zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
As usual, the actual numbers don't back up the narrative. For example, significantly more men in the study left due to unfairness than women do: 40% vs. 31%. So either women are treated more fairly or these numbers don't mean anything, yet you would never know it from the text, which is all about the horrible things that happen to women.

Hmmm...

>>mpweih+D4
I'm not totally sure "significantly more men in the study left due to unfairness than women do" is the right summary - I agree that the report says that, of men who left, significantly more reported unfairness as a cause, but I don't think that that translates to more men leaving, or men being more likely to leave because of unfairness, or more unfairness towards men (i.e., "women being treated more fairly"). And even if more men, numerically, left, if there were more men to start with, it doesn't mean men are leaving at higher rates.

(Anyway, personally, I think that toxic tech culture selects against "people who don't fit the stereotype," which includes lots of men, and lots more women, and I don't think framing this as either "it's terrible for women and not for men" or "actually men have it worse" is particularly productive.)

EDIT: I see that the article links the Kapor report with the sentence "Staying silent about the unfairness that causes 37% of underrepresented people of color to leave tech helps no one," which I think is the same misreading of the Kapor report. 37% of underrepresented people of color who have left tech have left because of unfairness - it is not that 37% of underrepresented people of color in tech have left because of unfairness. The previous sentence from the author, about the 50% retention rate, looks like it better supports the narrative point being made (although the source is about STEM as a whole and not just tech).

>>geofft+c6
Sorry, all the statements in the study would need to be qualified like that (and most of them much more), and virtually none of them are.

I am assuming the study has taken some care to be representative. Otherwise, there's no need to talk about the findings at all.

>>mpweih+V6
(See my edit if you haven't - I agree that the blog post is trying to claim something that the Kapor study is not saying, or at least is phrased poorly.)