Althouse: "It is a form of soft discrimination that I fear might be all too familiar to all too many women..."

April 3, 2015

"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."

80 comments:

MadisonMan said...: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.; 4/3/15, 11:09 AM
I Callahan said...: I have an idea. Why not just man up? Grow a pair.

Either feminists are woman, hear them roar; or they're precious snowflakes that need others to protect them.

Pick one, and let the normal people know at least what to expect.; 4/3/15, 11:13 AM
rehajm said...: I'm sure Ms. Lowrey will not find that kind of soft discrimination at the venture firm Ellen Pao is presently organizing and building from the ground up. You know, the firm that will make Keliner Perkins success look modest in comparison.

I'm sure there's a place for Ms. Lowrey there.; 4/3/15, 11:14 AM
chickelit said...: Pao is a butt-hurt, sore loser.

Defendant's lead council, Lynne C. Hermle is still undefeated in a still largely male-dominated field. Why no kudos for her?

Hermle said after the trial: it “never occurred to me for a second that a careful and attentive jury like this would find either discrimination or retaliation.”; 4/3/15, 11:18 AM
chickelit said...: The thing is, who's gonna hire Pao now?; 4/3/15, 11:19 AM
Todd said...: Quick! Call the Waaaabulance!; 4/3/15, 11:19 AM
rhhardin said...: Women are grim about their traditionally male work, is why you don't ask them.

Find out some other interest she has and ask her about that.

If the women had an actual male obsessive interest in, say, her math job, you'd ask about it.; 4/3/15, 11:19 AM
Bobber Fleck said...: Pao's eye glasses are a giveaway.; 4/3/15, 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: My sense is that if the author got her way, fewer women would be hired and fewer would make partner. Go ahead, make all those decisions based on quantifiable metrics.

At the VC firm, Junior Partner was the entry position (aka Law firm associate). They hire 25 and later 5 get promoted and 20 get let go. What if all law firms judged partner decisions on total billable hours. Think women would come out well?; 4/3/15, 11:23 AM
Paul said...: Look around you people. The entire modern world was invented and built by men. Women's contribution is negligible at best.

Why should men consider women their equals?; 4/3/15, 11:23 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: that it is discrimination, and that it has consequences.

Fair enough, add it to the list. Hey, out of curiosity, do women show any differences in what converstation topics they instinctively choose when addressing men or other women? Do women in any way choose different topics/approaches when dealing with attractive men, or tall me, or younger men, or rich-seeming men?

And it is so, so exhausting, all those subtle hints that you are a little different and that your behavior is being interpreted a little differently

Right, no one else experiences that, everyone else is treated exactly the same. Obviously sexism is more harmful than age-ism, look-ism, tall-ism, rich-ism, similar background-ism...because it has the possibility to harm women. And gender is a protected variable.; 4/3/15, 11:23 AM
stan said...: A woman looking for discrimination will ALWAYS find it, even when it isn't there.

On a similar note -- men would be happy to give women whatever they want, just as soon as women figure out what the hell it is.; 4/3/15, 11:23 AM
YoungHegelian said...: It happens all the time when my husband and I are at work events together. Cocktail Party Guy [CPG] asks my husband about how things are going at his news site, and he answers.

Unclear in this anecdote about "work events" is whose work?

CPG may be in the same or related industry as Hubby, and thus, will not only be able to understand the answer, but actually may a have a real live business interest to pursue with Hubby if the right answer comes back.

If CPG is in the same business as the author, and he's not asking her how's business, but instead asking the Hubby, CPG is either just rude & sexist or he just doesn't like the author much.

In general, though, from my point of view, is that if you don't need my services or me yours, let's keep the chatter about our jobs to a minimum at parties. Nothing's worse than being stuck talking to a guy who expounds at length on the joys of aluminum siding.; 4/3/15, 11:25 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: "Ellen Pao and the Sexism You Can’t Quite Prove"
The reason can't prove it is because it does not exist. Let's think of some things that, no matter how hard you try, you "can't quite prove":
-The existence of space aliens
-Mind control rays
-Obama born in Kenya
-Saddam's WMD's
-Scarlet Johanson's mad Laslo Love
-Jews control the world
-You had enough money in the bank to cover that check that bounced
-Etc, etc.; 4/3/15, 11:26 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: So would making the metrics in performance evaluations more objective and transparent. Had Kleiner Perkins made its promotions based on how much business its employees brought in, rather than whether they “demonstrated leadership,” it might have treated her differently. The idea is to force covert sexism to be made overt where you can, around the conference table if not at the ski lodge or the cocktail party. Only then can you stamp it out.

