Elaine Wherry: Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real
blogs.wsj.com
blogs.wsj.com
edit:
It's also a bit ridiculous that the author's "coach", who tells her this is a case of gender discrimination, does so (according to the author) using assumptions about the hire based on his gender, age and geographical origin. So the (unsupported) claim of discrimination is itself based on explicit discrimination.
Bearing that in mind, pretty much every proxy that can be measured indicates that there is a gender bias. Think about it - what sort of thing could you look at that would indicate a glass-ceiling? Lower access to higher level jobs compared to numbers at entry level? Check. Lower negotiated salaries? Check. Sexist comments made in public places? Check.
Our world looks suspiciously similar to what we would expect the world to look like if there was a deep gender bias.
It's not at all suggestive of gender bias. Just because something happens to a woman, does not indicate in any way that the thing happened to her because she's a woman (unless it's something that couldn't have happened to a man).
I completely agree that there is evidence that the glass ceiling exists, and there is ample evidence of a strong gender bias in society at large that is amplified in certain industries. If you re-read my original comment I didn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that her anecdote is not evidence that she was hitting the glass ceiling.
If you want to know what evidence I would accept to put this case down to gender discrimination, then any positive indicator not itself based on discrimination. I can't imagine all the possible forms that could take.
edit: on re-reading I see where you wondered about it. The guy coming out and saying it would be evidence, and it's true that even if it were gender discrimination, it might not be at all obvious. That doesn't make it rational to decide that it was gender discrimination when no evidence was given.
The story does not strongly point to the problem being her not her gender. The guy in question did something extraordinary (pulling out of an accepted job offer) without being able to give much justification besides vaguely disliking her. If she was incompetent or had a poor personal manner then that is exactly something you would expect the man in question, her colleagues and her coach to bring up.
You can interpret this story in two ways:
a) The man had a non-sexist reason for disliking the author so much he backed out of an accepted job offer, but he was unable or unwilling to express that reason specifically, even though he was willing to tell her that she was the problem. The author is incompetent or unlikable, her colleagues are too incompetent to notice or say anything and the author's coach is so incompetent that she just spouts feminist paranoia instead of actually being helpful.
b) The author, the coach and the author's colleagues are all reasonably professional and competent, the man in question is from a culture where older men don't tend to like being under the authority of young women and this made him increasingly uncomfortable over time. He backed out of the job because of this feeling of discomfort, but was unwilling to give that as his reason because he knew it would be seen as unprofessional.
I believe that your choice of which of these to believe indicates that YOU are sexist.
My choice of which to believe is based on the fact that the article presents some evidence that the first scenario is true:
1. The hire actually gave the reason as not feeling comfortable with her competence. 2. She claims to have been feeling unhappy with her own performance for a while and on shaky ground at the company. 3. The rest of the team accepted her suggestion and reasoning that it was her and that someone else should try to get the guy back.
The only evidence presented for the second scenario is the guess that her coach makes.
Given that, I don't think we are in a situation where we should bias in favour of innocent until proven guilty. We can just make our own best guess based on what we know.
Your evidence 2 and 3 are weak. Being in a high pressure job often means being in a position where you (and the company) can't afford a big disaster. Lots of people are hard on themselves, it doesn't mean she was on shaky ground because of her competence (her colleagues wanted her around for another year at least). She insisted on leaving to make this guy happy because his stated reason for rejecting the job was her. Her colleagues wanted the guy to join them and they didn't have any reason to refuse her resignation. That doesn't shed any light on why the man was unhappy with her in the first place.
The guy didn't give convincing examples or well thought out reasons, he seems to have just made a guess that she was incompetent. You think his guess is unbiased and the coach and the author's guesses are biased. Even though it is the coach's job to make objective judgements about these things. In this scenario the man, the author and the coach all make judgements given information we are not privy to. Each of them has their own biases, their own agendas. I think the man's inability to explain his dislike when pressed, and the fact that the coach is supposed to provide negative criticism indicates that the coach's judgement is most likely correct.
The guy who supposedly refused to work for her because of her gender must have realized that she is a woman long before signing the contract. Ie - if he really had problem reporting to a woman, why go through the process if the information was readily available that it wasn't for him?
Occam's razor (as opposed to her coach) would posit that certain events changed his mind, as per his explanation to her.
However - the phenomenon that is real is her uncertainty as to whether her gender was a factor. Ie - it would not occur to a man to question that. Unfortunately that's life.
I have never heard of this before, though after reading the article I can see it having played out in the workplace.
As the boss you are still the one with the power, no?
That depends on whether people want to work for you more than you want them to work for you.
I know life isn't always so simple.
Either way this doesn't merit an article on sexism.
All she has is a guy refusing a job offer. After that she talks to some radical feminist who decided it was because of her gender, and she, for some strange reason, accepts that explanation as truth and shifts all the blame to the guy.
WTF?
b) The coach, according to the author, made that call after she recounted the story. Presumably in a lot of detail, and after numerous other coaching sessions in which her coach would have built up a detailed picture of how she worked and where her weaknesses lay.