3 ms·
Is the claim that back when it was 80% men they were hired in those numbers simply because of their gender?
by talmand 10y ago
Is the claim that back when it was 80% men they were hired in those numbers simply because of their gender?
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoNo claim. Just astonished at the assumption implicit in this thread, that it can't be correct that 80% of competent managers at Yahoo! are female.
- talmand 10y agoI don't necessarily think the complaint is that they are incompetent because they are female. The complaint of gender bias is still valid even if the people who benefited from the bias are fully capable of the job. If it can be shown that the 80% women were not hired based on gender bias then the complaint is unjustified.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoDo we go looking for that gender bias when its 80% men? Again, women have to prove they belong; the assumption is there has to be some bias or they would not be in those positions.
- wfo 10y agoYes of course we do. Do you read the same Internet that I do? You can't open a single web page without reading something about gender discrimination in tech and how it's biased and unfair against women. You can't walk into a college campus in the country and not see companies and universities bending over backwards to try to force more women into tech to reverse the trend. There are programs, scholarships, engagement programs, all specifically for women because the entire community acknowledges and understands the bias. Firing or demoting 60% of your workforce instantly so you can reverse the extreme inequality into a mirror in the other direction is discrimination as well, but it is explicit and direct, not implicit and insidious which is why people are offended. But you realize this.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI don't think people are upset that 80% are female, I think it's that 80% changed to female. That stat is too high to be coincidental
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoAgain, maybe because Marissa chose a metric that changed the status quo. And fairly applied it. No need to think its a coincidence. It could be exactly the right people got put in position because they were fairly measured and promoted. It's not a coincidence AT ALL that it happened when a new boss got in town. That could be when the biases got removed. But this forum will not give up on the idea that women in management has to be a mistake and can't occur except by some cheating.