Facebook staff reject female engineers’ code more often, former employee claims

The enphasis of this boundary creates a space for privileged information amongst the network. those internal to the network have access to resources others do not, most often in the form of people and the information in their head. The actual quality of information amongst groups is probably roughly the same, but with in-network information, there is more willingness to be open about this information. This is because information can be infinitely duplicated. Giving out information reduces your competitive advantage just as teaching someone everything you know would as well.

Take away the concept of groups and you remove overt hazing. However, individuals exist along with their gated information. This information includes their deepest secrets and fears, their de-facto model of the organization, as well as the secrets to their strengths. Regarding this last one, if you have a high enough gated privilege, he may just give you a link to the resource he used. If you don't, he may just try and explain it himself. And if you have low privilege, he'll be too busy.

Most organizational skills are NOT generic skills learned in school. They are often tips about organizational management, who to ask about what as well as the hidden mental models that keep the legacy code running.

Take this potential acenario: If a women asks a man how the fuck the shitty legacy code works, there is a threat. The woman who is fresh from school has some ivory tower ideas and the man is threatened because he knew he took some shortcuts. This manifests itself as arrogance when explaining, perhaps even just telling the woman to just figure it out as some sort of hazing test. One she is jaded enough by organizational existence will no longer be a threat.

So there is a constant dynamic of men needing to orove themselves to other men and women. When women are involved, the need is higher, creating more arrogance and a higher power distance. Many woman know this, which is why they are more likely to say: "I heard you were the expert in this area, could you give me a few pointers? I'm SOOO bad at this stuff. " while other men might "What the fuck is this shit?!"

Men basically have 2 choices to extract information. Playing the mentee, or playing a high status individual that the other person has to prove themselves to. Women often only have the first because culturally they are socially punished for aggressive behavior.

One root cultural stem is that a man mist be in some eay superior to a woman to "deserve" her. Gender roles have the man playing the hero. This imperative prevents men seeking help from women but also systematically prevents women from reaching high status without overt and obvious superiority in an aspect.

This last part is very important. The issue is NOT about actual skill. Out society is set up fairly well in that it is still mostly a meritocracy. The best rise to the top, and this includes women.

The issue is that your ability is determined by your access to experience and attitudes. (No longer knowledge, e.g. Blacks being banned from libraries or similar) This can create a headwind or tailwind for you in different directions.

Also, in places where measuring skill is flawed and has huge variance, women often have to doubly prove themselves because their "scores" are artificially deflated while an extroverted tall white males might be inflated. From an organizational standpoint this is in some ways even "good" because the org may bot be sexist, but it sure as hell wants its ICs to fall in line. That entails a manager or leader that can utilize aggression and status.

So, to sum up, culturally women are often forced to play a low status role, and men are forced into high status and often more high pressure roles. From a romantic but somewhat chauvanistic view, this is "protecting our daughters and wives". In reality, you fake it till you make it. Men have the paths to power opened for them while women are stuck having to out on fake smiles. (Though often self imposed due to fear. But then again, that fear is another cultural manifestation of boys being taught to face their fears to protect the girls who aren't expected to do anythinf)

Or, to put it another way: when contributors are anonymous and genderless, work by women is accepted at the same rate as men?

I think it's pretty likely that the environmental conditions that hinder women from ever becoming engineers in the first place don't all suddenly go away for the ones who manage to do it anyway.

Or are we talking about first principles here? Because I also think that a lot of maybe-not-intentional-but-pretty-much-everywhere-nonetheless discrimination hinders young girls from having early lifestyles that lead to becoming women engineers. I don't really see how one could reasonably argue otherwise. And if discrimination prevents LARGE_% of A, and B requires A, then discrimination has almost certainly also prevented SOME_% of B. That's just basic middle school math.

I argue that there are biological differences between men and women, and these differences are causing different representation in STEM fields.

I would also say that today, we're living in the most equal opportunity society than ever before. Let the free market sort itself out. If you try to artificially increase the proportion of women in STEM fields, you will decrease the quality of engineers. I'm sorry, but that's how it is.

> So when you cite evidence that says men are smarter than women conducted by men standing on the shoulders of a society built for men, you can't be shocked when people question it.

So, did they use a flawed methodology? Were these studies sexist? Could you point in which way these studies are sexist? Do you disagree that males often have higher variance in different traits in many species? Do you disagree that men have higher variance in IQ?

I argue that you don't actually have any reason to believe that the differences are biological instead of social. Certainly, while extremely interesting (I mean that. Not sarcasm.), none of your links demonstrate it. Your links claim to show a difference, but they do not claim to explain the cause of said difference.

> I would also say that today, we're living in the most equal opportunity society than ever before.

You could say all kinds of things and more. But, and I'm not agreeing here that it is actually true, because I'm not fully convinced that it is, even if it _is_ true, being better-than isn't the same as being good.

> Let the free market sort itself out.

Only a properly regulated market ever sorts itself out. Otherwise you end up with natural monopolies, because barriers to entry are historically compounded. This has always been true of marketplaces.

> So, did they use a flawed methodology? Were these studies sexist?

Well, one flaw is that your conclusions don't follow from the studies.