[m0zg]

  >> there is an enormous body of evidence demonstrating 
  >> that the gender pay gap is driven by overt sexism 
  >> and institutional barriers

Now, let's not make things up. Every time this question is seriously examined, it turns out that whatever "pay gap" there is is because women, on average, choose to not negotiate their pay, to work in less demanding jobs than men, and to work less in general. I'm not aware of a single rigorous study that links pay differences to "overt sexism" or anything of that sort.

In fact, recently Google did a study of its own, and found out that at least at Google more _men_ tend to be underpaid: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-...

[billhathaway]

From the study you mentioned "Company officials acknowledged that it did not address whether women were hired at a lower pay grade than men with similar qualifications."

and

"Kelly Ellis, a former Google engineer and one of the plaintiffs in the gender-pay suit against the company, said in a legal filing that Google had hired her in 2010 as a Level 3 employee — the category for new software engineers who are recent college graduates — despite her four years of experience. Within a few weeks, a male engineer who had also graduated from college four years earlier was hired for Ms. Ellis’s team — as a Level 4 employee. That meant he received a higher salary and had more opportunities for bonuses, raises and stock compensation, according to the suit. Other men on the team whose qualifications were equal to or less than hers were also brought in at Level 4, the suit says.:

[m0zg]

At Google your "years of experience" matter not at all. I've seen former VPs and directors elsewhere work at Google as L5 software engineers and not be able to be promoted. L3 pretty much means she didn't do well in her interview. L4 is more common for out of college hires.

Moreover, back in 2010 Google had a system for when the "correct" hiring level is unclear. You'd be hired as a "member of technical staff" (MTS) with a given salary and stock grant, and then over the next 6-12 months prove that you deserve to be "slotted" at the level your compensation is at. If you failed to do so, your comp would remain the same, but you'd be slotted a level below and expected to earn a promo in the near future. Which means the hiring committee (none of the decisions are made directly by the interviewers or the hiring managers) was pretty certain what level was appropriate for her. Nowadays this system is not in place anymore, and if there's any doubt, down a level you go right off the bat.

It is very counterproductive to attribute one's misfortunes in life solely to traits one can't change. It could very well be that Kelly just wasn't that good at her job, many otherwise very smart people at Google are barely scraping by.

But once one starts attributing all misfortune to something like race or gender or another unchangeable trait, that kind of shuts down the feedback loop that could otherwise drive improvements in performance, and therefore, one hopes, also improvement in promotions and therefore compensation.