Literally all this shows is that women are more likely to say that the workplace is toxic nothing else; they literally just analyzed a lot of glassdoor reviews and that’s their entire base for this claim.
Also for some reason I’m pretty sure that men are unlikely to backstab their former employer and instead silently move on, because they’re very likely not interested in having their future employer see them as a liability?
So in your world, men are better because we don't report toxic workplaces and instead allow them to continue chewing through more people? This kind of thinking underpins a lot of awful workplace cultures like those in some fields of medicine or finance where 80hr weeks are expected, juniors are treated like crap and each generation perpetuates the shit their bosses foisted on them.
In the previous firm I worked as VPE I was forced to let an entire team go due to financial constraints, and the following reviews were somewhat shocking.
I'll never forget this one review: "everyone in the company are spineless yes-men". I know who it was because that particular person used a German wording that's unusual and only a single person in that team ever used (it was a woman I actually respected / still respect / for her experience and commitment, but the review was submitted as a male).
I guess I'm letting these reviews get too close to me, but that hurt to read. I even made sure that everyone in that team got a new job and I even spent an hour or so per employee in reference calls with their future employers... and that review was written after their new contracts were signed.
This study's method does not properly assess the article's claim. OP's first statement is correct, the latter wasn't necessary, but I wouldn't call it misogynist.
The study isn't really the issue here. It's only titled "Women in the workplace", and includes statistics.
The article takes incredibly large leaps of logic to push a narrative.
Garbage like this shouldn't be allowed, and really isn't a good look for MIT Sloan.
Reporting on bad experiences that are experienced occurs at equal rates between men and women.
It's similar to the well-known gender suicide "paradox": women are much more likely to report thinking suicidal thoughts than men, but men commit suicide far more often than women. The way masculinity is constructed discourages reporting unhappiness or bad experiences.
Let's not assume the behavioral consequences of masculinity are purely a consequence of social construction, and not of genetics. The extent to which both factors contribute is an open question.
2) Men choose methods that are more likely to be effective; this is true everywhere, including places that don't have guns. This speaks to the same thing as my earlier comment: men choose methods that are end-directed, while women choose methods that communicate distress but are less likely to cause death.
I find it far more likely that they are just more concerned about leaving behind a messy corpse for someone to deal with/ are less willing to die painfully.
I prefer explanations that fit observed behaviour - men take larger overdoses, and neither a propensity
for violence nor a higher tolerance for messiness can explain that.
Likewise, I don't believe women become more violent or selfish as they reach middle age, yet they also start taking larger overdoses. It seems more likely there are specific problems that affect women at that point in their lives and/or they they feel less able to overcome problems they'd have coped with earlier (due to shrinking support networks, for example).
As for pain, I'd note that females are much more likely to self-harm than males (which, incidentally, is also messy).
Men kill themselves more even if you only look at intentional overdoses, which are about as non-violent as you can get. Older women also take larger overdoses than younger women - there are undeniable differences in intent between demographics.
Men are more likely to use guns, or in countries without guns, to use more drastic measures like hanging. They are less likely to discuss or telegraph their plans as well. No one knows it's going to happen, and they're more likely to succeed; "violent and aggressive" is a mischaracterization.
Women are more likely to attempt "cry for help" attempts like slitting wrists or popping pills, which are easier to intervene in. They are also more likely to reach out or discuss their plans for suicide, which makes the former (intervention) that much easier.
1) this is not random sample, it's a sample of who posted a review on glassdoor. There are definitely biases as to who leaves a negative review, and who leaves a positive one -- most people having an alright time don't leave positive reviews.
thus, simply by pulling glassdoor info you're going to get more negative reviews.
2) this pulled reports of toxic culture, but there is no way to verify that someone actually was male or female; it's strictly self-reported.
Speaking from experience: I've put in fake demographic info when putting reviews on GD so that my (former) boss can't identify me.
3) it's basing these findings on the use of a phrase "toxic culture" -- buzzwords, essentially. If other women or men used different phrases, such as "antagonistic and aggressive leadership" -- which sounds toxic to me -- that wouldn't have been counted.
1.) > > Literally all this shows is that women are more likely to say that the workplace is toxic nothing else;
2.) > People say the workplace is toxic typically when the workplace is indeed toxic. I'm not sure what you think you're getting at.
There's a mismatch in axioms between the two opposing statements.
