5 ms·

no, I'm not sure I'm aware its complete crock, and that's why I was asking for feedback on my observations instead of making absolutist statements. My observat

no, I'm not sure I'm aware its complete crock, and that's why I was asking for feedback on my observations instead of making absolutist statements. My observations are that I typically see a female CEOs income be the first thing that is ever brought up when they are in the spotlight but I don't ever see that as the first go to with male CEOs. In this case, I'm referring to reading HN for 7 years everyday and watching comments in response to all articles as well as the ones about female CEO, and noticing without(atleast consciously, but maybe I am subconsciously looking for it, or maybe as a female I'm just noticing it more) seeking it out, that over time, pay and negative things seem to jump to in comments first without delay. Luckily for me I'm not overlapping my perceptions of reddit with HN on how reddit treated both Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sanders (she devil, satanist among other things are names they endured upon their first week in office). Now CEO pay is clearly an issue across the board, but I would still argue that it seems to be brought up more quickly with female CEOs. Perhaps I've just noted it in the past few years, and perhaps I am wrong and it comes up just as quickly with male CEOs. I am glad to see other companies now care about child care and it's relevancy in the economic feasibility of raising families and enabling smart parents of both genders to contribute to society in more ways than child bearing. Unfortunately, I did not see Apple jumping into back the notion of childcare needs years ago When Marissa was chastized for having a nursery in her office. I don't even know or have an opinion on what the best potential solution is for the childcare thing in general, but I know it was never a big public issue in the news until a woman went out of her way to take care of her children who was a CEO I've always wondered why it wasn't an issue for all the men who did not have nurserys in the office for all the decades proceeding this. There has never been a concern about male CEOs not spending enough time with their kids, but if a woman wants to have a nursery next to her office, its conflated as unfair in the face of not letting employees work remotely from home, without any data about how many of those employees are doing it for childcare, when there was data that remote work did not seem to be meeting standards of remote work for competing companies who let their software engineers work remotely. Nevertheless, news articles had no problem joining these two ideas together, and commenters had no problem agreeing how elitist it was. It's really a just an observation about the things that certain populations seem to choose to critisize and how much those criticisms seem to consistently differ when looking at say 4 female CEOs and 10-15 male CEOS consistently in HN news over the past 5-7 years. I also find your statement hard to agree with that there is no bias with females in tech, in the face of a billionaire resigning today from the most highly funded started up in Silicon Valley this morning where as of three months ago I believe 1/4 of every VC dollar was tied up in Uber, after claiming that women being on a board will increase the amount of talking. In the face of this as well as Trumps attitude towards women, its a wonder any of them have the patience to deal with these billionaire men who seem terribly inconvenienced by the mere idea that a woman is on the board, and then the fact that now they have to listen to her talk. To lightly sway aside the idea that this pervasive attitude at the helm of the Country Silicon Valley resides in, along with some of the most well funding prominent board members in the most highly funded startup in silicon valley, in business, as complete crock, without having any data points to back it up (I presume the population here is educated enough on Uber and Trump I don't need to provide data points here about their issues with female bias) is willfully ignorant. I'm not going to go further into this, because I respect the HN community enough to know your statement is an outlier statement, and I don't need to convince people here bias against women in tech is ongoing pervasive issue, more consciously with men like I've mentioned, but sometimes I think subconsciously as a male dominated communitiy, we are prone to being more interested when a woman does reach CEO status, and maybe thats not HNs imposed bias as much as there is more likely to be more news about a female CEO (including but not limited to additional articles about how great it is there are females CEOs etc) and therefore we tend to subconsciously have more developed opinions about them because we know more about them, and things like their income and flaws never seem to go unannounced. Myself a woman in tech, I find most forms of sexism Ive experienced are that maybe 1/50 guys are actual jerks and I can downright call them out on needing to fix their behavior. However, for alot of men I interact and have worked with, most actions are somewhat subtle, and typically not conscious or even intentional by men, and usually a genuine approach to them or bringing it up in intelligent conversation while giving them the benefit of the doubt and the time and respect of their ability to reflect on their own actions and analyze their own motivations, as we all should in all areas of our lives, that most men can concede and agree with me if I bring something up. Because I don't bring up every little thing, and I don't accuse all men of being sexist pigs the second I sense a bias I can perceive and therefore claim as sexist, I tend to make more one on one progress changing mens outlooks on how they may intentionally or unintentionally approach situations. Both male and female CEOS should be subject to scrutiny on income situations, but I find it to be highlighted more frequently with women, which is unfortunate considering so few of them at this point get into the position where they have the opportunity to be scrutinized at such a high level, and furthemore, as described by a commentor validating an aspect of my observations with the "glass cliff" that when they do seem to come into leadership, the cards are highly stacked against them. Therefore, they have an increase in the spotlight for being a minority in their position, and the increased spotlight is more likely to end in failure given the situations in which they come into leadership where the company is literally on the brink of failure.

