Ellen Pao and the Sexism You Can’t Quite Prove

[Starry Messenger]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/ellen-pao-and-the-sexism-you-cant-quite-prove.html

It happens all the time when my husband and I are at work events together. Cocktail Party Guy asks my husband about how things are going at his news site, and he answers. Then Cocktail Party Guy asks me how our dogs are, and I answer, before pivoting the conversation back to work — and later rolling my eyes as we walk away. It is not impolite. It is not inappropriate. But it is still, at least in my mind, sexist. Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs. One of us gets asked about our work. One of us gets asked about our dogs.

It is a form of soft discrimination that I fear might be all too familiar to all too many women — and often I find it hard to explain to my male friends and colleagues. Occasionally, I even find myself struggling to convince them that it is discrimination, and that it has consequences.


I found myself going back to those moments with Cocktail Party Guy while following Ellen Pao’s lawsuit against her former employer, the powerhouse venture-capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers. In the suit, Pao argued that the firm failed to promote her because of her gender. But it was not a cut-and-dry case. Much of it centered around those Cocktail Party Guy moments, ones where one reasonable observer might see nothing going on and another reasonable observer might see clear evidence of sexism.

Exhibit A: Pao’s performance reviews knocked her for her “sharp elbows.” There were similar negative comments in Pao’s male colleagues’ reviews, but they were nevertheless promoted. Does that demonstrate that Kleiner Perkins treated Pao differently because she was a woman? Might they have interpreted her assertiveness as “bitchiness,” and her male colleagues’ assertiveness as “strength” or “conviction”? Maybe she really did have sharp elbows, hurting her relationships with clients? Can’t women ever be criticized for being caustic?

[marym625]

1. K&R!

[Gormy Cuss]

2. Pao didn't fit the "culture" -- and culture is used as an excuse for a lot of discrimination.

Last edited Fri Apr 3, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I was watching this case and didn't think she'd prevail but I was hoping that the case would be argued successfully. Even in the most progressive work places subtle sexism can creep in, often around extracurricular sports-themed events -- for example, forming a pickup team for basketball or watching a game in a sports bar where managerial level employees bonded.

[Starry Messenger]

3. I just read some of the media coverage

She wasn't the "perfect" person for the media, I didn't think she'd prevail either. It will take a lot more cases to really build the picture of SV's way of using workplace culture as a reason to keep things male and white, unfortunately.

[boston bean]

4. I knew it was over when I read this:

In an unusual move, Judge Harold Kahn has allowed jurors to submit written questions throughout the trial. He read them out loud in court Friday, with Pao in the witness stand.

The questions focused mostly on inconsistencies in Pao’s story.

Given Pao’s claims that she wanted to become an investor, one juror wanted to know about her current position as interim CEO at Reddit, an online forum. Is that an operating role rather than one with investment responsibilities. Yes, Pao responded. She later explained that she took the job because no one would hire her as an investor.

Another question focused on Pao’s low opinion of the investigator Kleiner Perkins hired to look into her sexism allegations. She has criticized his inquiry, which found her complaints groundless, as biased and haphazard. What if, the juror asked, he had instead sided with Pao? Would she then have thought differently about his investigation?

No, Pao said. “I wasn’t happy with the process, and even if he had come out in my favor, I wouldn’t recommend him again,” she added.

The jury also had several questions about Pao’s relationship with fellow partner Ajit Nazre, with whom she had a brief affair, and its aftermath. Was it appropriate to be involved with a married coworker? Why was she so adamant about him staying at the firm after she complained to senior partners that he had pressured her into sex and then retaliated against her after she broke off their relationship?

Pao reiterated he had told her he was separated from his wife at the time, and only later learned it was a lie. And she was in a difficult position because getting him fired would have exacerbated his already serious marital and family problems. Furthermore, other partners had pressured her to lobby management to let him keep his job. .

The jury also seemed confused by another email Pao sent to Doerr, who mentored her during much of her tenure at the firm. In it, she used the word “asshole” to ask that partners be more respectful. Was it rude for her to use such a term? Was that typical language at the firm?

“No, I was not calling him an asshole,” said Pao, who had actually wrote “Don’t be an asshole” as a recommendation to colleagues. “It was a phrase that was used within the company.”

The jury’s questions also let Pao show a more vulnerable side, which make her more sympathetic than the image of a sour territorial employee that Kleiner Perkins is pushing in court. For example, she revealed that she had suffered a miscarriage while at the firm. Because she was under medical care following the incident, Pao couldn’t properly set up and attend key meetings. But management held her organizational problems with those meetings against her in a performance review, she complained.

http://fortune.com/2015/03/13/kleiner-perkins-ellen-pao/

[Starry Messenger]

5. That's actually a much better article than local media coverage.

Sadly.