Chinese Workers Abandon Silicon Valley for Riches Back Home

But "reality" does not seem to be sexist, rather our biases and tribalism is sexist (and racist and plenty of other -ist). When high-quality reproducible research has observed phenomena like "stereotype threat" and "implicit bias" it is worthwhile to spend some of our idle time on thinking how to address this unfairness. Even if we do it simply so that we have a wider applicant pool from which to pick high-quality employees.

You can try strawman arguments like "they are not equally qualified" or "reverse sexism" or "they are doing it to themselves by not negotiating", but a cursory look at any reproducible social sciences review disproves those (laziness to not use google or google scholar is a tiresome excuse).

"equally qualified" is not an objective, measurable quantity, which is the whole cause of the issue... If dev productivity could be unambiguously measured and ranked, the issue of late promotions,etc would never have been raised.

These are fuzzy metrics, and what you consider poor\unfiar treatment, I may consider fair (and vice versa)..

If you do find a scientific reason to reject the null hypothesis, hopefully such an analysis will come with some specific number other than 50/50 - and we can see if Google's processes match those numbers.

The parent comment to yours was poorly worded and snarky, so you have a right to be upset. But still, I think your reasoning is flawed. People are generally promoted by their competence and their negotiating/office politics skills, and you can't claim that those are the same across all genders. Why would women, who are fundamentally different than men, have the exact same competence and negotiating abilities as men? There's no reason the two genders should be equal.

If you really have two equally skilled engineers, one male, one female, and only the male is promoted, that's sexism. But two engineers are never the same, so you can't make that argument.

Are these correlated? My impression is that high-paying jobs tend to be low-physical-injury....

(Also, there are no shortage of barriers against women participating in high-mortality jobs - take the rules against women in combat for a particularly obvious example.)

Just intuitively, longer working hours (which may correlate with higher pay) and later average retirement age (which may correlate with higher paid jobs, especially with less physical demands), may contribute to greater probability of death from non-work causes, including age-related causes, happening while at work.

Women want children earlier (because menopause) and are more affected by them (because giving birth) than equally family-minded men. As a result, women are more motivated to prioritise having children/family.

In addition, men derive more advantage from more money/power than women, so they're more motivated to climb the corporate ladder (or take risks and fund companies) than women.

I'm generalising, obviously, so "on average" everywhere.

women need to have children earlier.

I don't see 70 year old men eagerly having kids all that often. Most people want to live to see their grandchildren.

> I'm generalising, obviously, so "on average" everywhere.

"I have black friends"

For more digestible information look around their website.

I guess it is my turn: What debunking are you talking about besides the more extremist men's rights advocates (which are different from the moderates that have very valid concerns)? "Implicit bias" is indeed only the start of a discussion, as one needs to consider its predictive value in non-test conditions, but if you are sincerely interested in pursuing this conversation, the website above is a good starting point.

You aren't allowed to reference social science studies because their aren't enough conservatives to make those fields "fair".

But say I'm doing a project in Java and they are about equal, I keep giving Al the meaty work then use it justify a promotion, which I can't justify for Marcy. It's not that she's that much worse, I just never gave her the chance to prove it (blah blah peter principle, perform at next level, etc...). That just might be a bit sexist.

This was a discussion a month ago. I'm mostly basing my opinion on it.

Yeah. For one small-scale example, the pay differential between the pizza delivery drivers and the in-store workers who make the pizzas. Roughly equivalent difficulty, drivers make $10-$15 an hour more due to tips and the risk of getting involved in a car accident or robbery. IIRC the gender ratio is more skewed towards men for delivery drivers than for in-store food service workers.

Have you really never worked on a project where the golden boy was the face of everything and everyone else was ignored?

- the John/Jennifer study http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-bat...

- the chairs study http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465...

- the police shooting armed people in VR study http://www.washington.edu/news/2003/07/08/blacks-more-likely...

- the general idea of "stereotype threat" (which becomes unrelated, not as much of an offshoot)

I am not expecting you to spend the time to vet every single of those links (and admittedly I used google, so some of the links might be overly editorialized), however I do believe these are good resources to consider for inclusion in your intellectual toolkit when you have the time.

I suspect that white-collar senior management jobs contribute a lot more than pizza delivery jobs to the fact that men make more money than women in total. (But probably this is also true for median or first-decile wage?)