Slashdot Mirror
Why Women Devs Are Hard To Recruit and Even Harder To Keep (windowsitpro.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The results of a recent survey conducted by GitHub sheds light on the issue of why women developers are hard to recruit and keep in the business of tech. Windows IT Pro reports: "The 2017 Open Source Survey 'collected responses from 5,500 randomly sampled respondents sourced from over 3,800 open source repositories on GitHub.com, and over 500 responses from a non-random sample of communities that work on other platforms.' Although the survey focused on open source and asked 50 questions on a wide range of topics that were in no way focused on gender issues alone, some of the data collected offers insight into why the developer industry as a whole has trouble recruiting and keeping female devs. Indeed, the severity of the gender gap in open source is substantial. In the survey, 95 percent of respondents were men, with the response rate from women at only 3 percent -- a degree of under-representation that's not seen elsewhere in this study. Other groups show numbers that are more proportionate to their numbers in the general population, with 'ethnic or national minorities' representing 16 percent of the respondents, immigrants at 26 percent, and 'lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, or another minority sexual orientation' at 7 percent. The problems that women in tech face are pretty much what you might expect. Twenty-five percent of the women surveyed report 'encountering language or content that makes them feel unwelcome,' compared with 15 percent of men. Women are six times more likely to encounter stereotyping than men (12 versus 2 percent), and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent)."
I've never heard anyone concerning male nurse and babysitters.
"The problems that women in tech face are pretty much what you might expect. Twenty-five percent of the women surveyed report 'encountering language or content that makes them feel unwelcome,' compared with 15 percent of men. Women are six times more likely to encounter stereotyping than men (25 versus 15 percent), and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent)."
So basically males are 0.88 times as likely to not be stereotyped or made feel unwelcome and 0.97 times as likely to be not hit on and that is supposed to be the crucial difference in recruiting and keeping employees of both sexes? By the way...
six times more likely ... 25 versus 15 percent
...what?
Ezekiel 23:20
This math is brought to you by a female developer ftom facebook who doesn't understand why her code is oftenough rejected.
The problems people experience with open source projects are very broadly felt. Just as one example, 70% of people reported a problem with rudeness and name-calling. That dwarfs the issues with stereotyping, which was reported by only 10%. What's up with that? We should let the data guide us to what needs to be focused upon. Sure, issues with women in OSS need to be fixed, but I bet if we get better with the 70% issues it'll go a long way towards fixing the 10%, too.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Covfefe much?
The lead researcher (Anna Filippova) just completed a PhD on the role of conflict expression in shaping distributed teams. She has also studied the collective user experience with privacy management strategies on Facebook, how to crowdsource history, and Twitter brand sentiment following crisis communication campaigns.
I'm too lazy to dig further, since the last time slashdot did a puff piece on women and minorities in tech, it wasn't even by scientists and ... I just don't care enough anymore to try to stop being jaded.
The summary has the wrong numbers, in the report it is 12 vs 2 percent.
The biggest gap is here: "In the survey, 95 percent of respondents were men", even though an on-line open source collaboration is the perfect place for a female developer to be judged purely on the quality of the code rather than gender. Just pick a gender neutral alias and start coding.
Beside that, 15 percent men encountered stereotyping? does the writer even know how stereotyping works? this whole thing sounds like jibberish.
BeauHD:
Never one to disappoint. You always bring us the best women are repressed slant pieces written by women's studies students, usually self-published on facebook or medium, and then slathered with the barest hint of academic credibility to try sneaking it onto peoples' eyeballs as credible news.
This is your second time in the last two weeks.
To make it more relatable for Slashdotters, "uncomfortable" is the feeling you get when you see that a project has a Code of Conduct.
New York has a law preventing male daycare workers from changing diapers.
However in my work environment and my department it is nearly 50/50 male vs female in IT. The difference is the following.
1. I am on the east coast. There seems to be less gender discrimination there.
2. I work in IT but not in a tech company. I have found for the most part woman seem to gravitate towards IT jobs with the focus on supporting the greater good vs trying to be the greater good.
3. I work with an older workforce. This has a few differences.
A. Less horny young men trying to hit on woman.
B. Woman who get hired have already had and raised their kids to a point they are self reliant and they feel comfortable on maintaining their career.
C. Experience is the driving force not looks.
4. A work culture that takes diversity and sensitivity seriously. Harassment just isn't tolerated
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How is that law not gender discrimination?
Fucking bitches!
and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent).
FFS just get over it. Men are expected to initiate relationships. It's called life. It's not a problem. If you don't like it you might as well kill yourself now.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Let's stick to the facts, eh ?:
Women are six times more likely to CLAIM THEY encountered stereotyping than men, and twice as likely to be CLAIM they were subjected to unsolicited sexual advances.
Women programmers make a lot of sexual advancements.
Women don't like to do software. They are not really good at software and they always require special treatment. They dont handle conflict well too.
They make sallaries go down.
duh! everyone knows 100% is stereotyping, not 15%!
The geek male has to put up with much stronger stereotyping and has had to for decades, generations. And geeks even stereotype each other. So what's the problem with the 3% that happen to be women being under the same yoke?
The geek coder has to put up with rhetoric and attitudes that make them feel uncomfortable. But the male geeks haven't got anywhere else to go and have to just suck on it and knuckle down.
And if, for sake of argument, we take homosexuality as 20% of the geek group, twice that of the rest of the population, therefore most likely to not want to hit on women if they're male, and that none of the women are lesbian, that makes 67 to 3 the rate at which males are represented in the geek community, therefore each woman would get 22 times as much sexual advance as if they were in a natural gender split of 50:50. If they're only seeing twice as much, that makes the geek male 9% as likely to approach a woman for sexual advances as the general public. 11 times less creepy than the average.
So where is the problem?
This may seem a bit sexist, but still...
Nobody on the internet knows you have a penis. Nobody knows you have a vagina. You only reveal that when you blab about it.
Pretty much all FOSS work is done in such impersonal settings, over the internet. Unless the developer uses an alias that is super female sounding, like "KittenLove_xoxo" or something, there is nothing to suggest that she does not have a penis. If she can roll with that, and can work in a male dominated environment, there is nothing to prevent her from being just as successful in the group as any other member, assuming her code quality is good.
Nobody sees your tits through IRC, Email, or the like. You might get outed by teamspeak or something, but impersonal digital communications that are the norm for programmer communication? Not so much.
Even if you need to use a real name when doing development work, you dont need to say your name is "Tiffany McCoder", you can use "T. McCoder" instead. Nobody knows if that is "Tim McCoder", or "Tyrone McCoder" or "Tristan McCoder".... or any other name starting with T. There is no reason to out yourself and get the flood of "OMG! A WOMAN! UNPOSSIBLE!" that is sure to happen.
Why is it better not to out yourself? Is it because I think you should just buck it up and accept abuse? NO-- it is because I think you should not set yourself up for abuse. If you happen to be a very rare magical unicorn, outing yourself in front of a bunch of naturalists is a good way to get collected as a type specimen. (note, that means you get killed, and collected for science. Probably something you dont want.) Similar things will happen if you out yourself as a woman in a very male dominated profession, because you are so damned rare. Now, if more women did this, and did it stealthfully, and ended up becoming a more normal demographic, the "Magical unicorn! WOW! AMAZING!!" thing would not happen, and it would be safe to say, "Yes, I am a female developer."
That is to say, if magical unicorns were as common as grasshoppers or normal horses, scientists would not really be all that excited about them, and showing off your magical rainbow unicorn farts in public would not be an issue. Nobody would care, nobody would notice, because rainbow unicorn farts would be everywhere. It is only when magical unicorns are rare that the "OMG! ITS REAL!!" phenomenon happens.
