Slashdot Mirror
In Tech, Wage Gender Gap Worsens For Women Over Time, and It's Worst For Black Women (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TechCrunch report: According to a new study involving more than 120,000 job offers transacted on Hired, a jobs marketplace for tech workers, the average female candidate is still making less than her male peers for the same work, and sometimes far less. Hired's data shows that 63 percent of the time women receive lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company, with white women offered 4 percent less on average, and women more broadly offered up to 50 percent less in the most extreme examples. Along the same vein, for one out of every 10 job openings that Hired analyzed, companies offered white men salaries that were at least 20 percent higher than those offered to women. According to the American Association of University Women, it might take another 136 years for the pay gap to disappear entirely. Perhaps more illuminating in this new report is what happens to women's salaries over time, and who is receiving the lowest pay of all for the same jobs at the same companies: Latina and black women. [...] It found that white women with four years or less of experience actually ask for more money than their male counterparts -- possibly because they're armed with information about what the market is paying for more entry-level jobs. A gap in the other direction begins to appear in candidates with six or more years of experience, however, with white women in tech both asking for less than their white male counterparts and receiving it. Indeed, over time and across the country, white women in tech earn an average of .90 cents for every dollar made by their male peers for the same work.
Friendly reminder to stay hydrated.
You are all guilty.
So women ask for less...and they get it.
Newsflash; that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
[grabs popcorn]
OK. go!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Did you know it's illegal to pay one sex/race/gender/anything less than another?
How much do you want to bet the solution is going to be to start paying male programmers less?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
This "tech" blog has devolved into an every day routine with click bait articles about girls in tech, gender pay gap, h1b visas, global warming. This article hit two, bravo.
Eskimo woman here. We get $0.00 for every $1.00 that our white male peers make. We can't get a job. we can't even get a job interview. I can club a baby seal just as well as a man but nobody will hire me as a front-end engineer. Totally bullshit.
Whatever person came up with that .90 cent per dollar figure needs to retake basic mathematics, no matter what the gender or skin color.
At least I _hope_ that we are not talking about a factor of 0.009 for real.
I later asked for a raise and got it. She didn't ask for one and didn't get a raise.
Is this sexist?
Male Nurses: ~8%, Male Teachers: ~20%, Male on the job deaths: ~90%+
Since compensation in the private sector is more or less based on performance and since we are talking large statistical samples, might it be that males generally excel at IT functions?
Also for career paths in general, on a large statistical basis, women are much more likely to leave the work for some period of time to raise children or in some cases they marry have a partner that allows them to not work or work part time. This is highly disruptive to their career growth and their compensation. This I suspect, is the majority or any pay discrepancy between males an females on a large statistical scale.
Otherwise, I think the whole this is a political wedge to gain votes. I am a business owner and I suspect all business owners are going to hire the lowest cost, yet most productive employees they can. If women were willing to work for less and were such great deals, all companies would hire women exclusively. This argument falls flat.
Become a lobbyist instead; it pays well and doesn't go out of style.
Table-ized A.I.
It's always anonymous cowards posting the social justice bully material ?
If that were true all these large corporations would be full of black women in technology, not pasty white guys.
Why don't businesses only hire females and minorities? If females only make 20% less or whatever number it is these days, then it would make prudent business sense to hire only minorities and women since they're on the whole cheaper.
This post brought to you by sarcasm!
This is usual BS PC narrative co-opted by *redacted*.com to milk some free advertisement. Well *redacted*.com, you UI stinks, and you are a piece of shit company that will never turn a profit. Go fuck yourself.
As if a feminist working at an employment agency could possibly know what people do the "same work" as other people. Heck, two people being given offers for the exact same job are unlikely to do the same work, once they are there.
The actual statistic from reputable sources is 4-7% And even those sources can't explain the reasoning because there are so many variables.
If your interested, a good breakdown of why the gender gap statistic is specious.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
...of what's wrong with averages.
.90 cents for every dollar
I'm quite sure that they're not asking for parts of a cent per dollar earned.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Did you compare married vs unmarried?
An unmarried woman will value flexible schedule way more than the married man. (colored has more out of wedlock children)
The woman will take off more time for having babies in her career than the man will.
