The tone of our debates – which often get quite heated – is frequently different based on the gender of the author(s).
Sanders' article seems a little more rant-y than it should be for someone who is basing her experiences "in the industry" (UK) since April 2012. Not that a relatively small amount of experience means you can't have an opinion, but it can't be good to become totally blind to something just because you don't want to see it.
Given a little bit of time, perhaps she will see that some sexism-based discrimination does exist -- not just in tech but pretty much every industry. But it's not the kind related to violence or "rape culture", but rather of pay. It is a cold, hard fact: women make less than men.
Let's just say "I know a gal" who was fired from a company in the Valley because of that very discrimination. She had a master's degree and had been at the company almost 1+ year when she discovered that than the guy she was training, a dropout art school student whose "industry experience" amounted to working at Home Depot as a cashier was earning more. When my friend asked for equal pay for equal work, citing Obama's signing of Lily Ledbetter, her employers cut her salary to hourly, started writing her up for even the most minor infraction, and eventually ended up firing her. From what she tells me, she was unable to afford legal representation, Silicon Valley attorneys literally laughed at her (said they would not take the case for free), so she ended up signing a stack of legal mumbo jumbo that literally raped her of all her legal rights.
Let's just say "I know a gal" who was fired from a company in the Valley because of that very discrimination. She had a master's degree and had been at the company almost 1+ year when she discovered that than the guy she was training, a dropout art school student whose "industry experience" amounted to working at Home Depot as a cashier was earning more. When my friend asked for equal pay for equal work, citing Obama's signing of Lily Ledbetter, her employers cut her salary to hourly, started writing her up for even the most minor infraction, and eventually ended up firing her. From what she tells me, she was unable to afford legal representation, Silicon Valley attorneys literally laughed at her (said they would not take the case for free), so she ended up signing a stack of legal mumbo jumbo that literally raped her of all her legal rights.
> "It's very hard to take this story at face value."
Why? Because it disproves your world view? Because it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that this kind of shit can (and does) happen in an industry you like to idolize?
This story is outrageous, but entirely in line with many other, very similar stories I’ve heard personally by various women. Men reacting dishearteningly poorly to women raising the issue of mistreatment is A Thing™. A COMMON thing, even. Yes, even in our industry.
Hey, pretty funny that KuraFire is a nym for Faruk Ateş, but you responded to me as KuraFire not as Faruk Ateş. Since my criticism goes to Faruk Ates, in the interest of full disclosure you probably should have told us who you were.
Uh, dude. I very clearly, openly and publicly use KuraFire as my nickname, everywhere in conjunction with my real name, Faruk Ateş. I wasn’t trying to hide anything _on purpose_. By posting as myself, I told you who I was. Blame Hacker News’ awful design if you think I was trying to hide my author-ship.
Let's just say "I know a gal" who was fired from a company in the Valley because of that very discrimination. She had a master's degree and had been at the company almost 1+ year when she discovered that than the guy she was training, a dropout art school student whose "industry experience" amounted to working at Home Depot as a cashier was earning more. When my friend asked for equal pay for equal work, citing Obama's signing of Lily Ledbetter, her employers cut her salary to hourly, started writing her up for even the most minor infraction, and eventually ended up firing her. From what she tells me, she was unable to afford legal representation, Silicon Valley attorneys literally laughed at her (said they would not take the case for free), so she ended up signing a stack of legal mumbo jumbo that literally raped her of all her legal rights.
Think of the actions that are alleged to have taken place.
What are the motivations of these actions? How does the villain profit by those actions?
Why would an employer pay a long time employee with a Masters degree less than a new hire with no experience, and then prefer to fire her rather than bring her salary up to par.
When given evidence of this unfairness, especially in light of Lilly Ledbetter as well as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, why is it that there were no attorneys willing to take this case.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the story is entirely OUT of line with what we know of the behaviors of lawyers as well as the behavior of modern HR departments or CEOs or managers.
Because it makes you uncomfortable to acknowledge that this kind of shit can (and does) happen in an industry you like to idolize?
So now you're speculating, and actually being pretty insulting, about my inner states of mind in at least two regards.
Since you don't know me, you might find it less insulting, more productive, and more persuasive to stick to fact based questioning:
1) Show the claim is rather common and not extraordinary
2) Provide motives for this behavior to occur
3) Provide reasoning why lawyers wouldn't take this case in a heartbeat.