Female developers are rare. Outing yourself as one will cause you only misfortune in this environment. It has nothing to do with sexism. It has everything to do with novelty and rarity. Avoid the temptation to out yourself. Just be another programmer. Make it or break it on the quality of your code. That's all you need to do.
Don't we see pretty much this same post about every month or so?
So men are coming on to women more often then women come onto men? What a shock, something needs to be done about this.
Best comeback of the week! Bravo!
Just another day in Paradise
Less horny young men
So young men, and horny, but less so? ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Why does bullshit like this get published? It's a non-random survey. It provides no useful scientific evidence. It doesn't even bother to compare the numbers with other industries. But you can be damned sure people with an agenda link to it.
Just another day in Paradise
Who says it isn't? Remember, discriminating against (white) males is always OK.
It is, but IT people don't usually change diapers during work so it doesn't affect the workplace in question.
Ezekiel 23:20
Stop getting offended so much? "Twenty-five percent of the women surveyed report 'encountering language or content that makes them feel unwelcome' stood out as I game with many women and instead of running off or throwing a fit, they either ignore it or.... join in.
There may be a larger issue, but not everything is out of your control. The difference between "feeling unwelcome" and "feeling welcome" is all up to you.
If a project needs a Code of Conduct, I don't want to be part of that project.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Really? You did care at some point?
Mind if I ask why?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Without reading the "study": Because they keep wasting time doing surveys nobody gives a fuck about instead of writing code?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
.. on the issue of why women developers are hard to recruit and keep in the business of tech.
Without any statistical information to as the rate at which and reason why both men and women have chosen to leave their positions at a multitude of "tech" businesses, the very premise of this article is based on a judgement without merit. Literally speaking, it's prejudice, specifically sexist.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I like technologies with ISO, ANSI or IEEE standards, not documents saying you can't use it if you're a meanie.
The answer to the question why people might prefer men to women when it comes to working on a code project.
May I refer you to figure 3 of the article. Yes, I know, RTFA is not very Slashdott-y, but bear with me. Could you? Thank you. We see the differences in men and women when it comes to what's important to them in a project they want to participate in. What we can see in the figure is that values like Responsive Maintainers, License or Development progress are pretty much on par with both sexes when it comes to importance.
Looking at values like "welcoming community", "contribution guide" or "code of conduct", you will see a distinct difference in the value men and women attribute to them, with women putting considerably more emphasis on these things.
In other words, at least this is my interpretation and please, I would very much enjoy hearing yours, women want to "feel good" while working on a project, while men don't give a fuck about that and just want to get shit done.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
I see that you've never worked in academic IT before. I do believe some of our physics and math people should be wearing Depends.
They're actually spelled out specifically, which is unlike any "codes of conduct" which almost entirely have the opinions of other people as the defining characteristic of what is or is not against the code.
I looked for "jibberish" in the dictinary. It doesn't exist.
No sig today...
Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
And that was in a thread that started with
New York has a law preventing male daycare workers from changing diapers.
Jesus H Fucking Christ you're dense. Did your head crack the concrete floor you were dropped on when born? Does your skull bend light?
What is curious is how the numbers are so different from society. For example, that's a large percentage of respondents who are gay. Maybe allowing self selection for polling is unsound methodology?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It is, but IT people don't usually change diapers during work so it doesn't affect the workplace in question.
We prefer to watch babies and their crappy Ruby and Javascript "code" shit all over themselves.
Kafkatrapping.
"This law is discriminatory, unsanitary, can and will make toddlers go without a clean nappy which is a human right, not a privilege. To not change a child's diaper is child abuse and a health hazard."
"Oh so you want to take off little girls' diapers and touch their genitals?"
And that's the story of how little Susie wound up with a UTI.
No, discriminating against white males is never OK. Some people want it ignored. Some people want it ensrhined. But the discrimination is never OK.
Discrimination doesnt get any more "systemic" then when it is actually illegal not to do it.
A century ago discrimination against both sexes was still the law of the land.
Two landmarks in American history cases came up in 1919-1920.
The first was a landmark supreme court ruling in 1919 on the constitutionality of the gender-specific draft. The supreme court ruled that the gender-specific draft was constitutional on the grounds that it was a reciprocal responsibility of that gender because that gender was afforded the right to vote. If you were allowed to vote, they said, then you are also subject to the draft.
The second was a landmark because there have been so few of them: amendments to our constitution. In 1920 we gave women the right to vote, but we still have not subjected even a single solitary woman to the draft.
All this worry over speculative-sexism while there is still literally systemic-sexism on the books as the law of the land... I have just one thing to say to feminists... go fuck yourselves. I will never give one rats ass about any of your speculative-sexism while you continue to defend existing systemic-sexism with your solution being more systemic-sexism. Seriously, go fuck yourselves feminists, and the next time I hear of a talk about male suicide being shut down by feminists I'm going to punch one. Go. Fuck. Yourselves.
"His name was James Damore."
Which is demonstrably untrue, as that guy who keeps suing venues offering women-only benefits (free crap, free entry etc.) proves.
Of course there is some discrimination against men in general, e.g. unequal parental leave rights. Don't distract from the genuine issues with hyperbole.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Here we have Pepe the frog posting as AC. That's understandable, because officially, he's dead (actually he's not, but the French have eaten his legs, so he's in a wheelchair now).
Sorry for my jokes of very dubious taste, but that's what you get when you confront me with those raging, foaming-at-the-mouth altrighters.
That's funny... Gotta use in the future!
Go: Has a Code of Conduct
Common Lisp: Has an ANSI Standard
Which one is more useful? (A rhetoric question. ;))
Ezekiel 23:20
Why do we expect that:
- Because women have a lower "feel unwelcome" tolerance than men?
- Because no-one cares about men who "feel unwelcome"?
- Because all colleagues emphasize a woman's gender and minority status?
So women are likely to be homosexual as men, as ethnic as men, yet women, comprising 31% of the employees IIRC, provided only 3% of the responses. That sounds important: Should we expect that?
There is no gender barrier to starting open source projects on GitHub. There is no barrier to recruiting talented women into your feminist collective femputer software project. If women are just as interested and productive in open source as men, they wouldn't need the munificence of men in order to have them work on male-dominated open source projects, there would be lots of open source projects run by women where women could go to feel welcome.
The lack of women-run open source projects, female developers, etc. is a simple consequence of straight women being statistically much less interested in starting or participating in such projects. (Note that, despite facing discrimination and prejudice, gays actually are overrepresented among GitHub open source developers.)
Yes, because nit-picking a typo is so much more fruitful than actual debate.
I looked up dictinary in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.
Worst. Signature. Ever.
The open source survey acknowledges academic advisers and support for its design and questions... 80% of which are women. How's that for gender balance and lack of bias?
GitHub should cut this crap and focus on hosting repositories. If they keep harping on social justice issues, they face going down the same drain that Twitter is currently going down. And GitHub's business model strikes me as similarly shaky.
If it's hard to recruit female devs, then presumably all those female devs are either jobless somewhere or have left the industry. If not, then SOMEONE is recruiting them... just not the companies forming part of the "study".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
> If a project needs a Code of Conduct, I don't want to be part of that project.
If you find the very existence of a Code of Conduct objectionable, then not being part of the project is probably best for both you and the project.
But no whining if there's a dearth of co-members who are actually pleasant to work with.
"95 percent of respondents were men, with the response rate from women at only 3 percent"
What were the other 2%?