Ha! As if objective measures will make a difference! Who wants to bet that if Pao's objective measures weren't as good she would have simply said "well, can't blame a covert sexist corporate culture for this one" when she didn't get promoted? She wouldn't have blamed the objective results on the very covert sexism she's asserting exists?!
Please, we've been down that road before. It used to be common for large employers to administer tests to job applicants--general tests similar to an IQ evaluation. Such practices were legally prohibited as discriminatory (which by the way helped make college as a sorting mechanism, with it's attendant waste, almost mandatory). More-objective criteria as a goal is a canard--the author's own focus on Cocktail Party Guy makes that clear.; 4/3/15, 11:29 AM
Julie C said...: The author of this piece has some grammar issues. She may want to address those before pointing the finger at her cocktail party poopers.

And why not spend a few minutes chatting about dogs? That sounds like more fun. You might make a new friend, and later find out that he or she could be a great source of information that could help your career. Learn to schmooze.; 4/3/15, 11:30 AM
JSD said...: Maybe Google will celebrate her birthday with a doodle. She could join the long list of obscure feminists commemorated with a Google doodle that I’ve never heard of.; 4/3/15, 11:42 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Look around you people. The entire modern world was invented and built by men."

If so, it was done because of women. Without women, you'd have none all that and you wouldn't even care, because you would not exist.; 4/3/15, 11:43 AM
Henry said...: This stands out:

So would making the metrics in performance evaluations more objective and transparent. Had Kleiner Perkins made its promotions based on how much business its employees brought in, rather than whether they “demonstrated leadership,” it might have treated her differently.

Oh Jaysus. it's the utilitarian fallacy. If only we could dehumanize everyone to a metric we can get rid of soft discrimination.

You want objectivity?

I made $970,000 last year. How much'd you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing.

Ms. Lowrey should rewatch Glen Garry Glen Ross in all its masculine-domain despair. None of those salesmen needed to demonstrate leadership. They just needed leads.

Oh? Have I got your attention now? Good. "Cause we're adding a little something to this month's sales contest. As you all know first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. Get the picture? You laughing now? You got leads. Mitch and Murray paid good money, get their names to sell them, you can't close the leads you're given you can't close shit.

But the leads are weak. So much for your metric.; 4/3/15, 11:44 AM
iqvoice said...: I can't take anyone seriously who wears makeup, high heels, or pencil skirts.

I'm still waiting for the study on how inappropriately dressed women produce stress hormones and distractions for the men who have to work with them.; 4/3/15, 11:45 AM
mccullough said...: This article makes some good points. You can judge a lot of these places not just on whether or not women get promoted but also on the type of men that do or don't as well. The culture of that place sounds bad. A group of sniveling men.; 4/3/15, 11:48 AM
Rob said...: Things we know about Annie Lowrey:

1. She doesn't understand the nominative case. ("Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs.") I blame the endemic and offensive use of the nominative case as the object of a verb or preposition, as in "for Michelle and I," spoken often by our president as well as many lesser luminaries. As long as the nominative case can be used in place of the objective, why not the reverse? Because it's wrong, Annie Lowrey, because it's wrong. And also, inequality!; 4/3/15, 11:49 AM
Paul said...: "If so, it was done because of women. Without women, you'd have none all that and you wouldn't even care, because you would not exist."

Dumb response. Without men women can't conceive and bear children either so it's a wash.

Obviously both sexes are needed to procreate, but only one of those CREATED the amazing civilization we live in.; 4/3/15, 11:50 AM
Virgil Hilts said...: "Both me and my husband love our work ..." "Both me and my husband love our dogs..." Maybe they don't ask about her writing because it sucks!; 4/3/15, 11:53 AM
chickelit said...: If so, it was done because of women. Without women, you'd have none all that and you wouldn't even care, because you would not exist.

