!agree

So Forbes published this amazing article, concluding that **"The solution: companies need to do more to educate white men."** . (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ruthieackerman/2018/10/23/year-of-the-woman-not-so-fast-1/#272751ce7f94)
They don't seem to link their sources for their statistics anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that I found them: https://www.reachire.com/wp-content/uploads/Women_in_the_Workplace_2018.pdf
It has all the numbers and even some of the same phrasing.

They bring up **5 statistics** in that article, arguing that companies need to do more to educate white men.

1. 50% of all employees think that their company prioritizes gender diversity.
**2. 66% of women have dealt with micro aggressions.**
3. 20% of women "identify" as the only woman at their workplace.
4. <50% of companies set diversity targets.
5. Women are **twice as likely** as men to say that it would be risky or pointless to report an incident.

Now I don't see how educating your white male employees is going to help with 1, 3 or 4, since these are mostly a result of company policy and hiring.
**It's also funny how the 50% from 1. matches the <50% from 4. .... About 40% of companies set diversity targets and about half of employees feel like their company is prioritizing gender diversity. Sounds to me like the employees are pretty spot on in their assumption.** 😂

.
**This leaves micro aggressions and the number 5.**

As for the microagressions. **This does seem to be the one valid point they are making,** though I do want to point out:
**Men that don't have other men coworkers also experience more microagressions than men that do. But admitedly at a lower rate than women.**
This seems to imply that micro agressions do go both ways, though not at equal rates. Wouldn't the right approach be to educate all employees on microagressions, since that's the one statistic that actually holds up?

"Women are **twice as likely** as men to say that it would be risky or pointless to report an incident."
They conveniently don't state any numbers here, but as it turns out it's about 8% of all women and about 3% of all men that make that statement.
Now in my opinion we've come really far, if only 3% of women see it as risky (5% see it as pointless) to come forward with alligations.
I'm not saying that's good, but generalizing that to "better educate white men" seems to be jumping the gun, especially since 1% (2%) of men also hold that same believe.

So apparently I can't post pictures here, the statistic regarding micro aggressions is on 14th page of that source article.

I actually agree with you on that, it's just that that's the one statistic that wasn't dishonest or unrelated. So starting from a position where microaggressions are a bad thing, one could make an argument.
Now the issue is that 1. they are all self reported, so there might be some bias there and 2. their definition of a microaggression is questionable:

"Needing to provide more evidence of your competence than others do"
OR "Having your judgment questioned in your area of expertise"
OR "Being addressed in a less-than-professional way"
OR "Being mistaken for someone at a much lower level"
OR "Hearing demeaning remarks about you or people like you"

Just to point out one example of correlation != causation: If diversity targets are a more recent thing (as they say themselves) you would expect women to be younger on average than their men coworkers.
I do also think that that point is backed by statistics, but I'd have to look it up.
Now is it really surprising that someone is "mistaken for someone at a much lower level" more often when they are younger?

That's actually a very good point ^

I mean both your messages were perfectly correct, but I don't see how that contradicts my statement about age.
I'm not saying that younger people are less competent (not even in general or on average), but simply that they tend to hold lower positions within companies and climb up over time.
Now if there's any statistic contradicting that, I'm happy to agree, but I doubt it.

And I'm not saying that people should judge you based on your age either. I'm simply assuming that that is a possible conscious or unconscious bias that could account for some of the statistics.
To generalize that. I am a very individualist person, but we still need to talk about groups when we are looking at statistics, because that's what statistics are .... information about groups of people, not individuals.

Yes, I'm absolutely with you on that

Generally yes and that's why I was using it as an assumption. But I don't think anyone here disagrees, so that's fine 😄

Oh, ok, I misunderstood that. Sorry about that

I actually have to head off now, just wanted to drop that link and some comments in here

You guys have a great day 😃

Is that legit?