Secondly, men and women are DIFFERENT, and since the dawn of time, men have been the inventors, builders and creators of new technology.
WHITE MEN. Not Africans. Not Indians. Not Chinese. White men.
White people are only 9% of the world's population, and we aren't even allowed to simply live around our own kind, in our own countries, because every other race hates their own kind and wants to leech off 'whitey'. And yet THEY claim they are the 'victims'. Why are they here, in white countries? Why don't they want to live in their own countries?
White people are the only people who want to live in their own countries, around their own kind, yet we are denied this right, the most basic of ALL rights - freedom of NON-association.
Special rights for 'minorities' will end right about the time white people become a minority in our OWN countries.
A century ago discrimination against both sexes was still the law of the land.
It is fascinating how things have changed isn't it? For anyone who is really interested, look up the history of child custody laws over the past century or so. What you find is that once upon a time, custody of kids in a divorce was actually automatically awarded to the father believe it or not. Then towards the middle of the 20th century the laws were completely changed such that by default custody was automatically awarded to the mother. Today, we are finally starting to define a way to evaluate who the more appropriate custodial parent is for the benefit of the children but up until recently it was a black and white decision, father or mother by default in all cases regardless of situation. What perpetuates sexism again? Yeah...
We'll make great pets
work culture that takes diversity and sensitivity seriously
I can't take either of those things seriously. I only care about ability and that one has sufficient business communication skills. That's it.
As a male who's worked in several majority-female businesses I can't count the number of times I've been "unwelcome" but I don't really care. Nobody's ever surveyed me or asked me what I feel about that, which is a good thing because I'd have told them they're being ridiculous. I return niceness with niceness and impoliteness with the same. If I'm supposed to get over it so can everybody else. I actually had to transfer a man from one location because he was tired of hearing things from the females there--things that, had the gender roles been reversed would certainly have been considered harassment by modern standards. He wasn't interested in filing charges though, he just wanted not to put up with them. That was an easy request to grant trust me.
Women who wonder why some men ignore them in the workplace pretty much have to understand that lately harassment has been dumbed down to "a male who a woman doesn't approve of noticing she exists" and, on rare occasions, a woman making something up because a male she wants to notice her refuses to, so I can't take that seriously either. Does harassment exist? Yes, actual harassment in the traditional sense exists, just not in the numbers people would have you believe. It's toxic to the workplace and shouldn't be tolerated. I've had to deal with that too. Not by counseling, not by sensitivity training, but by showing the idiot in question the door. It's the only way to deal with that, just as it's the only way to deal with overly dramatic personalities in the workplace as well.
Political correctness demands equalities that are unnatural. If women are naturally drawn to certain occupations and shun others, that should be of no concern to us. Social engineering does not work.
Listen, there is no such thing as unsolicited sexual advance(s). If you work in a mostly
male environment and are: pretty, smell nice, have a nice speaking voice, female, and pay
the males there any attention beyond work, of course you're going to have "followers."
If you want to avoid all of that, then dress, smell, and look like a man. I mean, it's only
biology and how most of us were conceived and bought into this world.
Is it so hard to understand?
CAP === 'alphabet'
It's because they sit down for the awful pissing contests happening every day.
They need to include a personality test in this. Stereotyping most men (which statistically true by the way), men often don't think much of or react positively to sexual advances, certain language, jokes, and things in general. All of this stuff goes on with men just as much as women. Men typically just don't make a deal out of it like women do.
not documents saying you can't use it if you're a meanie
I am not aware of any software, which requires compliance with CoC in order to use it.
If a project needs a Code of Conduct, I don't want to be part of that project.
Odds are, they are not too keen on you either.
Just read some of the sexist posts on slashdot and you'll learn all you need to know on the subject. Men in tech are assholes.
that women want to feel WELCOMED. Men are used to having to prove themselves, women are used to getting into a social group. Ostracising women then would be worse than ostracising men, and generally child studies on in/out group bullying indicate that this is indeed the case.
It's not so much about feeling good but feeling welcomed.
Maybe women have better choices, so they choose what welcomes them, whereas men have to take the choice offered and put up with being roasted.
How can something that doesn't exist be discriminatory?
Or male coal miners, or male security guards, or male garbage collectors, or male soldiers, or male oil rig workers, or male stevedores.
No, only cushy office jobs.
New York has a law preventing male daycare workers from changing diapers.
Citation needed.
The feminists I know want women to be on the draft... is this not your experience with ones you've talked with? The old guys in congress have been more of a problem for things like that then the Pentagon itself has.
"twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances " The problem is, a 'solicited' sexual advance means the other party was the "victim" of an unsolicited sexual advance. It's a vicious cycle.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
It looks like they only hire older women. It explains the "less horny".
Who says 7% is different from the number of gays in society?
Let each gender do the jobs they want and are wired for!!!
The very need of having a written code of conduct usually means that the work environment is SO toxic that the non-written laws of common courtesy have left the building ages ago.
THIS is why I wouldn't want to have something like that anywhere near what I'm working on.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A glaring spelling/grammar mistake in a post making fun of a math mistake is worthy of ridicule.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That's what the most vocal feminists say, sure. Strangely enough, I've never met a vocal feminist in the combat arms, and the overall figure for women is around 1%. Were the draft to actually be instituted, and applied to women, I suspect you would hear these brave justice warriors singing a much different tune.
My stepson once looked for a game store in the business white pages. It was called Toys & Joys.
He turned to the page with "To-" listings, got as far as "Toyota", and figured that the store wasn't listed, because he should have seen it by then.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
It's a multi-faceted problem, isn't it? The STEM fields in general have done a relatively good job of attracting women, so software engineering is definitely an odd one out. Based on anecdotal evidence of my own interactions with young people, the reason may partly be that software development is seen as a low-value, low-skill, low-profile job. Most importantly, it's seen as boring grunt work which even "cool" people only do until they are finally promoted into an actual position. If this impression is correct, we're socializing young people in general, and young women in particular, away from a field they perceive as a waste of time. I challenge you to find a high school-age girl who when asked if she considered doing software development doesn't respond with absolute incredulity at the mere prospect.
From there on out, it probably gets worse. On the off chance a female software developer makes it through university without giving in to the myriad social cues on the way, the experience of working in the field is likely to be the final kick you need to start looking for better positions. It's rough enough to find a good job as a male, but when you're female you need to cope with the whole bro culture thing on top of that.
We've also been getting more conservative as a society. Women going to college, then briefly into a job, only to drop out forever and take care of family is a thing that's picking up steam again. The incentive to do that may be even stronger when you're working as an entry-level software developer, surrounded by wealthy hyper-available males.
You forgot "married"
I find people who hate arbitrary codes of conduct to be the most pleasurable to work with. I know that they have a sense of humour, and can get into a heated argument without throwing around words like sexism, racism, and discrimination. I would much rather deal with abrasive, augmentative individuals than with social justice snowflakes who go whining to the boss and/or media at the slightest perceived provocation.
Were the draft to actually be instituted, and applied to women, I suspect you would hear these brave justice warriors singing a much different tune.
I suspect you're completely wrong, in fact I'm quite sure of it. "Vocal feminists" may not often be the same sort of women who voluntarily join the military, but they absolutely are the sort of women who would despise any woman who tried to use her gender to avoid being drafted. Many of them would probably argue against the draft, but they'd argue against it for both men and women.
In any case, the draft is irrelevant. Not only haven't we used it in 40 years (since before you were even born, most likely), it's very unlikely we'll ever use it again. Conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How is that law not gender discrimination?
