Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won't - <AUTHOR> https://www.thecut.com/2017/08/ellen-pao-silicon-valley-sexism-reset-excerpt.html <comment><USER6> All: this article was flagged but we've turned the flags off because it contains significant new information. Threads about sexism have upticked in contentiousness lately—as has everything else, it seems—so would everyone please take care to follow these rules?

1\. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all;

2\. If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.

Yes, there's redundancy there; we appear to need it.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> Articles like this really make me aware that men and women like Ellen Pao and her former partners live in a separate parallel world: three degrees, $10 million golden parachutes, private jet flights to ski resorts, affairs with a creepy married co-worker in Germany, machismo-driven muscling for VC connections, bisexual finance wizards who kickstart an Ivy-League LGBT program, dominance games over which chair an exec sits in, PR firms hired to smear uppity former partners... it's like a movie.

I worry that the media looks at cases like this as typical of the experience of women in tech, and downplays the impact of obvious and unobjectionable steps like "recruit junior devs from the ranks of biology grads" and "give expectant mothers maternity leave" because systemic changes aren't as interesting as diversity training or a VC partner's lawsuit.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, that really struck me as well.

I've been in tech for close to 20 years now. I get paid pretty well compared to the national average pay, and globally speaking it's off the charts.

But the figures and activities mentioned there are completely alien to me. This is the (a?) world of high finance and I can't relate to it.

I've seen a lot of casual and systemic sexism in the tech industry, in the trenches and at the coal face so to speak. I think it's often this that is the focus of criticism of the industry as a whole, and I think it's this that's a valid criticism of the tech industry.

To be absolutely clear - From what I've read here, Ellen Pao was treated really, really badly and has a whole litany of valid complaints, I just don't recognise the business painted here to be "tech".

<comment><USER9> " _I just don 't recognise the business painted here to be "tech"._"

Perhaps. But those VCs and CEOs and COOs are your bosses. Just as engineering cannot be divorced from the effects of what is built,"tech" is hard to separate from it's own environment. And it appears that the same antics continue down the stack.

<comment><USER10> > But those VCs and CEOs and COOs are your bosses.

No, they aren't. I don't mean to be hostile here, but I object _strongly_ to the implicit assumption that 'tech' means "heavily Sandhill-funded software companies operating in the Valley".

I've worked at several software companies, some good, some bad. But I, like a very large portion of American 'tech' workers or even 'CS-degree bearing programmers', have never actually worked for a Silicon Valley company, much less one with major VC financing, much less one where VC culture has shaped everyone else's environment.

That's not to deny that there can be a very real issue here. But as an example, banking has similar serious issues at the top, and I wouldn't assume that every realtor's office, even ones ultimately tied to Merrill Lynch, had the same issues. Even if a realtor did have issues with sexism and discrimination, I think it would be unreasonable to assume that they came from what happened at the top carrying 'down the stack'.

I think it does a real disservice to 'tech' in general to understand it entirely in light of people like Travis Kalanick and Justin Caldbeck. I think it even does a disservice to efforts to fight sexism and harassment; the behavior of the richest and most powerful people in tech seems to have more in common with the rich and powerful of other industries than the rank-and-file of tech.

And I worry that this concept of trickle-down misbehavior will do exactly what the top comment points out - obscure everyday issues and opportunities in favor of a focus on a small group that's behaving quite differently, and can't be easily improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's easy to get hung up on the particulars of Pao's story and get sidetracked into defending or judging her, but I feel that is besides the point. I am more interested in the wider notion of why she wrote this article: to point out that sexism in tech is a thing, and that it shouldn't be.

I'm wondering though: is this just about sexism, or is it about professionalism and maturity? Getting hit on by someone higher up the hierarchy than you can make it impossible to do your job, so that behavior is clearly unprofessional. But getting yelled at by your boss for shipping a bug is also unprofessional, and can also make it a toxic work environment. I'm not saying the two are the same, just that both are examples of unprofessional behavior that many places will tolerate.

Isn't it time we have conversations about what it means to be a professional in tech? Maybe other industries suffer less from these things because they have a longer history and have more guild-like working practices, where professional behavior is more clearly defined. In tech people get away with wildly unprofessional behavior as long as "they get stuff done", and personally I never felt that was acceptable.

Maybe this stuff is also sort of everywhere. Plenty of industries have toxic working relationships. Why isn't professionalism part of standard education tracks? I studied CS and I never learned about what it means to be a professional software developer. How do you have productive conversations with coworkers? How do you organize your work effectively? All of these things you're supposed to figure out on your own, but looking around I can tell that mostly people never do, or only do so after decades of getting it wrong.

<comment><USER12> > In tech people get away with wildly unprofessional behavior as long as "they > get stuff done", and personally I never felt that was acceptable.

As a decent software developer, if my less talented co-workers, or, god forbid, some HR-type, started telling me constantly about how I needed to be more "professional", I would hand in my resignation the next day and go somewhere that didn't absolutely suck to work.

<comment><USER13> If I understand your reply correctly, you mean to say that it's acceptable to be a total douchebag as long as you are "talented"?

<comment><USER14> I think you don't understand it correctly, and I wonder how you can interpret it that way.

I read the point that being "professional" is also about being able to do good programming work and take responsibility for what you do technically - <USER2> just appearing at the office at the right time, being courteous to other people and accepting HR buzzwords and policies and opinions without question.

<comment><USER11> My definition of professionalism is about treating your coworkers and customers with respect and empathy, and doing the work with dedication and craftsmanship.

Appearing at the office at the right time is unnecessary just for appearance's sake, but can be a factor in respecting and empathizing with coworkers, for example to be available for questions. It is usually not that important in the grand scheme of things.

<comment><USER15> > treating your coworkers and customers with respect and empathy

This can be as subjective as the word professionalism. People _always_ use their own value judgement in these things - whether it's deciding if something is professional, or not, or if something is respectful, or not.

Sometimes, you _do_ have to just follow rules, for the sake of it, because there is no standard in personal value.

<comment><USER16> I don't think anyone would disagree that being respectful is a "professional" quality. "The staff was very professional." What imagery does that illicit? If you're like me, or just about anyone else I've ever heard use the term, polite is one of the first words that springs to mind.

It doesn't matter if you get your work done. There are a hundred other people who can get your work done and do it without being a dick.

Note: I'm not calling _you_ a dick. I just vehemently disagree with anyone who thinks they get to be a dick (or, more generally, act however they please) just because, to borrow terminology from earlier comments, they're "talented".

<comment><USER15> Again, we just shift to the meaning of "being a dick", another subjective term.

If you want to pin down a concept, you can't just deal with easily categorised instances - the real distinctions exist in the grey areas.

There's a multi-dimensional gradient between polite and impolite, and where the thresholds lie is determined by personal value. Pick points far enough to either side, and most of those thresholds will fall within - but it is in the "grey area" that they disagree. That is why an arbitrary, but unambiguous threshold is needed as a standard.

<comment><USER16> There are arbitrary, unambiguous, agreed upon standards of politeness. You don't curse people out. You don't sexually harass women (or men, for that matter). You don't show up for work late every day, smelling like a brewery.

However, those are all things that I've personally seen these so-called "talented" individuals do, because they think their talent makes them immune from criticism. And, sure, that's just my own, anecdotal experience, but the very fact that it's also a widely-held stereotype of these types of people, I would wager that I'm not alone in having been confronted with these types of people.

This isn't a gray area. This is the basic idea of being professional, and it holds true between places where a suit and tie is mandatory and places where you can bring your dog to work every day.

And to be absolutely clear, this is a very Western-centric view. I simply _don't know_ enough to comment on how this applies to more Eastern work environments.

<comment><USER17> _There are arbitrary, unambiguous, agreed upon standards of politeness. You don 't curse people out._

This are unambiguous when you are interacting with people before you have established your own norms. It's possible for a healthy team to have a dynamic where cursing out bad code is completely acceptable, while cursing a person is not. The camaraderie built around breaking a social norm (cursing) can offset shock at violating the norm. However, that should change or be re-evaluated every time that norm is disturbed.

It's also possible to go 'too polite', to the point where criticism goes unsaid because you don't want to offend. That's just as toxic of a culture, it just leads to a much slower demise than the flame-outs you get from more visceral bad behaviors.

