361–370 of 471 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Time magazine, which doesn't exactly seem to be a bastion of conservatism Although Christina Hoff Sommers does have a noticeable bias/axe to grind since she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys". Also she works for the AEI which is a conservative think tank.
"a noticeable bias/axe to grind since she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys". Also she works for the AEI which is a conservative think tank." This strikes me as "poisoning the well."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This worry is unfounded. Harassment is rarely the case of a single incident. Instead, people who harass other usually have a long history of harassing lots of people. An anonymous complaint could be used not to determine guilt, but instead to trigger an investigation. And if the person is guilty, then the investigation will almost certainly have a very easy time finding somebody , likely many, who will go on record w…
And if they are innocent? That investigation will come with an impact to the accused. A serious one.
That's how it should work. If someone gets accused of something, there should be an investigation. And if they did something wrong it will be outstanding obvious. If they didn't, then they won't find anything.
It is ridiculous to complain about an investigation, which should be the entire goal. To investigate and figure out what happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"a noticeable bias/axe to grind since she's pretty anti-feminism and considers there to be a "war against boys". Also she works for the AEI which is a conservative think tank." This strikes me as "poisoning the well."
There is a war against boys. We medicated an entire generation with psychotropic drugs to make them more passive.
My point was that people should base their opinions on CHS' claims on her evidence and arguments, rather than who she associates with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Total anonymity for accusers is indeed a concerning policy, but partial anonymity (i.e. from one's own team) isn't unreasonable. It ought to be possible to properly investigate misconduct allegations while minimizing the potential for gossip and recriminations.
I think that due process should include the right to face your accuser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an argument against adjusted wage gap calculations or comparing salaries in the same roles. I fundamentally object to the very premise. > You're arguing on bad faith here. No, I just disagree with you.
No, you're clearly arguing in bad faith with him and you clearly have not read the article. The sections titled "Women earn less than men at every wage level" and "How might discrimination—in the form of norms and expectations—be affecting the wage gap by constraining women’s choices?" might be enlightening to you, given your original cherry picked issue.
> "Women earn less than men at every wage level"
It's utterly useless to compare wage levels across different roles. I read the article, I strongly disagree with it.
Do you really think comparing the pay of people in different roles is useful? It's apples and oranges. I don't expect a nurse and an engineer to make the same amount of money. This is my argument and it's not in bad faith.
So the first demand is "A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality" I'd like to see the actual data behind this constant inequality claim. I would be genuinely interested to see what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs. I've heard speculation that women don't argue for higher salaries as much as men, I've also heard that the data is never accurate because it doesn't…
A lot of replies to ChrisRR's comment go out to the global level, but Google can't fix that. The interesting question is "what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs" at Google . That's what they can address. Does it exist? If it does exist, that's a very serious problem, because if Google can't and/or hasn't attained pay parity that would satisfy the people writing this, then…
I suspect that if Google wanted to remove pay differences between men and women, they would need to start making strong offers to all their candidates - not just those who obtain competing offers and try to negotiate.
So the first demand is "A commitment to end pay and opportunity inequality" I'd like to see the actual data behind this constant inequality claim. I would be genuinely interested to see what kind of difference there is between the sexes when comparing like-for-like jobs. I've heard speculation that women don't argue for higher salaries as much as men, I've also heard that the data is never accurate because it doesn't…
"Another stunning but perhaps unsurprising finding was that 63% of the time, men were offered higher salaries than women for the same role at the same company. The report found that companies were offering women between 4% and a whopping 45% less starting pay for the same job. " https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyatarr/2018/04/04/by-the-num... Report referenced: https://hired.com/wage-inequality-report
The more appropriate statistic would be that "on average, women are offered 4% less" which seems to have been produced by integrating an estimation of the probability density, and looking at the non-symmetry of the distribution. It seems most of that difference is concentrated within 10% on the mean.
So (roughly) if you're a man, you had a 50% chance of being offered 4% more than a woman, and maybe a 30% chance of being offered 4% less than a woman.
Write a contrarian opinion - get publicly fired zero tolerance style, coerce for sex using the force of your position - get quietly paid $90M. Looks like Google thinks that the former is much worse than the latter. Either that, or they apply different sexual harassment policies for rank-and-file employees and executives.
The first (Damore) was an engineer. The second (Rubin) was an executive. To Google, executive >> engineer hence the outrage by rank and file.