3 ms·

I think you need to re-read my comment again. As I mentioned, the merits of her case haven't been decided in either direction - let's all wait for the judgemen

I think you need to re-read my comment again. As I mentioned, the merits of her case haven't been decided in either direction - let's all wait for the judgement. However, I'm pointing out this whole ludicrous "she's one of us!", and "occasional public win!" is pretty absurd. Here in Australia, we love rooting for the underdog, but as I said, none of the parties in this case are underdogs. It's not like Kleiner is able to out-lawyer her. I mean, really? She's a lawyer, married to a ex-hedge fund manager (who has previously successfully sued for discrimination, and ironically been sued himself as well) - they have oodles of experience, and millions to fund this to completion. To me, this is just a case of two adversaries, slogging it out in a civil case. Kleiner is trying to slant this as, office relationship gone wrong, and Pao has sour grapes. Pao is trying to slant this as, company was out to get me because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of misogynistic pigs. If there was wrong here, I'd want justice meted out to the wrongful party. However, I don't for a minute think that Pao (or Kleiner) is on "my team", or that either party represents the voice of the people. They're just two rich parties, slogging it out, and we should hope that justice will prevail.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I was agreeing that she is outrageously well placed to take them on. She is definitely "not one of us" if us are people with net worth below a couple of million. But ironically the laws she is using are there to defend individuals from discrimination by those who might say that individual is "not one of us". I do not see this as two rich adversaries, the outcome of which is of little consequence or interest. I see this as an unusual example of one rich and powerful interest (Kleiner) (who represents what apparently is a deep and entrenched vein of misogyny in IT/VC and that vein has anecdotally been using it's power to discriminate in this fashion and get away with it) and an alleged victim of discrimination who happens to be rich/powerful enough to put up a fight. I do happen to think that, like women only short lists, women only funds are likely to be in our future.
- victorhooi 12y ago
  Reading your comment, I suspect in many ways you have already decided on the "right" and "wrong" party in your head (e.g. look at your description of Kleiner). I don't have a horse in this race, and nor have I pre-decided the outcome - let's wait for the courts. It could go either way - either somebody is crying wolf, or somebody discriminated against an employee, and stopped their promotion. It may take some time for this to churn through the courts, and an outcome to be decided - I suspect much of the mob may already have moved on and lost interest by then...lol. And I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your last sentence. There wasn't any reasoning or context attached to the statement, so I'm not really sure how I should reply.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I was agreeing that she is outrageously well placed to take them on. She is definitely "not one of us" if us are people with net worth below a couple of million. But ironically the laws she is using are there to defend individuals from discrimination by those who might say that individual is "not one of us". I do not see this as two rich adversaries, the outcome of which is of little consequence or interest. I see this as an unusual example of one rich and powerful interest (Kleiner) (who represents what apparently is a deep and entrenched vein of misogyny in IT/VC and that vein has anecdotally been using it's power to discriminate in this fashion and get away with it) and an alleged victim of discrimination who happens to be rich/powerful enough to put up a fight. I do happen to think that, like women only short lists, women only funds are likely to be in our future.

victorhooi 12y ago
Reading your comment, I suspect in many ways you have already decided on the "right" and "wrong" party in your head (e.g. look at your description of Kleiner). I don't have a horse in this race, and nor have I pre-decided the outcome - let's wait for the courts. It could go either way - either somebody is crying wolf, or somebody discriminated against an employee, and stopped their promotion. It may take some time for this to churn through the courts, and an outcome to be decided - I suspect much of the mob may already have moved on and lost interest by then...lol. And I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your last sentence. There wasn't any reasoning or context attached to the statement, so I'm not really sure how I should reply.