I couldn't understand the english. Can someone explain in plkain english please?
My understanding: the firm paid Pao's lawyer bill and she droped her case.
She did not take any more money to keep her freedom to speak publicly about the issue.
1) Pao lost the case and as a result was found to owe (part) of KP's legal bills.
2) KP has filled something with the court indicating that they don't need enforcement of that any more.
Indicating either Pao paid them, or they came to an agreement to not get paid in full in exchange for Pao not appealing or related things like agreeing to not discuss them further publicly.
All the court filings really indicate is that KP considers the matter closed.
I give it about five minutes before The Guardian publishes an editorial entitled: "Ellen Pao lawsuit ends but will not slow fight for gender equality in Silicon Valley."
Amusing but sadly apt. The most interesting aspect of this case was the extreme difference between how it was reported and what the jury found to be factual.
It went so far that the NYT ended up editing stories after they were posted and admitting to changing their strategy to no longer report "just the facts":
So many outlets uniformly reported that Pao WAS the victim of gender discrimination and she WAS on a crusade to represent women in tech. Not an exaggeration, those thing were actually being said.
I have yet to see any of the outlets that reported this angle backtrack, even after the verdict came out against Pao.
The Guardian is doing very well. Thier articles/journalists have a left world view and do not pretend they are neutral.
I don't agree with a lot of their editorial opinions, but I can respect their strategy. It is refreshing compared to the NYT and other media organizations that pretend they are unbiased/neutral, while promoting some sort of specific world view.
Their news coverage is pretty decent. I read it daily. But their opinion pieces are laughably stupid. Just this past summer they did a piece about how air conditioning is sexist.
Every day Jessica Valenti writes something about the Pro Life movement and calls it the "Anti Choice" movement, which is a like Fox News calling banksters "Job Creators."
Syreeta what's her face did a piece the other day about how film stock is racist (she apparently doesn't know how to set her camera aperture properly and blames it on film not being designed to capture black faces).
I agree that there was a bit of a tongue in cheek tone to the piece. For example, the title referenced the cold war. That being said, given the larger context of The Guardian's opinion pieces and their tendency towards feminist demagoguery, I read it as "I'm kidding!" (but I'm kind of serious, too.) There was also a mention of the higher temperature being better for the environment, which reinforced the "I'm only half joking" subtext for me.
I'm mildly frustrated that this will be seen as a win by the MRA's. Yes, there was not sufficient evidence to back Pao's claims but anyone that has worked in an office environment with women present can attest to the fact that women still are not in equal standing with their male peers. There is a lot of work to be done in our society. I would love to live in a world where gender becomes insignificant to the point that it isn't discussed.
> anyone that has worked in an office environment with women present can attest to the fact that women still are not in equal standing with their male peers.
This is certainly not true. I've worked in many offices with women who were treated with respect, excelled at their role and were recognized as such.
If you have problems in your workplace you should report them, not generalize them to everyone's workplace.
Ellen Pao is not the figurehead any movement should rally behind. Between this and her husband's fraud, people who actually care about gender equality shouldn't have touched the case with a ten-foot pole. It was fishy business from the outset.
If MRAs see it as a victory, that's because their opponents made such a big deal out of this case. A little bit of foresight on their part would have made it a non-issue.
Regardless of how many of one group of people are mistreated, it is not a given that anyone from that group that claims mistreatment is being truthful. Sometimes people who seek attention will pick an issue that many think is beyond reproach because they know they will have a guaranteed support group. People get raped everyday and it is not very PC to question the validity of such a claim. Yet people have been found to make false rape claims. People get discriminated against everyday and it is not very PC to question it. But people have been found to fabricate (or exaggerate) stories. Usually when people come out and start to question a claim, they just get lumped into the "haters" group. They are labeled as "part of the problem." But often those questioning are the only ones that actually care about the truth.
19 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 30.1 ms ] threadMy understanding: the firm paid Pao's lawyer bill and she droped her case. She did not take any more money to keep her freedom to speak publicly about the issue.
Is that right?
1) Pao lost the case and as a result was found to owe (part) of KP's legal bills. 2) KP has filled something with the court indicating that they don't need enforcement of that any more. Indicating either Pao paid them, or they came to an agreement to not get paid in full in exchange for Pao not appealing or related things like agreeing to not discuss them further publicly.
All the court filings really indicate is that KP considers the matter closed.
It went so far that the NYT ended up editing stories after they were posted and admitting to changing their strategy to no longer report "just the facts":
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2015/07/19/ny-ti...
So many outlets uniformly reported that Pao WAS the victim of gender discrimination and she WAS on a crusade to represent women in tech. Not an exaggeration, those thing were actually being said.
I have yet to see any of the outlets that reported this angle backtrack, even after the verdict came out against Pao.
I don't agree with a lot of their editorial opinions, but I can respect their strategy. It is refreshing compared to the NYT and other media organizations that pretend they are unbiased/neutral, while promoting some sort of specific world view.
Every day Jessica Valenti writes something about the Pro Life movement and calls it the "Anti Choice" movement, which is a like Fox News calling banksters "Job Creators."
Syreeta what's her face did a piece the other day about how film stock is racist (she apparently doesn't know how to set her camera aperture properly and blames it on film not being designed to capture black faces).
It's a fucking joke.
I wondered about that article and had a look:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/shortcuts/2015/aug/04/new-c...
If you read through the article, it's clearly a joke to them.
>25C it is, then. Fine, as long as you’re aware that means more men wearing shorts in the office during summer.
This is certainly not true. I've worked in many offices with women who were treated with respect, excelled at their role and were recognized as such.
If you have problems in your workplace you should report them, not generalize them to everyone's workplace.
If MRAs see it as a victory, that's because their opponents made such a big deal out of this case. A little bit of foresight on their part would have made it a non-issue.