[throwaway0x78]

This move makes me very reluctant to work at google. Would my future career be limited, because women are favored in promotions and internal recruitment? I mean this show what google's values are, and which methods they think are acceptable.

It would feel much safer and future proof to work for a more meritocratic competitor.

[cgranade]

"This move makes me very reluctant to work at google."

If removing barriers to getting good people interested in what you supposedly love makes you "reluctant," I think that says far more about you than about Google.

"Would my future career be limited, because women are favored in promotions and internal recruitment?"

No, but you might not be as favored over women as you are now. Men in CS, we're playing the game on easy mode (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-th...).

[throwaway0x78]

Anyway cgranade, would you support internal career tracks for women only, to rectify the shortage of women higher up? Do you think women should be given extra consideration for promotion at google?

[throwaway0x78]

Proof by analogy? Not a single piece of evidence? Really?

[cgranade]

No, not proof by analogy, but explanation by analogy. As Scalzi says in his follow-up, providing proof of endemic sexism is about as necessary by now as providing evidence that gravity exists when tripping over one's shoelaces. The evidence by now is clear enough that to demand evidence in every discussion is a distraction tactic, and not actually useful. Finding evidence is, because of the sheer breadth and extent of the problem, as difficult as using your favorite search engine to look up income stats, harassment at the workplace, unfair hiring practices, etc., such that demanding evidence is pretty much asking someone else to do your work for them.

(I should note that Scalzi did link to another post with more facts, over at http://www.jimchines.com/2012/05/facts-are-cool/, if you still demand that someone else go search for things online for you.)

[throwaway0x78]

>[B]lack males receive [prison] sentences that are approximately 10% longer I don't see how this is related to programming but yes it is correct. The effect is even larger for men/women, so that men recieve much longer sentences for the same thing than a woman would.

>The ratio of women’s and men’s median annual earnings was 77.0 This is mostly but not fully explained by choice of career. Women in the cities of US actually earn more than men.

I don't feel like responding to more, since they are unrelated to the topic at hand, proving discrimination in the workplace keeping women out of programming.

>providing proof of endemic sexism

It depends on what you define as sexism to be sure. If you define sexism as telling a woman she looks beautiful, or showing pretty women in your presentation, then yes of course you will find things like that.

>demand evidence in every discussion is a distraction tacti

Yeah, I guess it disctracts from reading poorly thought out analogies...

>income stats

Correlation does not prove causation.

>if you still demand that someone else go search for things online for you.

Wow are being really hostile. I have made no such demands. But if you try to "prove" your point by doing analogies or by linking to irrelevant stats like incarceration of black males, I will call you out.

[aianus]

From my anecdotal experience women are favored over men for hiring at megacorps. I think men are still treated better at work and favored for promotions though.

Quick edit/evidence: 17% of Google technical workers are female where only 11% of CS majors at my school were women.