patrick.net

Indiana Jones says

“Yes,” she said. “This really happened.”

Of course she went down under the table cloth... IT was a millions of dollars deal after all.

Poor Rich Girl cryin because she can't get any more grub and tug gigs.

CaptainShuddup says

Of course she went down under the table cloth... IT was a millions of dollars deal after all.

If you read the article, you understand that the women did not want the gift under the table. The point is-- would that VP have done that to a male entrepreneur?

Indiana Jones says

The point is-- would that VP have done that to a male entrepreneur?

Elon Musk uses both hands. Buffet on one side, and Barrack on the other.

Indiana Jones says

In that sense, Silicon Valley culture echoes the Wolf of Wall Street culture in the ’80s and ’90s.

One more article whining about how the world is sooo unfair to women and blaming "male culture" and a perfect explanation why there are so few women in tech.

I lived in SV for a long time, albeit in larger companies and the reality I see is very different. I have to take classes every 2 years about how not to joke about sex, so as to not make anyone uncomfortable. It's a repressed world where no one makes any joke, where there no "nudie calendars", or anything else that is not STRICTLY professional. I have never seen a woman treated any differently than a man, including with regard to salaries. It's a state with strong protection against sexual harassment: that covers anything verbal, written, or visual, in the office or in other locations with colleagues, the intent doesn't matter, and offended people are not required to say anything before they sue you.

We are VERY VERY far away from the "Wolf of Wall Street" culture with prostitutes in the bathrooms.

No. If you want an explanation you need to stop blaming others and start looking at what you are doing wrong.

Women are raised watching too many Disney princess movies. You are not princesses. The world will not treat you like this, outside the perimeter where there is a man to defend you. Yes, there are obstacles, stop whining and start spending energy to solve them.

Heraclitusstudent says

I lived in SV for a long time, albeit in larger companies and the reality I see is very different. I have to take classes every 2 years about how not to joke about sex, so as to not make anyone uncomfortable. It's a repressed world where no one makes any joke, where there no "nudie calendars", or anything else that is not STRICTLY professional.

So women are whining because they don't appreciate being objectified?

Heraclitusstudent says

I have never seen a woman treated any differently than a man, including with regard to salaries.

Really?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3282881/silicon-valley-wage-gap/

CREDIT: AP

"Men working in Silicon Valley with a graduate or professional degree earn 73 percent more than women in the industry with the same degrees, according to an analysis of Census Data from the 2014 Silicon Valley Index.

Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level. In fact, they make more than women at every level of educational attainment except for high school graduates, where women earn 1 percent more than men."

So I can make more money for doing the same job as a woman (double standard), in exchange for being less free to talk about how my sex are smarter (another double standard).

I'll take that trade!

Gotta go - I need to prepare for a meeting with a group of white male bosses here, one of whom reports to our white male CEO.

Heraclitusstudent says

I have never seen a woman treated any differently than a man, including with regard to salaries.

A female technical lead I once worked with would get calls from the CEO during his meetings, requesting that she bring them coffee.

I never personally witnessed this, but another team member confirmed it.

Indiana Jones says

So women are whining because they don't appreciate being objectified?

So women interact with men, attract some of them, and your point is that they are at a disadvantage because they have to spend too much time turning them down?
Seriously?
You already have some of the strongest laws in the world protecting you from harassment. What else do you need?
What else will be needed for you to look beyond that issue?

Indiana Jones says

"Men working in Silicon Valley with a graduate or professional degree earn 73 percent more than women in the industry with the same degrees, according to an analysis of Census Data from the 2014 Silicon Valley Index.

Same degree says nothing about positions, carrier paths, skills etc... This statistic is totally meaningless.
I can only speak for experience and say I have NEVER seen a case where a woman earned less than a man BECAUSE she was a woman.

The original article is drivel. The writer picks out one anecdote from Heidi Roizen, and build a story of stories around it, until it sounds like Silicon Valley is a bubbling cauldron of rapey bro-grammers. Silicon Valley is nothing like that. Sure, there are plenty of misandric VCs and plenty of misandric founders/entrepeneurs, too, but for the very most part it is men who suffer the consequences.

