What Ellen Pao and Obama have in common

Both are subject to an extra heaping of criticism, skepticism, and scorn because there is some culturally-validated argument to be made about how they are different from some perceived status quo.

And in modern mercenary America, the mythology is "win at all costs" whether it's politics, business, religion, education, or Returning That Thing You Broke even though it's out of warranty because goddammit we're entitled to All The Things!!!!

Ergo:
  1. To gain or preserve power, you need to win
  2. It is acceptable -- even laudable -- to win by any means necessary (legal, ethical, loophole, grey area, "disrupting" or otherwise)
  3. To win you must be good and work hard, but plenty of winners take shortcuts, cheat, break rules/laws, harm others, and/or fraud their way to the top -- so in order to stay on the field, you need to become open to those tactics whether you believe it's right or not (see: Lance Armstrong). Meanwhile internally, you have built-in psychological mechanisms that enforce your justification and carve out a special view of yourself as being ultimately a good person (see: Jonathan Haidt) and even, more twistedly, a "good person who does bad things" (see: BTK serial killer) -- whereas other people who do bad things are not simply constrained by their environments (as you are); they are just bad people.
  4. In the struggle for power, those who have (or want) it aggressively seek out any thread of weakness, real or perceived, in whatever individuals or outgroups appear to threaten their dominance.
  5. Difference from the norm is widely and cross-culturally perceived as weakness and carries a negative connotation socially.
  6. Anyone who suggests or espouses difference is subject to derision and confrontation, as a matter of course.
  7. Those who have "outward difference" characteristics -- i.e. women, members of different races, religions -- therefore tend to be the subject of derision and confrontation as a matter of course: because it leads the Normal to winning, and therefore preserving power.
  8. Any method of fomenting confrontation and contempt is acceptable in the noble pursuit of power, even including vociferously denying and decrying the unethical tactics used by other Normals championing for the same outcome (see: Gamergate).
  9. The age of Political Correctness took some tactics off the table, namely the overt invocation of gender or race (to a lesser extent, religion) to "name" the difference and call out the offending anti-Normal, immediately discrediting any perspective they put forth via ad hominem attack.
  10. ...but the underlying game remains the same. Identify and publicly shame a perceived difference -- they "kill the buzz" or they "aren't aggressive enough" or conversely are "too pushy" or they don't lean in enough or they don't have the mind of a hacker. Whatever the red herring is, it's often a derivative of a stereotype we apply to a marginalized class -- but it's trumped up and re-packaged, perhaps with some shoddy, easy to find pseudo-evidence in support -- not terribly dissimilar from the way Wall Street made subprime mortgage loans appear like the bedrock of America's financial future via complicated and inscrutable re-branding.

Stinks just as bad.