4 ms·

I guess we need to start having all-female and all-male companies. It seems like trying to have the sexes get along is becoming a huge legal liability and not w

by javert 12y ago

I guess we need to start having all-female and all-male companies. It seems like trying to have the sexes get along is becoming a huge legal liability and not worth it.

Dove 12y ago
Well, that would only work for straight people. Everyone else would have to work on a team with a maximum size of two, which seems like a rather unfair way for the world to work. No, I think we're just going to have to figure out how to get along.
- javert 12y ago
  That is utopianist thinking. There are always going to be personal vendettas between people. There is no amout of education or cultural change that will alter that fact. That is why we need courts, laws, rules, etc.
youngButEager 12y ago
Agreed. It's become too distracting and polarizing. What really screws up this tale is -- it's not a case of "unwanted advances." The fact that she says 'he made repeated unwanted advances' is simply NOT TRUE. I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true. If you're aware of the history of what transpired for the entire length of time that Pao and Nazre you already know she's a liar. If I was on the KPCB legal team, I'd have to point out this fallacious claim she's made. Once you can show that a complainant is a liar -- it will destroy the rest of their case. If the complainant is willing to go on record and make a false statement to the court -- it's game over.
- voltagex_ 12y ago
  >I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true Why not?
  - meric 12y ago
    I don't think unwanted advances is or should be illegal unless you make workplace relationships illegal too - since for a relationship to happen an 'advance' was required in the first place. Otherwise you'd make successful advances legal and rejected advances illegal, which basically means "Lockup all the rejects in jail." Pao and Nazre ended up in a relationship so those advances were only part of the courting process. He was a dick for lying about his spouse but lying to get into a relationship isn't illegal. What's in front of the jury is whether there was misconduct company and its employees in handling the situation post Pao-Nazre breakup.
  - youngButEager 12y ago
    Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. But stay tuned to the case -- although attorneys know to drag things out to generate billable hours, eventually this will come up in the case. If you re-read the complaint, with decent reading comprehension you'll get it. HINT: "I came to HR because I'm being harassed by a male colleague that I'm never, ever going to date in any way shape or form, and he still keeps making advances, he won't stop, I need help from the company." Now that would be a solid case.
    - javert 12y ago
      > Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. Just going out on a limb, but it sounds like you might be trying to say: I know this to be objectively true, but there is no way for me to prove it to you. That is a common situation that we as humans don't seem to have a name for, but probably should. (FYI, I did not downvote... in fact I upvoted your comment.)
      - youngButEager 12y ago
        The history of the case is all out there. KPCB was going to fire Nazre. But Pao petitioned the leadership not to. The complaint/lawsuit from Pao is: "Nazre was harrassing me. And KPCB wouldn't do anything about it. That's gender discrimination." HERE ARE THE FACTS. 1) she had a consensual relationship with Nazre. 2) when she complained she was being 'harrassed', John Doerr -- the main guy at KPCB -- was going to fire Nazre. But Pao talked the company out of that. At each step in her construction of a possible lawsuit, she was complicit. Dated Nazre. Complained about Nazre after they split. Petitioned KPCB not to fire Nazre. It's all a load of crap from the outset. If this was a clean case, where the complainant had zero complicity, ie. "a coworker is making unwanted advances" and the firm did nothing, well okay. But that's not what happened. "After learning [from Pao] of Nazre's behavior, Doerr was angry with him and wanted to fire him. But Pao opposed, sending e-mails to senior partners urging them to help Nazre rather than fire him."
mikeash 12y ago
Much easier to just not be dickheads to the opposite sex. Plenty of workplaces manage this just fine. The fact that this incident is abnormal enough to get a lot of attention is encouraging.
- javert 12y ago
  If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of those 100 guys is a dickhead once? Plus, there is always a risk that a woman will simply lie about some kind of harassment. Much better to just not hire any females, or to have an all-female company and not hire any males.
  - hudibras 12y ago
    "If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of those 100 guys is a dickhead once?" Shaking my head here...It's very simple: have a competent HR department. a. The alleged dickhead does something. b. The alleged victim feels comfortable taking the issue to HR. c. HR does a complete, impartial investigation listening to both sides and taking all factors into consideration. d. HR recommends a course of action. In almost every initial case, this means an informal mediation between the two individuals led by a trained mediator. e. Company leadership follows the HR recommendation. By the way, this is what most American companies do. It's not rocket science and there's no need to re-invent the wheel.
    - javert 12y ago
      In the case we are talking about, presumably, some version of this took place. But yeah, I am really just trying to make a broader point that I think people should just part ways when they have personal disagreements, rather than sue one another. And I think the law should reflect that expectation, rather than working the way it works now. It is a reductio ad absurdum (having all-male or all-female companies is the absurdum).
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Bear in mind that most places, HR is trusted roughly as much as your average scorpion. People dread the mere possibility of ever dealing with HR.
Dewie 12y ago
Maybe we're still experiences the growing pains of having a corporate culture with a lot of both women and men? It seems odd though if that's still the case, after all these years.
maxerickson 12y ago
Is this a real conclusion, or is it just a smart remark? If it is real, what evidence did you feed into your reasoning process? There are apparently lots of places where men and women do work together without issue, so I wonder how you are weighting that.
- javert 12y ago
  I was just making a point. It is mostly what you would call a "smart remark." But not entirely. It's also just an intesting observation. I mean, if you happen to have a company with 20 or 100 men, you'd be crazy to make the 21st or 101th hire a woman. Or vice versa.

by javert 12y ago

I guess we need to start having all-female and all-male companies. It seems like trying to have the sexes get along is becoming a huge legal liability and not worth it.

