Hacker News Reader

You're throwing a lot of opinion out there that's not backed by evidence or even anecdote.

I currently work for a VC funded company and have worked for several in the past. I would not describe any of them as "frat house cultures". You're making some pretty sweeping generalizations.

The dinner with Al Gore was for senior partners and there WAS women invited, they just couldn't make it. Here's Mary Meeker on the subject:

http://recode.net/2015/03/16/liveblog-mary-meeker-testifies-...

> a highly qualified woman suggested they invest in winners like Twitter only to be ignored

We don't know the fully story here. They had already looked at investing in Twitter and passed. A mistake? Sure. But anti-portfolios are famous. Whether Pao is "highly qualified" or not is debatable. Has she made any successful investments? Was she previously a successful entrepreneur? Those are things that would make you highly qualified to be a VC.

I don't see anything "sickening" here.

Wrong, I do have facts on my side, and we do have a big chunk of the story because it's being aired out in a high profile court case for those of us paying attention.

I've been to several VC-funded companies that involved things like excessive drinking, happy hours as part of the interviews, etc. For some bizarre reason involving an algorithm called Future Founders that looks for potential founders, I also got invited to a VC lunch where they talked about these strategies, ways to effectively outsource, etc. I am going to write a tell-all about it eventually but I'm still too mid-career for it to be a good idea.

VCs are throwing around a lot of intangibles and "we just can't know for sure" for why there field is 96% male, and yet the woman who objectively outperforms them doesn't get promoted. You can easily fact check the sexism I'm talking about by just looking up top VC firms and scrolling through their list of partners, and I would also recommend every tech employee look at the gender makeup of their board of directors, and reading more about this case.

Are you joking about saying her qualifications are debatable? She has an engineering degree from Princeton, an MBA and JD from Harvard, and the only thing that prevents her from having a track record of successful investments is the sexism being demonstrated in this case!

96% male, paying yourselevs $3 million a year but running to Democrats like Obama and DeBlasio to spend taxpayer money to fill your "talent shortage", harassing and retaliating against the few female VCs you do have, I do see sickening behavior, and the reason you can't is because you're a corporate shill.

Yes, this case is exposing the sordid 1950's style inner workings at a modern VC, as it should.

The issue is that Pao is a lousy person to get behind on many of the issues she's the complainant on. She appeared to have routinely crossed good social boundaries that she's now complaining about, and was well rewarded for her work, receiving sizable bonuses for missing a performance eval.

I wish on my wildest dreams my reviews went as poorly as the ones she's taking issue with.

She still has plenty of valid complaints, but it's like she's infected with a logical fallacy disease, and any attempt to rationally examine her case almost forces one to wrongly dismiss her due to a list of fallacies that infect any examination of her claims.

She was hit on by a married man at work? That's genuinely unprofessional. But then she had an affair with a married coworker. It makes it easy to dismiss her on this, even if her complaint is still valid.

She was discriminated against? She received six figure bonuses and huge pay raises for missing a performance review that she then "forgot"! Again, did everybody else get 7 figure bonuses and even bigger raises? Maybe her claim is still valid even if it's easy to lose sight of it in the logical fallacy bait she keeps throwing into the case.

And so on.

Maybe she was lousy at her job and that's why she missed out on opportunities. Maybe she missed out because she's a minority class who was discriminated against.

Maybe she's just an unpleasant person to be around and people didn't invite her to parties, where he easier to get along with peers made good networking connections. Is that discrimination? Not if she wasn't invited for being a whiny bore (I don't know that she is), but it is if she wasn't invited for being a woman or a minority or whatever.

Whatever the case is, it's not entirely clear that she was personally discriminated against, even if the VC firm she was part discriminates in other cases. What is clear is that she definitely played in the same game as many of the people she's now complaining about post-facto, and this soils her arguments.

One of the reasons it's important to try and maintain a good reputation based on strong personal integrity is that if a case like this comes up with you, it's much easier for an arbiter to parse out the bad doings against you from the bad doings you committed.

edit here she is in action https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJp3sTM2oeo

There's no doubt she was playing the same games. Doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against for being a woman, and in retaliation she's looking for the millions she wasn't paid and letting all of us lowly engineers know what games the VCs are playing.

And how underpaid we are?

I'd trade what I'm getting paid right now to take on what sounds like a far easier job that pays quite a bit more in a bad year than what I make in a great year.

But qualifications don't get you into these kinds of clubs, connections and pedigree do.

I think that she just might've just been a bad egg, given the facts presented in the article.

Very convenient that this 'bad egg' in VC happens to be one of the 4% women in the field, and who again, seemed to do a far, far more competent job at the actual job description of picking the right companies to invest in, rather than total intangibles like 'thought leadership' and 'owning the room'. Read more articles about the case, read about how she wanted to invest in Twitter but they picked a bunch of losers instead, and still ignored her for promotion for intangibles that can straightfowardly be construed as gender-biased.

I'll read more into it like you suggest.