<comment><USER16> The thing is, I don't disagree. It_is_ possible to be too polite. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who, generally speaking, rub their workmates the wrong way. People who would rub just about _anyone_ the wrong way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think that it's really interesting that conversations about venture capital and conversations about engineering both get to be lumped into a more general conversation about sexism in Silicon Valley.

A lot of engineers have a good bit to say against the existence of widespread sexism in engineering, myself included. Engineering in computer science has long been represented by a nearly nonexistent barrier to entry outside of one's capabilities and their relevance to the position. Even traditional, and technically very relevant, lateral predictors to output are such as formal education, are largely ignored. Your accomplishments and capabilities interviewing are ultimately what get the hire, with very few exceptions. Anybody who has been in a hiring position can speak to the utilitarian pursuit of the placement; race and sex are the last thing on the mind come hiring time.

All of that being said, however, 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. I'm actually relatively certain that she's spared us a good bit of the details. But this isn't engineering, this is finance; quite rarely about the utility of any particular individual in a role, and almost entirely centered around pretty horrible characteristics. Cronyism is the most important characteristic in the club, trading favors, trading connections, looking the other way, getting away with this, getting away with that. The whole thing is a zero sum game, because nobody within is creating any value, you're only ever vying for a piece of the pie baked by the outsiders who actually produce things. As Pao points out, any partner you have largely considers you as a mechanism by which they are to have less investment capital available themselves, and any senior sees you as a way to bubble up the greatest picks for them to skim off the top.

The point is that the business is not about merit, it's about being in the club and playing ball. To deviate from the standards of the club just means you're less of a sure thing when it comes to being a crony, and it doesn't take much to understand why a woman is an outsider in a club like this.

So when we talk about sexism in Silicon Valley, let's please not conflate these two very different businesses. One of them is made up of worker bees, and we don't care what kind of bee you are as long as you're outputting honey. The other one is literally Wall Street pretending like it's anything but.

<comment><USER19> _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.

<comment><USER18> My point is that a lot of engineers get very annoyed when the topic of "sexism in Silicon Valley" is brought up, because anybody who is in a hiring position for specifically engineering knows exactly how utilitarian the hiring process is.

For positions and treatment of individuals working in venture capital, however, I don't imagine very many engineers would have much to weigh in on. So what I'm getting at is that I'm pointing out how overloaded the concept of "Silicon Valley" is. Engineering and venture capital are two completely different worlds with the same title slapped on them, and it makes it very frustrating when communicating about things like this. I sympathize with Pao, but the title of the article is literally "This Is How Sexism Works in Silicon Valley."

<comment><USER20> > My point is that a lot of engineers get very annoyed when the topic of > "sexism in Silicon Valley" is brought up, because anybody who is in a hiring > position for specifically engineering knows exactly how utilitarian the > hiring process is.

To me, that shows a stunning lack of personal awareness. I've done hiring in tech. I'm an engineer. I'm also a woman. And I know I'm biased against certain groups. I purposefully offset that by making sure there is some sort of measurement (usually a coding exercise) with as objective as possible metrics for judgement (I explicitly state the criteria they'll be judged on so they're aware) that dictates whether they move on to the next stage or not.

If I need to offset my subconscious biases as a woman in tech who spent many of her formative years living in different African countries, than I can only imagine the types of biases a white man who has lived primarily in the suburbs will need to be combatting.

For such a man to be "annoyed" because "anybody who is in a hiring position for specifically engineering knows exactly how utilitarian the hiring process is" is a major part of the problem. You can't correct for biases (often subconscious or quite subtle) you're refusing to acknowledge.

<comment><USER18> Your example of how you offset your bias is by establishing an objective metric via a coding exercise. That is literally the most common practice...

I have a series of technical questions that I ask a candidate specifically meant to isolate important technical abilities. Each of my questions almost obviously highlights one particular problem-solving ability that I expect from a quality engineer, and each question's answer is evaluated to ensure that that one specific criteria being met.

The objectivity by which I evaluate this is subject, from your perspective, because I've alerted you that I'm a white male. However, you know literally nothing about me, the questions I ask, or my primary motive when seeking an employee. I am the director of engineering at my company, and it would be extremely detrimental to my own team if I were to pass up a quality candidate of any race or gender who fits my specific (and purely technical) criteria for a hire.

Your response instead says that I demonstrate a stunning lack of personal awareness, even though not only do you not know anything about me, but I am actively engaging in a conversation about the topic for which I've clearly reflected heavily on. If you want to be less subjective (and quite frankly, racist and sexist) in your own evaluation of an individual you don't know, I suggest that you not make so many assumptions about a person upon discovering that they are a white male.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 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 picture of her attitude towards the case and people involved. Given the current political climate in SV, it's a poor attempt at manipulation, and doesn't help her come off as reasonable.

<comment><USER22> I disagree. Ellen Pao is a woman of color, and she has no choice but to be aware of how she is perceived by others and by white men in particular. White guys can afford to be color blind, because racism doesn't affect them personally. She doesn't have that luxury.

A coworker showing up at your hotelroom door in a bathrobe is not "rude". It's textbook sexual harassment. Sexual harassment isn't just in the eye of the beholder, there are clear rules for professional conduct and those rules were repeatedly violated. Note that the _majority_ of women in tech report having been sexually harassed to some degree. So I don't think your skepticism about sexual harassment is helpful, given how ubiquitous it is.

Your suggestion that Pao has a specific negative attitude towards white men (i.e. she dislikes white men) is beyond the pale. This is a really underhanded attempt to discredit her.

<comment><USER23> > White guys can afford to be color blind, because racism doesn't affect them > personally. She doesn't have that luxury.

This has the natural implication that vast majority of white guys _are_ color blind as a result. This assumption can generate a lot of unfounded biases, especially by those who are taught from a young age to perceive every white male as being oblivious to racial issues in their day-to-day lives.

It takes quite a bit of ignorance to be color blind in modern culture regardless of your race. Even _without_ certain groups pushing for awareness at every opportunity.

Outside of maybe rural areas in North America and some parts of Europe it's hard not to be confronted with a wide variety of social interactions with other cultures - but even the bubble of rural areas are being broken down by technology as we all grow up with online identities.

How one confronts other cultures is a different issue than this inherent color blindness, racism is not necessarily a result of obliviousness or total ignorance but many times a result of some harmful - but willful - ideology.

Therefore, I believe it's appropriate to react with at least some skepticism when someone immediately shoehorns peoples races into conversations. Especially when their race would not otherwise have any influence on the subject at hand. In this case it was men talking about sex workers and porn stars, which certainly isn't unique to white men.

That said you shouldn't necessarily be dismissive of race in every topic, people's race has an important influence on their realities and I take issue when people try to pretend it has zero influence. My point is merely is that this should not be limited to just referencing white males, as it's unfair to act like this is a unique phenomenon for the majority of white male. Unless of course you're okay with basing opinions upon cultural stereotypes rather than the variety and shades of grey which make up reality.

The white males she references on the jet are very much the exception to the rule in any American city. This "frat boy" or "bro" culture is a problem that needs to be dealt with, and is a common problem in the finance world, but that doesn't mean it's a standard feature one should expect from white males generally. And most certainly not a basis from which to stereotype them.

Not to mention that sexism is as (or often more) prominent in many Latin American, Arab, and African cultures than you'd find in your average white american male. But even then stereotyping them as such merely based on their race, rather than their local cultures or subcultures, is fraught with risk. Would the men in these racial groups lack of 'color blindness' then make it more or less relevant to bring it up in such a conversation? Or is it only okay as long as it's 'white males'? See the logical issues here?

If she had said "white frat boys" I would have had no issue with the inclusion of race. Context and culture matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Al-Khwarizmi Sexism in Silicon Valley or sexism among the corporate elites?

I doubt the average tech worker, who doesn't travel in private jets, casually talks about porn actresses and sex workers at their job.

However, I have often heard and read such anecdotes about elite executives, also in non-tech sectors. I'd say that kind of attitude is more related to the impunity that comes with power than with tech or non-tech.

