4 ms·

You are very close to getting it, but you're missing one crucial detail. > which are known to have the exact same skillset and experience Sure if there was an

You are very close to getting it, but you're missing one crucial detail. > which are known to have the exact same skillset and experience Sure if there was an objective way to evaluate this, then you're right. But there isn't. We THINK that there is, but there is a ton of subjective bias along the way from who recruiters contact, the resume screen, all the way through the interview. And the whole point of gender discrimination is that "on average" women's technical skills and experience are undervalued. That's the premise people are making when they discuss discriminations. Now, you might disagree, and then we can get into the details of why this happens, which parts are conscious and which parts are unconscious. But what's happening is not how you're describing it.

skinkestek 6y ago
> And the whole point of gender discrimination is that "on average" women's technical skills and experience are undervalued. As have been pointed out before: most of us live in somewhat capitalist societies. Capitalists are AFAIK primarily greedy not primarily evil. I don't believe for a second that Facebook wouldn't take the opportunity straight away if they could get the same work done for less money by hiring women instead. IBM too. That should cause a feedback loop that increases salaries for female engineers until balance is reached. Anything other would imply a lack of information somewhere or that capitalists were more evil than greedy. Now that I think of it: Lack of information one or more places is actually an interesting hypothesis in its own right.