>>Every Silicon Valley entrepreneur who spoke with Newsweek has a story somewhat like this—varying only in degree of brazenness...

Do they really? Please do tell the details, because they are completely missing.

Here are some details on Heidi Roizens career, from Wikipedia:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Early life

She graduated from Stanford University in 1980 with a bachelor's degree in English and earned her MBA from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business three years later.

Career

From 1983 to 1996, Roizen was co-founder and CEO of T/Maker Company, which made software for CP/M and MS-DOS computers, and later for the Apple Macintosh. Her brother, Peter Roizen was the other co-founder; he had graduated from the University of California, Berkeley, and had written the original software named "Table Maker" that had launched the company. From 1987 until 1994, Roizen also served on the board of directors of the Software Publishers Association and was its president from 1988 to 1990.

From 1996 to 1997, Roizen was Vice President of World Wide Developer Relations for Apple Computer. She also served on the board of Great Plains Software from 1997 until its acquisition by Microsoft in 2001.

Roizen also served as the Public Governor of the Pacific Exchange and on the executive committee of the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA).

Roizen entered the venture capital world in 1999, first as a Managing Director of SOFTBANK Venture Capital (which became Mobius Venture Capital), from 1999 to 2007, and then in 2012 she joined global investor Draper Fisher Jurvetson as a Venture Partner.

She also launched her own entrepreneurial venture, SkinnySongs,[1][2] In September 2008, the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives awarded Heidi Roizen their annual Achievement Award.

In June 2009, Roizen was elected to the Board of Directors of TiVo (NASDAQ:TIVO), and in September, 2012, she was elected to the board of DMGT (LSE:DMGT), the London-based global media and information company which owns the Daily Mail and Mail Online. At the time she was elected, she became the first female director in the company's 116 year history.

In 2010, Roizen was named a Lecturer and Entrepreneurship Educator at Stanford University, where she teaches the course 'Spirit of Entrepreneurship' in the MS&E (Engineering) department.

She is known for speaking out against the harassment of women in technology.[3]
---------------------------------------------------------------------

So from what I can tell, she got her start in technology by lording it over the product of the hard labor of her own brother, Peter Roizen, as CEO for 13 years. And then, being an English major with an MBA, she went through a series of sales-y or relationship-management type jobs where again she did no building of technology herself, and surfed into one cushy position after another while not doing anything to do with building technology. Notice also the alternation between industry jobs and non-profit jobs when things got too hot. She lasted one year at apple as VP of developer relations.

And now she is CEO-in-waiting (That is what a "Venture Partner" is) at DFJ.

Look. There are plenty of men in silicon valley that built their career on other people's backs and hard labor, and who do not deserve all the accolades that are heaped upon them. And in that same respect, I think Heidi Roizen has indeed proven to be exactly one of the guys.

Regarding pay differences:
- The BLS (US Bureau of Labor) reports that single women who have never married earned 96% of men’s earnings in 2012.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/business/economy/motherhood-still-a-cause-of-pay-inequality.html
[Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn of Cornell University tried to get at the pay gap between similar men and women by stripping out many of the differences that might affect wages, such as relative levels of education, the type of occupations and the industries they worked in, and the greater likelihood that women would interrupt their careers to have children. These variables explained about 60 percent of the total difference in wages, leaving an unexplained 9 percent pay gap between women and men.

Still, Ms. Blau acknowledges that the 9 percent wedge may not be due entirely to discrimination. There could be differences in motivation, commitment, interpersonal skills or some other variable not captured in the data that would affect a worker’s value to an employer. The study by the American Association of University Women found that the pay gap straight out of college — before the demands of family become an issue — was only 5 percent after accounting for other differences between the sexes.]

So here you go: 5% discrimination.
Stop protesting like this 5% is actually 100%.

Indiana Jones says

Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level. In fact, they make more than women at every level of educational attainment except for high school graduates, where women earn 1 percent more than men."