Sigh. Without men, there would be no pregnant women either. There wouldn't even be sperm donors. Of course, we could reassign the gender of sperm donors and stretch the dictionary definition of "men." Maybe that's been done in "philosophy"?; 4/3/15, 11:54 AM
chickelit said...: Virgil Hilts said...
"Both me and my husband love our work ..." "Both me and my husband love our dogs..." Maybe they don't ask about her writing because it sucks!

4/3/15, 11:53 AM

Yikes! Good catch! Amba has a recent post up about that: link; 4/3/15, 11:56 AM
Virgil Hilts said...: Rob, GMTA! Did not see your post before I posted.; 4/3/15, 11:56 AM
rhhardin said...: The objective case is the unmarked cast in English. If there's no compelling reason for the nominative, it goes into the objective.

Me apparently is taken as the object of both.; 4/3/15, 11:57 AM
Amy said...: I can't take anyone seriously whose major concerns relate to cocktail party chatter and ski trips.
First world problems to the extreme.

My dislike for this woman became so strong I couldn't get through the article.

As someone who has worked in a mostly-male environment, I've learned to deal. To SHUT UP and deal. To excel. To make my own way.

And it's funny- my now-husband told me about his history of feeling excluded b/c of class background issues in his field when he was younger. Made me see that we all have issues/triggers/challenges and obstacles, no matter who we are, no matter where we come from.

GET OVER IT!; 4/3/15, 11:57 AM
Henry said...: I am sympathetic to Ms. Pao's predicament. A huge amount of opportunity in almost career results from who you know and how you interact with them and all sorts of social and psychological complexities underlie that dynamic. It can be extremely arbitrary.

But the alternative is the civil service exam. It is the grim gray hierarchy of the checklist and the test. It is the place where no discrimination can possibly exist because zombies don't play favorites.; 4/3/15, 12:02 PM
JAORE said...: Objective criteria are only valid when they result in the output we demand.

-SJWs everywhere; 4/3/15, 12:10 PM
rhhardin said...: My dislike for this woman became so strong I couldn't get through the article.

I never minded them. I liked them, in fact.

It's the way guys are with women, mostly.; 4/3/15, 12:10 PM
JAORE said...: Failed to "... build consensus, and be a team player". If I may attribute the authors attitude to that of Ms. Pao, I'd ask:

How can that be when she spent so much time telling men they were discriminating and how they need to change?; 4/3/15, 12:14 PM
damikesc said...: If I'm a CEO, why would I ever hire a college educated woman? Not all grads are like this, but it doesn't take apples having worms to ruin the bunch.; 4/3/15, 12:16 PM
Unknown said...: What a terrible writer..

'Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs.'

Maybe there’s a reason people don’t want to talk to her.; 4/3/15, 12:16 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Holy shit, Annie Lowery's husband is Ezra Klein.

Wikipedia: Annie Lowery

She "studied English and American Literature at Harvard University," so you people (men) making fun of her grammar are obviously wrong.; 4/3/15, 12:18 PM
rhhardin said...: Both me and my husband might be a writing style.

It's not unusual grammmar.

What you want to watch out for is hypercorrection, which is a true display of ignorance.; 4/3/15, 12:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Humans are sexist. Women have all kinds of stereotypical notions about the opposite sex, and many of them are true. Why is it surprising that men do, too?

Ms. Pao might have responded to her interlocutor, "Our dogs are dead, but work is great." My mother would have said something like that, or given the guy a glare and a wicked smile. Why all the bitching?

OK, in our culture, men are on top (pun intended) a little more than women, but I've never met a strong woman (or man) who can't get her/ his way in the long run. Someone has to be on top--sponing is cool, but it cannot ever last.

The constant bitching on both sides is so tedious.

To all women and men, and woymyn, and queers and lgbt's, and whoever else. Go out there and kick some butt because very few human beings care very much about your gender, race, class, etc. Everyone is screwed to a certain degree. If you are screwed, fight back. You might then be less screwed.

When you get screwed, handle it. Stop whining to us because we probably can't help, and don't care.

Laws are the last resort. They should protect those who get screwed hard. Handle your pissy little offenses like a woman--or man.; 4/3/15, 12:19 PM
ron winkleheimer said...: Maybe no one asks her about her work because it is boring.