Dove 12y ago

Well, that would only work for straight people. Everyone else would have to work on a team with a maximum size of two, which seems like a rather unfair way for the world to work. No, I think we're just going to have to figure out how to get along.

javert 12y ago
That is utopianist thinking. There are always going to be personal vendettas between people. There is no amout of education or cultural change that will alter that fact. That is why we need courts, laws, rules, etc.

youngButEager 12y ago

Agreed. It's become too distracting and polarizing. What really screws up this tale is -- it's not a case of "unwanted advances." The fact that she says 'he made repeated unwanted advances' is simply NOT TRUE. I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true. If you're aware of the history of what transpired for the entire length of time that Pao and Nazre you already know she's a liar. If I was on the KPCB legal team, I'd have to point out this fallacious claim she's made. Once you can show that a complainant is a liar -- it will destroy the rest of their case. If the complainant is willing to go on record and make a false statement to the court -- it's game over.

voltagex_ 12y ago
>I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true Why not?
- meric 12y ago
  I don't think unwanted advances is or should be illegal unless you make workplace relationships illegal too - since for a relationship to happen an 'advance' was required in the first place. Otherwise you'd make successful advances legal and rejected advances illegal, which basically means "Lockup all the rejects in jail." Pao and Nazre ended up in a relationship so those advances were only part of the courting process. He was a dick for lying about his spouse but lying to get into a relationship isn't illegal. What's in front of the jury is whether there was misconduct company and its employees in handling the situation post Pao-Nazre breakup.
- youngButEager 12y ago
  Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. But stay tuned to the case -- although attorneys know to drag things out to generate billable hours, eventually this will come up in the case. If you re-read the complaint, with decent reading comprehension you'll get it. HINT: "I came to HR because I'm being harassed by a male colleague that I'm never, ever going to date in any way shape or form, and he still keeps making advances, he won't stop, I need help from the company." Now that would be a solid case.
  - javert 12y ago
    > Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. Just going out on a limb, but it sounds like you might be trying to say: I know this to be objectively true, but there is no way for me to prove it to you. That is a common situation that we as humans don't seem to have a name for, but probably should. (FYI, I did not downvote... in fact I upvoted your comment.)
    - youngButEager 12y ago
      The history of the case is all out there. KPCB was going to fire Nazre. But Pao petitioned the leadership not to. The complaint/lawsuit from Pao is: "Nazre was harrassing me. And KPCB wouldn't do anything about it. That's gender discrimination." HERE ARE THE FACTS. 1) she had a consensual relationship with Nazre. 2) when she complained she was being 'harrassed', John Doerr -- the main guy at KPCB -- was going to fire Nazre. But Pao talked the company out of that. At each step in her construction of a possible lawsuit, she was complicit. Dated Nazre. Complained about Nazre after they split. Petitioned KPCB not to fire Nazre. It's all a load of crap from the outset. If this was a clean case, where the complainant had zero complicity, ie. "a coworker is making unwanted advances" and the firm did nothing, well okay. But that's not what happened. "After learning [from Pao] of Nazre's behavior, Doerr was angry with him and wanted to fire him. But Pao opposed, sending e-mails to senior partners urging them to help Nazre rather than fire him."

mikeash 12y ago

Much easier to just not be dickheads to the opposite sex. Plenty of workplaces manage this just fine. The fact that this incident is abnormal enough to get a lot of attention is encouraging.

javert 12y ago
If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of those 100 guys is a dickhead once? Plus, there is always a risk that a woman will simply lie about some kind of harassment. Much better to just not hire any females, or to have an all-female company and not hire any males.
- hudibras 12y ago
  "If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of those 100 guys is a dickhead once?" Shaking my head here...It's very simple: have a competent HR department. a. The alleged dickhead does something. b. The alleged victim feels comfortable taking the issue to HR. c. HR does a complete, impartial investigation listening to both sides and taking all factors into consideration. d. HR recommends a course of action. In almost every initial case, this means an informal mediation between the two individuals led by a trained mediator. e. Company leadership follows the HR recommendation. By the way, this is what most American companies do. It's not rocket science and there's no need to re-invent the wheel.
  - javert 12y ago
    In the case we are talking about, presumably, some version of this took place. But yeah, I am really just trying to make a broader point that I think people should just part ways when they have personal disagreements, rather than sue one another. And I think the law should reflect that expectation, rather than working the way it works now. It is a reductio ad absurdum (having all-male or all-female companies is the absurdum).
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Bear in mind that most places, HR is trusted roughly as much as your average scorpion. People dread the mere possibility of ever dealing with HR.

Dewie 12y ago

Maybe we're still experiences the growing pains of having a corporate culture with a lot of both women and men? It seems odd though if that's still the case, after all these years.

maxerickson 12y ago

Is this a real conclusion, or is it just a smart remark? If it is real, what evidence did you feed into your reasoning process? There are apparently lots of places where men and women do work together without issue, so I wonder how you are weighting that.

javert 12y ago
I was just making a point. It is mostly what you would call a "smart remark." But not entirely. It's also just an intesting observation. I mean, if you happen to have a company with 20 or 100 men, you'd be crazy to make the 21st or 101th hire a woman. Or vice versa.