It is not gender discrimination because the "law" doesn't actually exist. Men can legally change diapers in NY. The only reference I could find was a daycare that had a policy that the male teachers would not change diapers, but that was not a legal requirement.
It's like getting on a bus and there's a sign saying "DO NOT SHIT ON THE SEATS".
The fact that someone thinks it needs to exist is a big red flag (or possibly a brown one).
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Let's look at, eg, npm. They have 0 women employees but 12 men who dress like women. If you were a woman, would you want to work there?
Women are six times more likely to encounter stereotyping than men (25 versus 15 percent)
That's not even twice as likely, it almost is, but not quite.
Ken
Though the official line is that every gay person is born that way, the reality is that the percentage of people identifying as gay (or transgendered too) has been growing steadily since it became fashionable to be gay. See Kristen Stewart and any other number of celebrities who suddenly discover their gayness when their career starts to lag.
My apologies if it's politically incorrect to point that out.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In every situation I've seen where the boss asks the team to work 20-30 hours of unpaid overtime every week to get an impossible project out the door, the women say fuck you (well, "bless your heart", or something) and then go home on time.
The spineless nerd males stay and work on the project, and they and the managers resent the women for their self-respect. That is what generates the hostile work environment. A really great work environment would exist where the team were majority female, as this kind of behavior would not be feasible.
So, spineless men: women's issues in tech are your fault. Grow a pair (of ovaries, apparently). You* allow the kind of work environment that is hostile to women.
* All men who were not birthed by women are hereby excepted from this blame.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
With ratio of male to female approaching 1:2 in higher education, I suspect unsolicited sexual advances complaints will be the other way around in 15-20 years.
and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent).
This does not represent the ration between the genders. Normally I would expect the following: Lets assume 10% of the persons don't know when they cross the line from being nice and a little flirty to "unsolicited sexual advances" and that they target a gender of their sexual preference, and that this happens equally distributed over the other gender.
The i would figure that nearly every women working in tech should have experienced such a thing, and nearly no male. So either men are over reporting, women are underreporting, or women are indeed making such advances more often. I personally think it is the women underreporting, but these numbers are dubious.
Women are six times more likely to encounter stereotyping than men
Translation: Affirmative Action hires can't do the work.
The typo eliminates the possibility of discussing the actual facts that support the writer's assertion.
Is it 6x more likely or 15% v. 20%? The author claimed both were true, which logically can't be true, so the reader is left to dismiss the report entirely or choose from the catalog of conflicting statement the one they want to agree with.
Ken
Ã'm not going to comment on the flawed statistics that underly many conclusions, but let's focus on one quote:
the work environment at many open source projects is not comfortable for women, with some going so far as to call it "toxic."
I think the "toxic" qualification is quite true in several projects. It's not that strange either; we're dealing with mostly volunteers here, people that feel very strongly about what they have created and that have an above average incidence of struggling with social interaction. However, it has nothing to do with being male or female. Nevertheless, the author choose to include the "Fig2. - Negative behavior in open source" graph. There's nothing scientific about this article, it's not "stuff that matters".
0x or or snor perron?!
It very well may be. You just need to find a male day care worker willing to go to court, argue that he's been harmed by being prevented from changing soiled diapers and demand that changing dirty diapers be made part of his daily routine.
The last study, that I saw, had the total pegged at 3% and that included the entirety of the 'not straight' group. That included bi, trans, gay, and everyone else who didn't identify as straight.
I suppose that number could have changed, but that's a pretty big change. If it has changed, it makes me curious if it hasn't really changed so much as people are just more comfortable admitting it. However, I guess that is digression.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
In the survey, 95 percent of respondents were men, with the response rate from women at only 3 percent -- a degree of under-representation that's not seen elsewhere in this study.
Seems like 2% of respondents choose to either not answer the gender question, were their responses factored into the calculations when arriving at gender difference conclusions?
Ken
Actually, 50% of stereotyping is from the left side and the other 50% of stereotyping is from the right side.
#DeleteFacebook
Maybe because there isn't a whole big problem with male nurses running into the idiotic bro-boys environment in a hospital environment.
First. The idea that women get stereotyped more than men if fucking idiotic. Every single person who thinks stereotypically about one gender does the same for the other gender. (Yes. There are two of them.)
.... There are a literal fuck ton of shit that we all have to get over being uncomfortable with. If you can not hack it, get out.
Next. Grow the fuck up. If being uncomfortable is a valid excuse for not doing a fucking job, nothing in this world would ever get done except for jacking it. Different people, bosses, people trying to climb the ladder of success over you back, new challenges, failures, responsibilities, business relationships
No one is after you. No one at work gives a fuck about you, your feelings or your well being. That is YOUR job.
Women lead fortune 500 companies, lead countries. If you are being held back it is just because you fucking suck.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You can try to enumerate why you see a 50/50 split. The one thing you put last, you should have put FIRST. Culture is the one thing that drives all the rest.
That is greater than the 3%, which I recently saw cited. I think it was actually like 2.7%. I also think it was a global study that provided the numbers in the recent cite.
So, your link says 4.1% which is still lower than 7%. Your link is only for the US, while GitHub is global(ish).
I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for. If a higher percentage of gay people are involved, than exists in society at large, it makes me think that the community may actually be more welcoming.
It seems likely, to me, that there would be a smaller percentage, if the community were less inclusive and welcoming. I may be missing something, but that seems more probable.
Then again, I'm a mathematician. Humans confuse me. ;-)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Oh shut the fuck up, snowflake
When you know you've lost the argument...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
Actually, more like air. Spoken about, but so pervasive you stop even noticing it.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Women are only exposed to the unpleasantness of the environment /after/ they have been recruited. There's no argument that a predominantly male (and perhaps a little on the socially underdeveloped male side of things) environment is one that most intelligent women prefer to avoid. Clearly its the reason that many women leave the profession after participating in it for a while but there are likely other reasons equally or more important for them not entering that environment in the first place. In other words, I don't think that the difficulty in recruiting women into tech, particularly IT/Computers/Software, is for the same reasons that women /leave/ tech after having worked in it. More facts, statistics (from 2017) and thoughts on the subject here: https://832412.wixsite.com/rum...
Not necessarily. It only takes one asshat, either as a perpetrator or as supposed victim to force the implementation of a code. I have seen cases where a group is working just fine until a hypersensitive asshat joins and makes work hell for everyone else, using the code and HR as leverage for special treatment.
Many of them would probably argue against the draft, but they'd argue against it for both men and women.
In any case, the draft is irrelevant ... conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
Yes, precisely; they don't mind saying they're in favour of an "equal draft" because they know it's unlikely to be used, and they know that in the case that any government were thinking about using it they could just protest it in it's entirety. And having women registered for the draft would make it even more difficult for a future government to actually put it into effect.
We can look at other inequality metrics though. How often have you heard feminists bemoan the lack of female coal miners? How vocal have they been in addressing the incredible overrepresentation of men in workplace deaths?
Sure, feminists will pay lip service to these things, just as they do to the inequality of the draft, but that's as far as it goes. It costs them nothing to say "yeah that's really unfair and we would like it changed". But they do nothing to actually address those issues because they're quite happy when it's men on the losing side of the bargain.
'nuf said. The vitriol of the comments supports the original claim.
Dipshits like you are the reason.
"uncomfortable" is the feeling you get when you see that a project has a Code of Conduct
So let's see then - we're trying to avoid making people feel uncomfortable, but you think that codes of conduct make people uncomortable - so you agree that codes of conduct are a bad thing? Or do you only care about making certain narrow, specific demographics uncomfortable and don't much care about the others?
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
to meet a quota?