(2.) includes the axiom of "100% of all toxic workplaces are publicly called out as toxic".
(1.) has the axioms of "The probability of toxic workplaces being publicly called out is < or =/= 100%", and that "The probability of (women calling out toxic workplaces) > Probability of (men calling out toxic workplaces)"
There's essentially a series of probabilistic hurdles that need to be passed in order for a workplace to be labelled toxic:
1) Actually toxic workplace: (% chance of encountering toxic behavior)^(min_#_of_occurrences_to_label_as_toxic) * (% chance of deciding to report it)
2) Wanting to lie about the workplace being toxic: (% willingness to lie)
For (2), the workplace in question doesn't need to be toxic: The person in question just needs to label them as such.
It should be noted that currently (1) is *significantly* more likely than (2).
The overall function, when combined: file_report_based_on_scenario(1) || file_report_based_on_scenario(2)
----
The above explanation was required in order to focus on the latter part of (1): The % chance of a person deciding to report it.
The research shown gives at least 5 potential conclusions that need to be verified:
A) Men are less likely to report toxic workplaces on Glassdoor than women (1.'s claim)
B) Women encounter more toxic interactions than men (2.'s claim)
C) The threshold for what is considered a toxic workplace for women is lower than men
D) Men in general treat toxic interactions differently than women
E) Any combination of (A), (B), (C), and/or (D)
As noted in simplotek's reply to GP:
> > Also for some reason I’m pretty sure that men are unlikely to backstab their former employer and instead silently move on (...)
> So far, all the dick moves I ever witnessed being directed by former employees towards their employers were done by men. One guy even went to the extent of buying lunches to new hires after leaving the company just to dump on his forme boss, even though he supposedly left in good terms.
Men are far more likely to enact "dick moves" than to report the toxic workplace in question, which is otherwise an indirect approval of (1.)'s axioms.
I think women are also awful to one another. I have seen it myself. Granted. Men are terrible. Women are often far nastier and more indirect which can wreak complete havoc in a workplace or remote work environment.
I know many women who have a very weird instinct to compete against the other women in their environment which is not exactly the same as how men compete. And the WAY women compete is NASTY.
I have met a lot of women who have said they greatly prefer to work with men over women and that some women have extremely aggressive instincts towards other women.
It’s something evolutionary along the lines of: “If there are few women and many men (typical in most tech environments), you are competing not only for male attention and prestige but it is also a zero sum game based on appearance so another woman is threatening across multiple attack vectors … if she is more attractive, the men will give her more resources. If she is more talented, she will get more attention etc.
I think it reminds me of Chinese dynasty politics where an emperor who has many wives - They all understand that it is a zero sum game and the children of the woman who gets the most attention will have the most resources. Go read about how Chinese imperial concubines handled one another. It was very, very, very bad.
It is incredibly sexist to talk about. But the effect is real. Humans have hormones. They don’t go away because we have been in an office for 50 years out of the last million years.
I personally think that the chemistry between men and women can be magical for work and create super productivity. I prefer to work with and for women. It’s because if I work with men everything becomes a sort of dominance contest and I personally don’t care for it.
I think women are going to have to get honest with themselves about this. My wife is a nurse who works with all women and the stuff they do to each other is downright evil. They basically try and sabotage each others relationships. My wife constantly bemoans this fact.
Men are not perfect. Women aren’t either. As genders we have different ways of being awful and a good mix of both genders is likely a good way to balance this out.
Nursing, esp. in subfields where people are regularly dying, is a different world.
12-hour shifts, sometimes very physically demanding, often highly stressful, and even when not stressful, often gross: cleaning up blood, puss, shit, etc. I've heard stories, both online as well as from medical folks I know, about the smells.
Small, single errors mean someone could die, and often from something as silly as writing down blood sugar levels incorrectly or with hard-to-read handwriting. CYA is SOP.
Barriers of entry are often low, and turnover + demand means that you're forced to make due with the staff you have not the staff you want -- which means Stacy the Room-Temperature-IQ Superstar now has more nursing duties than should be allowed.
Yes, women experience sexism, bias, and toxicity in the workplace, and it's probably at a higher rate than men. Figured I'd throw a top level comment in here stating such so the ratio of that versus denialism is 1:4 instead of 0:4.
An other frequent aspect of sexism is the cultural view that men should look inwards when they have a bad experience, while women should look outwards when they have a bad experience.
