3 ms·

Any company that arbitrarily discriminates against talented women cuts into their own flesh: The competition will be able to hire this talent. If I were an empl

by Kenji 11y ago

Any company that arbitrarily discriminates against talented women cuts into their own flesh: The competition will be able to hire this talent. If I were an employer, I wouldn't give two cents about gender as long as the work is done well. As a consequence, female-friendly workplaces have a larger pool of talent to hire from, therefore, they would thrive against the misogynistic competition.

forgetsusername 11y ago
This was a standard argument in economics: any business or culture that systematically discriminates against women (or other races, or other "types") is going to be at a huge disadvantage in identifying talent. And if you believe talent is everywhere, it's hard to argue with.
- mcguire 11y ago
  And yet, prior to World War II, that economic disadvantage had absolutely no effect. Even decades later, systematic discrimination was an open policy, in direct violation of economic logic. Weird.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    No, really. It took WWII for the United States to collectively realize that systematically excluding nigh-half of the population from the economy was a bad idea, economically speaking. And much longer for the damage caused by doing so in specific instances to have much lasting effect---indeed, without government intervention I suspect we would still be waiting.
KingMob 11y ago
You sound like an economist who believes in rational behavior and frictionless spread of information. Sadly, we're not there yet. In the real world, the subconscious belief that women aren't as good at tech is widespread, and access to studies demonstrating a lack of gender-based differences in ability is not. In such a world, managers with unexamined biases believe they are justified in paying women less and down-weighting their ideas and work. Plus, until the spread of the bias decreases, no company is at a relative disadvantage for having it.

by Kenji 11y ago

forgetsusername 11y ago

This was a standard argument in economics: any business or culture that systematically discriminates against women (or other races, or other "types") is going to be at a huge disadvantage in identifying talent. And if you believe talent is everywhere, it's hard to argue with.

mcguire 11y ago
And yet, prior to World War II, that economic disadvantage had absolutely no effect. Even decades later, systematic discrimination was an open policy, in direct violation of economic logic. Weird.
- mcguire 11y ago
  No, really. It took WWII for the United States to collectively realize that systematically excluding nigh-half of the population from the economy was a bad idea, economically speaking. And much longer for the damage caused by doing so in specific instances to have much lasting effect---indeed, without government intervention I suspect we would still be waiting.

KingMob 11y ago

You sound like an economist who believes in rational behavior and frictionless spread of information. Sadly, we're not there yet. In the real world, the subconscious belief that women aren't as good at tech is widespread, and access to studies demonstrating a lack of gender-based differences in ability is not. In such a world, managers with unexamined biases believe they are justified in paying women less and down-weighting their ideas and work. Plus, until the spread of the bias decreases, no company is at a relative disadvantage for having it.