Hacker News Reader

Comment by cuchoi | Hacker News Reader

I think it is easy to dismiss everything as "choices". But why are people taking different paths? Did they have the same opportunities? Was the environment welcoming for both?

The 2017 top 500 CEO ranking included more female chiefs than any previous list since the first Fortune 500 ran in 1955. They were 6.4% -- 32 out of 500.

View on HN

Perhaps the shoe is on the other foot -- if we search fruitlessly for robust evidence of discrimination, why assume anything is wrong?

Assume for a moment that we investigate and find that people do indeed have the same opportunities and the environment is equally welcoming. Would that be it, case closed?

Maybe, yes. But we don't have to even ask ourselves that. I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence and non-anecdotal evidence to argue that men and women don't have the same opportunities.

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the opportunities aren't the same. But that doesn't say whether they are equal in value.

Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far. For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.

Sometimes when you just accidentally find out a male coworker is making way more than you (for lower quality work even), then you don't have to search very far.

This is not the smoking gun it appears to be. Men also encounter male coworkers with the same job, who do worse work and make more money than them.

For a lot of women, we assume that there is discrimination because it happens to us directly, so further research into the extent of the problem seems very warranted.

But what do we do when the research suggests that discrimination is not a major driver of macro-trends in men's and women's career outcomes?

(Any research that showed there was no discrimination would of course be suspect, because there are legitimate discrimination cases prosecuted each and every year.)

Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimation, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted. You can argue with my off-the-cuff example, but as you mentioned there are many documented cases of discrimination that are hard to argue with.

The 2-6% difference in wages (depending on which study you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...) can still be very significant.

And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.

Right, but my point is that if you have actively experienced discrimination, you're less likely to judge the research as unwarranted.

The research is warranted, but seems not to support the idea that discrimination is a major driver in the difference in career outcomes or lifetime earnings.

And of course we should continue to discuss all the other reasons women don't end up going into high paying jobs.

Why should we do that?

Another thing that the author (wisely) didn't mention is that most women choose to have children between the ages of 25-35, an age range that defines whether you're going to become just a good employee or an agressive career hunter.

There are just as many women as men in all social classes and income groups, so I think we can rule that one out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com