The woman is more likely to go home to care for family than the man will, even when a business crisis is going on.
And is PMS real or just a fantasy, you can't have it both ways. It either affects pay or stop whining about it.
There is a really easy answer. I hire all men but on the EO report I write that half are identified as women. 13% identify as black and 12% hispanic.
This keeps the Rachel Dolezal types happy and we move on to more important issues, like getting shit done.
N/T
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I was curious where the data for this report was being sourced, and we can see it's from hired.com. Under their methodology section we see "This report is based on proprietary data gathered and analyzed by Hired’s research and strategy data scientist, Dr. Jessica Kirkpatrick. The analysis in this study was done using a combination of voluntary, self-reported demographic data and a classifier that identified the gender of the candidate based on their first name."
Searching for Jessica Kirkpatrick in Google returns a few articles about her where the highlight is.... that she is in fact a woman. Her own public social media is nothing but a torrent of women's rights and equal pay stories and articles. So we have a clearly opinionated data scientist working with a set of "proprietary data" gathered by a private recruiting organization which focuses on diversity. Was there some other conclusion that anybody expected other then "MUH WAGE GAP IS REAL?"
its bullshit though.
Women usually make more in tech, than men for the same job.
They make less OVER TIME. Why? Because men work 9h a day, 5 days a week from their 20th birthday to their 70th birthday.
Women, on average, will take 5-10years off at least. Even when paid more, if you calculate that OVER TIME that's a big difference.
In the 20+ years of my technical career, I don't think ever worked with a black woman. White women, yes. Asian women, yes. Hispanic women, yes. But never black women.
Exactly when did /. become Breitbart?
Since industry always wants to pay as little as possible to all of it's employees, wouldn't this mean that if this wage gap is real, women would get preferential hiring? Why would a company go out of it's way to hire the most expensive and presumably no more talented gender?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Hired's data shows that 63 percent of the time women receive lower salary offers than men for the same job at the same company,
That sounds awful, till you realize that from simple statistical fluctuation you'd expect that number to be 50 percent, in which light 63 percent seems to indicate some trend, but not nearly as big a one as the writer clearly intends to signify. How large is the average fluctuation? What's the probability women could have gotten such offers by chance (which would require knowing for e.g. the sample size, which, speaking of, that doesn't seem to be given in the report)? You know, anything that might reveal the statistical significance of the findings, which seem to be entirely absent from the report and without which raw numbers are almost entirely meaningless.
with white women offered 4 percent less on average, and women more broadly offered up to 50 percent less in the most extreme examples.
The report (linked in the article and here) says the average is 4% for all women. Also, "up to 50% in the most extreme examples" means "we found 1 case where that happened", which, again, you'd expect (in fact, you could probably find some extreme examples where a man was offered that much less than a woman), or at least, you'd *probably* expect (can't say for sure without knowing the variance of the job offers, which I supposed you could extract from the chart, but doesn't seem to be given in numerical form). 4% also just happens to be the average amount less women ask for than men. They also don't (AFAICT) look into issues like time taken off career for maternal leave (which, sorry, means you're going to be worth less due to not having been able to keep up with current developments, it sucks, but life choices have consequences), hours worked (statistically, men tend to work slightly longer hours than women: IIRC it's something like 8.4 vs 7.8 per day, but no clue if that is true in tech or not), etc. etc.
I should be clear: I'm not saying there isn't sexism in tech. There sure as shit is, for a lot of reasons, just like there's ageism, racism, religious discrimination, and a bunch of other -isms and -tions. But biased, politically motivated, and downright misleading articles like this one really aren't the way forward.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
The problem is that people are devaluing themselves... feeling that it's a privilege to work at a company, rather than feeling their work is a privilege for the company to have at its disposal. Market dynamics should definitely come into play when it comes to wages... but it's nearly impossible for an individual to know exactly how much the market values their labor at... which differs based on the company a person works for and the specific tasks they're doing. It's already frowned on to share your income with your co-workers, yet what's clear here is that if the men and women were sharing their salary info with their co-workers, then those workers that are being under paid would have a much better understanding of what they should be asking for!
