[–] noblefool 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
This article is HORRIFICALLY disingenuous . . . For one, the male stats are 15-30x larger in scale of magnitude than the female stats. Which means that if you look at things on terms of raw percentages, assuming relatively similar competence, of COURSE the smaller subset is going to have better percentages. There isn't as many events in total. I mean, it's like looking at one success data point vs. a split of fifty successes and fifty failures, and going "Oh, well subset 1 is 50% better than subset 2!" That's completely absurd, you can't compare them 1:1 because what if subset 1 fails the next two data points? Effectively what the article writer is doing here is taking 5 data points vs. 100, and going "Women are better." (I mean this in a literal sense too, men have 20x more raw data in the first table they provide)
The article then goes on to draw a bunch of averaging conclusions from the dataset (Which, once again, when your sample size is smaller assuming similar competence you can't draw any conclusions from). All of this is prefaced with a (possibly a pair of) boldfaced lie(s) - Women have to prove themselves more often and earn lower salaries. The second assertion (the wage gap) is disprovable by the fact that, once again, there exists no company that's just made up completely of women and is crushing the competition economically on the basis of said wage gap. I can't disprove the first assertion because sample size, but in my experience the 8 girls I took com sci with never had to prove their chops any more than any of the guys did. We did not have like a "Women only" screening test for whether they could write the part of the code project we assigned to them. We only cared whether people could write code.
[–] zbou 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Tits or gtfo is dead