Imagine knowing your position and salary is based completely on meeting a quota? How about this. Imagine being a legitimate candidate that has legitimate skills and looking for legitimate opportunities and wondering each day whether you were hired because you are you who are or because you had to fill a quota? Or wondering if everyone around is looking at you as someone who was hired because there was a quota to be met?
If I met any of the quota requirements which are being measured, I know I would intentionally avoid working anyplace who was in the press for trying to meet such quotas. I want my value to be measured based on who I am, not what I am. As a father of a wonderful (though a bit crazy) little girl who is now 13 years old, I hope that by the time she is done with the university, she will live in a world where she can apply for a job and be hired for being awesome... not female.
Sadly, at the rate this nonsense has been spreading, I fear that she'll never be given the chance to show the world how great she is because even if she's manages to walk on Mars, some asshole will publish an article saying "She was the first woman to walk on Mars" instead of saying "She was one of the first humans to walk on Mars".
Poor little white male, you have life so hard.
Why? If it had been a math mistake, sure, I'd understand it. Because Poe's Law I think. But these are two different categories.
Or you could just grow up and act professionally at work.
Well, not OP, but - in my two decades in this business, I’ve dealt with my share of jerks, idiots, and unreasonable or unpleasant people. But since I’m a white male, I don’t assume that they’re this way because I’m white or male, I just figure that’s the way they are, and I’ve learned how to avoid and navigate around those people. It just seems to me that far too many women jump to the conclusion that those people are treating them differently when the annoying reality of human interaction is that some people just won’t get along with other people. I’m all for trying to fix THAT problem, but focusing on walking on eggshells around women because they’re women won’t make that any better; if anything, it will (or has) make it worse.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
So, what you're saying is, you want to have babies?
Of course not. But there is the girl-equivalent of the "bro-boys environment".
Try under g for gibberish. Then look up yourself: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
Never seen? It's only never seen if you've got the vision of Mr. Magoo. It pops up constantly in the criminal justice system and divorce court. It's just because pieces of shit like you refuse to acknowledge it that it's "never seen."
In my experience, if someone wants to be offended by something you say to play the victim card, they will find something. So trying to tapdance around it and not "offend" is fruitless.
Appeasement never works.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, every bit as hard as people with other genders or skin colours.
Harder, if you want to examine basic shit like educational outcomes in the UK.
But that's ok, you keep your sarcastic racist sexist bigotry going. Just try and be honest about it.
The solution for this is easy: Boss, this person, or us. You can make the choice, but you'll make it NOW.
The fun part about working in ITsec is that there is nobody here who can't get a new job by snapping their fingers.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Only to assholes that contribute nothing of value to society.
It was hard not to notice that there were no specific examples in the article.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Even casual coders know ...
when their witch is on-the-go
and they need a cup-a-joe
gawdsakes woman back in the kitchen bitch and bake me a pie !
Funny how we don't hear much from these feminists against the draft/selective service as it currently stands since, you know, it only impacts men.
Please cite the New York law. I believe some daycares might have that policy, and it's probably illegal because it's sex discrimination.
Aw gee, not this shit again.
I think he's talking about a slurry of young horny men, and there being less of that slurry rather than fewer of the men.
Incorrect, they're the sort to start claiming that since White Men have the most privilege, THEY Should be the ones drafted and not women.
There are 3387 men and 125 women. Also, 3187 identified as straight, 246 gay or minority sexual orientation.
That makes a pool of 90%+ straight men as potential offenders of women. When you say women are "twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent)", you are cherry picking true data points, disregarding the context. Those poor 125 women do get harassed, there should be 0% on both sides, but having that said, the pools of potential offenders against potential victims on both sides of the gender wall are not equal. Those 3387 men do not harass has much per capita. I'm not really defending men, we've had things going in our favor since forever, but I do take issue with decontextualized data.
The last study, that I saw, had the total pegged at 3% and that included the entirety of the 'not straight' group. That included bi, trans, gay, and everyone else who didn't identify as straight.
I suppose that number could have changed, but that's a pretty big change. If it has changed, it makes me curious if it hasn't really changed so much as people are just more comfortable admitting it. However, I guess that is digression.
That was before it was "cool" to be a fudge packer or forest ranger.
"since it became fashionable to be gay"
I suppose the numbers went up when it stopped being considered criminal, and when it got less likely to get beaten up for being gay.
Answer me this: Could you become gay if it become really, really, fashionable? I couldn't. So the percentage of gay people who admit to it may be going up, but that is all.
[quote]and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances[/quote]
That's why I always ask women to submit a written and signed solicitation of my sexual advancing to the HR department before speaking to them socially.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Only 1 out of 100 programmers are good in general. Now consider how small the population of female programmers are in general.
The chances of finding a good and female programmer is almost impossible.
New York has a law preventing male daycare workers from changing diapers.
Citation? This bullshit assertion also throws into doubt everything you mention about your company.
Because a significant chunk of them are blue-haired (if not shave-headed), hairy armpitted, personal-hygiene-averse, misandrists with EPIC entitlement issues, inappropriate tatoos, no sense of decorum in speech or workplace-appropriate dress and a proverbial skin so thin that merely making eye contact and saying "good morning" is cause for them to sue you and your employer for condoning misogynist rape culture, if they're feeling lazy and don't decide to accuse you and every man in the office (including the owner) of gang raping her.
And even ONE encounter with someone like this is enough to cause employers to involuntarily shy away from other women in the future, just on the off chance that said prospect might lose her mind in the selfsame way.
Calling something irrelevant because it hasn't been used in 40 years may not be the most enlightened approach. Both my penis and nuclear weapons would disagree. (Joking on that first part)
The American Association of Men in Nursing would like a word with you about the lack of men in nursing careers.
"There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are PLENTY of people who care about the lack of men in nursing careers, and who are actively trying to increase the number of men in that field.
You just don't hear about it, because:
1) You do your best to remain ignorant because it doesn't suit your biased worldview;
2) You don't hang out in places where the nursing industry is discussed. I guarantee that on the nursing equivalent of Slashdot, there's discussions about how to get more men interested in nursing.
This canard gets trotted out every fucking time this topic comes up, and it's roundly debunked every time, and the MRA's keep on coming back shouting about how nobody talks about the lack of men in nursing. How you get "Interesting" mods is beyond me.
"But as a women I find this is not a safe place and that's why we aren't as many".
But then as a man it is? Or is it implying most males are sex predators?
The bottom line is that there are simply less women doing these jobs. The reasons why don't seem to be well backed up or documented. It seems to just be looking for clicks.
"Hello, random Iranian man - are you gay?"
"No! No gays in Iran!"
"Well, we better stop asking there - we have it on good authority that Iran, where you can be executed for being gay, doesn't have any gay people."
"Sounds good. Iran - 100% straight. This survey gets easier and easier!"
"Where next, Russia?"
"Yeah, I don't think there's many gays there, either. That ought to make this survey super easy."
If you don't see how a "global survey of who's gay" could report significantly lower numbers than the reality, you're trying really hard to ignore reality.
Code of conduct are there to show how righteous we are - and in some case as a PR protection "yes X did Z but look its against our rules of conduct we did not condone this" (since even if they did not condone this, nobody will "believe" that as it's much more exciting to believe they're all terrible people - pretty hard to do when there's a code of conduct though...)
There are some lesser side effects such as people policing anything they find in some projects, or trying to portrait things in a bad light even when they know nothing bad as intended. "YOU CALLED THIS FUNCTION SLAVE_WORKER() YOU NEED TO BE BANNED RIGHT NOW".
