Never have the upvotes come so thick and fast on reddit, after Ellen Pao revealed she would be stepping down as reddit’s interim CEO. Taking the helm of one of the biggest social networking platforms in the world, Pao was considered a controversial choice from the get go, with her tumultuous tenure at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (KPCB) hanging around her head like a millstone. From there, the situation progressively worsened.
In a bid for gender equality, Pao banned all salary negotiations at reddit HQ. Back in April, she argued that men were more aggressive negotiators and, therefore, were more likely to outstrip their female counterparts in terms of pay.
A short time later, Pao stirred even greater animosity by banning a number of “harassing” subreddits, including r/FatPeopleHate. The hive had been rattled, and Pao was immediately charged with enacting censorship measures. The American lawyer’s controversial image helped spawn a number of unflattering subreddits, comparing her leadership qualities to that of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
Only last week, AMA coordinator Victoria Taylor was sent packing. An integral cog in reddit’s “Ask Me Anything” campaigns, Taylor was a remarkably popular figure. Suffice to say, her surprise departure didn’t go down a storm.
With reddit battered by almost interminable cycle of controversy, it comes as little surprise that Ellen Pao has now agreed to step down as interim CEO. According to Pao, the “mutual decision” was made because the board had more “aggressive” views on the site’s growth potential.
However, in the wake of her resignation, many observers have shifted their focus towards Pao’s treatment within the industry, with some making reference to an apparent culture of “toxic masculinity” and sexism.
Pao’s Unpopular Image
Pao didn’t fall in with the reddit clique for a number of reasons. While many had lost faith in her ability to get the job done, and get it done well, there was another dimension to the problem: people didn’t think Pao was “one of them.” This isn’t because she is a woman, or because people didn’t like her skin color; it was because they saw someone who was putting corporate interests ahead of their own.
Pao’s past employment woes also left many people skeptical. From my first-hand experience of perusing a number of threads, reddit identified someone who - whether true or not - played the victim card.
The public tends to like an underdog, and will automatically root for an individual facing genuine injustice and hardship. Pao - with her expensive clothes, well-paid job, and all-round lavish lifestyle - was not going up against the odds. People saw Pao as someone desperately trying to convince others that she was badly done to.
We saw interviews with Yahoo Global News anchor Katie Couric, in which the 45-year-old discussed the patriarchy that was so deeply embedded within Silicon Valley’s culture. And we read the Wall Street Journal interview, in which Pao says she feels there’s no way for women to “win.” Ultimately, however, her story fails to resonate with real people, because they have yet to be presented with any solid proof that she was discriminated against, in the first place.
What do the regular folk see? They see someone who tried to sue her former employers for $16 million, making (as yet) unsubstantiated allegations of gender discrimination. They see someone who turned down a $1 million settlement - more money than some people earn in a lifetime - in the hopes of netting more money. Above all else, they see greed.
And, while reddit’s administrators were making a push to commercialize the social network, many were concerned that the platform was not growing and improving. A slew of subreddits were banned; users were flocking to Swiss-based competitor Voat; the community had lost its much-respected AMA coordinator; improved moderator tools, which had long been promised, were nowhere to be seen; and, as part of a mass revolt, much of the site went completely dark.
Simply put, while Pao was appealing to the media’s sympathy, reddit was falling apart at the seams.
The New York Times Offers Its Own Opinion on Pao’s Plight
The New York Times’ Mike Isaac and David Streitfeld penned an article about the interim CEO’s exodus, describing how she battled the “… entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley.” I hunted through the article, hoping to find some evidence or statistics that might back up this rather bold proclamation, only to be left disappointed. I think it’s safe to file this one under op-ed.
Curiously, NYT’s headline was altered from “Ellen Pao Is Stepping Down as Reddit’s Chief” to “It’s Silicon Valley 2, Ellen Pao 0: Fighter of Sexism Is Out at Reddit.” It’s certainly a catchier headline, and, perhaps, provides the reader with all they need to know about the leanings of its authors.
In front of my very eyes, the carefully selected rhetoric of the article, too, was being systematically rejigged and rephrased. Within mere hours, the sentence “… entrenched sexist culture of Silicon Valley” was modified to “… entrenched male-dominated culture of Silicon Valley.” Perhaps this needs emphasizing: The word “sexist” was substituted for “male-dominated.”
Perhaps this is subtle change provides an interesting insight into the minds of the authors responsible for the article, or maybe Isaac and Streitfeld came to the realization that they had no concrete evidence to suggest Silicon Valley was steeped in sexism.
