

Elaine Wherry: Why I Now Believe the Glass Ceiling Is Real - ganjianwei
http://blogs.wsj.com/accelerators/2013/10/11/elaine-wherry-why-i-now-believe-the-glass-ceiling-is-real/

======
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.

------
GeorgeOrr
The author also posted the following follow up, also worth a read:

[http://www.ewherry.com/2013/10/follow-
up/](http://www.ewherry.com/2013/10/follow-up/)

------
joelrunyon
Previous discussion -->
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6536916](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6536916)

------
omonra
Is it just me or is there a gaping logical hole in this story.

The guy who supposedly refused to work for her because of her gender must have
realized that she is a woman _long_ before signing the contract. Ie - if he
really had problem reporting to _a woman_ , why go through the process if the
information was readily available that it wasn't for him?

Occam's razor (as opposed to her coach) would posit that certain events
changed his mind, as per his explanation to her.

However - the phenomenon that is real is her uncertainty as to whether her
gender was a factor. Ie - it would not occur to a man to question that.
Unfortunately that's life.

------
wtracy
The money quote: "The glass ceiling exists; it’s just higher than I’d
realized."

------
mathattack
So the premise is people from some cultures don't want to work for you and
that limits your ability as a boss?

I have never heard of this before, though after reading the article I can see
it having played out in the workplace.

As the boss you are still the one with the power, no?

~~~
scotty79
> As the boss you are still the one with the power, no?

That depends on whether people want to work for you more than you want them to
work for you.

~~~
mathattack
Without being too trite, it would seem like the alternative to figuring out
how to get pigs to work for you is to create an environment for people who
don't like working with pigs.

I know life isn't always so simple.

------
ramblerman
The coach is a bigot. Or she is just trying to make the author feel better
about herself.

Either way this doesn't merit an article on sexism.

------
ye
I don't see how she concluded that gender was the issue from what actually
happened.

~~~
flumbaps
Because her coach said that was the most likely explanation, and her coach
represents an informed distanced opinion with expertise in the area.

~~~
Blahah
The coach (according to the author) made that call based on her assumptions
about the hire based on his gender, age and geographical origin. That's not
informed personal opinion, it's exactly the kind of discrimination which the
author is complaining about.

~~~
flumbaps
a) There is such a thing as cultural awareness. It is not the same as
discrimination. If you travel a bit you find that there are actual differences
between cultures. If you use those differences as justification to treat
individuals unfairly then that is discrimination. (If you use false
stereotypes as justification to treat individuals unfairly then that is also
discrimination.) Discrimination is about how you treat individuals, not about
being unaware of general trends. In this case, since the author's interaction
with this individual is in the past, neither she nor her coach is
discriminating.

b) The coach, according to the author, made that call after she recounted the
story. Presumably in a lot of detail, and after numerous other coaching
sessions in which her coach would have built up a detailed picture of how she
worked and where her weaknesses lay.