Hope that wasn't too pragmatic.
Reverse discrimination is an intellectual abstract that's given a name. When you name something, you can use it as a weapon.
Just for example, I see a lot of people yelling and accusing people of "white entitlement" when they see something they don't like. On examining discussions, I've seen nothing entitled in the propositions.. In other words, it's mainly being used as a weapon by people not actually investigating anything, and used as a character attack (occasionally as an ad-hominem).
I've also seen minority rights activists yell out in discussions, and every single point struck home on a checklist for "entitlement syndrome". Yet you're not allowed to call it a "black entitlement", because, of course, that would be racist, and racism isn't something that the minorities are allowed to be (no matter how hard some try).
A closer approximation (from what I've observed) is that all sides of discussions have embedded entitlements, privileges and so on. Usually, the most "entitled" in each group yells the loudest that they want all the privileges of the other groups, along with keeping ones that are for 'their side' just for 'their side'.
And all of these groups yell at reasonably unbiased people and accuse them (usually unfairly) of exhibiting the various problem behaviours, simply because they don't agree with the biased frame of reference of the accuser.
There's interesting research going on now related to how bad this is, and how much it creates oversensitivity to the issues, dividing people and polarising issues, such that things like skin colour or sex (which in theory shouldn't matter in an equal society) become obsessed over, and are part of every decision, whether pro or con.
From what I've gleaned so far, there is an initial phase where a 'grand recalibration' needs to occur, in which case, activism can be beneficial. And a point that when momentum is gained, it heads to a reasonably balanced equilibrium.. Further activism at this point achieves very little, and is actually counterproductive, and can cause other problems to arise because of this behaviour.
So, I'd dispute the 'reverse discrimination' bit and simply say that 'Discrimination is like air'. Everyone uses it, some more than others.. You want to keep it clean and healthy and at a level that lets everyone get on with doing the job in hand.
How do solicited sexual advances work? If one were to go up to someone and "solicit" such that when they make a sexual advance it is deemed "solicited" what prevents the act of soliciting itself from being construed as an unsolicited advance?
Who really sees a difference between the following phrases?
"Hey babe lets hang out"
"Hey babe is it ok if I ask you to hang out?"
Is there a practical difference between "sexual advance" and "unsolicited sexual advance" or do people just throw in the word "unsolicited" so their position superficially seems more nuanced and reasonable?
Does it make you curious or bi-curious?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Coal mining: http://careerminer.infomine.co...
At least one organization is doing their part: "Increasing the participation of women is, however, one of the key goals of the Australian Mining Industry – mainly due to the skills shortage experienced in the sector."
Workplace deaths? Really, I wasn't aware that "dying on the job" was a profession. I don't think ANY feminist would argue that workplace safety shouldn't be important - regardless of who dies. I think that the fact that more men die on the job is related to the fact that men have, historically, tended to dominate hazardous jobs, which means they were disproportionately exposed to hazardous working conditions. Assuming safety protocols stay the same, as women participation in hazardous jobs - like say, coal mining in Australia! - their share of the workplace deaths will increase and we'll achieve a more equitable distribution of deaths.
It's trivially easy to disprove your assertion that "nobody's talking about how few women are in mining." But, that doesn't play well with your MRA idiocy, so... yeah, you'll ignore this data.
I get the feeling you've never encountered the lunatic fringe of the left.
A lot of people spend years going "I don't understand why people are suddenly so tired of feminism!!"
and then they meet some group of pink haired crazies included a balding bearded fat man in mens clothes who prefers to be called "her" and you're a nazi if you don't.
And they're all "holy shit".
I went to evergreen state college I suggest you go and google the insanity that's happening there right now, 18 year old students have taken over the college and it is sadly not an exaggeration that some of the leaders of this group of people have demanded no homework because homework is racist. They also denied the president of the college a request to pee after being held in his office for hours
Or you could just grow up and act professionally at work.
Why are you coming down on him? Maybe he was just born that?
The numbers could also be off from surveying college kids that all just want to inflate the numbers, gotta push the narrative.
I've been wondering, what do these gender fluids put on their tax returns anyways?
Oh right, none of them are likely to get hired, LOL.
Really, is that how human behavior works?
Because I recall a time when alcohol was made illegal, and that only increased it's consumption.
Sorry, but that is the truth.
Woosh.
But yeah. That's one of the major failings of modern civil rights movements. They haven't quite got their organizational groupthink around the concept of "the wheel always turns" so their system for "balancing the scales" hasn't been tested when the scales tilt the otehr way and most of them will fail miserably at the challenge.
The thing is that it's not completely wrong that the symptoms of discrimination against men are actually caused by the same mysogyny as discrimination against women. Most of the things that men "aren't allowed to do" are viewed as such because men aren't supposed to "lower themselves" to do feminine things. And from that point of view it IS still "discrimination against women".
It's be nice if more feminists were good at communicating THAT message, as it'd be easier to get men working towards the shared goal of eliminating the underlying cause of all gender discrimination if instead of brishing off men's concerns they could show how they're already working to solve those problems and suggest that they could use additional allies.
You may not want to be part of the projects, but it is practically unavoidable that you use projects that have a code of conduct. Even the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has a code of conduct and they publish a lot of important bits.
"and twice as likely to be subjected to unsolicited sexual advances (6 vs 3 percent)"
Given that the average man has up to 20 times as much sexual drive as the average female I'd venture those numbers are dramatically better than in the general population and most other industries.
Women have brains that are wired in a way that gives them an advantage in social intelligence. People like things they are they good at and dislike things they aren't especially good at. What about having a big chunk of your brainpower focused on social dynamics suggests a person will WANT to work in tech? I've worked with plenty of women in tech, some have been quite talented and some have been worthless. Actually just like the males most are somewhere inbetween. I haven't seen any sign of discrimination. There might be one or two women in an office of 40 but only 1 or 2 female applicants in a stack of 40 for an open position.
There are female dominated industries as well. I honestly think this big push is less about equality and more about using equality to disguise a massive effort to double the workforce and weaken the bargaining position of those who work in this industry. Women entering the workforce en mass has disrupted our economy heavily because it doubled the supply of workers while having only the same demand. The result is in most industries two earners equate to the standard of living that one earner used to bring to a family. Women not being interested in tech means in that field a single earner can often provide a reasonable standard of living in a home. There are enough people to fill the jobs, the industry would just like them to individually be lower paid and in less strong of a bargaining position.
In any case, the draft is irrelevant. Not only haven't we used it in 40 years (since before you were even born, most likely), it's very unlikely we'll ever use it again. Conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
Yes, Selective Service is a good example of wasteful government programs that should be eliminated.
Were the draft to actually be instituted, and applied to women, I suspect you would hear these brave justice warriors singing a much different tune.
I suspect you're completely wrong, in fact I'm quite sure of it. "Vocal feminists" may not often be the same sort of women who voluntarily join the military, but they absolutely are the sort of women who would despise any woman who tried to use her gender to avoid being drafted. Many of them would probably argue against the draft, but they'd argue against it for both men and women.
In any case, the draft is irrelevant. Not only haven't we used it in 40 years (since before you were even born, most likely), it's very unlikely we'll ever use it again. Conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
It depends.
I suspect they typical YouTube feminist would gladly hide behind any excuse to avoid the draft blatant hypocrisy or not. They are after all the people who cancel appearances because of hate-mail and the like. They are in my observations cowards who want attention and to "make a difference" but are unwilling to take personal risks or sacrifice for their beliefs. The peers of Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and Susan Anthony they are not.
That is not however the same this as "all outspoken feminists".
