71–80 of 577 posts
> One day, I was part of a small group flying from San Francisco to New York on the private jet I am sure life is very difficult for women in Sillicon Valley, but could we start talking about other issues? 99.999% people are less privileged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't find it remotely hard to believe that Ellen Pao's recounting of her experience in the world of venture capital is far from the truth Can you clarify this? I'm confused because it seems at odds with the rest of your post.
I read it as "our biases are subconscious". A lot of the white men being jerks to their female and ethnic minority colleagues aren't aware they're doing it, or if they are it's justified because it's a "meritocracy" and the techbros ascribe significantly more merit to whiteness and especially maleness.
I've seen so many accusations of sexism in tech by now that I tire of it. When investigated, it seems to always boil down to one of two things:
1. Some guy hit on me and I thought it was gross^Wharassment.
2. I feel a general aura of sexism that I can't pin down or concretely identify but I'm sure it's there, so I've become instantly triggered by mundane things.
All too often the latter feels like women (and male feminists) on a power trip. The feelings of being offended aren't real, it's just a way to convince/force others to do what they want.
I'm thinking of cases like the dongle incident for that. A trivial remark over nothing that led to guys getting fired. But the Damore memo is another good example. Guy points out that lots of scientists think men and women have different interests for genetic reasons, so maybe we should be more willing to discuss that -> outrage, firings, power successfully exercised. Nobody is ever actually offended by science, or even abstract arguments about science and politics, even if they may claim to be. The offence is manufactured to meet an end goal: the punishment of those who do not bow to the power of the ideology.
There was a really interesting comment (turning into a thread) about the double standards of women but I can't find it anywhere anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an odd criticism to make. She's stating that his arrogance and marital status made him unattractive, as he was coming on to her. A perfectly valid way to feel, no?
Rejecting his advances was fine. What disturbed me is that given different circumstances she would have dated him without second thoughts and suddenly "harassment" becomes a healthy relationship. It means that similar actions would end up in different outcomes. Then where is the line between the harassment and non-harassment?
Clearly the conversation on the airplane, private jet or not, was inappropriate.
To your other point, If she would have dated him under different circumstances, if those different circumstances had existed then his request for her company at dinner (aka a date) would most likely not have been unwelcome or unwanted. Most mature women will not cry harassment if asked to dinner and they turn the individual down and the individual accepts said rejection without further pursuit or retaliation for the rejection. Again, I said most, not all or none, but most. This is the reason that many companies have no workplace relationship rules.
Personally speaking, I do not care how handsome you are, if you show up at my hotel room door in a bathrobe without me having invited you (and even if I had what makes you think you were invited for sex so why are you in your bathrobe?) and you work in a position that can exercise power over my employment, you are not exercising good judgment at all. Why would you not think that your actions might be unwelcome or unwanted?
One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of worries me how most comments take the allegations for granted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "paid army of trolls" would definitely explain the campaign against her. She banned a number of subreddits, including /r/fatpeoplehate and revengeporn. A move that strikes pretty deep at what people consider to be an open platform where votes define everything. Subsequently she fired Victoria Taylor, an incredibly popular moderator at /r/ama. This combined with the perceived idea that threads discussing these issue…
The way she was treated, though, was disgusting. I have zero doubt that her gender/ethnicity was a major motivating factor for the majority of people involved in this backlash and that a white male in the same position would have pretty much gotten a pass from the same people. /r/fatpeoplehate and /r/revengeporn where two incredibly toxic subreddits, and I was personally happy to see them go.
I agree, but we were discussing motive. It's not unfair to expect reddit's leadership to have some insight into its userbase.
If I took ownership of vogue tomorrow and introduced articles about bmx racing, that would be a dumb move. I could complain that the readership doesn't understand bmx racing - but ultimately I hurt the bottom line.
Are some comments moderated (deleted without the deleted mention)? There was a really interesting comment (turning into a thread) about the double standards of women but I can't find it anywhere anymore.
An interesting read. Though, for me, VC in general is not the kind of job that favors people who are nice. When people are rude to you, or try to use you, there's a multitude of ways you can interpret that. For Ellen, it's sexism. What baffled me was that in the opening paragraphs she felt the need to point out that the powerful men were white. For me, it set the tone for the whole article, and painted a clear pictur…
One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of worries me how most comments take the allegations for granted.
Interesting read. I wonder if the "paid army of trolls" she mentions followed her to Reddit. That would definitely explain the campaign against her.
> "paid army of trolls" Unless she has proof, it's a conspiracy theory, "trolls" don't need to be paid to be trolls. People are naturally mean on the internet. Especially on reddit. So trolls paid by whom to do what? she didn't lose her lawsuit because of people on the internet. She lost because she didn't have a case.