It's always the same articles on /dot. It goes like this.
1. Trump did this....
2. Trump did that
3. Not enough women in STEM
4. Women don't get paid enough
5. Transgender people want their own bathrooms
6. Not enough women in STEM
Take your SJW sh*t over to Twitter where the rest of your unemployed friends hang out.
Talk about a nonissue. These negroid women aren't smart enough in general to do tech jobs. I've had around two dozen work for me over the years here at Microsoft, and not a one was useful.
If you have the same credentials and attitude and job as another yet dont earn the same then is more than likely that you were introduced differently to the company or failed to negotiate a adjustment to your pay.
Reducing the dispute to any of the characteristics of inequality defined in the 14th Ammendment such as race or sex or color or gender is your doing and not your company officers.
Business wants the most qualified and best product, you introduce your own problems. Start your own company and run a company as you think it should: you yourself are more racist and sexist and colorful than you think you are arent.
You are lieing to yourself, just like Slashdot isnt good at editorials and reporting.
More like Economists explaining how career choices, motherhood, etc. take their toll.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Repeat after me:
Can the person/animal/insect/alien do the job?
I tend to rant.
Couple years back.
You hear that corporations? There's a discount on labour! Save, save, save! Apparently if you hire black women they have identical skills, experience, and work just as hard as the average person in your company. Why are you hiring anyone but them? DISCOUNT!!!
Everyone says companies are willing to do anything to save a buck, but apparently, when it comes to labour, they won't. Weird, eh? I wonder if there could be another reason...
This article http://blog.interviewing.io/we... discusses an interesting experiment where males and females had their voices masked for technical interviews so they could analyze the differences in how women perform while controlling for gender discrimination. Some fascinating results that show how women react differently to tech interviews than men, possibly resulting in them getting less employment offers and/or lower salary. I wonder how much this effect can be attributed to the results mentioned in this slashdot article. Like most problems with women's performance/success compared to men, this is mostly a cultural issue. There are things we can all do to pitch in and improve the situation but its not really something the government can legislate away.
On the other hand, i wouldn't be surprised to find the tech industry is actually more discriminating toward women than other industries, given that we already know there is rampant agism (reluctance to hire older programmers) and a culture that encourages workers to forgo family and other commitments in favor of longer hours and 'crunch time'
The feminist movement has made it abundantly clear that women are competent and capable of success, and that they do not need men to provide for them or protect them.
So....there is nothing for me to do in response to this information. The women can take care of this problem themselves, without my help.
They are paid less for the same experience, education, and hours of work?
Not to mention, weaker negotiating for starting pay, and raises.
Also the issue of salaried positions of both 35 hours a week and 60 hours a week counting as "full time" for the "same work".
Dat "overtime gap".
Misogyny.
Why is Snark Required?
Yup, the same total bullshit over and over and over. No one actually believes in this propaganda anymore, do they?
Even Liz Warren pays her female staff some $0.73 to every $1 her male staff gets. They ought to hold an independent council inquiry into her hypocrisy
I don't believe .... professional statisticians
Read: liars. You just opted to read the ones foisting the same lie you choose to believe in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Fucking stop reading Slashdot then, you whiny bitch.
So women ask for less...and they get it. Newsflash: that isn't discrimination. That's not sexism. That's individuals undervaluing they're worth, and not anyone's fault but the person that does it.
That was my thought going in. I've read quite a few books and research on the topic because I don't want to be the one who perpetuates the gap. But over the years I've learned a critical truth: Women Don't Ask! (There's even a book by that title.)
The data in the article is quite clear, and the article states it outright: "69% of the time women ask for less money than men". 70% of these women are making less than men because they didn't ask to make the same wages. While it happens more frequently with women, sometimes it happens with men, too. The HR person ask "What is your requested pay?" and the candidate says a low number. They HR drone will smile, tell the applicant they can arrange to use that number, and the person gets the wages they requested.
Lots of books (including the one Women Don't Ask mentioned above) discuss reasons behind it, but for all the reasons the fact is that it happens. Women ask for less money. Over a full career, men ask for more money roughly four times as often as women. The amounts they ask for are usually larger. Men ask for raises, men ask for promotions, men find different jobs for money, and they do all of them far more often than women. However, women are much more likely to talk about needing money with their peers, to talk about financial difficulty with their coworkers, and yet not actually ask for more money, assuming that somehow the managers will notice their efforts and their needs without requests being made.
