On the other hand, I also think that they have a harder time taken serious on highly techical topics, and earn less on average for the same job.
It comes with benefits and drawbacks. I honestly don't know which outweighs which, but putting it all in a negative perspective is unfair and not accurate.
Even if you're some weirdo who thinks there is no gender discrimination in the workplace, you can't deny that many women at least perceive there to be gender discrimination, and one of the tips passed around is to stop self-deprecating yourself in front of your colleagues.
With that part unmentioned, the GP seems to assign dubious priorities to human motivations.
Really? The only motivating factor assumed in the GP looks to be that women want to be successful in their careers. Is that a dubious claim?
I'm saying that I think the downvotes comes from something GP didn't say rather than something they did say.
Sample size of one, but if my company has the option to hire a male or a female engineer which are known to have the exact same skillset and experience I expect them to choose the female one 10/10 times:
- hiring the man gets the job done
- hiring the woman gets the job done equally well and gets you a pat on the back (both immediately and also whenever the statistics are brought up)
> which are known to have the exact same skillset and experience
Sure if there was an objective way to evaluate this, then you're right.
But there isn't. We THINK that there is, but there is a ton of subjective bias along the way from who recruiters contact, the resume screen, all the way through the interview.
And the whole point of gender discrimination is that "on average" women's technical skills and experience are undervalued.
That's the premise people are making when they discuss discriminations. Now, you might disagree, and then we can get into the details of why this happens, which parts are conscious and which parts are unconscious. But what's happening is not how you're describing it.
As have been pointed out before: most of us live in somewhat capitalist societies. Capitalists are AFAIK primarily greedy not primarily evil.
I don't believe for a second that Facebook wouldn't take the opportunity straight away if they could get the same work done for less money by hiring women instead.
IBM too. That should cause a feedback loop that increases salaries for female engineers until balance is reached.
Anything other would imply a lack of information somewhere or that capitalists were more evil than greedy.
Now that I think of it: Lack of information one or more places is actually an interesting hypothesis in its own right.
I probably replied to the wrong comment. Or didn't really read your comment.
Sorry.