Nobody asks me about my work beyond what it is I do. Once I say I am an IT geek they generally find another subject to discuss. The rare few who persevere and ask what I actually do? Their eyes glaze over as I try to describe it to them.

Unless you work in my field what I do is not going to be interesting to you. The only time that people not in the IT field wanted to talk about IT that I recall was right before Y2K. They wanted to know my opinion on it. (Bunch of bullshit. If you get a bill for 9 bazillion dollars don't pay it, its probably incorrect.)

My wife however is in real estate, something that nearly everyone is interested in to some extent and which can be discussed without resorting to incomprehensible (to the layperson) jargon.

Maybe her husband just has a more interesting job than writer.; 4/3/15, 12:20 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: "Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs."

Perhaps if Ms. Pao were better at subject verb agreement ...; 4/3/15, 12:22 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: If you had to guess, do you think Harvard MSNBC-contributor Lowery and UCLA Vox Klein ever engage in any soft discrimination in converstation with people of, say, different political persuasions? Or maybe different educational backgrounds? Do you think anyone out there has an anecdote about either of them steering a conversation in a partisan way, or asking them different questions based on percieved political beliefs? Nah, probably not, and any way such discrimination wouldn't be sexist so it wouldn't matter.; 4/3/15, 12:23 PM
Big Mike said...: White and Asian males have precisely one advantage in the workplace, but it's a huge one. When things go bad with our careers, we don't immediately assume that it's because of discrimination. We try to understand what went wrong, and try to fix it.; 4/3/15, 12:23 PM
JohnGalt said...: She goes to a cocktail party hoping to make business contacts and she hangs around with her husband?!?!

When I go to almost any party with my wife I try to meet other people. Except for the first minute or two with the host/hostess at the beginning of the evening and again at the end of the evening I'm trying to meet new people and learn new things. Later on I'll be scintillatingly brilliant relating the bon mots that she hasn't heard to my wife.; 4/3/15, 12:29 PM
David said...: How to stop pernicious, subtle sexism, if you cannot prove it in the courts? Pao simply driving attention to the issue might help, as my colleague Ann Friedman notes. So would making the metrics in performance evaluations more objective and transparent. Had Kleiner Perkins made its promotions based on how much business its employees brought in, rather than whether they “demonstrated leadership,” it might have treated her differently.

Might not have either. I have seen no contention that Pao was a rainmaker of any particular note.

The successful women in my old law firm (and some have been hugely successful) largely dealt with this by doing their jobs extremely well. The work came to them because they were very, very good at it, and money and influence flowed from the work. This is precisely the way the men did it as well.

There are factors beyond work quality that influence success in highly competitive organizations. Sometimes these relate to "who you know" but usually it's personality driven. You fit in or you don't. You get the culture or you don't.

Gender can have an influence on how these other factors operate, but it's not decisive and it does not all operate in one direction. There are some advantages and disadvantages to being either male or female, and these vary depending on the situation. You have to play the game on all parts of the field.; 4/3/15, 12:30 PM
UNTRIBALIST said...: If you look hard enough, you will always find a victim card, even if it's a fake one.; 4/3/15, 12:39 PM
Balfegor said...: re: rhhardin:

What you want to watch out for is hypercorrection, which is a true display of ignorance.

Whell I never! The very idear.; 4/3/15, 12:42 PM
I Callahan said...: Holy shit, Annie Lowery's husband is Ezra Klein.

That explains a lot...; 4/3/15, 12:48 PM
mtrobertsattorney said...: At 11:43 Althouse has put her finger on the natural, necessary and most important purpose of women-- child bearing.; 4/3/15, 1:10 PM
jimpbucher said...: rhhardin wrote: “What you want to watch out for is hypercorrection, which is a true display of ignorance.”

Sorry, pointing out such a gross grammatical error is not ignorance. Ignorance is what Ms. Lowrey displayed in writing such a horrid sentence. And she went to Harvard, no less.

Try this exercise, rhhardin. Delete “Both” and “and my husband” from the sentence and you are left with “Me love [my] work. Me love [my] dogs.” Would even you, rhhardin, ever say that?; 4/3/15, 1:22 PM
Sebastian said...: The sexism may be "subtle," but the whining is obvious and endless.; 4/3/15, 1:30 PM
traditionalguy said...: Someone must have already said it, but this proves she makes strangers start thinking about Bitches. Maybe it's the unruly hair.; 4/3/15, 1:30 PM
Fernandinande said...: "Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs."

