Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to provide some links to what you think the case IS about? I'm addressing points raised in the submitted article and the article I provided a link to. How am I being misleading?
Cherry-picking.
[deleted]
The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
51–60 of 81 posts
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#52"Tracy DiNunzio, chief executive officer of Tradesy, an online fashion site in which Kleiner Perkins has invested, says she was recently told by a male chief executive officer that he doesn’t know how to talk to female colleagues any more and that it’s become too easy to say the wrong thing. The case "may make it harder for men to feel free to give women the kinds of constructive criticism that men receive regularly and that they benefit from," she says."
I found this paragraph to be the most interesting. We're clearly moving from a sexist world to a less sexist world. The transition involves moving norms of what's acceptable and that's creating a lot of angst for both men and women. The above paragraph (and the one before it in the article) represent one common response "Why can't it just be like it was before?" but there's no going backward. Eventually we'll settle at a new equilibrium but Sandy's book and this trial and some other events will be viewed as pivotal moments when they write the textbooks in 20 to 30 years.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an affair with one married coworker doesn't give other coworkers license to hit on you. The argument you're using is basically, "She slept with someone else, so why should other people not expect to be able to get to have privileged relationships with her too?" And even if you ignore that, you obviously shouldn't be hitting on people at work.
> Having an affair with one married coworker doesn't give other coworkers license to hit on you. Coworkers don't need a license, because it's not illegal to make a pass at a coworker. > you obviously shouldn't be hitting on people at work. "Hitting on" is a crude way to describe buying a gift. Is love now banned at work?
I don't even make friendships at work anymore, given the ugly fallout that can result from something negative in the friendship impacting a professional relationship. It is wise to completely disconnect your professional life and private one in this climate, as this Pao case demonstrates in some ways.
Drinks with the team? Sure, but I leave after one. Gifts to a coworker and an invitation to dinner? Not a chance. It's just too unpredictable no matter what you mean by it. I respect my coworkers enough not to force them into ambiguity with me as a person. Personal relationships have so many opportunities to go south. Why would I complicate my workplace?
Is that unfair? Maybe. I'm not there to make friends. Silicon Valley is pretty bad at this in general. The last thing I want to do on a weekend anyway is see the same people I see all week and do something social, and have to pretend that business stays at the office.
You should try it. I haven't been burnt out for years, like I was when I left work only to go socialize with the same people. It was like living in Groundhog Day. The startups that force this culture on its employees are part of the problem. I do not devote my life to a company. I'm sorry.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I downvoted you, because you purported to summarize the case for readers who haven't been following it, and then provided a very misleading summary. Pao's case does not revolve around delayed reviews, or who took notes in meetings. One needn't have an opinion about the merits of Pao's case to have a negative opinion about the merits of this summary.
What is your concise summary of the biggest accusation that demands justice ? I fail to understand from the bloomberg article as it seems to make all accusations petty and even harmful to her case.
it's really not that hard
Pao and her supervisor hooked up. She stopped fucking him and he retaliated (illegal). She complained to the head of the firm and he didn't stop the retaliation (also illegal).
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cherry-picking.
Please supply the missing information then. I want to be as accurate as possible! I'm not cherry picking, just pointing to actual points being raised in these articles.
It's ok to be uninformed about a random legal case. You don't have a duty to be informed about Pao. What's not OK is to casually and incorrectly declare yourself informed and then to provide an opinionated summary based on that false credential, which is what you've managed to do here.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because the collective assumes Valentine's Day to be of importance has no bearing on my interactions. In fact, my SO and I do NOT celebrate Valentine's day. At all. My SO also goes out drinking with other men. Without me. In private. Why bring any of this up? Because I do not condemn expressions of affection just because the collective makes some childish assumption that grown adults must feel one emotion at a t…
The argument you reject social norms and have no responsibility to communicate effectively with people who embrace social norms is absurd.