He was probably a better negotiator. And citing laws that say you should be paid a certain amount, instead of showing her value to the company, is not a good tactic for getting a raise.
>Given a little bit of time, perhaps she will see that some sexism-based discrimination does exist
Did you skip the "reading the article" part? She made it quite clear that she has experienced sexism before, just not yet in the web industry. She didn't say sexism doesn't exist, just that it doesn't seem to be a web/it problem.
>It is a cold, hard fact: women make less than men.
No, it isn't. The wage gap myth is just that, a myth. Women are paid the same as men when they work the same number of hours in the same job. Averaging the pay of all women and the pay of all men shows men making more, but they are also working more hours and are disproportionally represented in high risk, high pay jobs.
It is unclear whose fault this gap is. For instance when people get a job offer, men are more likely to try to negotiate than women. That fact can cause significant wage discrimination at a company that is not trying to discriminate at all.
It does not say that. It says one single economist testified to that affect. And that others offered rebuttals. Controlling for hours worked, education, experience, etc leaves you with the opposite of what you think: there is no gap. And the exact page you are linking to points out that the gap also goes the other direction when you don't account for confounding factors, do you also think there is widespread sexism against men lowering their income?
"According to an analysis of Census Bureau data released by Reach Advisors in 2008, single childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most United States cities, with incomes that were 8% greater than males on average"
The only studies I've seen that claim there is still an unexplained difference after accounting for confounding factors all have the same flaw. They do not actually account for hours worked. They classify "full time" as all the same. When 60 hours and 40 hours are considered the same, you are not controlling for hours worked. They end up with figures at around 5% pay gap. Which confirms the nonexistence of this gap, as the average full time hours per day of a man is 8.14, and a woman is 7.75.
The US department of labor commissioned a report on the subject. They found that there is no wage gap, the pay gap can be fully explained by differences in work (job choice, hours worked, etc): http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20...
Did you read the paragraph you quoted? It contradicts your claim.
> According to an analysis of Census Bureau data released by Reach Advisors in 2008, single childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most United States cities, with incomes that were 8% greater than males on average. This shift is driven by the growing ranks of women who attend colleges and move on to high-earning jobs.[7]
> While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
> At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
the "8% advantage", and all the differences quoted in this article, clearly do not control for the type of work performed.
It always astonishes me to see people selectively quote a source that says the exact opposite of what they want it to say. I've seen it happen often enough that I shouldn't be surprised, but I have trouble understanding the level of fundamental dishonesty that is required to do that.
Yes, I did read it. You misunderstood "my claim". I was not trying to imply that the study in question supports the idea that men make less than women, rather using it to demonstrate that not controlling all the other factors that effect income shows wildly varying results depending on which factors you do try to control and which you let effect it.
>women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
Right, when you don't control for anything, you see a gap. The gap dissappears when you actually control for those factors. How does that contradict what I said?
>the "8% advantage", and all the differences quoted in this article, clearly do not control for the type of work performed.
Right, I was not suggesting that the pay gap is reversed, I am suggesting it is entirely accounted for by factors other than sexism. That you aren't complaining about men making less than women shows that you already accept that fact, you just only accept it when it is men making less, and discard it when it is women making less. Despite those two scenarios being just a case of controlling for different factors.
Right, when you don't control for anything, you see a gap. The gap dissappears when you actually control for those factors. How does that contradict what I said?
According to the evidence cited in the Wikipedia link, the consensus of MOST researchers is that, even after accounting for every factor that we can account for, there remains a persistent male/female gap.
See, if you just say "the evidence says I am right", while the evidence says the opposite, it is hard to have a reasonable conversation. Rather than cite anecdotes and your perception of how many "researchers" are on your side, how about cite an actual study that controlled for all the factors that can effect income? I posted one, it was even commissioned by the department of labour specifically for policy guidance so they knew how to address the problem that they assumed existed. And yet, it showed there being no gap.
Gah, I had a big reply ready, and I lost it. This will be shorter.
Here is the long and short of it. If you're honest, you can follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia and read them to come to wind up at studies like http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-279 that found a 7% persistent unexplained gap in the federal workforce. There are a bunch of those you could wind up at.
