Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Homewrecker sues for sex discrimination

It used to be that homewreckers outcasts.

Ellen Pao is an overeducated (3 Ivy degrees) Chinese-American who is currently CEO of Reddit.

The NY Times reports:
Now, in a high-profile suit set to go to trial this week, a jury will pass judgment about whether one woman suffered discrimination. The proceedings could resonate widely: A guilty verdict will be billed as a sweeping indictment of the high-tech world, while a dismissal might supply ammunition to those who feel gender issues are being overplayed.

The accuser is Ellen Pao, who worked at one of the valley’s most prominent venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. At the center of the suit is John Doerr, a legendary investor who was Ms. Pao’s boss and, according to court papers, practically a father to her.
She had an affair with a married East-Indian-American, and broke it off when he refused to divorce his wife. Then she married and had a kid with one of richest African-Americans, whose hedge fund has since gone bankrupt and may have been a Ponzi scheme.

30 years ago, I think that most men and women would say that a firm ought to fire any woman who is poaching married men at work. Such women were known as homewreckers, and were especially despised by women. It would not have mattered if the man made flirtatious comments that contributed to her seducing him.

Now, I don't know. I no longer have a feel for whether a jury would consider this acceptable behavior. Yes, it is a feminist dogma that a woman has a right to be a sexual predator and seduce whomever she pleases, regardless of anyone marital or employer obligations, and if anyone objects, she has a right to sue for millions of dollars.

But will a jury of 12 buy into such nonsense? I have no idea. We will soon find out, I guess.

Even if she loses, there will be big pressure on the tech world. The LA Times reports Women are leaving the tech industry in droves. And the masculine culture is to blame, as Pao will also argue at her trial.


Anonymous said...

What I can't really figure out is what in her back ground qualifies her to be CEO of an established company. She may have racked up a bunch of Ivy degrees but it looks like most of her experience is not in how to manage a company. But she does have the right set of genitals so it must mean she's qualified.

As far as the jury, its a flip of the coin. If she presents herself as a "poor vulnerable woman" more than likely it will go her way. My bet is that the law firm will settle at the last minute unless they got some really damaging stuff in the disposition that will make her look like the scum that she is.

Anonymous said...

I read that link about women leaving tech. It seems that

"Men are crucial for creating an environment where women thrive,

"Men need to be the ones that are advocating and pushing for women to rise up, "

Now, there's someone that has little idea how the world actually works. Generally, people are not going to bust a gut to gain promotion, advancement, and more money for someone else.

It's fun to analyse that phrase "men need to be …". Who needs them to be this? Women do. So lets say it like it is: "Women need men to advocate and push for women to rise up," .

Anonymous said...

Ellen Pao: a face that stopped a thousand clocks.