[Blahah]

There's no evidence at all that she hit a gender-related glass ceiling. The story strongly points to the problem being her, not her gender. The only suggestion of discrimination on the part of the hire comes from a third party speculating about it. The glass ceiling may well be real, but this anecdote doesn't demonstrate it.

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.

[flumbaps]

It's an anecdote, not a court case. The author and her coach made their best guess based on their judgement of the situation. Obviously they are both privy to a lot of information that isn't in the article (and would be extremely hard to express). The author got to experience conversations with the person in question, and so probably had a lot of information that was expressed through manner and tone. The coach knew the author well, and knew the author's abilities and was in a position to make a qualified judgement over what the problem was. Also, of course, the coach was aware of cultural differences that are mentioned but not detailed (for obvious reasons) in the article.

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.

[Blahah]

It's not a court case, but she's trying to make a serious assertion (gender discrimination against her leading to serious career implications), and if that's to be taken seriously she needs to present the evidence to support it.

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.

[flumbaps]

The article isn't intended to name and shame a particular individual. It's meant to warn women about how gender discrimination can affect their career even if they are very careful to work in a meritocratic team of people who treat them fairly. The claim of the article isn't "this man was sexist" - we have no idea who this man was, and we don't get anything close to the full story. The main point of the article is "this is a thing that happens". I don't think that claim requires extraordinary evidence. It's just an attempt to bring attention to a plausible mechanism by which gender discrimination can negatively affect women, which they might not have been aware of otherwise.

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.

[antimagic]

No evidence at all? The guy didn't even offer her a chance to negotiate - a chance he did give another (male) founder. While it's true that this is not definitive evidence for gender bias, it is at least suggestive. I'm wondering what type of evidence you would accept, because you know, it's quite rare (although not unheard of!) for men to openly come out and say that they discriminate against women.

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.

[Blahah]

Yes, no evidence at all in this anecdote. There could have been any number of reasons why the guy decided to back out of the job at that stage, including the one he gave. Assuming it was due to sexism is just a wild guess. The fact that he negotiated with the male founder could be explained by any of the other factors involved, like the better job title offered, the increased salary offered, or the (given) reason that the author just didn't inspire confidence in the hire.

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.

[antimagic]

You didn't answer my question - what evidence would you accept?

[Blahah]

You didn't ask that question - I thought your similar question was rhetorical since you answered it yourself. I agree with your evidence that a glass ceiling exists.

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.

[antimagic]

No, give me a (some) specific example - you know "If I saw XXX, I would know that there was a glass-ceiling in place". My request is not spurious - anyone that has ever tried to talk about these issues in public gets hit with comments like yours "That's not evidence of discrimination". And each time, on the surface, you're right, you could construct a different interpretation of the events. Nevertheless, when we look at the global situation, you and I agree that our world looks like one in which discrimination exists. Once you accept that as a fact, the onus of proof shifts somewhat in the direction of the person claiming that discrimination wasn't the cause.