Our first source cited personal experience of the return-to-office order’s impact and told us only two men were affected, compared to 29 women. Our source made calculations about the impact using internal data, and suggested women will bear the brunt of the RTO mandate.
“Per sample data pulled, this group is disproportionately female,” with women whose partners serve in the military perhaps especially impacted as life in uniform often means relocation.
Again, that’s a huge leap they are making.
The sample set could have simply been from a female heavy department. Other departments could be disproportionately male afflicted. We have no idea what their sampling covered, and given how incredibly biased the source seems to be, that’s more than enough reason for me to doubt their methodology.
Again, RTO is not inheritantly sexist, as this article claims. If you’re intentionally targeting departments with disproportionate representation to specifically marginalize them, then that’s discrimination. If this is a corporate policy expanding many departments, and one happens to be disproportionately represented by a gender, then it’s far harder to substantiate claims of prejudice.
Counting the number of women vs number of men affected by a change is not cherry picking data. It suggests that there is systemic bias in the way the change was decided upon. Systemic bias may not be intentional.
Good lord. Re-read the quoted text from the article.
Even their source isn’t claiming that the distribution that they cite represents all the people negatively affected by the RTO order, they explicitly say this is one person’s anecdotal experience on a very small sample size.
And then they immediately project this small cherry picked sample with claiming the mandate itself is sexist. And it appears to be the source of the unverified sample itself that makes that extreme assertion on sexism. Which is extraordinarily sus.
Any policy that impacts a disproportionate amount of one gender over the other in any group small or large has the highly likely chance of systemic bias. You seem quick to call me an idiot, but you don’t seem to understand the meaning behind the term, or how it doesn’t mean the people in charge are sexist assholes who hate women. It can be completely unconscious.
If the outcome of your decision has consequences like this, the suggestion is you should reevaluate your decision to figure out if you’ve missed something.
It’s been claimed that Dell lacks representation of women in higher levels, so it’s possible those making decisions lack the experience that lead them into this outcome. Again, this in no way means they are an intentionally trying to get rid of women.
Again, that’s a huge leap they are making.
The sample set could have simply been from a female heavy department. Other departments could be disproportionately male afflicted. We have no idea what their sampling covered, and given how incredibly biased the source seems to be, that’s more than enough reason for me to doubt their methodology.
Again, RTO is not inheritantly sexist, as this article claims. If you’re intentionally targeting departments with disproportionate representation to specifically marginalize them, then that’s discrimination. If this is a corporate policy expanding many departments, and one happens to be disproportionately represented by a gender, then it’s far harder to substantiate claims of prejudice.
That’s what systemic bias is.
Systemic bias != cherry picked data sets
Counting the number of women vs number of men affected by a change is not cherry picking data. It suggests that there is systemic bias in the way the change was decided upon. Systemic bias may not be intentional.
Good lord. Re-read the quoted text from the article.
Even their source isn’t claiming that the distribution that they cite represents all the people negatively affected by the RTO order, they explicitly say this is one person’s anecdotal experience on a very small sample size.
And then they immediately project this small cherry picked sample with claiming the mandate itself is sexist. And it appears to be the source of the unverified sample itself that makes that extreme assertion on sexism. Which is extraordinarily sus.
Reading comprehension and critical thinking.
Any policy that impacts a disproportionate amount of one gender over the other in any group small or large has the highly likely chance of systemic bias. You seem quick to call me an idiot, but you don’t seem to understand the meaning behind the term, or how it doesn’t mean the people in charge are sexist assholes who hate women. It can be completely unconscious.
If the outcome of your decision has consequences like this, the suggestion is you should reevaluate your decision to figure out if you’ve missed something.
It’s been claimed that Dell lacks representation of women in higher levels, so it’s possible those making decisions lack the experience that lead them into this outcome. Again, this in no way means they are an intentionally trying to get rid of women.