In one set of studies -- graduating students at Carnegie Mellon, 57% of the males negotiated salaries, only 7% of the females negotiated salaries. In their sampling, the rate that was negotiated was almost exactly the amount of the wage gap. Those who negotiated their pay were making the higher rate. Those who accepted the initial offer without negotiation were making the lower rate.
When it comes to annual performance reviews, there is a similar striking difference. Many of the men and a few of the women fill their performance review with every positive thing they have done, presented in the best light. Some are 10 or even 20 pages filled with accomplishments, stating they are worthy of a large raise, a bonus, and a promotion. Most of the women and a few of the men have very short performance reviews, either minimally mentioning that they helped the team, or listing all the ways they needed to improve over the year. Many of the latter type don't even ask for a COLA raise, effectively asking that they take a relative reduction in pay.
From the books and studies I've read about it, the fact that women don't ask accounts for nearly all the wage gap. Some of it is real, some if it is actual discrimination, but the vast majority of it is women sabotaging themselves before the wage discussion even begins.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
I assume you meant virtue signaling.
Stop getting butthurt when others don't kowtow to your worldview cuck.
This is a not a simple quantitative issue, it's qualitative... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc
Why? Your weak feeble brain would only understand like 78% of it.
As long as most tech companies continue to take action against employees that share salary information, there is little I can do as an individual to improve the situation. About all I can do (and have done) is call my representatives to tell them that wages aren't applied fairly to everyone.
Nobody said they're equivalent.
One involves people dying. The other is just money.
Our priority in combating sexism should be clear, right?
Considering how much more support and encouragement women receive compared to men, women must REALLY suck at technology work. Men have been the victims of bigotry for a long, long time, and they still manage to overcome and excel.
blah blah blah, your common sense is better than my common sense. Your facts are better than my facts. Save your breath, this gets us no where.
Today's Headlines as they fall, and in order:
SJW Bait
Tech
Linux war of the douche-bags and religious nuts article
SJW Bait
SJW Bait
SJW Bait
SJW Bait
SJW Bait
Bashing anyone not Apple in the mobile marketplace
SJW Bait
Tech
SJW Bait
Tech
Fake news, fake rage.,fake everything.
Did the authors actually get access to performance reviews, compare project and work responsibilities in the mixed gender teams?
Maybe review trouble tickets to compare customer service etiquette and first call resolutions, or resolution in general if tier 3 support?
Maybe compare the amount of escalations mixed gender team members requested to higher level support.
Maybe get some hard data instead of just comparing names, roles and salaries?
I'm sure the results would show sometimes their is either a gender pay gap or possibly a skill gap. No way it's as black and white as this article makes it!
Fake news, fake rage!
* Climate change dooms us all
* H1B visas help downtrodden Indians get jobs
* Illegal aliens are law-abiding citizens
* Universal basic income will not have people sitting at home getting high and playing video games
1. Hire women more. Pay them the same.
2. Promote women more. Stop pretending you are promoting them, we know you aren't.
3. Stop hiring from your frat.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Fox news.
Nuff said.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You poor delicate ears can't possibly be assaulted by an opinion not your own. You sweet careful worldview must be maintained by silencing any worlds that might challenge your position in it.
I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of these findings, but seems likely there is *something* going on here. Atleast, it's faaaaar more convincing than the predictable Slashdot wailfest that happens whenever a new study comes out.
I guarantee this study did not study "the same work" because no study I've ever read actually did, except for the ones that end up shrinking the gap, which runs against the popular narrative, which is why you only see those studies in academia.
Check out this slide I saw at an Oracle presentation last month in Austin, Texas. The creator of that slide probably thought they were demonstrating diversity by including different ethnicities and genders from stock photos.
But consider how certain roles implying advanced status or experience are aligned with white men and lower-skilled roles are filled by women.
1. Mobile Developer (kind of a light type of programming, accessible job without deep experience) -- hip, young Asian woman.