The study does not account for age, experience and skill. The female engineer population in Silicon Valley is skewed towards the inexperienced because so many move into easier jobs in marketing, sales and relationship management, as well as motherhood. The link provided by Heraclitusstudent is a good start on that topic.

Heraclitusstudent says

and the greater likelihood that women would interrupt their careers to have children

Heraclitusstudent says

So here you go: 5% discrimination.

The problem is that expectation of women having children affects their chances and compensation before they decide to have children. Yes, if women did not have children we would have equality. Again, why where you mad at Rin again?

tr6 says

why where you mad at Rin again?

I'm not mad at Rin. He lives his life likes he chooses to, and like he can. I'm fine with that.

Indiana Jones says

What silicon valley really thinks of women

Silicon Valley doesn't not think. Individual human beings think, and they largely disagree with each other on a scale as large as a major city.

From the article,

The only problem with their dream is that Silicon Valley has never produced a female Gates, Zuckerberg or Kalanick.

No, the problem with their dream is that they think we need more Gates, Zuckerbers, and Kalanicks, male or female. It's not the executives or "entrepreneurs" who are innovating, it's the scientists and engineers. We need fewer, preferably no, people pulling the purse strings. Rather, we need an economic system in which good ideas can be implemented without giving control of the means of production to the owner class.

We don't need to figure out how to make 50% of executives women. That's not going to do jack diddly shit for the average woman. Even if 100% of executives were women less than 1% of women would be executives. Making the filthy stinking rich parasites composed of some group (women, blacks, handicap, etc.) won't make life better for the multitudes of middle class and poor Americans who aren't in that 0.1%. It's the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

The correct solution is to empower the actual wealth producers, the people building the technologies in Silicon Valley that the article completely ignores. The actual wealth producers are the ones working on building the technology, not the ones who are already rich enough that they can use their wealth to own the productivity of others. That's everything that's wrong with capitalism. And it's right there in the word. Capitalism rewards already having capital rather than producing wealth or innovating technology. It's the exact opposite of what we want to do in our economy.

Finally, the selfish parasites that make up the venture capitalist community do not reflect the values or behaviors of the vast majority of Silicon Valley. They don't reflect the real wealth producers and innovators, the STEM workers.

Indiana Jones says

Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level.

Exactly how are you measuring that? Please show your work.

If you're comparing a bachelor of art in communications with a bachelor of science in computer science or petroleum engineering than you're comparing apples to oranges and your statistic is meaningless.

Somehow I doubt you're going to show your work. People who state statistics like these never, ever show their data or their math, and yet, they expect us to believe it.

Heraclitusstudent says

I can only speak for experience and say I have NEVER seen a case where a woman earned less than a man BECAUSE she was a woman.

So just because you've never personally experienced it, it is not true? In the face of statistics that show otherwise? Even though you quote the below? Contradictory.

Heraclitusstudent says

So here you go: 5% discrimination.

Stop protesting like this 5% is actually 100%.

Who's making it 100%? We are talking Silicon Valley, not the whole U.S. And even in your best case scenario--5%-- why should men make even 5% more for doing the same job?

Dan8267 says

Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level.

Exactly how are you measuring that? Please show your work.

This is quoted from the article. Here is the article: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3282881/silicon-valley-wage-gap/

The charts are from U.S. census bureau. If you need more info -- you are free to research it.

Indiana Jones says

So just because you've never personally experienced it, it is not true? In the face of statistics that show otherwise? Even though you quote the below? Contradictory.

Hummm.... No, the fact that I've not experienced it, and the statistics I quoted showing its a minor issue are absolutely not contradictory.

Indiana Jones says

Who's making it 100%? We are talking Silicon Valley, not the whole U.S. And evin in your best case scenario--5%-- why should men make even 5% more for doing the same job?

The article you brought up is clearly making the difficulties of a few women in the SV 100% a problem of discrimination against women and macho culture.

