[somethoughts]

It's interesting - mentally I break up "Tech" companies into many subdivisions. I think the Tech-Tech portion of a "Tech"company (i.e. SW engineers, chip designers) is probably decently good at being a meritocracy.

If you have a decent track record of being able to code/implement/ship features that are on-spec with few defects, on time, with a decent attitude, its a gross generalization but some company out there will probably hire you - particularly if you have a solid GitHub profile and recs.

And if you don't feel the urge to grow career wise outside of Tech-Tech then you'll be fine although your pay/leadership opportunities will probably reach a ceiling.

But a "Tech" company also consists of Tech-Sales, Tech-Finance, Tech-Law, Tech-Marketing, Tech-VC, Tech-Management, Tech-Product Management, Tech-Management.

All of these other subdivisions that make up the rest of a "Tech" company are actually much more like their counterparts in non-"Tech" companies with all their much more plentiful issues of bias, discrimination and harassment. Perhaps this is because a lot of the work is even less measurable on binary terms and therefore graded based on subjective reviews by existing leadership who as humans that have biases. They are also outward facing where you have to deal with existing biases of society.

[xsmasher]

>I think the Tech-Tech portion of a "Tech"company (i.e. SW engineers, chip designers) is probably decently good at being a meritocracy.

I don't think that's true at all. Engineers are not some sect of logical beings that don't have human emotions and foibles. I think they're just as likely to be discriminatory as anyone else.