<comment><USER16> > I doubt the average tech worker, who doesn't travel in private jets, > casually talks about porn actresses and sex workers at their job

Or, if they do, they look both ways before doing so. The old joke "How does every racist joke start? By looking around" applies pretty handily.

<comment><USER24> Hits too close to home. I had a co worker who would only tell "jokes" when the manager or the one woman on the team wasn't around.

<comment><USER16> I'm not even against the telling of jokes that are. . off-color. But they really don't belong where you might cause distress. If you think something is offensive enough to warrant looking around before saying it, maybe save it for home.

My girlfriend (a Jew) and I crack Jew jokes all the time. . .at home. Even though no one in my workplace is Jewish (that I know of), I still wouldn't crack most of the jokes we use at home in my workplace. It's just not appropriate, not by any reasonable standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "I didn't have time to go through all my emails to figure out which ones to give Kleiner, so during the discovery process we gave them practically everything, some 700,000 emails — most of which we could have legally withheld. ... During depositions, they brought up everything from my nanny's contract to an exercise I'd done in therapy where I listed resentments. Emails to friends, emails to my husband, emails to other family members, even emails to my lawyers."

This is the single most incompetent legal behavior I've ever heard of. It shows such a profound lack of judgement that, by itself, it is enough to blacklist Pao and every lawyer advising her.

<comment><USER26> Yea, that's a surprising move. The "we have nothing to hide, we'll give you everything" approach to discovery can end up with exactly what happened, if the other side likes to use war of attrition and pressure tactics: deposition questions, and related lines of inquiry, that have no relevance to the issues. They're engaged in solely to wear out and dishearten the producing party. You'd think her counsel would have known this.

How hard would it have been to run a few keyword searches and get some paralegals or junior associates to filter out the irrelevant material? There are discovery firms that do this as their entire business. Or file a motion or two?

And I say that with no strong opinions about either side of the case. It just looks like a bad litigation move.

Edit: It also creates the impression that her counsel either didn't take the time to sort through her evidence thoroughly enough, and/or that offloading a massive dump of unfiltered emails would inconvenience the other side's counsel enough to give her leverage. Neither seem like a winning move. The first makes her side look unprepared, and the second makes her side look like it was playing games of its own.

<comment><USER27> > _How hard would it have been to run a few keyword searches and get some > paralegals or junior associates to filter out the irrelevant material?_

It's actually trickier than it seems, and the penalties for under-inclusion can be harsh.

Even if you make a good faith/reasonable effor, if you accidentally don't include everything that you're supposed to, you can be sanctioned. So if you do a keyword search for a word that seems innocuous/personal (so that you can exclude those emails) and it turns out you accidentally excluded some emails you were supposed to include (because you didn't have doc reviewers actually read every email that the search returned), you can get in trouble.

And having doc reviewers go through hundreds of thousands of emails could cost $50k or more. How much would depend on how complex the discovery request is.

If they just said "send us emails where you talk about John Doerr", that's easy. If they say "send us emails where you talk about JD, the firm, your mental health, or sexism in SV", that becomes much more difficult/expensive.

Under the circumstances, it is not appropriate to fault her lawyers for the decision not to do doc review in order to cut down on the emails provided in discovery. Remember that the client here is herself a lawyer (Harvard Law School, Cravath), so she bears the responsibility for a major decision like this. This may have been a bad strategic decision on her part, or it may have been too expensive to go any other way. But her lawyers are not at fault.

Note: I am a former SV lawyer, but I do not know any of the lawyers who represented her (or even what firm it was).

<comment><USER26> I get what you're saying, but in my experience, the risk of sanctions for a good faith production with a few things overlooked is minimal to none. If the other side notices and brings it up (assuming nothing else preventing production), you just give it to them. Problem solved. No judge is going to impose sanctions for essentially doing what the rules of discovery tell you to do.

In Pao's case, it comes across as allowing the other side all kinds of opportunities to go fishing for irrelevant tangents, embarrassing material, overly-personal material, etc., with an almost passive endorsement of that tactic. She wrote that some of this stuff included attorney-client communications! That's terrible. And one of them was a therapy record? Doesn't that sound like a HIPAA issue?

You'd think that effective counsel would try to define the scope of the evidence and the boundaries of the issues on the table every chance they could. A well-thought out document production is one of the cheapest and easiest ways of doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> 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.

<comment><USER29> She was offered a multi-million payoff to stay silent.

Sure, maybe she believes her book will earn her more. But she'd need to write the #1 or 2 non-fiction book of the year to get there.

<comment><USER30> Millions mean less to someone who already has it, and has a chance to make even more at perhaps even odds.

If your net worth is 200k and you refuse the payout, that says much more than if you are worth 20m

<comment><USER29> Did you read what I was replying to? I was making an argument against the idea that she is somehow doing this for monetary gain. It doesn't matter how much she values money. If her chosen course of action is somewhat certain to pay less than the alternative, she is demonstrably not motivated (solely) by money.

<comment><USER30> Did you read my post? I was saying that perhaps she is indeed solely motivated by money. Turning down easy money in the chance to strike it big from the civil suit. If you only see the first part, then she apparently isn't motivated by money. But with the second part it becomes a possibility again.

<comment><USER31> What is your estimate for the potential upside?

<comment><USER30> I don't know ... Dozens of millions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think it's very important to parse Pao from the reprehensible behavior she describes in her workplace. Being polite, Pao does not come off well in her own personal story. But she was also swimming in a garbage pit.

I have no doubt that what she writes about is true, and probably even holds back on much of the frat house nonsense. There can be entire semesters spent at school exploring other avenues that she might have pursued, and in most cases she truly really _was_ a victim of a truly terrible environment nobody should have to work in.

But for those of us who remember the case well while she was at Reddit, she also isn't _only_ an innocent victim and had made some really bankrupt decisions all on her own. I don't get the impression from this article that she's really done any soul searching since then and she even tries to soft- peddle her affair with a co-worker as just a little bit of a school girl crush and doesn't mention various other questionable behaviors that became public as a result of her lawsuit.

There's a lot of thought that equality in the workplace should not mean "start slotting women into the existing power structures and processes", but should instead take into account differences in style and ideas that women might naturally bring. But it goes both ways, terrible behavior also can manifest itself in different ways. As innocent as Pao seems to think she is in her own bad behaviors (which she either ignores here or downplays), her former co- workers also don't think there was any particular harm -- they're both wrong. To truly respect Pao, you have to also respect that she was capable of making bad decisions and that she needs to own them. In my mind, her behavior is not as bad as her former colleagues, but she could probably throw a softball and hit them.

Pao's story is important to tell, but she lacks the personal credibility for people to care. I really feel like if she were a bit more open about where she also messed up, and her motivations, she would come across as a much more empathetic story teller that would get more people's attention and give her better credibility than her former colleagues. But her general unwillingness to publicly confront, and get out in front of, her own behavior leaves her story vulnerable to various naysayers and that's a shame.

<comment><USER33> This is such a strange view - you don't care about Pao's side of the story because she's not a complete paragon of virtue? You also seem to be basing that on her time at Reddit, during which, as the article mentions, she was being smeared by Kleiner?

<comment><USER34> > Pao's story is important to tell, but she lacks the personal credibility for > people to care.

Was a clear way to say the story is relevant but unfortunate choice of storyteller

<comment><USER35> Yes, but it was also clear that this view is unsupported and irrelevant to the point of the story.

<comment><USER36> > Yes, but it was also clear that this view is unsupported and irrelevant to > the point of the story.

 _Why_ is it irrelevant? I think it's entirely relevant, Pao showed she was pretty deceitful in her suit... how is such an individuals personal case of discrimination not tainted by that?

<comment><USER35> > Pao showed she was pretty deceitful in her suit

In your opinion (and also rather unsupported). She just failed to prove her allegations to the courts standard.

The company's smear campaign against (a proven thing) shows her opponents in that case as far more deceitful tbh

<comment><USER36> Pfft yeah I can just swing "In your opinion (and also rather unsupported)" around too... Pao is as deceitful as her employer, they are a perfect match.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> For a fairly interesting summary of KP's replies / defense, see this article [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins)

<comment><USER38> This bit is interesting:

> The defense also argued that Pao was paid more than most of her male > colleagues. While salaries had previously been redacted from legal > documents, the trial revealed that Pao's salary after bonuses eventually > reached a peak of $560,000.