Any non hypocritical feminist who truly believed in gender equality would either speak out about the draft in general, not juts dodge it themselves or speak out only if it affected women, or accept the responsibility of defending the liberties they hold dear alongside their male counterparts.
I've had the opposite experience. Most organizations that I've worked for bent over backwards for female developers of very dubious quality.
I used to work with one who said everything was too hard, even if I'd already done the work. She was always agitating to purchase some expensive tool or library because she couldn't read MSDN or work her way through even the simplest of problems. She would dither about over how I used underscores in variable names or put my brackets on the "wrong" lines as she struggled to get anything to compile. The old lady in charge of the department, and didn't know jack herself, just kept blaming a series of contractors as deadline after deadline flew by.
Because most women are more nitpicky than my boss?
You may be on to something here. I was accused of being sexist (through a third party) by a former coworker because I "avoided" her.
I avoid all my co-workers.
Of course if I had heard this directly we could have resolved the misunderstanding. "There is no bigotry here, you are all equally worthless."
Though perhaps I subconsciously did avoid the feminist one more to avoid that exact awkward conversation. Same reason I avoid my extremely left or right wing coworkers.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Part of the reason for the 3%-vs-6%-vs-10%+ divergence is probably geography. Gays who can leave hostile communities & move to more accepting places (San Francisco, New York, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, etc) usually DO by the time they're in their mid-20s (partly because college campuses are generally tolerant, and the thought of EVER going back to their redneck hometown is just inconceivable). So, a survey of developers in San Francisco would almost unquestionably turn up a MUCH larger percentage of gays than a survey of developers in the Bible Belt. You'd probably find a statistically-significant bump in the percentage of black developers in Atlanta or DC (cities with large, visible middle/upper-class historically-black communities).
You'd probably also see more female developers in SF or NY than other cities. Female developers are less common than male developers, so *brilliant* female developers will have companies like Google & Facebook rolling out the red carpet and out-bidding competitors in an attempt to hire every female genius they possibly can, reducing the available pool for everyone else.
Another factor that's not often considered: a smart female developer with young kids might trade a high salary for flexibility of work arrangements... The same deal might be offered to male employees, but unless they're single parents, they'd be more likely to prefer a high salary. Context is everything. As a society, we'd be WORSE off if mothers & single dads with young kids were forced to choose long-term unemployment over lower-paying (but more flexible) jobs.
Indeed, and progressives are just screaming racism and sexism even harder and eat their own as they shed members and allies instead of looking inward at their own hypocrisy. Ghost In The Shell? 'It's absolutely disgusting whitewashing to let a white actor play an Asian role! The race of the original character matters!'. Hamilton? 'Color-blind casting is wonderful, anyone who complains about a black or Hispanic actor being cast as a white character is a disgusting racist!'. Few female CEOs? Huge problem. Few male teachers? Good, because they'd just molest the kids anyway.
Then the other day I read this absolutely infuriating article bemoaning that more women were being imprisoned as they started to face the same punishment as men, and the solution was that even when a woman commits the same exact crime as a man, he should be imprisoned and she should not, and that women should almost never be imprisoned period. The author and almost all the commenters made it clear anyone who thought this was unfair was a sexist. Then on a blog post elsewhere criticizing the article, a sitting US Federal District Judge (Richard Kopf) jumped into the comments to say they yeah the article was bullshit, women shouldn't face no sentence when a man committing the same crime does, she should just face a lesser sentence because she's a woman. Un-fucking-believable, yet of course if this offends your sense of fairness, you're labeled a sexist and thrown out of the progressive clubhouse. The problem is it's no longer about equality, it's about reversing the systemic racism and sexism of the past so that it now favors women and minorities as the advantaged groups.
I'm a hard believer in absolute equality, believing that everything should be merit-based and sex and color blind. Apparently in the last 10 years or so this has changed from making me progressive to making me a sexist racist, since it also means I don't believe in not being white or not being male as something that should be taken into account in determining merit.
/rant
From TFS:
Aside from the fact that this stereotypes men as "makers of unwanted advances", I suppose someone should point out that men are generally willing to consider sexual advances from women without any associated panic. If those advances are not being made, where's the real discrimination, eh?
Face it: men pretty much have to do all the put-foot-forward work because women don't do much (hardly any) of it, and the PC toxin is that this is now supposedly a bad thing. Which, frankly, is an idiotic conflict of interest.
How about women learn to just say "no thanks, not interested" and quit bitching like little children who can't manage their own sexuality.
You ask me if I want to go on a date, or have sex, or if I'll dress special for you, I will not panic or scream about "unwanted" whatever. I'll just tell you yes or no and go on with life. There's no reason at all women can't do this. Other than claims they are special butterflies inherently different from men... which they keep telling us, very loudly and insistently, that they are not.
Why?
Dicks don't suck themselves. That's why.
Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
Actually, more like air. Spoken about, but so pervasive you stop even noticing it.
Ironically, so pervasive you stop even noticing it is pretty much the defining feature of white privilege.
If you think reverse discrimination is so pervasive you stop even noticing it, then congratulations, and welcome, to the other side of privilege. This is what the other half has always been experiencing, for generations.
Yep, it's trivially easy to disprove a strawman. Certainly much easier than addressing what I actually said.
for generations
The generations that were born and died before me? Yes, I'm well aware that I'm being made to pay for things that people who died 100 years ago supposedly did.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Quit complaining and go get a job as a comedian with all your paychecks cut by WHITE MEN...you'll be much happier.
You're comparing consumption of alcohol with freely admitting homosexuality, when it would be more apt to compare it to practicing homosexuality. If your point is that criminalization wouldn't eliminate homosexual acts, you're right. If your point is that criminalization wouldn't effect the rate of openly-homosexual persons, you are retarded.
Never go grammar nazi in a defectively written sentence.
What it suggests, to me, is that the community is far more welcoming than credited for.
It's much more welcoming. I don't understand all the accusations against tech people for discrimination. If you want to see real sexism, look at salespeople or doctors or bankers. They create truly hostile environments, it is well documented, and yet no one focuses on them. Instead, it's all on tech. Why?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
According to this women don't like to participate in open source projects because "rudeness" and "name calling" JA JA JA JA JA so they are saying that women are weak and can't work in aggressive environment because feelings.
That doesn't follow. Unwanted can have many root causes. And the "calculation" involved in an advance is generally "I would like to know this person." Wait too long, you may lose to someone quicker on the draw. Wait, and you miss opportunities, even when you eventually succeed; every day, once gone, is gone forever.
If you are a desirable person, then you're going to be desired.
Your point about power dynamic vs. advances is very (probably most) important and will remain relevant even if women learn to shoulder an equal load in the "making advances" category. This is a potential problem in any structured authority system. Generally speaking, the most effective solutions involve only starting relationships at one's own level of authority.
However, this is not a panacea. My SO's father married his own secretary. My SO was one of my students. Both relationships are very long term (many decades) and have proven to be quite healthy and strong. Authority mismatch is not always an impediment or a bad thing; but the potential for it being a bad thing is much higher than with an equal level person / peer.
Best thing, IMHO, is that women learn to be initiators so that men don't have to do it the majority of the time. Then we can expect to be approached if we're desired, and we won't have to always be approaching women who may not want to be approached.
And yes, of course, politeness, consideration, and a willingness to accept whatever answer is given are important for all involved.
No one should support rude approaches. But when they occur, and they will, don't escalate. Be polite and withdraw as quickly and effectively as possible.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, changing diapers is disgusting ... so, YAY! On the other hand, sexism ... BOO!
Unless the developer uses an alias that is super female sounding, like "KittenLove_xoxo"
Dammit.