macspoofing 9y ago
>My observations are that I typically see a female CEOs income be the first thing that is ever brought up when they are in the spotlight but I don't ever see that as the first go to with male CEOs. I don't know where you're getting that from. Like I said, CEO compensation has been a big issue for years. It comes up all the time when a high-profile CEO is fired - especially if they are fired for doing a mediocre or a terrible job. So I cannot believe you actually went there on this issue and in light of countless articles and podcasts discussing this matter from all angles, from the right-wing, mainstream, and left-wing media, and all you could see is that women (one woman specifically - because you haven't given any other examples) are unfairly singled out. Jesus, just google it - you don't have to dig too deep. Change the search criteria to this year, and then last year, and then the year before, etc. And you'll have countless examples. >In this case, I'm referring to reading HN for 7 years everyday and watching comments in response to all articles as well as the ones about female CEO You are aware of what confirmation bias is, right? Turning this around, if Marissa was man, all things being equal (as in the compensation and level of criticism), would you have even bothered commenting? Would you have disagreed with any criticism in this thread? >I'm not overlapping my perceptions of reddit with HN on how reddit treated both Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sanders (she devil, satanist among other things are names they endured upon their first week in office). And you just did so don't pat yourself on the back too much. And you're right, it has nothing to do with this case. > Unfortunately, I did not see Apple jumping into back the notion of childcare needs years ago When Marissa was chastized for having a nursery in her office. I'm not sure what the point of that dig at Apple is but I remember the Marissa/nursery controversy well. And this a good example of your dishonesty or maybe your blind-spot. Marissa was chastised for her hypocrisy. She banned working for home - a policy that was very popular with new parents, but then built herself a nursery - just for herself - so she could bring her kids to work because unlike everyone else, she worked hard. Of course people will criticize her.
- usmeteora 9y ago
  In this case, Marissa Mayer, Cheryl Sandberg, Ellen Pao, Elizabeth Smith, Sophia Amoruso, the last two being founders and not coming into rescue companies in crisis, who also both have experienced troubles, lawsuits, and failure. >You are aware of what confirmation bias is, right? I am aware of the confirmation bias, which is why I explicitly provided a disclaimer for that in the statements I made, and again, stated my observations to elicit feedback, and continue to welcome your constructive feedback. That being said, I've mostly observed over 5-7 years, and I never set out with the intention to observe this, because it was moreso a shock over time that this bias seemed to be occurring. For sure, most of the sexism I seem to realize as bias is due to a shock or feeling that something is not right, and never that I'm seeking it out. When I set out to be an Engineer, noone told me I would experience sexism. I thought it was going to be a lovely experience all in all, and was relatively naive going into about the ratio in general, and how much it would effect my life. So from my perspective, I don't feel confirmation bias is relevant, but I'm willing to believe over time it can cascade upon itself, just as much as men can cascade their negative opinions of females upon itself. I am a firm advocate that females can be sexist and abuse their positions too, and I've witnessed it first hand a number of time, and have plenty of criticisms of my own gender for sure. They have not been all in all, in aggregate the role models I needed when I started out in a male dominated environment, to the point where I don't expect women to be role models for me just because they are women anymore. >I'm not overlapping my perceptions of reddit with HN on how reddit treated both Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sanders (she devil, satanist among other things are names they endured upon their first week in office). >And you just did so don't pat yourself on the back too much. And you're right, it has nothing to do with this case. I brought this up because you used the word malicious that I would even bring up the idea that women CEOs face a bias. I wanted to clarify that there absolutely is one, and maliciousness is hardly an adequate term to describe the words used against female CEOS in explicitly wording that encompasses their gender, though I barely see it shine through maliciously on HN as I have seen on reddit and other communities. I don't think pointing out the fact that many people have acted malicously towards these individuals and wondering if its due to a bias conscious or unconscious, is malicious, or propogating maliciousness. > Unfortunately, I did not see Apple jumping into back the notion of childcare needs years ago When Marissa was chastized for having a nursery in her office. >I remember that, and this a good example of your dishonesty or maybe your blind-spot. Marissa was chastised for her hypocrisy. She banned working for home - a policy that was very popular with new parents, but then built