Slashdot Mirror


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.

50 of 365 comments (clear)

  1. Re:One more view. by fey000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  2. The perfect summary of the case: by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?"

    1. Re:The perfect summary of the case: by taustin · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:The perfect summary of the case: by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:The perfect summary of the case: by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  3. Re:N4N? by ADRA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!".

    --
    Bye!
  4. Re:One more view. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:One more view. by ckatko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Wouldn't Want To Be In The Same Room With Her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:One more view. by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  8. This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    2. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    4. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      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.

    5. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re:This whole issue needs to be buried by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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-(

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  9. Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  10. Re:N4N? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  11. Re:One more view. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Pao is like her husband with lawsuits by Sara+Chan · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  13. That seems correct. Mod parent UP. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:That seems correct. Mod parent UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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?

  14. Re:Wasn't it 3 out of 4 claims denied? by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  15. Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Lost in court? Can still win and make some money by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Damage has been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Damage has been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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."

    2. Re:Damage has been done by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Damage has been done by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?"

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Damage has been done by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Damage has been done by rjlieb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  18. Re: One more view. by dpidcoe · · Score: 2

    watermelons are my trigger you insensitive clod!

  19. Re:One more view. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. Re:One more view. by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  21. Re:slashdot - daily news about whiny bitches and S by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    FTFY

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  22. It will be interesting... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    Those $16 million would have probably come in handy.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  23. Yes, it is important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

    1. Re: Yes, it is important by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      And why is THAT important?

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

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  24. Is this suprising? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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?

    1. Re:Is this suprising? by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      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.

  25. Re:N4N? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Troll

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  26. Re:One more view. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  27. Re:One more view. by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  28. The unkempt person in the high level meeting... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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".

  29. Re:One more view. by Nemyst · · Score: 2

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

  30. agree with one part of that by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  31. She was comfortable around men. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    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.

  32. Re:One more view. by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  33. On the other hand... by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.