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