Me love work. Me love dogs. Me whine because me scam didn't work.; 4/3/15, 1:31 PM
rhhardin said...: Sorry, pointing out such a gross grammatical error is not ignorance. Ignorance is what Ms. Lowrey displayed in writing such a horrid sentence. And she went to Harvard, no less.

Try this exercise, rhhardin. Delete “Both” and “and my husband” from the sentence and you are left with “Me love [my] work. Me love [my] dogs.” Would even you, rhhardin, ever say that?

But the original in fact is a dialect of English, and sounds for that reason okay.

A descriptive grammarian, as opposed to a prescriptive one, seeks to find rules that explain what sounds okay and what doesn't sound okay.

As a dialect that in fact happens, it's a writer's choice to use the dialect.

It sounds, for example, informal.

"Buth my husband and I love our work" is by contrast stuck-up, in formal register. She may not want that register.

If by contrast she were to write "The work was given to my husband and I," that's hypercorrection, and certainly ignorance.; 4/3/15, 1:37 PM
Tank said...: Amy said...

I can't take anyone seriously whose major concerns relate to cocktail party chatter and ski trips.
First world problems to the extreme.

My dislike for this woman became so strong I couldn't get through the article.

As someone who has worked in a mostly-male environment, I've learned to deal. To SHUT UP and deal. To excel. To make my own way.

And it's funny- my now-husband told me about his history of feeling excluded b/c of class background issues in his field when he was younger. Made me see that we all have issues/triggers/challenges and obstacles, no matter who we are, no matter where we come from.

GET OVER IT!

The kind of attitude that made so many people, of all types, successful, and that made our country great.; 4/3/15, 2:00 PM
Swifty Quick said...: The first rule of good writing is, when necessary, break the rules. When and whether it's necessary is a subjective call.; 4/3/15, 2:06 PM
Bob Ellison said...: I get dark looks when I say "had it been I" or "that is he". And I love to start sentences with conjunctions, and to really messily split infinitives.

Maybe grammar's just another word for nothing left to say.; 4/3/15, 2:07 PM
Unknown said...: True story: Years ago, I promoted a young lady who worked for me to a management position, her first. She was, I suppose, a feminist although, at the time, I did not think of her as such. Anyway, she hired a number of minorities, all women as I recall. And, eventually she had to fire many of them for failures to perform. In every single case they sued, unsuccessfully, but she viewed it personally, as if they were suing her. Finally, she came to me and said, "****, I'm not going to hire anymore minorities...I cannot hire someone knowing that if I have to terminate them there is a 100% Probability they will sue me."; 4/3/15, 2:07 PM
Douglas B. Levene said...: In the past 40 years, I had three woman bosses. All were psychopaths. Of course you can't generalize from that, and I worked alongside many excellent women professionals, but I would never work for another woman boss.; 4/3/15, 2:20 PM
hombre said...: The feminization of America: glorification of whiners.

It's getting old, particularly as we read about dozens of students being murdered and children being crucified abroad.

Pussies abide.; 4/3/15, 2:23 PM
lgv said...: "Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs. "

I discriminate against people who write like this. She's no Ellen Pao.; 4/3/15, 2:38 PM
Birches said...: And why not spend a few minutes chatting about dogs? That sounds like more fun. You might make a new friend, and later find out that he or she could be a great source of information that could help your career. Learn to schmooze.

That's what I thought too. Perhaps the man would rather talk about dogs and not work.

Holy shit, Annie Lowery's husband is Ezra Klein.

Yikes.

Well we know what kind of people Lowery hangs out with. The left is eating its own. Hallelujah!

In other news, that pizza place in Indiana might hit a million dollars from gofundme.; 4/3/15, 2:40 PM
TCR James said...: The world is a tough place, but it's tougher when you're a woman who writes for the NY Times.; 4/3/15, 2:57 PM
Bob Ellison said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/3/15, 3:29 PM
Mary Beth said...: I see I'm not the only one bothered by "Both me and my husband...."; 4/3/15, 3:34 PM
Gabriel said...: Oh, I see, they want standardized testing in the workplace now.

