I’m well known within my circle for being strong on diversity and equity. For that reason, I’m frequently asked to share my opinion on polemic topics. Among the most common questions is what I think about the so-called gender gap.
You might be thinking, “How dumb of them, isn’t her answer obvious?” And so I thought. For years I responded with the obvious, but after a while, I realized my answer was often followed by, “No, no! I meant, do you think it really exists?” Well…
I’ll write this once, in hopes that these words find those conflicted but curious people.
Note: Although I truly believe in everything I’m writing here, these are, like any thought I’ve ever had and will ever have, the amalgamation of my experiences and opinions. My only credential is being a woman in STEM for half of my life. I invite you to read, reflect, and I hope rethink.
I’ll make it short and quick: the gender gap is not a conscious action; it is a consequence of an unconscious one.
I’ll start with an analogy. Imagine seeing someone driving very badly in front of you. When you pass them, you see a woman. The first thought that usually comes to mind is, “Of course, a woman.”.
Now imagine instead you see a man. The first instinct is not, “Of course, a man,” but rather, “This guy might be having a bad day.”.
Let’s dive deeper into this scenario. That first thought comes from an assumption we already hold about women. There is, of course, a historical reason women are considered bad drivers. Until very recently, we were not allowed to drive and, for a long time, were not incentivized to do so as much as men. But that's not the case anymore. While in 1900's, women represented less than 5% of driver licenses issued in US, in 2023, women had already flipped that statistic with 50.5% of driver license issued [ref]. Quality is also not a problem, male drivers are responsible for more than 72% of fatal car accidents [2023-ref], due to DUIs, speeding and aggressive driving. The conclusion is obvious, the data is clear, men are statistically worse drivers.
Now, why does that incorrect assumption about women still remains to this day? Well, while for a man, a single occurrence represents exactly that, a small and justifiable act, for a woman it defines who she is and, even more dangerously, confirms pre-notion that applies to a large group. At the same time, I’ve seen men be surprised by women driving well and dismiss them as outliers. Even if most women in their lives are good drivers, the overall assumption remains that women are bad drivers.
That’s exactly what happens to women in any predominantly male field.
Everyone makes mistakes when they start, but for women, that is often the decisive moment. If you, as a woman, make a mistake before gaining the team’s trust, you are put in a box that is almost impossible to escape. Along with the lack of trust comes the lack of opportunities to improve. At the same time, even if you gain trust within the team, that trust is fragile and not as strong as the trust people so freely and easily attribute to men.
But why am I talking about this when the subject is compensation?
In modern America, compensation is defined by where you stand within the rating range of your level. For some, this guarantees that no bias will influence compensation, but that is simply not the case.
Since compensation is based on ratings, and ratings are often stacked, meaning people at the same level and role are compared against each other, women face an unbalanced disadvantage caused by these assumptions, which literature refers to as unconscious bias.
This unconscious bias not only makes trust harder to gain, but also makes core opportunities harder for women to access.
And that’s how the gap is formed, not by establishing different compensation bands for women and men, but by allowing bias to undermine trust in women.
I’ve faced this issue throughout my entire career. I’ve received feedback in the past about not influencing the team enough and not being vocal enough. When in truth, I was speaking, but I was not being heard. Due to these assumptions and the lack of trust they create, my thoughts ended up being questioned more than my peers’, my work more criticized, my contributions seen as less relevant, and therefore less influential.
I felt this since my early years in university. One example was when I was a teaching assistant for a class, along with another person, a man. During that time, I was noticeably called for help less often than the man, and my comments were usually followed by a request for confirmation from the other assistant. Both women and men students followed the same pattern.
You might be thinking that this could have been a direct consequence of my capabilities, that maybe I was, in fact, a less qualified assistant. But you see, it was a programming class. I was a software engineering undergrad with an impeccable curriculum in multiple programming classes. And the other assistant? He was a mechanical engineering undergrad with only one semester of programming class, who would, before class, ask me to explain the problems students would need to solve.
That, of course, didn’t stop in university. It followed me into my corporate years.
I cannot count how many times I influenced the direction of a discussion and received no recognition, only to see a male colleague repeat the exact same point later and be praised for the insight. At first, I thought it was coincidence. People often tell me it is a communication style. Eventually, I realized it was something deeper. But the critical part is not the stolen credit. It’s what happens next.
With the risk of repeating myself, I’ll go one step further to make the message unmistakably clear.
Assumptions shape trust. Trust shapes opportunities. Opportunities shape results.
When you are trusted less, even subtly, you are given fewer high-impact projects. Fewer risky bets. Fewer chances to lead something ambiguous and prove yourself. You are observed more skeptically and backed less confidently.
And without new, challenging opportunities, there is no real growth. Without growth, your results plateau. When results plateau, ratings follow. And ratings, as we all know, directly influence compensation and promotion speed.
This is where it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If the baseline assumption is that women are less logical, less technical, less decisive, then our performance is evaluated against a lower starting expectation. A mistake confirms the stereotype. A success is treated as exception. The quality range that justifies our rating shifts downward before we even enter the room. And over time, this compounds. Along with the rating band shift, follows the compensation band.
That’s how the gap is created and sustains itself. Just like with the preconceived idea that women are bad drivers. Not through loud discrimination, but through quiet expectations that accumulate year after year, until we look like proof of something that was never true to begin with.
The solution to the gender gap is not just defining a mechanism for compensation bands. It lies largely in the ability of people to see, listen to, and trust women.
I hope my words brought you at least some reflection. From here, if this interests you, start impacting the women around you by simply questioning how you assign trust and noticing patterns in whom you trust quickly. By noticing, you begin to train yourself to rethink and make space for change. After that, it becomes a matter of expanding, questioning not only your own thoughts, but also the thoughts of those around you.
As always, stay in draft, keep becoming.
Me