It would be interested to know the salaries of people who had the exactly same position before and after her. If the salaries are at the same level, it's difficult to talk about discrimination.

<comment><USER29> If you read the article, you'll notice that her salary isn't even mentioned. There are many ways to discriminate. What she does allege is, among other things, being denied a promotion based on feedback that was manipulated to make her look bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Many of the issues raised by Ellen seem to be bad traits of VC's when dealing with people in general. I didn't have any "good" experiences with VC's for many of the same reasons. They look down at you; they are casually dismissive; they are manipulative; they lie as necessary, etc. They seem to be only as friendly as needed in case they suddenly decide they want to invest.

I'm curious how similar or different my experience would have been pitching Ellen Pao.

<comment><USER23> Any type of job with even the least amount of authority - <USER3> insignificant it ultimately is as long as they can assert it without recourse - attracts the worst type of people. I call it the 'nightclub bouncer syndrome'.

Then again VC is a 'retail' style job and any job where you are continually put into forced social situations can make you cynical and impatient with people. So there's also that side of the equation.

Thirdly, it's also a type of job where you're surrounded by 'yes men' trying to suck up to you. You never get the type of negative feedback loops about your behaviour that you normally would/should. American bigco CEOs and celebrities are notorious for having this problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Interesting read. I wonder if the "paid army of trolls" she mentions followed her to Reddit. That would definitely explain the campaign against her.

<comment><USER41> > "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 issues were being banned, caused a huge backlash against her.

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment> alan-crowe I want to speak up in favour of r/fatpeooplehate. The various weight loss subreddits (such as loseit, keto, intermittentfasting) often have personal accounts of being undermined by family and friends when trying to follow orthodox medical advice. It is hard to avoid getting fat when family and friends are already fat and encouraging you to join them.

sangharakshita (a Buddhist teacher) preached that the central problem of the spiritual life – for most people at least – is to find emotional equivalents for their intellectual understanding. That is wise and true. But if it is misunderstood as a restrictive claim (this is only a problem for spiritual life, for the rest of life intellectual understanding on its own suffices.) then it is dangerously misleading.

It is not enough to understand calories in and calories out intellectually. You still have to cultivate the emotional strength needed to escape your own rationalisations, the rationalisations that other people push on you, and actually put down the fork.

Much of today's USA thinks that it is OK to eat yourself into an early grave. Gluttony has become so accepted and endorsed that getting fat has become socially contagious. When people reject this, there is a phase of being angry: how did I get sucked into such a dysfunction social consensus? One chocolate bar at a time? Then what? r/fatpeoplehate is angry and anger is ugly, but it is also important and necessary. People want to escape the social consensus and, people being people, they cannot do that on intellect along. They need space to vent and be angry.

You can see an example of fat-people-hate at [https://voat.co/v/fatpeoplehate/2075965/10239491](https://voat.co/v/fatpeoplehate/2075965/10239491) FPH is on the side of the people that it nominally hates. It wants people to change, to come to the light side of the plate. The people who banned r/fatpeooplehate don't literally have blood on their hands, that is not how type 2 diabetes works, but they ought to have gangrenous, amputated toes on their conscience.

<comment><USER43> Does one not think that there could have been a better way to encourage people to lose weight than to laugh at them, ridicule them and, to be honest, hate them? I'm not so sure if I consider your analysis to be a valid representation of the intentions of the people there, though I have little experience with the community itself, this model of "helping" people seems very alien to me, and contrary to what I had (intellecutally) understood to be how people behave on the Internet.

I think also ultimately it is the choice of the person to find their encouragement, as much as it is very difficult. Diet communities are built around the idea of individual desire to improve (which is why posts like "Three weeks in and it's great!" get upvoted there) rather than having it 'forced' upon them.

<comment><USER44> I don't think he's saying it's supposed to help the people being laughed at - it's supposed to help the reader, by de-normalizing and shaming fatness, so they are motivated to become or stay thin. The target is collateral damage.

I don't really buy it, it's transparently a post-hoc rationalization for a sub engaging in the age-old business of being nasty to low status people because it makes us feel good and superior.

You can click on "view the rest on the comments" on that voat thread he linked to to see what's it's really all about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Really interesting glimpse into this world.

It's unfortunate that this article is getting negative feedback on HN. I think we all need to be careful not to belittle/condemn issues that don't personally affect us.

<comment><USER29> Oh, this is nothing. Back during the trial, even HN was overrun by the vilest misogynist and racist memes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Ellen Pao may have lost the trial but she changed - me. In 2015 I saw a tech world ruled by meritocracy with sexism and discrimination being the evils of the Med Man era. Two and a half years (and many other affairs) later I see how naive I was and how much more difficult is work in tech for women.

</comment><comment><USER47> Reading the comments here I get a feeling not a lot of commenters are reading the entire post (please do), or are reading after already deciding that they won't agree with what they read (if that's the case, please don't bother with the comments and move on to the next HN article)

I thought it was an insightful read as much as I dislike the arrogance that SV seems to possess despite its ignorance of the rest of the world... And the accompanying culture that spills out of that combination of arrogance and ignorance.

SV culture has a lot of problems, sexism is one of them.

</comment><comment><USER48> I totally agree sexism is a thing, not just in Silicon Valley, but in every strata of our society. And I'm saying this not just as a life long conservative, but also as someone who has had many strong women in his life who have absorbed a ton of crap simply because they are women, including my mother, grandmother and basically almost every woman I've ever met.

I don't like blaming of societal issues for a person's achievements (or lack thereof), but at some point, you have to admit, the same gender who bewilderingly sends dick pics to strangers, talks crudely about women behind their backs, and views them as a means to a physical end, maybe we don't see how we interact with women or at least admit that many of our gender demean women in ways that equates to bullying in one form or another. I normally don't like victim culture, or people who assume the intentions of others to prove discrimination, but I don't think we need that for many cases when it comes to women.

Men and women, on the general, have different societal and interpersonal strengths, and I love all of it (yet don't assume or exclude those strengths from either gender).

But if I'm honest, men and women both have their own forms of aggressive behavior in getting ahead, but men do it even more aggressively, frequently and overtly than women, and often at the expense of women.

Personally, I love each gender's strength. But I absolutely loathe the behavior of many, if not most, of my gender's treatment of anyone in a "weaker" position.

We must do better, for no other reason than each of our strengths is a responsibility to use it to help those who are victimized.

We can hide behind a meritocracy of which we enjoy hidden benefits, but at the end of the day, we should ask, is it because we really are better suited to a task, or have we institutionally created a system that enforces our biases and preferences?

It's probably a mix of both, but until we see our own part in this, were can't actually improve anything.

<comment><USER49> _the same gender who bewilderingly sends dick pics to strangers, talks crudely about women behind their backs, and views them as a means to a physical end, maybe we don 't see how we interact with women or at least admit that many of our gender demean women in ways that equates to bullying in one form or another._

Whoah. The fact that _some of the 3.5 billion people that share the same sex as myself engage in this lewd behavior renders_ my* neutrality and view defunct?

Talk about stereotyping!

<comment><USER48> Did I claim that someone else's behavior limits your neutrality? Or that it somehow invalidates your views?

Also, did I say anywhere that stereotyping was bad in and of itself?

In fact, here is what I did say:

 _maybe_ we don't see how we interact with women or at least admit that _many_ of our gender demean women in ways that equates to bullying in one form or another.

Not sure what that has to do with _you_ or your views, but you seem to be defensive simply because I stated a generalization.

And yeah, I stereotype and prejudge all of the time. However, in any power position I may hold, I need to correct for it internally to make sure that instead of trying to confirm my biases, I'm actually being fair and respectful to the other party. And I think this should be done regardless of the genders involved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I found it really interesting to read this today, even though I followed the case to some extent when it was originally in the news.

With all of the scandals that have hit Silicon Valley in the past year (Uber especially) I have to wonder what the coverage would look like if Ellen filed her suit today? I think it would be much more sympathetic and the outcome would likely have been different. In fact I bet we would have seen some resignations at KPCB, no trial required.