And it's not the only article. Almost everyday I see more of those. Like the recent Ellen Pao case: weeks of articles on that, all telling women they are victims and it's all the fault of bad men.

It's annoying when it's totally contrary to what I see around me.
I see no "Wolf of Wall Street" culture. I see nerds spending long hours in front of screens. All in a stifled corporate atmosphere.

Indiana Jones says

Dan8267 says

Men who hold Bachelor’s Degrees make 40 percent more than women with the same educational level.

Exactly how are you measuring that? Please show your work.

This is quoted from the article. Here is the article: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/12/3282881/silicon-valley-wage-gap/

This proves what I'm saying. Your statistic is meaningless crap. First off, you just quoting a statistic from a articlethat isn't showing it's data or work. Second, that article clearly isn't comparing degree to degree. Sorry, but equating a degree in women's studies to a degree in petroleum engineering makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Of course engineers who hunt for oil are going go to make more than a woman who studied whatever the fuck women's studies is. One is an economically useful -- even though I'm against fossil fuel usage -- degree and the other is bullshit.

Indiana Jones says

The charts are from U.S. census bureau. If you need more info -- you are free to research it.

Translation: I'm too lazy to back up my claims, but I still want people to accept them as facts.

The charts say nothing, so it doesn't matter where they come from. And if you're going to make a claim, the burden of proof if on you, not someone who disputes the claim. Now if you actually offered evidence of the claim then the burden shifts to the person trying to discredit the evidence, but you haven't done that.

As for the data, it doesn't matter that it comes from the U.S. census bureau because neither you nor Bryce Covert, the author of the article, actually knows what that data is or even what kind of data there is. Does the data just say HasDegree as bit, Salary as decimal(9,2) or does it say HighestDegreeId as int nullable, Salary as decimal(9, 2) where HighestDegreeId points to a record stating the degree type (BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, Phd) and field (as varchar(50))? Cause' you know, it makes a big fucking difference.

You're talking to a person whose career includes data analysis, writing SQL, and designing databases. I'm a software engineer -- a damn good one -- and querying databases in a meaningful matter is a large part of what I do for a living. So when I tell you this, you should listen...

How you measure determines what you measure.

If there's nothing else you remember from this thread, remember that.

What you really need to make any kind of case is a peer-reviewed study that shows the math. This should be easy to find if your case is correct. After all, there is plenty of political motivation to find evidence to support you claim, which means that if there is any evidence to be found, it should already be found. If it's too hard for you to find this peer-reviewed study in the Information Age, well, that's a pretty strong indication that you're wrong.

Dan8267 says

If there's nothing else you remember from this thread, remember that.

Yes Sir!

Dan8267 says

Translation: I'm too lazy to back up my claims,

I don't know what you spend your days doing, but from the number of posts, it seems like you have more time for this than me. I am occasional on this site because I have many other things to do. Don't you? If you want more information than what I've already given, please feel free to research it yourself. You seem to know much about how to research it, so I ask, who is the lazy one?

Indiana Jones says

I don't know what you spend your days doing, but from the number of posts, it seems like you have more time for this than me.

If you believe in a cause and what others to believe in it, you make time for it.

You're selling snake oil and now you're complaining that you were called on it? Either be willing to back up your claim or don't make it. And if you do make a claim and then realize that it was not well-founded, simply admit that and move on, but don't continue to support the claim without finding evidence to back it up.

Indiana Jones says

If you want more information than what I've already given

You haven't given any information. You've quoted an assertion that has been shown to be utterly meaningless. Really, you should just reject that assertion and look for other evidence that supports your thesis, or if it's not worth the time, abandon your thesis.

Indiana Jones says

You seem to know much about how to research it, so I ask, who is the lazy one?

The person too lazy to learn how to research is the lazy one. Research today is so unbelievably fucking easy. You can literally do it while in your underwear lying on the coach. Before the WWW you actually had to physically get off your ass, go down to a good library (most libraries suck ass) and shift through microfiche, government documents, and obscure articles. It took real time. Today all of mankind's knowledge is instantaneously at your fingertips -- by the way, on behalf of all of us who built the Internet, you're welcome.