The article continues in similar vein:
“Ms. Pao’s abrupt downfall in the face of a torrent of sexist and racist comments, many of them on Reddit itself, is quite likely to renew charges that bullying, harassment and cruel behavior are out of control on the web — and that Silicon Valley’s well-publicized problem with gender and ethnic diversity in its work force persists.”
At first glance, it’s difficult to know who else the authors are referring to when they say “many of them on Reddit itself.”
Pao lost her gender discrimination case against Kleiner Perkins, with the jury rejecting all four of her claims. High-ranking employees at the Silicon Valley venture capital firm described Pao as entitled, saying her performance was weak and that she failed to work as a team player. What sexist entities is the New York Times referring to, if not reddit?
Despite Pao losing her case, it appears The New York Times was compelled by her argument:
“Her gender discrimination case, years in the making, failed to sway a jury, but did reveal a community that casually tolerated an atmosphere where machismo was prized and women often seemed to be relegated to secondary roles.”
Writing for the Los Angeles Times, on April 3, Charlotte Allen aptly summarizes the media’s reaction to Pao’s failed gender discrimination lawsuit:
“From the progressive media’s reaction to Ellen Pao’s “landmark” $16-million gender-bias lawsuit against her former employer, Silicon Valley venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, you’d think that Pao had won — instead of losing big time, as she actually did.”
Indeed, Pao’s failure was met with the following headlines:
The Guardian: Thank you Ellen Pao for teaching more people about sexism in the workplace
Newsweek: Is the Ellen Pao Trial Silicon Valley’s “Anita Hill Moment”?
NYT: What Silicon Valley Learned From the Kleiner Perkins Case
Does Toxic Misogyny Explain Pao’s Downfall?
Putting these uncorroborated rumors to one side, NYT appears to make some very questionable leaps in reasoning. The authors contend that reddit’s disillusionment at the dismissal of a “well-liked employee … drew much of its intensity from Ms. Pao’s lawsuit - and her gender.”
This is very spurious logic. What this section of the article fails to mention is that the “well-liked employee” is AMA coordinator Victoria Taylor - a female. If Ms. Pao being female had anything to do with reddit’s protest, it would seem strange that the community would seek to defend another female employee from being given the boot. If The New York Times is correct in its insinuation - that a sexist contingent on reddit attacked Pao because she was a woman - why would these people feel compelled to jump to Victoria Taylor’s aid? Or are these “sexists” picking and choosing what women they do and don’t like?
The article goes on to quote reddit board member Sam Altman, who maintains that Pao was attacked because she was a woman. Meanwhile, the co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mitch Kapor, accused reddit of harboring “pockets of toxic misogyny.”
Altman, Kapor and the NYT staffers are all neglecting to consider some very crucial points. Under Pao’s rule, redditors were unhappy with the site’s direction, actively campaigning against many of her divisive decisions. A Change.org petition outlining all of these perceived grievances managed to garner over 200,000 signatories; this points to a significant proportion of the community losing faith in her leadership. Considering reddit is a community-driven platform, which relies heavily upon unpaid moderators and user interaction, this represents quite a considerable failing.
Earlier this week, Pao confessed that reddit’s management had made a series of gaffes over the “past several years.” Posted in self.announcements, the candid post teeters on the edge of self-deprecation:
“I know these are just words, and it may be hard for you to believe us. I don’t have all the answers, and it will take time for us to deliver concrete results. I mean it when I say we screwed up, and we want to have a meaningful ongoing discussion. I know we’ve drifted out of touch with the community as we’ve grown and added more people, and we want to connect more. I and the team are committed to talking more often with the community, starting now.”
On this basis, it’s quite clear there has been a catalogue of errors and misjudgments. And, even if “toxic misogyny” were rampant throughout certain parts of reddit, it’s difficult to dump 200,000 people into this “sexist” bracket. For these reasons, dismissing all of Pao’s detractors as chauvinistic woman-haters is pure folly.
Sure, we can agree that there are at least some sexist elements on reddit, the pervasiveness of which I don’t profess to understand. While such activity is lamentable, it is not the reason why 200,000 people called for her resignation, and it’s not the reason why she lost her position.
Pao allegedly stepped down because she disagreed with the board over the company’s future - something that sounds like business speak for something else. Frankly, though, the decision wasn’t made because a few sexist loudmouths ran Pao out of town; it was made because she wasn’t fit for the job.
This is why The New York Times’ appeal to pity falls completely flat.
Top image credit: Christopher Michel (Flickr)