On one hand I feel bad for Ellen since she was possibly a victim of timing. On the other hand, it's possible that Ellen inspired the other women who have since spoken up and she had to take the defeat in order to move the conversation forward.

</comment><comment><USER51> Something doesn't add up.... when my co-worker or manager makes sexist or racial jokes, my experience tells me that a) the immediate issue to be solved is not the sexism or racial discrimination in my line of business, but this specific person. The only solution -- this person needs to be replaced, not taught to behave (let alone persuaded to change views), and that b) his/hers personal issues very probably don't stop at women and minorities.

But I understand that we have this whole lot of discussions recently simply because, there are too many of such types kind of accumulated in one place, which makes replacing them all even less probable.

So how the industry believes this can be successfully addressed at this scale? I'd think the behaviour of people on the plane she described is simply about basic human decency? So, everything now needs to be codified by HR? "Don't speak of pornstars when on the plane with other people", "Don't bring into conversation how you tortured small animals when a kid"?

<comment><USER52> The problem is that you can't fire everyone who makes racist or sexist jokes from the industry since they will just group together and start new companies. Those companies will thrive until they become large enough to gain media attention, at which point it leads to another scandal with lots of firings and the cycle repeats.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm honestly disappointed that many commenters here are making a lot of judgment about Pao's intentions. It's like no one read the piece properly. Here, let me help you (and get your walls down!)

\---

Claim 1: _She 's over-reading an already tough environment (which btw men also face) for sexism._

See the Ajit Nazre harassment section. Also note that Pao wasn't the only one targeted.

See the male-only ski trips/ club visits/ etc section. It's bullshit to say that it's not their fault that women are uncomfortable talking about porn stars. It's unprofessional anyway. And seriously, a top venture firm can't afford to accommodate for all members of their team?

 _" I was later told that they didn't invite any women because women probably wouldn't want to share a condo with men."_

Still a big presumption to make; Pao may actually be OK with this.

I get the male buddy bonding thing, but arguably doesn't this make it harder for women to feel part of the team too?

See also the Flipboard section. Now this I'm very familiar with; make a suggestion, be promptly turned down, another guy makes the same suggestion later and wahey! Back slaps all around.

See also the section where she was excluded from meetings, discussions and 'scoops.'

See also the section where others (white, male) more junior than her received promotion and she didn't.

\---

Claim 2: _Pao is out for attention._

Seriously I can't even -

OK, I'm not going to do a reference here. Think about it: Pao is well-educated and has a very good position at a top firm. She's also just started a family, and instability is the last thing anyone in that position wants. It will take a _very serious claim_ to risk all that.

She was also very aware that the odds are overwhelmingly against her. See section when she asked other women who had sued powerful firms over discrimination. One even said _" It's a complete mismatch of resources. They don't fight fair. Even if you win, it will destroy your reputation."_

See section about how her firm launched an aggressive media campaign to discredit her, including "click farms" to spread negative rumours about her incompetency etc. How _Vanity Fair_ (!) suggested that her marriage was a sham because her husband previously had gay relationships.

She did lose, but for what it's worth, she did end up getting attention - <USER4> right sort I would say (see the "Pao Effect".)

\---

Claim 3: _Pao did it for the money. "_

See section when she was offered money to leave quietly.

Though _" When I spoke to the COO, he asked how much I wanted in order to quietly leave. "I want no less than what Ajit gets," I said — which I suspected was around $10 million. The COO gasped."_

The same Ajit as above.

Oh yes she's releasing a new book, but seriously, is the profit really enough to make it her primary intention to sue for harassment?

And as mentioned above, even if she won, she would have lost her reputation. There's a reason everyone applauds whistle-blowers, and no one wants to hire them.

\---

Claim 4: _Sexism is only an emergent behaviour of a toxic industry. To fix sexism, we have to instil professionalism._

This is true and a good intention, but forgive me this is also belittling the issue of sexism.

For sure, women aren't the only ones with negative experience. You could say the same for other minority groups such as black, LGBTQ etc, and yes even overworked white, male juniors.

But sexism is a major part of what makes the environment toxic. Women make 50% of the global population! And clearly many women in tech experience uncomfortable issues rooted in sexism. If you want to instil more professionalism, you will also need to cover sexism in the training.

See section where the firm admits that they don't even have a HR department until recently.

See also comments that claim women are using their gender as a _card._ So f--- ing patronising.

See section where the firm has very low female presence in the board.

It's true that there is a shortage of females in tech, making recruitment harder. But this is why we need to go beyond professionalism training. To get more gender balance, we need to start at _schools_. So for those tired of the whole "women are victims" yada-yada (I admit that I also feel the same) for what it's worth, people are now paying attention and working harder to encourage girls into STEM subjects, and make the tech environment more inclusive.

\---

Running out of time, but I hope this is enough food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER54> I just noticed that software patents and employment anti-discrimination laws have some very similar problems. With the performance of manual labor jobs and physical patents the tests tends to be relatively objective, and that was probably what both laws was designed for. With many other jobs and with software patents this is often not the case, making the laws much easier to abuse for example. As a side note, this is also why anti-discrimination laws still make sense for things like public places and voting, because the test for whether someone is able to vote for example tends to be objective.

</comment><comment><USER55> Most VCs wouldn't tolerate such boorish behavior on the part of execs at their investments. (They might let it slide for a time, for tactical reasons...) Why do limited partners put up with it when the VCs do it?

</comment><comment><USER56> The new boss: just like the old boss, but gets to have her ivy league friends write sexism articles about her, despite courts with lower burdens of proof (preponderance) finding none.

</comment><comment><USER24> >He wanted me to go to school — to learn to be a stand-up comic.

I'm doing this! Some guys are really good at laughing and joking with management, but I am awful. One time a partner walked away from me without saying a word because he didn't like my comment about sports. I felt like that one black woman on Insecure when she shows up to a hockey game to suck up to her bosses and nobody remembers her.

</comment><comment><USER57> Two possibilities:

1] She brought value to the table and was discriminated against.

2] She brought little value to the table, was one of those whiny entitled people (ooh look I have all these degrees, now I should automatically be promoted), who cannot accept the truth, and resorted to sleeping with a senior partner to compensate and when it all fell apart she got offended.

It could be either.

She has to convince the world it was [1] not [2].

</comment><comment><USER58> "On January 4, 2012, I sent an email to the managing partners presenting all the facts as clearly as I could and asking for substantive changes and either protection from further ostracism or help with an exit."

What is "help with an exit"? Aren't partners at VC firms free to leave?

<comment><USER59> It means a help to find a job at another firm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Nobody I know in the SV founder/investor scene talks openly about their sex worker preferences, their porn habits or desperately tries to trick their coworkers into surprise romantic weekends together. However, I'm clearly not exposed to the demographic that is all about that, and I'd love to know more about it.

What is it about that group of people that makes them behave that way? Do they feel they're too powerful to be reported? Do they just not have the EQ to understand how they make others around them feel? Someone steel man that one for me.

<comment><USER61> > What is it about that group of people that makes them behave that way?

Your question overgeneralizes. You're attributing to the group, the qualities of a small number of individuals.

<comment><USER60> There have been several women coming out in the past few months reporting VC partners behaving in a similar manner, hence that being a trend vs being about "just that one group of people"

<comment><USER61> > What is it about that group of people that makes them behave that way?

Ok, maybe I'm just parsing words here, but your statement can be read as:

"that group of people [VCs and CEOs] behave that way [sexual harassment]"

Which overgeneralizes, because this still appears to be a small number of offenders, despite the recent outings.

That said, I'm willing to believe/accept that the same qualities that make someone think they should be CEO or a power-investor, and not a lowly peon worker, translates into a higher likelihood of douchebaggery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I definitely sympathize with her regarding the clear sexual harassment. But my main reaction to this is what an awful world her career was in. Horrible, boorish men, ugly business deals. A world with no aesthetic, no charm, no taste, no honor, no humanity. I would say that any decent person who finds themselves in a career like that in a business world like that should get out, immediately. Switch careers or switch countries. You only have a few decades in the Universe.

