
Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real - _pius
http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-352397/
======
dylangs1030
At the risk of sounding insensitive, am I the only one who didn't find any
real sexism in this article?

I was expecting this "rock star" to exhibit sexism by promptly joining after
he was told he'd be reporting under a make. But...no. He joined after
significant alterations to the deal, including a bump in position and salary.

It might be gratifying for the author, but it's kind of irresponsible for her
coach (whatever that is...) to claim something without any evidence at all.

We can't just publicize articles claiming we're victims of emotionally loaded,
cultural taboos without _any_ hard evidence whatsoever. Consider that if she
hadn't explicitly put it in the title or the story itself, this story would
not have signalled sexism to readers.

~~~
wildgift
This isn't about that kind of sexism. It's about a softer sexism that's really
about familiarity.

It's real, and it's a problem. Look at how Hilary Clinton was dealt with by
critics and her handlers during her run for the presidential nomination. They
were worried if she was feminine enough. I thought it was totally absurd,
pointless, and even stupid, but I suspect it made sense to people in their
late 50s and 60s.

In the same way, I'm kinda comfortable with the way Michelle Obama is treated
by her supporters in the media - but if I stand back and really analyze it,
it's patently sexist and offensive. Who cares about her domesticity? She was a
CEO. What she brings to the table is being able to potentially work on policy
or be a political operative. To people in their 40s (and maybe even 30s),
though, this sexist treatment in the media makes us comfortable.

Even Laura Bush could have been an operative - but her party is old, and that
just wouldn't fly. We're in the age of the power couple, and that's reality,
but our biases and sexism will prevent this from being accepted for a decade
or more.

------
GrinningFool
\-- snip -- I responded and she continued: “Right, well, it’s because you’re
young and female.” \-- snip --

I feel like I missed some steps here. It sounds like it went like this: Person
agrees to job. Person signs agreement. Person declines job.[1] The male
cofounder contacts this person and offers more money, a better position, and
reporting to him.

Then we also learn the author had been considering leaving for a while.

So three things in play:

a) candidate was offered a much better deal to come on board[2] and

b) maybe the candidate picked up on her potential lack of commitment, even the
fact that in her mind she was not sur about staying with the company. Perhaps
he did this on a subconscious level - making this something that would be hard
to put his finger on. Comments about her "energy level" seem to hint that this
may be true as well; and

c) maybe the candidate had an issue with gender.

A couple of other revealing snips:

"As a co-founder, your role is to attract the best talent to compete in the
market" and "The answer is not hiring quotas or prettier bathrooms. It’s
strong leadership."

It seems to me that - regardless of gender - it is _possible_ that the author
does not or did not at the time possess these qualities. And that _is_ a deal
breaker to certain types of potential hires.

There are simply too many variables in this equation to conclusively state -
as the author has done - that her gender was the obvious catalyst to his
vacillation.[3]

[1] Do you really want to hire someone who breaks his given word so easily?

[2] Actually this means one of two things: he went back on his word to
_another_ company, or he never had another job lined up and was just playing
them for a better deal. Either way: not someone I'd want at the top of my org
.

[3] Alternatively there is information omitted from this account that would
make the rationale more clear.

 _edit_ I can English.

------
alfiejohn_
Gee, she is pretty hard on herself in the post.

“Right, well, it’s because you’re young and female.”

But I don't think that was the reason...

"After lengthy negotiations including a bump to VP, an increase in salary and
signing bonus, the rock star senior director re-joined"

There we go. Money talks and bullshit walks.

~~~
wildgift
Why didn't he hint that during negotiations then?

My guess is that he just didn't feel comfortable reporting to a younger woman.
Maybe he couldn't really figure it out, but he wasn't put into his comfort
zone and backed off.

Dealing with a male, even a younger one, was probably easier. A bump in the
title probably helped, too.

~~~
WalterSear
I think I could come up with at least a dozen equally plausible reasons why he
wouldn't 'hint it during the negotiations' that have nothing to do with
sexism.

------
bhauer
Sorry, low-value comment incoming. Web designers, please, never capture
keypresses of the up and down arrows and make them do anything but vertical
scrolling.

