Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
bloomberg.com
Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#2"This isn’t to say that sexism or sexual harassment is acceptable, or that Pao should tolerate it, or that Kleiner Perkins shouldn’t take action against wrongdoers. It is to suggest that there is a cost to remedying the problem with showcase litigation."
Completely obvious conclusion here and it makes one wonder why the author spent so much time talking about how this is bad for business.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#3"This isn’t to say that sexism or sexual harassment is acceptable, or that Pao should tolerate it, or that Kleiner Perkins shouldn’t take action against wrongdoers. It is to suggest that there is a cost to remedying the problem with showcase litigation." Completely obvious conclusion here and it makes one wonder why the author spent so much time talking about how this is bad for business.
Indeed. That the author spends an entire article talking about how it's bad for business suggests that sexism or sexual harassment is acceptable, that Pao should tolerate it, or that Kleiner Perkins shouldn't take action against wrongdoers.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#4Wow, this is an insane article. To suggest that a women, just because she is a women, shouldn't bring harrasement lawsuits beacause that would make all women seem uppity is so antiquated.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#5The thing I find most amusing about this article comes from considering the source. The writer is a right-wing economist whose current job is for the George W. Bush Center.
One of the right's favorite techniques for pushing against regulation is by giving people the right of private action through lawsuit. But now we see that if you actually use that right, well gosh, you're hurting women everywhere.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#6Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the questionable premise is true.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when an action is bad for 'class X which I happen to belong to' but right for me personally, I'm still going to take the action that's right for me personally. I don't know why Ellen Pao (or women in general, or any other group) should be expected to behave any differently.
A weak column by a normally strong writer.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#7This article could be republished verbatim in The Onion.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#8Holy shit this kind of crap should NEVER be on HN.
Please, everyone do HN, and your careers, a huge favor by flagging this article and NOT commenting.
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#9"They see how much Pao, still merely alleging, is costing a firm such as Kleiner Perkins: time, image and distraction from its main work, finding value."
If Kleiner Perkins practices sexism and/or sexual harassment, then they brought theses costs on themselves.
Forget the suit costing these things. The practice of sexism and sexual harassment by themselves costs "time, image, and distraction from its main work, finding value."
Re: Women Win in Venture Capital When They Don't Sue
#10Holy shit this kind of crap should NEVER be on HN. Please, everyone do HN, and your careers, a huge favor by flagging this article and NOT commenting.
I actually think there is some value in pointing out a bad article and slamming it, and from what I can tell by the comments so far that is just what's happening. Similar to learning from failures there is something to be learned from reading bad arguments, so long as it's understood to be bad.