<comment><USER63> Indeed. If she were being held back by sexism in her drive to find a cure for cancer etc. I would have more sympathy. As it is my sympathy is limited by the fact she was pursuing a career focused largely around pure greed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> A much better article written to show more than one perspective from a few years ago: [https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy- fletc...](https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher- ellen-pao)

</comment><comment><USER65> How are the turning off of flags determined, Dang?

Not trying to be rude, but unless there is a set criteria it seems prone to bias...

</comment><comment><USER66> That was better than I thought it would be. A real, "no holds barred" account, and well written as well. I wish there were more of these, including perhaps accounts of what others have to say about Ellen herself. This really takes the patina off the whole SV venture capital scene. It's like there are different sets of rules, one for them, and the other is for the peons who work for them. A peon would be let go after the first, like, five seconds of that private jet conversation.

</comment><comment><USER67> 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.

<comment><USER19> It's not deleted, but it's hidden by default, apparently. You have to click on the [+] in AnonNo15's post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> >and downplays the impact of obvious and unobjectionable steps like [..] "give expectant mothers maternity leave"

This is a bit off-topic, but maternity leave is neither obvious nor unobjectionable. There is significant empirical evidence that shows that policies such as long paid maternity leave harms women's wages and career progression.

Have a look at:

* The impact of Nordic countries' family friendly policies on employment, wages, and children [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-007-9023-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11150-007-9023-0)

* Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wages distribution [https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/92046/1/2005-25.pdf](https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/92046/1/2005-25.pdf)

<comment> semi-extrinsic > long paid maternity leave harms women's wages and career progression

Of course it does. What it benefits is the actual human beings in question (child, mother, father). Most humans think that significantly increasing the well-being of your family, and in particular your infant, is _a whole fucking lot_ more important than wages and career progression. Like all things in life it's a trade off, but an unobjectionally good one.

Analogy: if a woman (or man) spent 8 hours every day of every vacation secretly working, they would definitely get better wages and career progression. Would you recommend everyone starts doing that?

<comment><USER69> RE your analogy, I don't think this is true in general. There are many jobs/people where the downtime is needed to perform better. That's certainly the case for me and in my field.

To your main point: You are absolutely right. Germany, for example, tries to symmetries the problem by allowing fathers to take part of the maternity leave. But of course, especially in high paying jobs where companies have to invest a considerable amount into a worker to train them, a maternity leave, or any other reduction of total working time at the company, will affect the salary. The question is now: Do we, as a society, treat the privilege to raise a child as adequate replacement of the lost salary/promotions etc? If not, who makes up for the difference?

<comment><USER70> As a (happy) dad, I'm very surprised by this :

>>> Do we, as a society, treat the privilege to raise a child as adequate replacement of the lost salary/promotions etc?

I'm very surprised of the opposition you make here.

I'd prefer : Do we, as a society, treat the choice to raise a child as one that doesn't imply the loss of salary/promotions etc?

(but in my case, my employer has never spent tons of money on me; "considerable training" means to me : a year of full time training such as : mastering a foreign tongue, mastering a technical field besides IT, etc. It's certainly not "we'll leave you learn by yourself at night and pay for your lack of efficiency during the first 6 months of work"))

<comment><USER69> My point is this: There is a business cost associated with people who choose to be parents: They may be absent for an extended period of time (which in some fields is a big problem), they are often less flexible with hours/week, which hours on a given day, when they want holidays. They choose a more healthy work-life balance, which for the employer means "more life, less work". It's also opportunity cost for you: While you care for your kid, you can not go for an extended trip to a different country, or jump head first into a technology to learn at night because your kid will wake you up at 6, and on weekends, you are out and play with him. Clearly this will reduces your chance for a promotion compared to the workaholic who knows all the new buzzword technologies. One could say, yes, ok, I took that trade-off, but now I got to be a dad, and that's worth more to me.

Or, as a society, we can say: You should not need to make that trade-off. Or at least: You should not lose that much. It's hard to correct the disadvantage in terms of promotion, but other things are possible. Some examples, some are horrible: \- Force the companies to maintain open positions for (m/p)aternity leaves. Either pay for that with taxes, or make the companies eat the cost. \- Give people with kids tax breaks / money. \- Force people to take a sabbatical every n years if they don't take maternity leave. (But of course some people will use that time to work on their skills anyway...) \- Provide good child care so that people can more easily work and have kids. \- Shun people who don't have kids...

What society can not do is make this difference magically go away.

I think you might underestimate the amount your employer has invested in you. Maybe a better benchmark is: How much would it cost him to replace you if you quit your job in three month.

<comment><USER70> >>> One could say, yes, ok, I took that trade-off, but now I got to be a dad, and that's worth more to me.

That's it ! More precisely : I've chosen to be dad for reasons which are absolutely not rational. Therefore, the question of the trade off is not that important.

>>> You should not lose that much

yep, that's what I'm aiming for.

Thing is, the way you put it, I understood that "business suffers from those people who choose to be parents". For me parents are like taxes : as a business, that is as a member of the society, you abide to respect the rules : you pay your taxes because the society decided it's positive for everybody, ditto for parents.

But I think we agree :-)

>>> I think you might underestimate the amount your employer has invested in you.

>>> How much would it cost him to replace you

Not much : maybe waiting a year to find an ideal candidate (so I'd say a month of work), and then a year to train the guy (say, 6 months). So basically 7 months of salary. not much. Hint : I don't work in hyper hitech stuff, I just run very big, long lived applications; nothing fancy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Please quote a part of the Damore original memo where he explained women were inferior (except, maybe, in numbers as far as the computer science field is concerned)?

<comment><USER72> In his tl;dr he said hiring more women would be bad for business.

For those about to jump in and suggest that he only mean the current way of hiring women is bad for business, he later suggests affirmative action to hire more conservatives would be good for business because they are more 'diligent'. Note that men are more conservative then women, so this is a double whammy.

<comment><USER73> > he later suggests affirmative action to hire more conservatives would be > good for business because they are more 'diligent'.

"Stop alienating conservatives" is a far cry from affirmative action. Personally, I think quota-based affirmative action targeted at conservatives would have similar downsides as quota-based affirmative action targeted at women. (Essentially, when you are optimizing for something other than profit, it's going to cost money.) However, you might have success with a test selecting for high-conscientiousness workers.

<comment><USER72> Affirmative action does not necessarily imply quotas. What you suggest ("stop alienating conservatives" or "selecting for high-conscientiousness" with the intent of hiring more conservatives) is affirmative action too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Why has this disappeared from the front page? I'm reading it, return to upvote, and its gone :(

<comment><USER6> Users flagged it. This is obviously a substantive article by HN standards so I've turned off flags.

<comment><USER75> Usually the answer given to the question "why is this article on the front page" is "because users upvoted it". Now it seems what users think does not matter.

<comment><USER76> Flagging is a separate system from upvotes. It still needs upvotes to be on the front page - which it has.

<comment><USER75> What difference does it make if it is the same system or the separate one? I am talking about users' will being ignored there on the whim of someone, just because s/he knows better.

<comment><USER76> Flagging is - as far as I know - not intended as some system to impose the users 'will'. HN does not allow downvoting of submissions. Flagging is a mechanism to remove topics which are off-topic and/or low-quality from HN, not to remove topics some people don't like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> Yes. But as a man you're not allowed to complain about that. Men cannot be discriminated against or harassed.

/S

<comment><USER78> You mark your comment as sarcasm, but that point has been made seriously many times. There's no discrimination if you're part of the powerful majority, even if as an individual you're powerless. It's fair or it isn't, IDK, but it's no joke, that's for sure.

<comment><USER77> Hm. So treating me as a part of an allegedly uniform class "powerful men" is ok? But treating others as part of a uniform mass isn't? Curious. Learning so much

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> >Honestly, I might have considered dating him had he been

>less arrogant and less married.

Ah, I see. If you are attractive enough, suddenly it is not sexual harassment anymore.

I am not going to have a shred of compassion for any woman in tech who complains about harassment, while mentioning the dating opportunities that happen to come.

<comment><USER6> > _Ah, I see. If you are attractive enough, suddenly it is not sexual > harassment_

That's not in the least a charitable version of what she said, and this is a generic talking point of the kind that always moves discussions in a less substantive, more angry direction (as indeed you moved yourself in the next paragraph). Please make a u-turn and post the opposite kind of comment here, or no comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Now that I've read her own account, I have the same impression I got years ago: maybe, in addition to an environment of harassment, she wasn't actually that good at being a VC.

