essentially that the companies who care enough about diversity to participate in this sort of study are already subtly biased in favor of minority candidates, and anonymization put a stop to it. Considering the amount of focus big tech companies are putting on diversity, there's a fair chance the same thing is happening here too.

Re:One more view.

[tehcyder]

Tech is filled with manginas and blue pilled guys.

And men with the emotional, social and verbal sophistication of a twelve year old boy who's just had his first beer.

Re:One more view.

[tehcyder]

I've been here a while too. Long enough to remember when /. was so reflexively liberal and dogmatic that only one voice on any topic was ever heard.

You must only ever have visited when all the US readers were asleep then.

Re:One more view.

[tehcyder]

ps. the cure for Islam is not censorship, it is telling the truth. And the truth is that Islam is man-made and invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik *after* the time Mohammed was said to have died. If you defeat the Narrative of Islamic ideology then the whole thing falls apart, including the motivation for the current worldwide jihad and the transformation of Western culture to be more Sharia-compliant

All religions are man-made inventions, with an ethical and theological system built on sand.

Except your own, of course.

Re:One more view.

[tehcyder]

I think he means the way Ars is basically tumblr these days. And yeah, there is a huge contingent both in the userbase and the people running it that promotes social justice ideals at the cost of anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity.

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who uses "social justice" or SJW as an insult.

Re:feminazi

[tehcyder]

does the using this word qualify for Godwin's law?

No, it just makes you sound like a stupid fucking arsebiscuit.

Re:One more view.

[zapadnik]

I'm an atheist. Your assumption is false. However, Islam is uniquely evil, deceptive and totalitarian (it claims to apply to believers and non-believers) - thus it must be resisted by all Free Men.