~~~
MartinCron
If you think that is a low-value comment, you have obviously not read the
other discussions about sexism in tech.

~~~
vittore
You made my day. Or night being precise.

------
colmvp
"He outlined a few specifics — I’d taken two to three days to give feedback to
his presentation. My energy level in our last meeting had given him pause. But
even when I pressed for more detail, he reiterated that it wasn’t just one
particular thing but rather a general sentiment that had accumulated with
time. Despite our signed offer, he had already accepted another position. This
was goodbye."

If that's the only evidence I'm allowed to read from the writer, then I'm
missing how that could construed as sexism.

~~~
mistermann
In my opinion articles like this further entrench any sexism that is out
there.

I, for example, am admittedly sexist. This doesn't mean I would never hire a
woman, or even have a bias towards a man over a woman. What it does mean is, I
believe with great certainty that men and women on average have tendencies.
Males are not guaranteed to, but are statistically more likely to commit
violent crime and other such things, so I can't understand how so many believe
it is impossible that females are likewise statistically more likely to
exhibit certain traits. And one tendency that in my experience women tend to
exhibit more frequently than men is towards victimhood. Too often, if
something doesn't turn out their way, they chalk it up to sexism, or some
other conspiracy, when usually it's just simple bad luck.

------
gfodor
I can empathize here but at the same time she is calling this person
publically (in the Journal!) a sexist without a whole lot of hard evidence (or
if she has more, she didn't present it here.) I'm sure it won't take long for
the internet detectives to figure out who this person is. That's pretty harsh.

~~~
GhotiFish
err. sure, but that's how it goes whenever you're questioning the rational
behind someone's decision. What evidence could exist? There's no go back to
state save and play it with the male character test. You can't find out what
he was thinking, and he'd never tell you. He'd give you a perfectly rational
line of thought. Humans are fantastic at rationalizing their decisions. This
is why sexism is such an ugly subject. The only practical way we have to view
it is from an objective distance with aggregate data. You can not personalize
it. What frustrates me is how personal most sexism stories are.

~~~
gfodor
I'm not sure where you're disagreeing with me here.

~~~
GhotiFish
Only on the threshold of evidence. No evidence could exist, no standard could
possibly be met short of full fledged confession.

------
jerrya
I have no idea what truly happened but it seems:

    
    
        1. younger person finds *rock star* older person
        2. older person says yes, then says no, and says 
           well I am not impressed enough with you
        3. company says report to a higher up, and we will 
           vp'gold you
        4. younger person says sexism!
    

It's an interesting claim but Occam also suggests it could be ageism + way
better offer. Do we really know this older person would have accepted the same
offer from the equivalent male younger person?

I think it's great she has a coach, honestly, I am not sure that's a privilege
many of us have.

I don't know who this rock star was or where they ended up, but meebo, didn't
that finish as an acqui-hire?

~~~
tantalor
The "higher up" in this case was Seth Sternberg, born 1979 according to
CrunchBase. I'm guessing Elaine and Seth are about the same age.

~~~
jerrya
Yes, however he is still a higher up (President) and the new employee's title
is vice-president with one connection from the president not manager or sr.
connecting to VP connecting to president.

------
Frozenlock
I have a hard time seeing why she thinks the problem is her gender.

What about her skills? Her personality? Her past achievements?

And while the other one says "Older men don’t want to report to young
females!", why is it the gender that pops out? What about _young_?

~~~
anigbrowl
Because he was happy to join the company reporting to her co-founder, who
seems to be about the same age as she is (early 30s). And as I've pointed out
above, he had already accepted the position, started attending company
meetings, and then pulled out a few days before he was due to take up his
full-time duties.

~~~
serge2k
With a bump in pay and position.

~~~
anigbrowl
He could have obtained that by simply saying 'you're great, I love working
with you, but I'm being offered more elsewhere.' He'd still have been
reporting to a co-founder, not a junior employee. I find it weird that people
insist on discounting this factor.

------
PLejeck
This is, by far, the most level-headed article on sexism in business and
technology that I've ever read. The fight for equality didn't fail, we just
haven't finished it yet. But the fight from here doesn't require anger or
protests like it did in past decades. Now it requires leadership, and we need
to switch gears.

As for anger, I'll be directing mine at the Wall Street Journal for making it
so I couldn't scroll with arrow keys: I almost gave up reading (and I'm glad I
didn't)

~~~
MartinCron
This is very similar to the central idea of Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In".
Having more and better women in leadership positions will help both men and
women. I was skeptical, but I enjoyed the book more than I expected.

