131–140 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was studied among lawyers. Female lawyers were significantly less productive. https://www.upf.edu/rs/_pdf/jornadesGenere/GenderGaps_Ferrer...
While interesting, that's a very particular definition of "productive" - male lawyers billed more hours. That doesn't necessarily correspond to more actual work done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to start a company today, I'd definitely be tempted to only hire women, and pay my entire workforce 80 cents on the dollar, instead of 70 cents on the dollar. I couldn't be sued for pay discrimination if ALL of my underpaid engineers are women, since there is no benchmark for a lawsuit to compare the discrimination too! I jest, but it really does surprise me that more companies aren't trying to aggressively…
If I were to start a company today, I'd definitely be tempted to only hire women, and pay my entire workforce 80 cents on the dollar, instead of 70 cents on the dollar. Except that correcting for experience, the pay gap shrinks to about 94 cents on the dollar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI I'm with John Green here: Much of the strong negative feeling around the gender pay gap comes from women as a whole…
The BLS study that controlled for occupation, industry, part-time vs. full-time, education levels, and other factors found that there is still a gender pay wage gap of 94 cents to the dollar [1].
It's not-fact-based to keep touting the 77% number, but it's just as much not-fact-based to claim there isn't a gender wage gap because women feel "squeezed".
[1] https://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/CivilRights/Documents/G...
cool but it's sad to know that this is required to maintain gender equality
It actually proves the opposite. That there was not systematic bias.
Is anybody studying the reasons behind the huge gender disparity in roofing, welding or kindergarten teaching? I think there is a tremendous gender bias in those and other fields that is going unstudied, because nobody cares or because those fields aren't as cool or important .
> it’s not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it’s about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix. This conclusion (imo) should have been bolded. I disagree that getting women to "dust themselves off" is an easier fix than if there were inherent bias against women in interviewing. My theory i…
> My theory is that this is tied to (In the US) men being more tolerant of taking risks, which leads to being more tolerant of failure, which leads to being able to more easily "dust oneself off." There are some pretty obvious evolutionary psychology reasons for men to take more risks. Whether evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of just-so stories or not, that's another discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NYT blog post starts out discussing regional dialects, then presents a study of 23 Southern Californians aged 18-22... The only study the post links to is paywalled and the link to a conference paper is dead. Your second link is also paywalled.
You're absolutely right, and I have no idea why you're being downvoted.
Edit: Or, perhaps, they are rate-limited by HN and can only use the triangles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to start a company today, I'd definitely be tempted to only hire women, and pay my entire workforce 80 cents on the dollar, instead of 70 cents on the dollar. I couldn't be sued for pay discrimination if ALL of my underpaid engineers are women, since there is no benchmark for a lawsuit to compare the discrimination too! I jest, but it really does surprise me that more companies aren't trying to aggressively…
If I were to start a company today, I'd definitely be tempted to only hire women, and pay my entire workforce 80 cents on the dollar, instead of 70 cents on the dollar. Except that correcting for experience, the pay gap shrinks to about 94 cents on the dollar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI I'm with John Green here: Much of the strong negative feeling around the gender pay gap comes from women as a whole…
>"Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!), masking gender had no effect on interview performance." I've seen quite a few studies pointing out this "confidence gap" now. They have shown women to be less confident, and it shows in their actions and speaking patterns. I still hear these speaking patterns even in the voice modulated versions-- statements sounding like questions…
Confidence has nothing to being 'aggressive' or 'bitchy' or even necessarily 'assertive'.
Confidence usually means a lack of fear or anxiety when dealing with tough situations, or the lack of enough hubris to stand up to the anxiety in such scenarios.