She recounts the Flipboard incident -- she spotted a good deal early and was shot down, and then others took (a worse) deal for themselves. So... yeah, they ignored and steamrolled the junior partner. Cutthroat and not nice, but it's not shocking behavior unless there's evidence that this only occurred with her or with other female partners. Short of that, I'm willing to believe that this is a full-contact sport, since there's million$ on the line.

So I'm left with two takeaways:

\- KP has/had a big problem with partners like Amit, and their tolerance of it.

\- Ellen herself was likely not a top performer, but she fails to recognize that.

<comment><USER80> Isn't that beside the point? Whether or not one particular woman is a great investor or not isn't so substantial. What is substantial if we have a broken system that perpetuates the ingroup and doesn't make avenues for the actual talent (e.g. Warren Buffet) in if it's not bro-y enough.

<comment><USER61> Rephrasing: KP's environment certainly seemed hostile. But maybe she was marginalized there not due to sexual harassment, but because she wasn't a top performer.

I'm not excusing bad/illegal behavior. I'm just saying, speaking as a manager: underperforming employees frequently fail to understand that their peers are achieving more (sometimes MUCH more) than they are, and this lack of self- awareness can lead to placing blame on the wrong thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Her complaints about the office politics make up the bulk of the text - <USER5> experienced much the same as a man. Her complaints about woman specific issues, like accidentally having an affair or being upset about not being able to take off 4 months in an insanely competitive industry... I'm not terribly impressed.

The sex talk complaint is interesting though - consider whatever emotional response you've arrived at, but with a slight twist: a straight man having to listen to gay men talk about gay porn stars. So what are we talking about here, 'don't ask don't tell'? Because I'm totally fine with that - I don't enjoying hearing the sexual fantasies of my coworkers (regardless of orientation), anybody know why that didn't work for the military?

<comment><USER29> Wow, so much to unravel.

First: "Don't ask, don't tell" wasn't about sharing your sexual fantasies in minute details. It was simply about your sexual orientation, and it was discriminatory because it was obviously accepted to mention your opposite- gendered spouse, or have a photo of them somewhere people would see it.

And since you experienced the same as a man: how often did one of your superiors set up a fake meeting on the other side of the continent, which then turned into an attempted 'romantic getaway'. Did you also have to physically push him out of your hotel room, where he showed up in his bathrobe?

<comment><USER81> Having been in the military when DADT was the rule of the day, I can tell you that it was applied a little differently than your characterization. Yes, locker room talk happened among the junior enlisted (E1-E3), yes the straight guys could get away with it while the gays missed out. That was the extent of it, after you hit NCO there was pretty much no more sex talk - and I never once saw a photo of another dude's wife. We knew everybody's orientation and didn't care so long as we didn't have to hear about it.

As far as the hotel story. Yes, I've experienced a much lower budget version of that - I had a gay VP setup a meeting at an empty satellite office. He made his pass and I stared blankly for a couple of seconds before continuing my work on the white board. On another occasion I had a female coworker show up at my hotel room asking for some help with the presentation she was working on, I handled that the way you should: "I'll meet you in the lobby in 10 minutes."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> > _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.

<comment><USER83> Other issues? HN is about the tech industry. It shouldn't be all roses and technical bits — the unsavory underbelly definitely deserves to be exposed. And unfortunately minorities experience negative things unique to who they are, so it's important to hear them. The private jet doesn't matter here — it only demonstrates that discrimination occurs from the very bottom to the very top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> Wow, what an amazing read!

</comment><comment><USER85> I can't help but feel that this story doesn't really add up.

      > I recommended that she not report it.

She is sharing her story with her team, possibly seeking ways of retribution, and when she finds out a story that can help her cause, and _this_ is her response? To what end?

<comment><USER86> Empathy?

<comment><USER85> You don't just go around in a company naming a senior partner and his exploits for "Empathy", not when the stakes are that high.

<comment><USER87> She just realises that the issue she was against was well over her power, and the woman she was speaking to was even more powerless than her.

If you wish then a pragmatic decision here is to not let her out in the world knowing she'll basically kill herself. That's why kids should not speak to strangers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> This article goes all over the place. Can anyone make a good summary of what point she's trying to make? It reads like an unfiltered stream of consciousness.

I think she's trying to be convincing and using her writing style to do that - but for me bullet points are more convincing.

From what I read, her account is 99% about her personal experience and not he industry at large. How does this equate to "sexism in the valley"? Honest question.

<comment><USER29> It's a literary style called an 'essay'. I think it's well-written.

I don't think it's trying to actually make the case for silicon valley's sexism–except that it'd be highly unlikely that all this happened to her (and a coworker as well) and nobody else.

If you need further convincing, I submit most of this thread as exhibit 2. Then, maybe check out posts on reddit from the time of her trial.

<comment><USER88> Then the question remains. What was the point? I would also agreed that many of these comments aren't constructive but I'm actually trying to distill the message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Every visible trait that makes you seem different from the rest of the in- group counts as a 'demerit.'

\- Are you a woman in a male dominated field? -1

\- Are you a racial minority relative to the dominant group? -1

\- Do you take time off in a 24/7 work culture? -1

\- Are you gay? -1

\- Are you transgender? -1

\- Do you have a physical disability? -1

. . .

If you have enough of these, then the group will likely reject you, and will also rationalize your rejection along the lines of performance or poor 'fit.'

Groups have to take specific proactive steps to prevent this kind of behaviour from emerging naturally.

What can you do to help? If you see evidence of discriminatory behaviour: denounce it immediately and publicly.

<comment><USER90> Yea, it's a weakness to have to constantly be evaluating a situation with "Was that because I'm black/female/gay/..."

Power comes with the leverage of keeping a function DRY and re-using it. One small change is leveraged across everything. Large changes though are unwanted because of the harm than can happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Imagine being constantly reduced to your body. No matter what you do. That hurts. It simply does. It takes away everything you are responsible for, your intelligence, your success, your ideas. You are nothing more than an object for the opposite gender (in most cases women are objectified as a matter of fact, but there is also objectification by women). A little more empathy would do much good.

<comment><USER92> Are you talking about Jenna Jameson or Ellen Pao?

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Assuming this is all true, it would confirm my suspicion that when people talk about techbros, they're talking about the rich 0.001% handling the money rather than the vast bulk of the sector. Conflating the two is eminently useful to some, but it has no bearing on most of the people here. It's a fight of the elite, using popular talking points and media influence to wage a battle using the reputations of tens of thousands as crass collateral.

Aside from a workplace fling with one sleazeball, apparently there's a seedy pleasure trip she didn't get invited on and a plate of cookies. Then the corporate ass covering when she started making a fuss in a company handling millions of dollars.

However, let's face it, competing at that level requires a certain kind of drive and ruthlessness, and it'd be naive to assume Pao is somehow exempt from this.

It's an excerpt from her book, published to promote said book. Of course it's going to be 100% sympathetic. Here's a more neutral take on things, which includes the portion conspicuously omitted here: the lawsuits her husband's embroiled in, and the plus hundred of millions he potentially defrauded pension funds of, which incidentally lines up with Pao's sought damages.

They sound like they deserve each other, and are eminently capable of playing their victim cards for full effect to paper over their own mistakes.

[https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy- fletc...](https://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletcher- ellen-pao)

<comment><USER29> Yeah, she explicitly mentions that vanity fair article.

Among other things, she calls out vanity fair for questioning her marriage, based on the fact that her husband had had previous relationships with men.

It's also somewhat strange how you're trying character assassination by proxy. And that this is a four-year old article, so the story apparently didn't actually go anywhere.

I also believe she does a good job of outlining how the treatment of women is distinct from a general "you have to be aggressive" style of workplace behaviour. What often strikes me most unfair is how women get told to be aggressive ("own the room", as it's called in the article), but then easily faulted for being too aggressive. "Shrill" is one of these words reserved for women only.

<comment><USER93> And chauvinistic and sexist is a word reserved for men, but few seem to notice that. Equality goes both ways.