2. Service Developers (dry programming that requires deep experience in boring stuff like databases and heavy-duty programming languages) -- Indian guy
3. LOB Stakeholder (some kind of business decision maker) -- white, bald guy in a suit
4. MCS Admin (no idea what MCS is, but "admin" means clerical administration no doubt.. low barrier to entry, probably no degree required) -- black woman
5. Enterprise Architect (big on training, probably CS degree, decades of IS experience) -- white man
Why can't the black woman be the LOB Stakeholder or the Enterprise Architect in this slide?
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
by a black woman in her 50s
Women work fewer hours per week, per year, and per lifetime. There's a reason news outlets never do stories on apple-to-apples studies: they consistently prove that when you control for things like experience, education, hours worked, marital status etc, etc, (in other words everything except gender) women earn slightly MORE than men.
Look at the nursing field, an occupation dominated by women. Men earn more even in this field. Why? Because they are willing to go into specialized - and therefore highly-paid - forms of nursing that require more education and a greater commitment. And usually, they do it to support a woman and their children.
I generally agree, but I'd point out that /dot just links stories from elsewhere. They didn't create the content, Techcrunch did.
I've taken Techcrunch off my reading list for this reason, and I'm about to take Engadget because I can't stand their SJW BS anymore.
I hate to reply to you, but you've got point 5 completely backwards. Transgender people want the right to use the same bathrooms everyone else of their gender uses. Their own bathrooms is completely the opposite of what they want.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
thanks in advance.
No not their gender, their desired gender.
Remember when articles here used to have thousands of comments instead of tens?
They are stopping. We're the last holdouts, and we're being told this isn't for us.
You have to wonder what the target audience is? How profitable is sjw bullshit, really? They are a small but loud minority, and likely unemployed. Bad business.
That's right! A white founder and a squad of black female programmer employees without stock options is categorically the best way to keep costs down on a per/employee basis. Plus it opens up various loan programs focused on diversity initiatives. Won't help for minority owned business loans, unless you claim you are Cherokee or something though.
You could hate minorities/women all you like, get the government to pay you for the privilege of working them ragged, and reap the profits! A real winning situation!
If woman are so low cost to hire, every company would hire many more woman to keep wage costs lower.
Save 4-20% or more per wage and ensure only woman make it past the interviews.
Every company would be top heavy with woman due to the executive wage scale savings.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
She was living proof that race is as much (if not more) of a social construct than gender, yet the same people who insist that having a functioning penis and testicles isn't a barrier to claiming to be female wanted to lynch her. I don't understand why racial identity can't be as or more plastic than gender.
I suspect she could have kept up her self-identification as black forever if she hadn't faked the hate mail and some other sketchy behavior. It's an open question as to whether assuming black identity is part of a larger pattern of neurotic behavior that includes the faked hate crimes or whether they are distinct.
What was so funny and ironic is that the constant refrain is how horrible it is to be black and how many privileges white people have, yet when someone white wants to essentially forfeit those privileges for a lower status they're accused of "appropriating" something from blacks. I don't get it -- if it's so shitty to be black, what's wrong with someone not black who wants to be black? Does it dilute the shitty nature of blackness? Or are they just pissed off that someone would waste perfectly good whiteness, like pouring a nice craft beer out of the bottle so you could fill it with Bud Lite?
Force them into back end development with a 60 hour work week, then their collective earnings will go way up.
Discrimination is illegal, and has been illegal for longer than most /. readers have been alive. It is quite impossible to have a more level playing field than Law. Your only possible argument would be to claim that there is no prosecution of discrimination cases, to which I will tell you that you are a liar. You can search PACER, News Papers, or your own favorite Web Search Engine to find plenty of cases which have a legal status (filed, in trial, court decision, court action) which includes findings for the plaintiffs in those cases.
What you, and many others of the SJW variety (but also simple minded) want is FAVORITISM, not EQUALITY. If you were actually honest about your request people would have some level of respect for you. Being dishonest while demanding favoritism results in people despising you for your complete lack of virtue.
If my language seems a bit mean for your taste, remember I'm not the one being dishonest and demanding group favoritism. Show me some respect by being honest and I'll return the same respect.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why was this voted down considering they're almost two orders of magnitude less smarter than the average person?