If I understand the SJW position, standardized testing is racist and sexist in education, where only educators can measure achievement and evaluate the holistic person.

But in business, it would defuse soft and subtle sexism; businesspeople cannot be trusted to measure achievement and evaluate the holistic person.

Less enlightened minds might consider this a contradiction, but that's because they have the wrong postulates. The SJW postulate is "who? whom?"; 4/3/15, 3:40 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I'm trying to think deeply and use empathy to understand this post and what Prof Althouse wants me to get from it.
If I reflexively dismiss the author's complaint that's a sexist response and reflects poorly on me. If I instead accept her premise and allow her anecdote as evidence of a large, pervasive problem, what should I then conclude? The author is highly educated (Harvard, folks), young, liberal/Progressive, presumably well-spoken, and likely no shrinking violet, so I have a hard time believing that the specific situation she mentions would actually result in much harm to her.
According to her, men subconsciously steer casual conversations with women away from work. From this she wants us to conclude a similar sexist tendency is present in the workplace itself, and that this tendency is harmful to women. I don't think she's done a good job of supporting her assertion. The cocktail party interaction is different enough from a typical workplace interaction that her evidence isn't compelling. Further, the author chooses to see the various interactions she mentions only through the lens of sexism, excluding other possible explanations. Further still by highlighting only these allegedly sexist examples she ignores other similar types of bias people commonly experience in everday interactions (age, attractiveness, relative power, etc), undercutting her conclusion's strength [ie she implicitly assumes that only sexism counts when considering biases, and that sexism of that kind is on net detrimental to women]. I've already mentioned that her proposed solutions don't address the actual problem and are likely unworkable anyway.

I'd like to understand what Prof. Althouse wants me to take from this post, but I'm afraid I don't.; 4/3/15, 3:53 PM
Carl Pham said...: Jesus, who knew Boomer women would turn out to be far more boring and timid in their middle to old age than their own graying bridge-playing June Cleaver mums back in the 70s?

More proof that if God exists he has a wicked sense of irony.; 4/3/15, 5:05 PM
khesanh0802 said...: If she writes all her pieces like this: "Both me and my husband love our work. Both me and my husband love our dogs." the Party guy is doing her a favor by not asking about her work. How are we supposed to take any writer seriously who make such a basic grammatical error - in the opening paragraph , no less?; 4/3/15, 7:57 PM
Unknown said...: Tough life. I'd much rather talk about my dogs than my work in a social setting.; 4/3/15, 9:27 PM
Jason said...: She might have been fired for not having perception. For example, not perceiving that this wasn't an occasion to "talk shop."

There are many occasions where that's discouraged.; 4/3/15, 10:38 PM
T J Sawyer said...: I got as far as "me and my husband love" before coming back to see if there was a "grammar" tag on the post.

Perhaps she speaks that way as well. That's a cue to just ask about the dogs.; 4/3/15, 10:45 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: "...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."

"Uh, excuse me, honey--gotta go refresh my drink. Glad your dogs are OK."; 4/4/15, 12:41 AM
Fen said...: I bet her audience spends a lot of time trying to catch the attention of someone behind her with "oh god please come save me!" looks.

People find her insufferable and are looking for ways to get away from the conversation. And she's mistaken that for sexism.; 4/4/15, 1:42 AM
Fen said...: Also, no dick jokes from Althouse this round? That's classy.

But still no apology for the way she behaved last time this came up? Not so classy.; 4/4/15, 1:44 AM
Fen said...: " The idea is to force covert sexism to be made overt where you can, around the conference table if not at the ski lodge or the cocktail party. Only then can you stamp it out."

Uhm no. You'll quickly get the rep of someone who makes everything about sexism. People will be afraid to hold the elevator open for you, because they view you as an irrational person.

OTOH, maybe the men at her firm have, like many of us, gotten tired of modern feminism. This is their way of silently pushing back.; 4/4/15, 1:50 AM
TheThinMan said...: She should try asking her husband if there are similar "cocktail women" who seem to take her more seriously than him. The answer would be, "of course." But it never occurs to her, even for the sake of the article. It's her own sexism in action: who cares what men think and feel?

