←back to thread

219 points thisisit | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.215s | 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 #
1. dlwdlw ◴[] No.16138507[source]
I think cultural mastery is similar to skill mastery. They both take a long time to master. So once you start allowing parity at the bottom levels it takes many years before parity at the top is reached.

Affirmative action often involves discussion on reducing quality or creating self-fulfilling prophecies by have no role models at the top.

I think a deeper issue is that leadership as an idea is still "masculine" in nature, reflecting a heroes journey to conquer something in the wild and bring it home. Heroines are just females still going out on a hunt. Instead there is much and underappreciated value in the maintenance of hearth and home. In learning how to live and creating wealth and complexity out of relationships between objects and people rather than extracting some sort of value from the environment.

It's just that such types of created wealth don't have the exponential explosion of conquered wealth.