Women are not PAID less.
They EARN less.
If you work fewer hours, take more time off, and take large periods of your work career off for family and other things you are going to earn less over your life time. But at any one moment, you are *paid* equal. And it's the fucking *law* that you be.
Now, if you're in a position to negotiate for your salary and you negotiate poorly, that's on *you*.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU
No fucking shit?
So let me get this straight... if I choose a field that pays less money, take a lot of time away from work, take long periods of time out of my career to focus on other things, and on top of that maybe I even negotiate poorly for my salary . . . I'm going to earn less than a man who practically dedicates every moment of his life from teenage years until death to his career, rarely takes time off or vacations or breaks from his career and is constantly strategizing for better contract negotiation *or* also takes a much more dangerous (and therefore usually more high paying) job?
Holy shit. Who woulda thought...!
As gender is just social category (not to be confused with sex, the biological category) there is no difference between gender and "desired gender" outside of insignificant matters of social (dis)recognition. It's like if there were a room where only "nerds" are allowed; being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself, and telling someone who identifies themselves as one that they're "really not" is descriptively meaningless because there is no "really" at stake; it's purely an insult.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
So 69% of women are asking for less and only 63% are getting offered less, that means in 6% of contract negotiations women are getting offered more than they're asking for, as a male who has negotiatied his contract before that is *unheard* of.
being a nerd or not is purely something you decide about yourself
Surely it's just as much a judgement others make about you. Matters of social recognition are hardly "insignificant" here.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Listen up Ladies. You know all those other tech companies that pay you 70 cents for every dollar they pay the men. Well if you come to work for Onkeltech I will pay you 72 cents for every dollar I pay my male employees. I know; it sounds too good to be true. Send resumes now.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
There is no wage gap. Economists have debunked this time and again.
And yet here was have an empirical study by a data scientist which shows three is a marked gap and that it isn't due to the "choices" women make.
Women are not *paid* less than men for the same skill level in the same job.
Yes they are, that's the exact finding of this study. 63% of the time women are paid less working the same job at the same company.
Your mistake was using logic against a modern man. There's little to no logic in their arguments and they are incredibly irrational.
FTFY ... because all modern men, (much like all modern feminists), are of a single mind and temperament.
Just fuck off.
Denial is a powerful drug
Irrelevant. What they found was that, for the *same job* at the *same company,* women candidates were:
- Being interviewed less (even when controlling for the fact that the talent pool skews male for many of the jobs);
- Being offered less, on average, than their male counterparts;
- ASKING for less, on average, than their male counterparts;
This has nothing to do with performance on the job, not getting raises, etc - these are for people being hired into the role, and presumably if an offer is being made, the company feels that the candidate is a good fit for the role - meaning that their experience and fit and all of that are judged, by the company themselves, to be appropriate to what the role requires.
Now undoubtedly, some of this discrepancy is attributable to that last point - women are asking for less, on average, and so are given less, on average - no surprise there that a company would think to themselves, "Well, we were prepared to pay up to 125k per year for this job, but since you only asked for 110k, looks like we get a bargain!" But the point remains: women are receiving less, and that's an issue that should have some attention paid to it.
I think women find it easier (read less confrontational) to tell their husbands that they need to ask for more money from their employers, but they have trouble following their own advice.
Sorry, I meant insignificant in a technical sense: the term "nerd" does not signify any concrete set of properties. You can't go down some checklist to determine whether someone is "really" a nerd or not, because there's no objective reality to it. It's just a socially constructed category. (I was trying to avoid that phrase in my previous post because it triggers a lot of alt-right snowflakes -- I'm doing it on purpose now).
You're right that it is just as much a judgement others make about you, and so too is gender. But since there's no underlying objective reality being argued about, it's purely a matter of social acceptance/rejection/etc. By saying someone's not really a nerd (or analogous), you're merely doing a social action with your words, not actually making a truth-apt claim about reality.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
"ofered up to 50 percent less in the most extreme examples" stop baiting.
and have you ever worked with black women? I garentee statistically they fucking earn their lower pay.