herself a nursery - just for herself - so she could bring her kids to work because unlike everyone else, she worked long hours. Of course people will criticize her. Please reread my statements about her remote work decision, and how the data was related to not meeting remote work standards, and no data whatsoever was provided about remote work in relation to parenting, but news had no problem conflating the issues, and readers had no problem assuming there was hypocrisy in the decision, despite there being no data to prove hypocrisy existed in the decision. If anything, allowing the known lack of accountability and performance quality of remote work to continue due to parenting, would proprogate sexism further by sending a signal that quality of work/the bar can be lowered if you are parent. In regards to that while having a nursey, I'm going to have to push back here. I worked on wallstreet, and it is commonplace for years that they have one secretary for their work life, whose job it is to help manage their personal life, and this has ALWAYS been acceptable without question for decades in multple industries. For example, a secretary to a male boss is allowed and explicitly told to spend a large portion of their time arranging personal events around public events and I've sat next to a secretary interning on wallstreet who spend the majority of her day buying chanel and juicy couture gifts for her bosses daughters to apologize for him not being able to make it home, and doing these kinds of thing on a daily basis. There are entire sub markets within industries dedicated to secretaries being paid on company salary to help manage and perform private life upkeep to help with busy men. Its just that, the actions here tend to be buying gifts for women or paying their secretary to appease the women they never have time to be home for, because there is of course a woman at home to raise the children his secretary is buying gifts for, and arranging limos to pick their kids up in private schools to the after school events these men don't have time to make it to. Sitting next to one of these secretaries on wallstreet for a summer internship informed me greatly how commonplace this is. Of course though, this is not criticized ever, but for Mayer, investing office space to accomodate her personal life is. Why is that? The employees at the bank I worked for who also worked 80+ hour weeks did not get secretaries on pay to send limos to pick up their 12 yr old daughters from ballets they could not attend with a sorry note attached to a juicy couture bag, but I don't see articles about unfair and slighted the males and females feel about their inability to accomodate their children. The actions are exactly the same, but accomodations are in action explicitly different in representation because Mayer is a woman. The difference ends there. The criticism does not. Just because two things occur at the same time does not mean they are related. i.e. Marissa having a nursery, and also deciding remote work was not allowed at the company anymore.

macspoofing 9y ago

>My observations are that I typically see a female CEOs income be the first thing that is ever brought up when they are in the spotlight but I don't ever see that as the first go to with male CEOs. I don't know where you're getting that from. Like I said, CEO compensation has been a big issue for years. It comes up all the time when a high-profile CEO is fired - especially if they are fired for doing a mediocre or a terrible job. So I cannot believe you actually went there on this issue and in light of countless articles and podcasts discussing this matter from all angles, from the right-wing, mainstream, and left-wing media, and all you could see is that women (one woman specifically - because you haven't given any other examples) are unfairly singled out. Jesus, just google it - you don't have to dig too deep. Change the search criteria to this year, and then last year, and then the year before, etc. And you'll have countless examples. >In this case, I'm referring to reading HN for 7 years everyday and watching comments in response to all articles as well as the ones about female CEO You are aware of what confirmation bias is, right? Turning this around, if Marissa was man, all things being equal (as in the compensation and level of criticism), would you have even bothered commenting? Would you have disagreed with any criticism in this thread? >I'm not overlapping my perceptions of reddit with HN on how reddit treated both Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sanders (she devil, satanist among other things are names they endured upon their first week in office). And you just did so don't pat yourself on the back too much. And you're right, it has nothing to do with this case. > Unfortunately, I did not see Apple jumping into back the notion of childcare needs years ago When Marissa was chastized for having a nursery in her office. I'm not sure what the point of that dig at Apple is but I remember the Marissa/nursery controversy well. And this a good example of your dishonesty or maybe your blind-spot. Marissa was chastised for her hypocrisy. She banned working for home - a policy that was very popular with new parents, but then built herself a nursery - just for herself - so she could bring her kids to work because unlike everyone else, she worked hard. Of course people will criticize her.

