←back to thread

219 points thisisit | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lostmsu ◴[] No.16126641[source]
There's one important datapoint in this article: "The Bamboo Ceiling".

When the whole fuzz about gender discrimination started, Microsoft and Google published numbers, claiming women got the same pay at the same positions as men. Knowing there's discrimination from personal experience/feeling, I theorized, that women are discriminated in a different way: they don't receive promotions.

Under otherwise similar circumstances having children does not feel to be enough to explain why of 100 women hired in tech on professional roles less are promoted to higher positions, than of 100 men. That trend is (at least anecdotally for me) observable even before people become parents.

This "Bamboo Ceiling" shows the same effect for another potentially discriminated group of people.

replies(5): >>16126781 #>>16126794 #>>16127061 #>>16127979 #>>16138507 #
geofft ◴[] No.16126794[source]
This is the allegation of the Ellis, Pease, and Wisuri lawsuit against Google - that Google does okay at hiring women, but slots them into lower positions and gives them fewer promotions than men. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/google-gender-... The NYT's report on the leaked #talkpay spreadsheet seems to show that pattern: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/technology/google-salarie...

The neat thing about this form of discrimination is that you can claim to be fixing "the pipeline" all you want and you can still maintain the discrimination, because the leak is after the pipeline. The dominant group isn't threatened by competition if they fund efforts to increase the number of underrepresented groups in grade school or college STEM education, as long as those college graduates aren't later competing for senior jobs on a level playing field.

replies(3): >>16126943 #>>16127042 #>>16127247 #
ThrustVectoring ◴[] No.16127042[source]
Your post kind of assumes that a fair process would promote women at Google at the same rate as men. If reality is sexist, are we obligated to discriminate against men to fix it?
replies(4): >>16127199 #>>16127225 #>>16127243 #>>16127479 #
1. geofft ◴[] No.16127479{3}[source]
My post assumes that because there's no good evidence that, as you put it, "reality is sexist" in the relevant ways and that we should reject the null hypothesis. There are plenty of plausible alternative hypotheses (the Damore memo vaguely alludes to them), but I have not seen strong reasons to accept them, just post-hoc rationalizations like "the average woman scores worse/better on $metric, so here's a story for why the job requires more/less $metric". Tellingly, those rationalizations have changed as programming went from a low-status to high-status position: there was folklore several decades back about how programming was obviously women's work because it was like dinner planning.

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.