I looked around for a follow up to the lawsuits but the Vanity Fair article is still the most informative. Her husband's problems did go somewhere: he lost and is now appealing.

You can call it character assassination by proxy all you want, but the company people keep is still relevant, especially someone whose finances you are legally tied to, and when he's made exactly similar claims of discrimination over matters he had more than a professional interest in.

I allow for the fact that she's a victim, but the article above is not going to let us decide that. I do not listen and believe.</comment></comment></comment>


Banana Pi – A highend Pi only for Target US$29.99 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bananapi.org/

<comment><USER2> And exactly where can you buy one of these for $29.99? My quick search only turned up prices close to double that.

</comment><comment><USER3> This actually looks better than Raspberry Pi, anyone tried playing with it?</comment>


Adobe Sensei - <AUTHOR> http://www.adobe.com/sea/sensei.html <comment><USER2> Wow. That copy is all over the place. I have to give them credit for this (unintended) piece of irony:

> Great experiences don't just happen. And nobody knows that better than us.

I have a strong suspicion Adobe doesn't even know what this product is (why not just get to the point?). No doubt it started in a meeting where someone said "look at all of this exciting research and development around machine learning and visual media - we need to do something in that space so we don't become irrelevant", followed by an executive saying "here's $100 million; go make it happen".

<comment><USER3> It definitely has a very strong "Project Jabberwocky" vibe.

<comment><USER4> "Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate." — Alice

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I got a briefing on Adobe Sensei from some guys at the company. Basically it connects together various parts of their advertising and marketing products, in semi-automatic and automatic ways, to better track users, and to better track ad and marketing performance. Yes, it's ironic that their own marketing for this is so terrible.

</comment><comment><USER6> I will agree there is a lot of market hype on that page, but I went to the page after reading the comments expecting to read nothing but buzz words without a clear idea of what the AI does, but I think Adobe is fairly clear on the intended use cases - automating the already existing tools across the majority of the Adobe product line, such as OCR, Automatic PDF creation, Content Aware for photoshop, and so on.

The idea is that their cloud offering is now backed by the AI to include tons of AI pony tricks, like emotional analysis of writing or digitizing physical copies of data.

Now, that being said, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like they're just throwing as much CPU behind their AI, setting it up on Adobe Cloud, and then letting it handle the tedium of the most common and time consuming tasks. But I maybe I'm wrong. The examples for each section though seem pretty straight forward - let AI do what you can already do with Adobe products, but the AI can do it automatically on upload instead of a user scrolling through a hi-res scan or taking the time to shop people or wires out of photos.

</comment><comment><USER7> Is this an April Fools joke? I can't figure out what it's supposed to actually do.

<comment><USER8> I wasn't sure what to think either, but it appears that it isn't:

[http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/adobe-sensei- ai/](http://fortune.com/2016/11/02/adobe-sensei-ai/)

Besides, they probably wouldn't license a Glass Animals song just for an April Fools joke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I literally thought, "This has to be a poorly executed April Fool's joke... but, no, Adobe wouldn't attempt an April Fools joke". So, I read the comments here to see what other people are thinking. I guess I'm not alone. The video is hilariously vague. It's like some Nucleus marketing blurb where Hooli execs decided they shouldn't mention that the product does compression.

<comment><USER10> I can't rule an April Fool out. A company that can't make secure software, probably has an upside in that they are people-persons with a great sense of humour.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If this is a real product and not a joke, Adobe will be very unsatisfied knowing that they wasted all their money in development because their product name and description is completely intractable to understand and doesn't make any sense at all, and prospect users/buyers have no idea what to do with the information or how to acquire such product.

</comment><comment><USER12> Adobe has another page about this that is slightly more concrete.

[https://www.adobe.io/apis/cloudplatform/sensei.html](https://www.adobe.io/apis/cloudplatform/sensei.html)

</comment><comment><USER13> This has to be an April Fools gag, right? They can't be serious, can they? I couldn't even get past the halfway point of the page before literally choking on marketing drivel. What in holy hell does this product do?

</comment><comment><USER14> Was hoping this was an April fool's thing.

What's with tech's obsessive use of Japanese culture? As if the ubiquitous "zen" prefix wasn't bad enough.

<comment><USER15> Cause Japan is exotic and cool, plus the words are trademark free.

<comment><USER16> Coincidentally, the Japanese like to use English to appear 'exotic and cool' too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting that I don't see a single positive comment here. There's definitely an absurd amount of marketing-speak, but this seems like a good idea to me, and a logical progression for Creative Cloud. Photoshop (and probably other CC products) has a ton of places where a little ML could make things way simpler for the user.

Although it is funny to think that Adobe is starting to become a data company in order to add features to their products.

</comment><comment><USER18> umm.. does anyone have a buzzword-free explanation?

<comment><USER19> For Adobe which is so tightly connected to the success of the marketing industry, it really did disappoint me at how worthless this whole page was for explaining what the point is.

The video itself was a waste of my time. It didn't inform me what the product was or why I should want whatever it is. Then the descriptions further down were sort of half-baked.

Overall, it sounds like they're adding a new cloud service that leverages machine learning to charge you for some automation features that will do some of the work for you. The examples they provided weren't particularly exciting or worthy of buzz, but maybe the target audience will get hyped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> lol should have been called Adobe Senpai

<comment><USER21> Its sole purpose would be noticing _you_ on the photos loaded into Photoshop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I gave them 3 paragraphs to explain what this is. I don't know what this is.

</comment><comment><USER23> My favorite bit of nonsensical marketing speak was the following "It re- creates elements in photos where they didn't exist, by studying nearby pixels."

How can you RE-create something that did not exist? Also why?

<comment><USER24> That's probably referring to Content Aware Fill, I would expect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sounds kind of like the equally ambiguous IBM Watson, applied to Adobe software.

<comment><AUTHOR> IBM Watson, Adobe Sensei, Amazon AI make vague impressions by themselves, but they do power a bunch of practical services (most related to natural language understanding).

Reading about Adobe Sensei made me remember the recently published paper on Deep Photo Style Transfer, which was co-authored by people involved with Adobe Research, and especially one comment on it[0]. Perhaps they're indeed moving in that direction and we'll soon start seeing Sensei-branded elements in Photoshop and other products!

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13965808](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13965808)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The comments on this thread reinforce the notion I have that the Adobe of today is like the IBM of the late 90s: they did so much and had been a leader for so long that they don't even know what they do anymore. And that shows in how they communicate with their audience. "Radically improve designs" "through the use of cloud"? What does that even mean?

No surprise small players are eating their lunch. They're creating stuff people actually want to use, not some grand yet empty concept out of a Salesforce pitch.

</comment><comment><USER27> Pretty difficult to figure out what this is, but I think I've got it. Adobe Sensei is a cloud-based ML API (like IBM's Watson) that does various ML things (like image editing and content analysis). This is a UI around that API.

The reason it doesn't feel coherent is because it isn't: the Sensei API does a number of things in different domains, and this application builds a UI around all of them. There seems to be no central purpose other than "do things that we can power with ML".

</comment><comment><USER28> The fact that they're trying to help you with marketing, and they can't even describe what they're marketing, should make you run in the other direction.

No wonder Steve Jobs hated Adobe!

(Yes, I know that was for other reasons, but this is a pretty good one.)

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm getting the idea that Adobe has created an AI platform to help agencies with marketing efforts.

Yet reading through this landing page leaves me confused to what it actually does. Am I on the right track?

</comment><comment><USER30> This looks like something written targeting institutional investors who don't know much about Machine Learning

</comment><comment><USER31> What a beautiful advertisement; I have little idea of this program is about, the next Photoshop version?

</comment><comment><USER32> I swear to God I thought this was an April Fools joke.

</comment><comment><USER33> I thought it's April Fools</comment>


How to Cure Asthma Using Hookworms - A Practical Guide - <AUTHOR> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/4/30/91945/8971

<comment><USER2> Superseded by better, more recent research:

[http://autoimmunenews.blogspot.com/2010/01/hookworms-fail- to...](http://autoimmunenews.blogspot.com/2010/01/hookworms-fail-to-cure- asthma-our-hopes.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An interesting solution to a problem; fascinating but gross read.</comment>