usmeteora 9y ago
In this case, Marissa Mayer, Cheryl Sandberg, Ellen Pao, Elizabeth Smith, Sophia Amoruso, the last two being founders and not coming into rescue companies in crisis, who also both have experienced troubles, lawsuits, and failure. >You are aware of what confirmation bias is, right? I am aware of the confirmation bias, which is why I explicitly provided a disclaimer for that in the statements I made, and again, stated my observations to elicit feedback, and continue to welcome your constructive feedback. That being said, I've mostly observed over 5-7 years, and I never set out with the intention to observe this, because it was moreso a shock over time that this bias seemed to be occurring. For sure, most of the sexism I seem to realize as bias is due to a shock or feeling that something is not right, and never that I'm seeking it out. When I set out to be an Engineer, noone told me I would experience sexism. I thought it was going to be a lovely experience all in all, and was relatively naive going into about the ratio in general, and how much it would effect my life. So from my perspective, I don't feel confirmation bias is relevant, but I'm willing to believe over time it can cascade upon itself, just as much as men can cascade their negative opinions of females upon itself. I am a firm advocate that females can be sexist and abuse their positions too, and I've witnessed it first hand a number of time, and have plenty of criticisms of my own gender for sure. They have not been all in all, in aggregate the role models I needed when I started out in a male dominated environment, to the point where I don't expect women to be role models for me just because they are women anymore. >I'm not overlapping my perceptions of reddit with HN on how reddit treated both Ellen Pao and Sheryl Sanders (she devil, satanist among other things are names they endured upon their first week in office). >And you just did so don't pat yourself on the back too much. And you're right, it has nothing to do with this case. I brought this up because you used the word malicious that I would even bring up the idea that women CEOs face a bias. I wanted to clarify that there absolutely is one, and maliciousness is hardly an adequate term to describe the words used against female CEOS in explicitly wording that encompasses their gender, though I barely see it shine through maliciously on HN as I have seen on reddit and other communities. I don't think pointing out the fact that many people have acted malicously towards these individuals and wondering if its due to a bias conscious or unconscious, is malicious, or propogating maliciousness. > Unfortunately, I did not see Apple jumping into back the notion of childcare needs years ago When Marissa was chastized for having a nursery in her office. >I remember that, and this a good example of your dishonesty or maybe your blind-spot. Marissa was chastised for her hypocrisy. She banned working for home - a policy that was very popular with new parents, but then built herself a nursery - just for herself - so she could bring her kids to work because unlike everyone else, she worked long hours. Of course people will criticize her. Please reread my statements about her remote work decision, and how the data was related to not meeting remote work standards, and no data whatsoever was provided about remote work in relation to parenting, but news had no problem conflating the issues, and readers had no problem assuming there was hypocrisy in the decision, despite there being no data to prove hypocrisy existed in the decision. If anything, allowing the known lack of accountability and performance quality of remote work to continue due to parenting, would proprogate sexism further by sending a signal that quality of work/the bar can be lowered if you are parent. In regards to that while having a nursey, I'm going to have to push back here. I worked on wallstreet, and it is commonplace for years that they have one secretary for their work life, whose job it is to help manage their personal life, and this has ALWAYS been acceptable without question for decades in multple industries. For example, a secretary to a male boss is allowed and explicitly told to spend a large portion of their time arranging personal events around public events and I've sat next to a secretary interning on wallstreet who spend the majority of her day buying chanel and juicy couture gifts for her bosses daughters to apologize for him not being able to make it home, and doing these kinds of thing on a daily basis. There are entire sub markets within industries dedicated to secretaries being paid on company salary to help manage and perform private life upkeep to help with busy men. Its just that, the actions here tend to be buying gifts for women or paying their secretary to appease the women they never have time to be home for, because there is of course a woman at home to raise the children his secretary is buying gifts for, and arranging limos to pick their kids up in private schools to the after school events these men don't have time to make it to. Sitting next to one of these secretaries on wallstreet for a summer internship informed me greatly how commonplace this is. Of course though, this is not criticized ever, but for Mayer, investing office space to accomodate her personal life is. Why is that? The employees at the bank I worked for who also worked 80+ hour weeks did not get secretaries on pay to send limos to pick up their 12 yr old daughters from ballets they could not attend with a sorry note attached to a juicy couture bag, but I don't see articles about unfair and slighted the males and females feel about their inability to accomodate their children. The actions are exactly the same, but accomodations are in action explicitly different in representation because Mayer is a woman. The difference ends there. The criticism does not. Just because two things occur at the same time does not mean they are related. i.e. Marissa having a nursery, and also deciding remote work was not allowed at the company anymore.