But I'm not interested in doing that. I'm not an expert. I don't claim to be an expert. I don't want to become one. And if I did become one, I'm not sure anyone on this site wants to watch the resulting debate.
You made a claim. I sanity checked against Wikipedia (which tends to be relatively neutral), found that your view appears to be a minority position, and pointed that out. I also dug up a relevant memory of a factor not related to work history, qualifications, performance or deliberate sexism in the workplace which systemically disadvantages women, and mentioned THAT. I later dug up relevant links.
I don't think that there is much of a point in further conversation. You have shown no openness to considering any possible theories that do not agree with your preconceptions of there not being a difference. (Even when those possibilities are supported both by research and anecdotal experience.) Your past selective quoting of links makes me distrust anything you have to say. You are unwilling to acknowledge the existence of research that you disagree with, even though it obviously exists.
In short the only "conversation" that you seem to want uses only facts that you select, starts with only theories that you agree with, and generally denies the legitimacy of any viewpoint other than your own. There is no point in that sort of "discussion".
Let me summarize where we stand.
1. There are very large wage differences on the whole between men and women.
2. A large part of that can be explained by obvious factors like work history and choice of profession.
3. The fact that women generally do better academically has even caused, in some places and among some populations, there to be a reversal where women make more!
4. If we control for all relevant factors that we know how to control for, the size of any remaining unexplained gap becomes small. In a quick search I've seen careful studies getting results of 0%, 4% and 7%.
5. There is disagreement among experts over how large that unexplained gap is, and what potential causes it might have. Your belief is that there is none. The opinion on Wikipedia indicates that the majority view is that there is a real gap.
6. I have cited specific evidence of a non-sexist cause for a potential gap. That cause is that men are culturally more likely to try to negotiate on salary. I have cited both anecdotal evidence and actual surveys indicating the existence of this difference. Given this, I would expect there to be a persistent gap.
And here I stop. Feel free to reply and malign me any way you want. I've given up on conversation with you.
>If you're honest, you can follow the references at the bottom of Wikipedia and read them to come to wind up at studies like http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-279 that found a 7% persistent unexplained gap in the federal workforce.
A study which did not control for hours worked. This is exactly what I said before, more than once. If you lump all "full time workers" together, of course it will look skewed. Because men work more hours than women.
>I sanity checked against Wikipedia (which tends to be relatively neutral), found that your view appears to be a minority position, and pointed that out.
An abundance of ignorance does not make the facts change. Lots of incorrect ideas are believed by a majority, especially when lobbying groups spend lots of time, effort and money publicizing them.
>You have shown no openness to considering any possible theories that do not agree with your preconceptions of there not being a difference
That is simply lying, how do you reconcile that with your idea that you are trying to engage in an honest conversation? I have already spent many hours studying the subject, I have considered the possibility quite extensively, and used to be one of the majority of people who mistakenly believe there is such a gap. Being open to considering does not mean "ignore facts and change your mind cause I said so". As I said, I am very interested in seeing any evidence of such a gap. But in all my research, I have never found a single study that controls for all other factors, and still find a gap of statistical significance. And in response, I consistently get dishonest rhetoric like yours, pointing me at studies which do not control for all other factors.
The tone of our debates – which often get quite heated – is frequently different based on the gender of the author(s).
Sanders' article seems a little more rant-y than it should be for someone who is basing her experiences "in the industry" (UK) since April 2012. Not that a relatively small amount of experience means you can't have an opinion, but it can't be good to become totally blind to something just because you don't want to see it.
Given a little bit of time, perhaps she will see that some sexism-based discrimination does exist -- not just in tech but pretty much every industry. But it's not the kind related to violence or "rape culture", but rather of pay. It is a cold, hard fact: women make less than men.
Let's just say "I know a gal" who was fired from a company in the Valley because of that very discrimination. She had a master's degree and had been at the company almost 1+ year when she discovered that than the guy she was training, a dropout art school student whose "industry experience" amounted to working at Home Depot as a cashier was earning more. When my friend asked for equal pay for equal work, citing Obama's signing of Lily Ledbetter, her employers cut her salary to hourly, started writing her up for even the most minor infraction, and eventually ended up firing her. From what she tells me, she was unable to afford legal representation, Silicon Valley attorneys literally laughed at her (said they would not take the case for free), so she ended up signing a stack of legal mumbo jumbo that literally raped her of all her legal rights.