I have no motivation to do your research for you. I've already completely discredited the basis of your argument. Furthermore, I don't have any political agenda on this subject. I no more favor finding out that you are coincidentally correct that women are underpaid despite having faulty evidence than I am in finding out that your are wrong. I would be interested in knowing which was true, but I'm not rooting for either side. I have no vested interest. But by that same token, I'm not going to make your case for you.

What I will do is exposed any incorrect evidence or wrong reasoning whether or not your conclusion is wrong. And I would do the same to any one who argues against your conclusion with invalid evidence or reasoning. If there's a second thing you learn from this thread, make it this.
Conclusions are not what's important. The path that leads you to the conclusion is what matters: the reasons, how you gather evidence, how you examined all possibilities.

A good or bad conclusion has a one-time effect. Good or bad reasoning effects every conclusion you will ever make.

Of course, there are some very importation conclusions that you have to get right, but in general it's more important to be accurate in how you reason than any one specific conclusion.

I put the article up for others to do what they will with it. They can believe it, disbelieve it, or dig further. I honestly don't care. I didn't write the article -- why would I spend an afternoon researching it? If you follow your logic, why have anyone write articles? What is the role of an author? This is why we read authored articles, not read raw data all day. I read an article to get the information the author researched. If I want more information, or I disbelieve it, then I have the option to further research the topic.

Indiana Jones says

I put the article up for others to do what they will with it. They can believe it, disbelieve it, or dig further. I honestly don't care. I didn't write the article -- why would I spend an afternoon researching it?

There is a large contingent here who believe the world is one big giant meritocracy, and are extremely PC about any discussion of that, while simultaneously fancying themselves victims of PC culture.

Indiana Jones says

I honestly don't care.

You clearly do care. You just don't care enough to do the work. You want people to believe the article, but you aren't willing to support it. Well, that's fair enough; it's a poorly written article. Most are. Finding the gems among the rubble isn't easy.

But if you want to make the case that women are being paid too little, you should be able to find better evidence. Furthermore, showing the data and your analysis does not just establish the problem, if it exists. It also tells you want the solution is. That's another reason why showing the data matters.

Indiana Jones says

If you follow your logic, why have anyone write articles?

A well-written article sites the data and makes the information transparent. Doing secondary research is like primary research in that the work and results should be repeatable. I shouldn't have to trust you to get the results right because I can verify them.

The particular article you reference clearly got the analysis wrong. Likely the Census Bureau got the analysis wrong, or more precisely, some unpaid intern at the Census Bureau. Work is always the result of individual efforts, not an organization. The organization gives some reputation points, but only if it officially backs up the work.

Indiana Jones says

If I want more information, or I disbelieve it, then I have the option to further research the topic.

The problem is that skepticism isn't your default. You should demand convincing, especially in this day where journalism is anyone with Internet access and a strong but unfounded opinion.

This is Patrick.net. This is not my dissertation. There is only so much effort I am willing to put into this. But I thank you for your advice. Dan8267 says

You should demand convincing, especially in this day where journalism is anyone with Internet access and a strong but unfounded opinion.

Call it Crazy says

See anybody you recognize?

Honeybuns, the facts I post are verifiable from numerous sources. Every credible scientific organization in the world has stated unequivocally that man-made climate change is real. So get over it.

It's funny how liberals are now on the quest to somehow beat down and shame silicon valley. I guess they got bored with promoting their gay crap, and moved on to beating down everyone else in the name of fairness and equality.

Nothing new, liberals were always stupid like that.

There is actually a more precise test to find out whether being female with sex appeal is an asset or a liability: do pretty girls make more than ugly girls in Silicon Valley? Do pretty girls climb the corporate ladders higher and faster than ugly girls do?

The answers are resounding yes' s, IMHO.

Men are treated essentially like ugly girls: you can hack it based on your drive and ability; no quarter will be given for your sex appeal. Pretty girls carry an extra trump card up their sleeves.