Amazon employs 18 women among 120 most senior managers

> Society doesn't work if you say well I work harder therefore I deserve more money, or I am more skilled so I deserve more money.

And people don't work unless you do. Or at least they don't work harder and don't try to become more skilled. If what you want is mediocrity, that's an excellent recipe.

> We need mothers and we need women in the workplace.

And what do you do when the two aren't compatible. Which is more important? I think the answer to that should be obvious to most people, and the simple fact of the matter is that for a significant chunk of a woman's life, they're not compatible.

But again, none of this has anything to do with the original story, which dealt with job access, not compensation. They're completely different problems, and the latter isn't even an issue until the former is dealt with.

Sorry, but I'm having problems getting to the gist of Caitlyn's actual point in the article.

She applied for a job, was offered it and she turned it down. Well, that happens. Thing is, I never felt the need to post an article about it on t'Interwebs.

Was there evidence of sexism? Was the atmosphere in the place a bit off? At one interview I went to, there were no programmers in evidence anywhere. Rang alarm bells for me. There may have been a very good reason, but the place felt wrong.

Caitlyn, what are we to take away from this experience that you had? I'm a bit confused.

> Was there evidence of sexism?

Define evidence for your purpose. Court acceptable evidence? Probably not.

However, 400 male employees with no women. Well, that's pretty convincing to your average person. Could there be other explanations? Sure. But the odds don't look good.

This article link is so full of hits.

@JD -

The only people who won't be convinced are those determined not to be convinced.

One thing that I would be interested to hear would be Caitlyn's commentary on exactly what it was that she found distasteful about the company. It may well be true that the culture would not suit her and this may indeed be the cause of the high-male demographic.

My point was that the article was thin on actual commentary as to what she felt the situation there was that lead her to believe that it would not be a good place. Clearly, they called her back and asked her to reconsider her refusal of their offer. They clearly want her to work for them.

If the high male proportion is also a factor, what does Caitlyn think that they could do practically to fix the situation? As has been mentioned by others, a male dominated environment is going to be a barrier to any "correction" regardless of the intent of the hirer.

@dinotrac, @jdixon

I don't deny that sexism is rife in our industry and in some aspects, getting worse. However, I have been lucky enough to work in a number of environments where this is most certainly not the case and we have a healthy mix of both sexes. So excuse me if I don't just take someone's word in this particular case on the flimsy evidence presented thus far. Just because a hospital is full of female nurses does not suggest to me that the place is fundamentally anti-male. Sometimes, that's just the way it is.

@dinotrac Believers that are determined to believe are no better. If it doesn't stand in court, the whole thing is moot to begin with.

What the hell is this "stand in court" crap?

That matters only when you are in court. Doesn't mean you aren't the scum of the earth the rest of the time, but...

And, in terms of employment discrimination on the basis of gender, complaints don't start in court anyway, but with the federal or state agency charged with enforcing the anti-discrimination laws.

Those people can be like wolves if they sense (note I didn't say prove) a problem.

"One thing that I would be interested to hear would be Caitlyn's commentary on exactly what it was that she found distasteful about the company"

Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women.

The wolf whistling and cartoon dog like tongue rolling probably wouldn't have helped either. :)

To theWho?

Quoting: I'm not going to do you [sic] work. You have a theory, you provide the proof. [...]

Hmm, that never seemed to slow your output on many topics. Oh, unless implicitly your having the opinion (albeit objectively unproven) means it is beyond criticism.

As always*,

YBT

* I think I am kidding.

Quoting:Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women.

The wolf whistling and cartoon dog like tongue rolling probably wouldn't have helped either. :)

Maybe it's your preconceived view of how most men view and treat women that's the real issue here? Most men don't treat women like you've described here. What nonsense..

@lqsh -

Would I be correct in assuming that English is not your first language? Or smilies?

> Maybe it was when they asked her to make the tea for everyone and not to worry her pretty little head about the fact that there were 400 male employees and no women.

> The wolf whistling and cartoon dog like tongue rolling probably wouldn't have helped either. :)

I get the sarcasm ;)

In all seriousness, it was probably a lot more subtle. So Caitlyn, more details please! No names, no packdrill as they say, but what really happened? I'm genuinely interested.

"Maybe it's your preconceived view of how most men view and treat women that's the real issue here? Most men don't treat women like you've described here. What nonsense.."

It was just a joke taking all the most obvious traits associated with male chauvinists and applying them in one statement.

If you don't get this I would steer clear of South Park, Family Guy and most British comedy series.

@dinotrac "What the hell is this "stand in court" crap?" It prevents people to act or judge on nothing more that a bunch of hunches, preconceptions or prejudice. If you want to make a point, provide the proper facts, proof or other valid arguments. Otherwise, it's even less than an opinion and sensible, educated people just shrug their shoulders on anything that may come next and move on.

@TxtEdMacs In this case, I'm not the one making a case. I just have to put up "reasonable doubt".

@Beez

Something needs to stand in court only if it goes to court. You can make many logical arguments and present many facts without worrying about court standing. You can also get action because "standing" in court has a very limited meaning and is easy to achieve.

@dinotrac "You can make many logical arguments and present many facts without worrying about court standing." True. But one one doesn't. That's the problem you continue to ignore.

Wrong thread, do not read.

I'm not ignoring any problem.

A claim was made that somebody should have a court case before they speak. Pure male bovine droppings.