Slashdot Mirror
Pull Requests Are Accepted At About The Same Rate, Regardless of Gender (techinasia.com)
An anonymous reader writes:
Remember that story about how women "get pull requests accepted more (except when you know they're women)." The study actually showed that men also had their code accepted more often when their gender wasn't known, according to Tech In Asia -- and more importantly, the lower acceptance rates (for both men and women) applied mostly to code submitters from outside the GitHub community. "Among insiders, there's no evidence of discrimination against women. In fact, the reverse is true: women who are on the inside and whose genders are easy to discern get more of their code approved, and to a statistically significant degree."
Eight months after the story ran, the BBC finally re-wrote their original headline ("Women write better code, study suggests") and added the crucial detail that acceptance rates for women fell "if they were not regulars on the service and were identified by their gender."
Eight months after the story ran, the BBC finally re-wrote their original headline ("Women write better code, study suggests") and added the crucial detail that acceptance rates for women fell "if they were not regulars on the service and were identified by their gender."
People of all genders should team up and work to put an end to the divisive, discriminatory agenda we see promoted by leftists.
I've worked in the computing industry for decades. I've worked with men, with women, with men who became women, with women who became men, with people who didn't think they even had a gender, and with people who identified with multiple genders.
None of us ever had a problem with one another or with committing our code or our hardware designs because of our genders. We were there to get our work done, and whatever flesh we had in our pants didn't matter at all.
Then leftist sorts started getting involved with the industry, about 8 to 10 years ago. Many of them are commonly described as "Hipsters" or "Millennials". These are people who have been subjected to a rabid form of leftism from their earliest years.
Once these people got involved with the industry gender suddenly became an issue, because they intentionally made it an issue. Before they came, we all saw ourselves as colleagues. Then these divisive leftists started trying to partition us based on our genders, and to pit us against one another over injustices that don't exist and typically never existed.
Most of us older workers saw through this bullshit immediately. After all, we'd been working together for 10, 15, even 25 years, without gender ever causing us any problems. But when these Millennial sorts came along, suddenly it was supposed to be a big issue for all of us. Of course, it wasn't in reality.
The problem, however, is that the older workers are retiring, and being replaced almost fully by these younger workers who are so obsessed with dividing people into groups over trivial and irrelevant attributes. More and more partitioning is taking place.
I don't think that these Millennials necessarily know that they're doing it, because the leftist agenda has been so ingrained into them from such a young age. Regardless, they're dividing up workplaces that used to be very united and free from prejudice.
Professionals from all genders or lack of gender should work together to put an end to this leftist-inspired nonsense. If they want to play these pathetic games where they divide us up into different groups, so be it. We should just refuse to play their idiotic leftist game.
Since both men and women have their code accepted at higher rates when you know their gender, I wonder if there is a relationship between knowing more about a person and accepting their code. Does knowing someone better mean you are more accepting of their work? If Beth is a working mother of 5 and you know this, does that knowledge make you more or less likely to approve of her code opposed to only knowing that someone made a merge request?
I don't know, but surely there is something we can be outraged about. We must look harder.
We found that in modern times, misandry is apparently totally acceptable.
When it seems like men are getting preferential treatment, the story is portrayed as discrimination against women.
When it seems like women are getting preferential treatment, the story is portrayed as women being superior.
I propose journalists be forced to write these stories without knowing ahead of time which gender came out on top in a study. After the story has been written, the editor can go back and insert the proper gender-specific word or pronoun.
Why are these studies even being funded?
The original crappy study, that TFA debunked, was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant number 1252995. So your tax dollars paid for it.
I am not totally opposed to all research related to gender discrimination, but when researchers publish statistically invalid garbage, they should be banned from future grants.