In some cities in the US, young women without children make more money on average than young men without children. Across the entire population, young women without children still make less than young men without children. Controlling for experience and education also still shows a gap.
Across the entire population, young women without children make more than young men without children, and have for awhile. See e.g. [0]
This is driven by an elimination or reversal of the wage gap in many of the major metropolitan areas like NYC, LA, San Diego, Atlanta, DC ("some cities"). The study you're referring to [1] is for young men and women, regardless of whether they have children or not, for whom the gap is $0.93.
You might counter that this is due to women having higher post-secondary educational achievement levels. Which is to say, analyses of the pay gap need to be conditioned on other relevant demographic variables to say anything meaningful about discrimination.
Indeed. Once you control for all variables, for every $1 men make, women make $0.99 [2].
Across the entire population, women between 22 and 30 without children outearn their male counterparts. The gap is larger in some metros, but the inverted gender pay gap in this demographic is nation-wide: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/09/01/129581758/
> But there's one demographic where women outearn men: people who are single, childless, and between the ages of 22 and 30.
> Within that universe, U.S. women earn 8 percent more than men, on average, according to a new report from the research firm Reach Advisors.
> Women in this group out-earn men by an even larger margin in some metro areas -- 17 percent in New York, 11 percent in San Francisco, and a high of 21 percent in Atlanta, to name a few.
I would love someone to clearly explain what makes a workplace culture toxic.
Asking for a friend who would love to know and understand all of the things that clearly contribute to workplace toxicity so that they can avoid them.
I agree this probably shouldn't be here, but I took all comments from this thread and asked GPT4 to 1) break down all arguments into axioms and 2) try to resolve them. Since I feel like this is pretty fascinating and a good read, I decided to paste this here.
Here's the reply:
------
In the discussion, various arguments have been presented surrounding the claim that women are 41% more likely to experience toxic workplace culture than men. Here, we break down the arguments into axioms and attempt to resolve them.
Argument 1: The data only shows that women are more likely to report toxic workplaces.
Axiom 1A: Women are more likely to report toxic workplaces than men.
Axiom 1B: Men are less likely to report toxic workplaces, possibly because they don't want to be perceived as a liability.
Argument 2: People typically report toxic workplaces when they are indeed toxic.
Axiom 2A: If a workplace is reported as toxic, it is likely actually toxic.
Argument 3: Men might react differently to toxic workplaces.
Axiom 3A: Men may take direct action against a former employer rather than report them on Glassdoor.
Argument 4: Women can also create toxic work environments.
Axiom 4A: Women can engage in aggressive and indirect behavior towards each other.
Axiom 4B: Evolutionary instincts and competition for resources, attention, and prestige might drive this behavior.
Argument 5: Cultural expectations shape how men and women respond to negative experiences.
Axiom 5A: Men are culturally expected to internalize negative experiences.
Axiom 5B: Women are culturally expected to attribute negative experiences to external factors.
To resolve these arguments, one could consider the following points:
1. Acknowledge that the data may reflect both actual toxic workplace experiences and differences in reporting rates between men and women. This would account for Axioms 1A, 1B, and 2A.
2. Recognize that both men and women can contribute to toxic work environments, as illustrated by Axioms 4A and 4B, but also acknowledge that they may respond differently to these experiences (Axioms 3A, 5A, and 5B).
3. Encourage open dialogue about toxic workplace culture, focusing on the experiences of both men and women, while considering the various factors that might influence their behavior and responses.
4. Promote research that investigates the different factors that contribute to toxic workplace culture, including individual, social, and cultural factors, as well as potential biases in the reporting of toxic workplaces.
By addressing these points, it is possible to gain a more comprehensive understanding of toxic workplace culture and the various factors that contribute to the differences in reported experiences between men and women.
Somehow I already get bored by all the "here, I asked GPT about this" comments on HN. I don't really care what the computer thinks mate. Much more interested in what you think.
Though, thanks for acknowleding the use of AI here, one can never be sure nowadays :-)
You're absolutely right, but I felt like the axiom-approach by x-complexity was fascinating for breaking down the discussion, and I was positively surprised by how GPT4 approached it.
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and otherwise breaking the site guidelines (e.g. the parent comment and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33921697).
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Also for some reason I’m pretty sure that men are unlikely to backstab their former employer and instead silently move on, because they’re very likely not interested in having their future employer see them as a liability?