Once on a double date I asked the wife about her new job, and she in return asked how my wife's job is going. I can give you more examples, but you get the idea.; 4/4/15, 5:38 AM
Anonymous said...: A commenter wrote:

"Look around you people. The entire modern world was invented and built by men."

To which Althouse wrote:

"If so, it was done because of women. Without women, you'd have none all that and you wouldn't even care, because you would not exist."

What? Men wouldn't be here if women weren't here? This is where the liberal argument ends?

In post-truth America there is no God's plan, just nonsense.; 4/4/15, 11:45 AM
Zach said...: Left unsaid in this article:

Ellen Pao was suing her old firm in court for millions of dollars. There are many people in the world who would like millions of dollars, and not all of them deserve it. What should the standard of truth be?

A harsher evaluation of the Pao case is that Pao wanted to prove something very specific -- that the culture of sexism in her firm prevented her promotion, to the tune of millions of dollars of damages -- and actually presented an endless list of minor gripes which anybody could come up with if they sat down with a pen and paper and tried to remember any time anyone was ever mean to them.; 4/4/15, 12:24 PM
Anonymous said...: This is my testimony about the good work of a man who helped me..My name is NINA GEORGE. and I base in London.My life is back!!! After 8 years of marriage, my husband left me and left me with our three kids. I felt like my life was about to end,and was falling apart. Thanks to a spell caster called papa Justus who i met online. On one faithful day, as I was browsing through the internet, I was searching for a good spell caster that can solve my problems. I came across series of testimonies about this particular spell caster. Some people testified that he brought their Ex lover back, some testified that he restores womb, some testified that he can cast a spell to stop divorce and so on. There was one particular testimony I saw, it was about a woman called grace,she testified about how papa Justus brought back her Ex lover in less than 72 hours and at the end of her testimony she drop papa Justus e-mail address. After reading all these,I decided to give papa a try. I contacted him via email and explained my problem to him. In just 3 days, my husband came back to me. We solved our issues, and we are even happier than before. papa Justus is really a talented and gifted man and i will not to stop publishing him because he is a wonderful man...If you have a problem and you are looking for a real and genuine spell caster to solve that problem for you. Try the great papa Justus today, he might be the answer to your problem. Here's his contact: drabeljustus@gmail.com
Thank you great Justus. Contact him for the following:

(1)If you want your ex back.
(2) if you always have bad dreams.
(3)You want to be promoted in your office.
(4)You want women/men to run after you.
(5)If you want a child.
(6)[You want to be rich.
(7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
(8)If you need financial assistance.
(9)Herbal care
10)Help bringing people out of prison
(11)Marriage Spells
(12)Miracle Spells
(13)Beauty Spells
(14)PROPHECY CHARM
(15)Attraction Spells
(16)Evil Eye Spells
(17)Kissing Spell
(18)Remove Sickness Spells
(19)ELECTION WINNING SPELLS
(20)SUCCESS IN EXAMS SPELLS
(21) Charm to get who to love you.
(22)Business spell.
(23) Find your long lost family.
Contact him today on:
drabeljustus@gmail.com,
+2347033354868.
You can also CONTACT HIM ON whats-app on the same phone number.; 4/4/15, 9:51 PM
Anonymous said...: My partner and I have been trying for a baby for over nine years now, We were going to a fertility clinic for about 5 months before somebody told us to contact this spell caster who is so powerful, We contacted him with this email; drfaraspelltemple@gmail.com , for him to help us, then we told him our problem, he told us that we will either conceive in January 2013 or February 2013,but after two years of trying we were at a point where we were willing to try anything. And I'm glad we came to Dr FARA, Because his pregnancy spell cast put us at ease, and I honestly believe him, and his gods really helped us as well, I am thankful for all he has done. contact him via email: drfaraspelltemple@gmail.com or cell phone +2348054265852 if you are trying to get a baby or want your lover back. he has powers to do it, he has done mine i am so happy now i have a baby of my own now,all glory be to God for using dr fara to save my home..
he cast spells for different purposes like:
(1)If you want your ex back.
(2) herpes cure.
(3)You want to be promoted in your office.
(4)You want women/ men to run after you.
(5)Hiv cure.
(6)[Als disease cure.
(7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours
forever.
(8)if you are not seeing your period he can also cure you; 12/9/15, 6:53 PM