~~~
PLejeck
Progress in equality benefits everybody, no matter how much people try to
claim otherwise. Diversity is an amazingly good thing.

~~~
MartinCron
Some people take the primitive view that anything that helps women must hurt
men. It makes me sad.

------
auggierose
I see that many people here think that not her being young and female, but him
gunning for a better position was the real cause of this.

When he told her on the phone that he would not join because of HER, he cut
off any possibility of her making him a better offer. So no, it was not him
gunning for a better position, he was uncomfortable with her. Was that because
she was young, or because she was female, or because of other facets of her
personality, we will not know. But common sense pretty much points to a
combination of young and female.

------
AYBABTME
Two things,

First. I was set off by the complete lack of evidence for the sexism case. The
setting that assert _sexism_ is in play is limited to:

    
    
      [...] and she continued: “Right, well, it’s because you’re
      young and female.”
    

And that's it, from there on, the author says _It was because of sexism_ ,
because her coach said so.

Second. Although the storyline is not a convincing anecdote, it still has
value. It is interesting to see that:

    
    
      * It's not necessarily people higher in your company that will prevent a women from
      getting promoted.
      * It's not necessarily that women won't get hired for a higher position.
      * If it seems the problem of sexism is solved for many, older individuals still form a
      majority in the senior/execs layers, and their older generation may have sexist ways.
    

Although the story was not strong enough to make an convincing example, the
idea is still plausible and motivates a new way to look at it.

------
joshAg
I wonder if he would have reported to her if they offered him the same stuff
they gave him after the negotiation ("a bump to VP, an increase in salary and
signing bonus") but required him to report to her.

------
tsotha
It might surprise the author to know guys get rejected (professionally) by
other guys _all the time_ , with no credible reason given. Your "coach" told
you it was sexism? Get a new coach.

~~~
anigbrowl
But this wasn't a straight rejection. He had accepted an offer, signed on with
the company, and started attending strategy meetings, then announced he was
quitting only days before he was due to begin full-time. And if we beliece his
version of events (about going to another firm), he did the same thing to
them. that's very far from professional behavior.

~~~
tsotha
Certainly that's true. But that has nothing to do with sexism or glass
ceilings (a term she's misusing here).

------
bmmayer1
I think this is the first article I've read on sexism in tech where the "glass
ceiling" has been explained in terms of how it would/does/might actually
manifest itself in real life, instead of in generalities like "society is
sexist." Whether or not this story actually reflects sexism, at least the
author is giving us a real story with actual information that causes us to
evaluate our experiences from a new perspective. It's much appreciated.

------
aminok
The women in this article assume they can read minds and divine intentions
from a very sparse base of facts. To jump to the conclusion that those who
chose not to do business with you are seeking to enforce the 'Old Boys Club'
(when in fact they were strangers, who were forming a new 'club', or business)
and keep women out, is outrageously disrespectful and malicious.

------
xarien
"This was a political land grab spurred by a perception of female weakness.
I’d acquiesced too soon and it was still my fault, but for a very different
reason."

So there's a "perception" of female weakness which spurred the exploitation of
said weakness and the female in question acquiesced? It may just be me, but
this isn't about the glass ceiling, it's about the author perpetuating the
stereotype that women are weak by doing exactly what the bias suggests.

Personally, I'd have send an email to the "company" who hired the "rockstar"
and congratulated them with a little passive aggressive message of "I was
quite surprised to hear he decided to join you after signing papers with us."

------
StefanKarpinski
Since it took me an absurdly long time to figure out how to read this in a
non-awful format, here's a link for others:

[http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-
wherry-w...](http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-why-i-
now-believe-the-glass-ceiling-is-real/tab/print/)

------
coherentpony
The article doesn't load for me, I just see a bunch of pictures.

The glass ceiling has _always_ been real. It will continue to exist until the
human race is extinct. Humans prejudice each other based on whatever traits
they decide they don't like.

------
paulhauggis
So, a potential employee decides not to work with your startup and you
immediately jump to the conclusion that it's because you're female?

It sounds to me like he found a better job and just needed to give you an
excuse.

On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to
hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the
"glass ceiling".

Aren't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you
just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because
of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?

~~~
anigbrowl
_So, a potential employee decides not to work with your startup and you
immediately jump to the conclusion that it 's because you're female?_

No, she immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was _her fault_ and she
then sacrificed her own future with the company in order to get this person
onto the team. _Some time later_ her coach pointed out that she overlooked the
possibility of an age/gender issue.

Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of the
article?

