5 ms·
> Even if they were not deliberate about it Which is statistically close to impossible.
by imaginenore 10y ago
> Even if they were not deliberate about it
Which is statistically close to impossible.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago...but when men are in the 80%, that's a statistic you can believe?
- 7Z7 10y agoIn this world, at this time?
- gruez 10y agoYes, because men outnumber women in that field
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoNot at Yahoo! Not any more. When give a fair playing field, the women outnumber the men.
- oh_sigh 10y agoSo in a profession that is generally 80% male, and 20% female, you think that women are so amazing that they will make up 80% of the top leadership in an even playing field? That seems unlikely.
- zallen 10y agoOh, I don't know, let's math it. I keep hearing that women need to be twice as good to make it half as far. Sooo, 20% women in STEM x 2 x 2 (twice as good; and, multiply by two to make up for half as far) = ... 80% Q.E.D.
- zallen 10y agoWhoever downvoted me not only has no sense of humour but is also clearly bad at math. Maybe you need to be replaced by a lady.
- djschnei 10y agoWow, someone is sexist.
- int_19h 10y agoI think what's he saying is that the field of candidates - before Yahoo even gets to make a pick of hires - is skewed in favor of men. So a 100% impartial selection process would just propagate the same gender imbalance.
- frankc 10y agoIf it went from 20% men to 80% men in a short period of time...no.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoBut should she be ousted and a new (male) boss installed and it goes back to 80% men, then all would be well and normal? No laptop outrage then. I'm not suggesting that the change was a statistical fluke. I'm suggesting that maybe in this case some women at Yahoo! were better management candidates than some of the men. In a ratio that's large but not unprecedented. Look at the rations found in other companies - so often its 80% men but that's not seen as unusual or wrong.
- gspetr 10y agoThose companies still exist and are profitable, are they not? Sounds similar to the wage gap argument here: if it exists, where are all the companies hiring cheaper workers capable of doing the same work, exploiting the supposed market inefficiency?