Not my argument. I'm saying that social norms have failed and to hold them up as some infallible moral authority of how we should conduct ourselves is absurb. I will not let Generation Helicopter Parent dictate what emotions are acceptable and which ones aren't... especially since they themselves have ZERO experience with emotional nuance and leadership.
You go treat people like robots for administrative ease and CYA legalisms, and I'll go treat people like complex humans capable of handling their own lives. Let's see who gets to the top first.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an affair with one married coworker doesn't give other coworkers license to hit on you. The argument you're using is basically, "She slept with someone else, so why should other people not expect to be able to get to have privileged relationships with her too?" And even if you ignore that, you obviously shouldn't be hitting on people at work.
> Having an affair with one married coworker doesn't give other coworkers license to hit on you. Coworkers don't need a license, because it's not illegal to make a pass at a coworker. > you obviously shouldn't be hitting on people at work. "Hitting on" is a crude way to describe buying a gift. Is love now banned at work?
> Coworkers don't need a license, because it's not illegal to make a pass at a coworker.
I never said anything about legality. Ethics should not strictly be a reflection of laws, laws should be a reflection of ethics. Using laws as the only things that guide your ethical decisions works fine if you want to be a major asshole to people, but not if you want to exist in a healthy community.
> "Hitting on" is a crude way to describe buying a gift. Is love now banned at work?
This isn't about "love" being "banned" at work or anything, this is about what constitutes appropriate behavior. You should try to not make things uncomfortable for others. The immediate personal cost you incur when you work to make a group of people less uncomfortable is tiny compared to the costs that they have to deal with from society handing them a raw deal, and it can help a lot.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an affair with one married coworker doesn't give other coworkers license to hit on you. The argument you're using is basically, "She slept with someone else, so why should other people not expect to be able to get to have privileged relationships with her too?" And even if you ignore that, you obviously shouldn't be hitting on people at work.
> The argument you're using is basically, "She slept with someone else, so why should other people not expect to be able to get to have privileged relationships with her too?" Actually, the argument is "She slept with someone else, so why shouldn't I be allowed to see if she's interested in sleeping with me?"
> Actually, the argument is "She slept with someone else, so why shouldn't I be allowed to see if she's interested in sleeping with me?"
Finding out if she's interested in sleeping with you is a privileged relationship. You don't just find that out from random coworkers. The "privileged relationship" I was referring to was one where you get to find that sort of thing out, not one where you automatically get to sleep with them.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please supply the missing information then. I want to be as accurate as possible! I'm not cherry picking, just pointing to actual points being raised in these articles.
It's ok to be uninformed about a random legal case. You don't have a duty to be informed about Pao. What's not OK is to casually and incorrectly declare yourself informed and then to provide an opinionated summary based on that false credential, which is what you've managed to do here.
Aside from Anechoic who gave a very appreciated correction to my comment, not a single person has provided any additional information.
You keep saying I'm uninformed but you've not provided any information to this discussion. Please do! I want to know more.
Re: The Ellen Pao Trial and Silicon Valley
#60I don't think this trial has much to do with larger women in tech issues. There's a lot of politics at play for ALL employees of VC firms and this doesn't sound any different. If you've been following all of the coverage of this case, Pao isn't coming off well. She states that it was discriminatory that she didn't get her review on time. Unprofessional to have a delayed review? Yes. Gender harassment? No. Instead of…
The Kleiner Perkins pre-trial brief also implied that the case was launched due to Pao's husband's money problems.
"F. Pao Files A Complaint Full of Unnecessary and Salacious Details
In May 2012, Pao filed this lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, retaliation (for allegedly complaining that Nazre sexually harassed her in 2007), and failure to prevent discrimination. Simultaneously, Pao’s husband, Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher Jr., filed for bankruptcy on behalf of his hedge fund Fletcher Asset Management (“PAM”) when PAM failed to pay back pension funds that requested reimbursement of their investments.8 The appointed bankruptcy trustee ultimately issued a report stating that PAM had not had a single profitable investment since 2007 (the year Fletcher married Pea) and had committed several improper acts..."
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/256174...