 _On top of this, this was not your boss, this is someone you were trying to
hire. You can turn down a job for any reason and it has nothing to do with the
"glass ceiling"._

Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a
job'.

 _Aren 't we allowed to have opinions these days? If I don't like you and you
just happen to be black, a woman, gay, etc..does it always have to be because
of these traits..and not because you're an asshole?_

Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it
on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn't even started work yet, so I wonder what
basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an
asshole.'

~~~
dylangs1030
_Why, I wonder, did you choose to completely mischaracterize the content of
the article?_

That's a little unfair. The article's title frames the story in reference to
the glass ceiling. That the grandparent comment used the word "immediately"
does not change the fact that this entire article is about sexism; even if it
was only explicitly mentioned at the end, it is the author's point that sexism
caused these events. It's not as though she wrote an article detailing these
events and then threw in what her coach said because it's thought-provoking --
she actually believes it, factual or not.

 _Backing out of an accepted job offer is a bit different from 'turning down a
job'._

While this sentence is true, it doesn't answer what the grandparent said. You
can turn down a job, back out of a job, quit a job - whatever, for whatever
reasons you want, and they don't have to remotely involve the glass ceiling.

 _Nobody forced the candidate to accept the job offer before backing out of it
on a rather flimsy pretext. He hadn 't even started work yet, so I wonder what
basis you think he had for deciding that his then-future boss was 'an
asshole.'_

Similar to how rejection letters from a company are almost always form letters
and not personal details about your interview performance, I don't see why
you'd expect anything other than a flimsy excuse from a candidate turning down
the job.

And the grandparent wasn't saying the author _is_ an asshole, just that it is
an equally plausible explanation to her being a woman, young, gay, a
dominatrix, diseased, whatever.

I get what you're saying, anigbrowl, but I have to disagree. I fully believe
sexism exists in tech, and most of the stories on HN about it are probably the
real deal. But this doesn't have enough evidence to give me that impression.
If anything, I'd say it's more that he didn't want to be the subordinate of an
unassertive young person (ageism), not a female.

~~~
anigbrowl
I have my doubts about how much sexism was in play, but I also accept that the
writer of the article necessarily has more first hand experience of the
situation than can be adequately laid out in a short column (which may in turn
have been edited for length by a copy editor). Note as well that she is going
out of her way to be circumspect about the identity of the person in question;
I am perfectly willing to believe that there's more to the story but that she
is choosing to exercise some discretion to avoid impinging on the person as an
individual and also to avoid the possibility of a libel accusation. I don't
think ageism is a big issue here since the star hire was apparently happy to
end up reporting to the author's (then) 32 year old cofounder, and the author
appears to be of a similar age.

The point I'm making above is that the grandparent poster seems to have some
need to make up facts that are not present in the original story in order to
justify his angry tone. In short, I think he has a giant chip on his shoulder.

What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her
paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-
r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried
to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really. Once
they were funded and had investors whose expectations they had to satisfy,
they were also obliged to deal with suppliers (of skills in this case) whose
economic apparent economic benefit outweighed the ancillary costs in terms of
team cohesion and founder status. She's pointing this out as an example of
systematic discrimination - not in the casual but incorrect sense that most
people use the term, involving some villainous type whose primary goal is to
disenfranchise others, but as an unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply
and demand.

If you need to hire a hotshot in some specialized field and the expected value
of that person's economic contribution is greater than the cost of buying out
a cofounder, then said cofounder is at the mercy of any personal biases that
the hotshot might have. And being a hotshot is absolutely not correlated with
any kind of superior moral development. I have met plenty of highly skilled
people who were leaders in their field but who were markedly undeveloped in
other respects, and indeed I could say the same of myself in some respects.

~~~
dylangs1030
_What I think you and a lot of other posters are missing is the import of her
paragraph about how diversity costs; when they were a freewheeling write-the-
r-own-rules startup they could afford to blow off or ignore anyone who tried
to leverage personal biases such as sexism, ageism, or anything really._

I had missed this, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 _She 's pointing this out as an example of systematic discrimination - not in
the casual but incorrect sense that most people use the term, involving some
villainous type whose primary goal is to disenfranchise others, but as an
unfortunate consequence of the laws of supply and demand._

I can see how this makes sense, okay, fair point. In other words, a far more
subtle type of discrimination based on the circumstances. I probably missed
this because the title seemed a bit more straightforward.

As for everything you said about "hotshots", yeah, I agree.

