I was exempted and moved all the way to the last round of interviews. The compensation was even negotiated before hand. I am a regular engineer with three years experience.
Many women are not attracted to work in fields populated 90% by males. I believe this to be a more subtle problem that you suggest; you might eliminate all sexual harassment and it would still be the case.
What I am saying, is that the two biggest complaints that women who have worked in this industry have stated to me, are being hit on, and being harassed. Not as a single incident, but as a pattern. The only argument you could make against this is that I'm lying, and women haven't actually said these things to me.
> The only argument you could make against this is that I'm lying
First, that's lacking in civility, you've been here long enough to know that tone isn't appropriate.
Now then. The fact that your experience is not statistically significant isn't a possible counter argument? In order for you to be right, you would need evidence not only that most female mathematicians were harassed, but that they left the field because of if. If you have exit interview data for a random sample of former mathematicians, there are a lot of people here who would probably love to talk to you.
This is an especially unfortunate stance given that this is an article about math.
Edit: I make no claims one way or the other, I'm only talking about statistical validity.
Question: had they worked in the same company or same geographical area? I found that there is big difference between how companies and groups treat people.
Men in specific industries have a higher likelihood to sexually assault women, so much so that it pushes 90% of the women out of an industry with greater than 10M people. Do you understand how delusional that is?
This is a very important point, let me expand a bit. If your business/product requires a supply of sub-market waged talent, then you have not found true product-market fit or your product just does not provide sufficient value to sustain a real business (real meaning one that can operate on market wages.)
Why do you say sub-market? When Disney or any other huge corporation outsources their IT dept to India / China, that's the MARKET. Good Luck putting an import tax on virtual goods / services.
It is market wage in India/China. If they can export jobs to India/China and make things work, good for them, that is a good business.
If the company is complaining of a shortage of US workers however, they are paying sub-market US wages. There is no such thing as a shortage in economics.
That's a bad inference to make. It certainly doesn't mean that. It's the rule, not the exception for new tech companies to experience a flat line or no growth period. The onus is on management to get out of that death spiral as quickly as possible.
You are right, I am. That doesnt change the underlying reasons for a company like Uber to make this statement. It is manipulation of the public, intended to make Uber look moral, as well as intended to reassure their cheap labor base. The fact that people on here are championing it shows how effective this kind of PR is, even among the educated people of HN.
I'm just saying, it is no coincidence that they say this. There are a lot of influences like this Uber statement that are doing the same thing. Most people are not aware
This couldn't be farther from the truth. People branding the current administration like this are destabilizing the country. The media in this country is on an ideological witch hunt, and you are proliferating it.
