It sounded increasingly familiar.

Just like at Cornell University when she seized on the point of “racial discrimination” to severely criticize Mrs. Dawson… Similarly, Lisa had now chosen “workplace gender discrimination” as her angle.

Americans love stories.

Media needs such stories, celebrities need stories, and even scientists need stories to become famous – like Newton being hit by an apple leading to the “theory of gravity.” Only by selling ‘stories’ can one easily gain attention in America, following the same logic as entertainment circles creating “public personas” for celebrities.

Xia Xiaolan understood American tendencies, and honestly, she had considered exploiting this point.

Not to deal with Lisa, as Xia Xiaolan was confident about winning the lawsuit, but to handle Monde.

What effect would it have if she, as a victim, faced the media to denounce Monde’s “professional bullying” after winning the case? Xia Xiaolan had only considered this idea but hadn’t acted on it – playing the weak victim was too shameful!

Winning through others’ sympathy?

She deeply disliked such delicate flower tactics.

If she had to be called a flower, she’d be a thorny rose, confronting opponents head-on and devouring them – how satisfying!

But unexpectedly, what she hadn’t done, Lisa executed skillfully.

Whether inspired by Mrs. Dawson or not, Lisa’s talk show words disgusted Xia Xiaolan – “workplace gender discrimination” certainly existed, not just in 1987 but even through 2017. With identical resumes, male candidates were preferred, and equal positions received unequal pay – things Xia Xiaolan herself detested.

Lisa spoke the truth – female architects faced enormous challenges!

If she had stood up to criticize GMP’s practices, exposing industry undercurrents and demanding fairness for female colleagues, Xia Xiaolan might have seen her as a warrior. Though Lisa’s protest would be futile – industry rules couldn’t be overturned by one person – women needed to show management just how capable they were to gain workplace opportunities.

But that wasn’t Lisa’s real motivation.

In all her years at GMP, Lisa hadn’t uttered a single protest. Why hadn’t she dared speak up before?

Because while Lisa might have felt the unfairness before, she was too cowardly, lacking the ability to fight such inequality.

Now, she had self-hypnotized, truly believing the theater renovation project was her work…

After watching the interview, Mrs. Wilson, who appeared alongside, hadn’t firmly stated the ‘theater renovation plan’ was Lisa’s work. She merely described her various interactions with Lisa during the renovation period, mentioning how she had caused Lisa many troubles, proving herself a difficult client.

This was more effective than direct statements.

When the host asked about Lisa becoming the defendant, Mrs. Wilson deflected:

“We won’t discuss the lawsuit today, that’s for the judge to decide. We trust in legal justice.”

The host laughed cooperatively.

Click—

Xia Xiaolan turned off the TV.

“Eric, this interview is interesting. It’s not just aimed at me; they’ve considered your specialty too!”

Indeed.

Eric was a famous civil rights lawyer, known for representing the poor and weak.

Lisa’s move was likely her lawyer’s teaching – preemptively stealing the narrative Eric might use to convince the jury.

If Eric wanted to portray Xia Xiaolan as a disadvantaged Chinese student, they could play this show, letting the jury see how disadvantaged Lisa was… Though Eric believed their current evidence made playing the sympathy card unnecessary, he was still disgusted by Lisa’s actions.

The ‘sympathy card’ was lawyers’ last resort, used when defendants had committed crimes for understandable reasons, seeking leniency or acquittal.

Like the shocking 1984 American shooting case, where a ten-year-old boy was continuously sexually abused by his coach. When police arrested the coach, he remained arrogantly indifferent. The boy’s enraged father waited at Louisiana airport and shot the coach dead in front of police.

Police tackled the father, who offered no resistance, showing only the relief of successful revenge.

Initially charged with second-degree murder, news spread quickly. Airport surveillance footage aired on television, and Americans hailed the avenging father as a hero. Public opinion surged, petitioning and pressuring the court. A psychology professor voluntarily diagnosed the father, and under various pressures, the judge reduced the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter – five years probation plus 300 hours of community service. Though this heroic father had killed the rapist, he never spent a day in jail!

This was a story where law and humanity ultimately aligned.

It exemplified public opinion influencing legal decisions.

To lawyers like Eric, this case succeeded by effectively playing the “sympathy card” – television repeatedly broadcasting footage of the father’s peaceful surrender after the shooting was emotional manipulation.

He shared this old case with Xia Xiaolan:

“So you see, it’s the same tactic. That father committed a crime, but with so much support against a murder conviction, he wasn’t convicted. Lisa is fooling the public, avoiding discussion of the work itself, and only talking about unfair treatment at GMP. This talk show has good ratings, mainly female viewers who’ll sympathize with Lisa, putting themselves in her shoes… After all, workplace gender discrimination doesn’t only happen to Lisa.”

Xia Xiaolan clicked her tongue:

“Lisa cleverly shifted public attention. Though she’s the defendant, she appears the victim. Due to workplace discrimination and suppression, she couldn’t resist GMP’s decisions, even when they took her work to pursue awards for a newcomer – I imagine Mr. Kissinger faces tremendous pressure now.”

Kissinger had been portrayed as a villain discriminating against and bullying female employees.

As for why Kissinger helped Xia Xiaolan?

Surely some unspeakable money, power, or intimate relationship!

The image of a workplace woman enduring silently, suffering grievances before finally fighting back was firmly etched in viewers’ minds. This would influence jury and judge decisions, potentially reversing unfavorable evidence against Lisa—

As for Xia Xiaolan?

Undoubtedly, she was the beneficiary.

A shameless antagonist who, losing previous benefits, arrogantly sued the victim – such a terrible image.

Under these circumstances, anything she said could be misinterpreted, which was why Eric refused all interview requests.