Because women are underrepresented, so they have to make up some way to explain the disparity, and Teh Patriarchy helps them push the overarching narrative.
The feminists I know want women to be on the draft...
Do you know this because they tell you, or is it demonstrated through their actions?
It's a bit difficult to trust this when Internet Feminism creates terms like 'toxic masculinity' and 'male fragility.'
Nothing fosters unity better than paying attention to others' problem only long enough to make them about you. Please, tell me how my brother's suicide was actually because of catcalling, let's fight this problem by writing articles about manspreading, let's end gender roles and tweet about MRAs' 'male fragility.'
I am a Turing complete system. The minor syntax error was not a problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I was amused by the "unwanted sexual advances" part. Given current social expectations, that number is gibberish. It's also unclear if it's anything to actually be concerned about.
On the other hand, without such stuff the local COBOL programmer might still be working in the field rather than being a very respectable housewife.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> You mean that when the middle class became so poor that they couldn't afford to have a servant take care of the children the laws changed? What a surprise!
The middle class originally referred to merchants, not wage slaves. What you think of the middle class really isn't.
You're all just different levels of the working class.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
> Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
No. It's seen. But if you say anything about it you get made fun of.
We're all equal but some are more equal than others. It's like that other book by Orwell that Democrats keep using like a manual.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Indeed, and progressives ...
Few male teachers? Good, because they'd just molest the kids anyway.
I like your tactic: if you can't find something about progressives that you don't like, you just invent things they've done.
The author and almost all the commenters made it clear anyone who thought this was unfair was a sexist. Then on a blog post elsewhere criticizing the article, a sitting US Federal District Judge (Richard Kopf) jumped into the comments to say they yeah the article was bullshit, women shouldn't face no sentence when a man committing the same crime does, she should just face a lesser sentence because she's a woma
Don't happen to have a link to that there curious claim?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
This is why liberals have to dissemble about Silicon Valley and racial equality. They have to actively suppress information about certain races in order to make their narrative work. They have to pretend non-whites are white.
Some people even hide their non-white racial/ethnic origin in order to avoid reverse discrimination. It's not just for cracker tea baggers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
1) Here's a reason why it's hard to recruit women developers in Silicon Valley: Native-born Americans here are gradually being replaced with people from other countries, especially from India. Most of my neighbors are immigrants from India. (Most of the rest of my neighbors are from China.) In the families from India, the men go to work, and the women stay home. If most of the people living near your company practice a culture in which the women stay home, it's harder to recruit women as employees.
2) Regarding keeping the women developers: The men that I know are good people, and wouldn't harass a woman. However she might feel uncomfortable being the only woman at work, and not feel as if she fit in. Protect people from harassment, but don't go overboard and punish a guy for nicely asking a woman out one time.
3) Our goal should be equal opportunity, not equal results. Make sure that men and women have equal opportunity to learn, equal treatment when they apply for a job, and equal treatment at work. Then if a woman decides she wants or doesn't want to work as a developer, that's her decision.
No true feminist... And yet here we are, continuing to require all males 18 years of age to register for selective services and no requirement for women.
In my experience, when I was with medical technology companies, there was the largest percentage of women in software and hardware roles compared to other places I have worked. Speculation, but I can see two reasons, one of which is the concept you have of "greater good" however that is also a strong motivator for many men also. A second large reason is networking - if you've got a sizeable number of women already it becomes easier to recruit other women.
In other jobs though, larger companies tended to have more women in general, smaller companies fresh out of startup mode tended to be very hghly male dominated. An early computer support job I was at had a very good representation of system admins who were female, but this was the 80s.
I'd prefer to start with children of congress members being first in line to be drafted. That would put a quick halt to war hawk mentalities.
And yet just about every company in the US has a code of conduct.
And just about every place of employment you can complain to HR and they will pull out their book of rules and codes of conduct and find a way to deal with that person. The asshat is only going to be kept around if no one complains or he's friends with a CEO or founder.
We haven't had a draft in 43 years. We've had almost continuous war since then. Bzzzt.
Why?
Hmm... I /really/ hate to hazard a guess. In fact, I'm pretty sure that any answer I give will be wrong, to at least a portion of the population.
So, of course, I'm going to do it.
I suspect it's because the tech community is seen as being populated by geeks/nerds. It's also /perceived/ that the jobs are trivial to do. Geeks/nerds are also seen as 'wimpy' and 'pushovers.'
I'll let you point your own fingers, name your own names, and conclude what you want. However, that's my guess as to the why. Tech makes good money (perceptually) and all tech does is (perceptually) push buttons all day. It's not like tech is populated by (perceptually) people who are going to stand up for themselves. They've been bullied since high school.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Looks like a snowflake got triggered! White male tears are the tastiest.
95 + 3 != 100. The two numbers in the article should add up to 100, as respondents that aren't male are therefore female.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
> the non-written laws of common courtesy have left the building ages ago.
I get where you are coming from, but the reality of a very diverse bunch of contributors means that what is considered common courtesy (and thus what can be considered acceptable behaviour) can be shockingly different, depending on cultural upbringing (class, geography, gender, etc.)
What I consider minimal professional behaviour can be considered stick-up-one's-butt political correctness by others (and not necessarily just male others, either).
A code of conduct helps an informal organization make it clear what "common courtesy" means to all its members. A useful thing as the monoculture many of us grew up with disappears.
Unreasonable people won't need a code of conduct to be unreasonable. Then again, if someone was genuinely offended by my use of a term, I'm happy to switch it to something less upsetting. That's just basic consideration.
But a code of conduct can help define minimal expectations from a culturally diverse crowd that might otherwise offend each other without intention of doing so.
I find people who hate arbitrary codes of conduct to be the most pleasurable to work with. I know that they have a sense of humour, and can get into a heated argument without throwing around words like sexism, racism, and discrimination.
Like you, I'm a middle-class, straight, white male. I'm never going to be the subject or sexism, racism or discrimination, and there's certainly freedom in excluding anyone who doesn't share my cultural context. Indeed, it's often pleasant to work in a monoculture where I can assume that everyone takes things in exactly the way I meant them. Where, because I'm not a raging jerk, it's automatically someone else's fault if they're offended by by anything I say or do.
However, in the real world, I am expected to be a grown up and deal with people from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. I am expected to be mature enough to understand that just because I didn't mean to be racist or sexist doesn't mean my words or actions weren't offensive.
Sure, there are jerks of all stripes. But I find that if I've decided that everyone who I've offended is a "social justice snowflakes who go whining to the boss and/or media at the slightest perceived provocation", then one of those jerks is me.
I suppose the numbers went up when it stopped being considered criminal, and when it got less likely to get beaten up for being gay.
I'm pretty sure homosexuality wasn't considered criminal or more likely to get you beat up in the U.S. in 2012, yet the numbers have risen since then (according to that Gallup poll anyway).
Answer me this: Could you become gay if it become really, really, fashionable?
No, but I could certainly *pretend* to be gay if it got me a movie role, financial benefit, or significant social clout. I might even be able to convince *myself* that I'm gay if there was enough social pressure on me, or enough benefit to it.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
That's the problem, I said "children of congress members" need to be drafted. They need a built in incentive to stop war, as opposed to not worrying about an all volunteer enlisted pool coming most often from an economically disadvantaged background being the only ones putting their lives on the line.
The draft did have a part in ending the Vietnam War as too many people knew too many friends, family, and neighbors who were getting drafted and killed. And that was with most children of legislators getting a free pass or opportunity to serve the draft state side. It would have ended much sooner if the people in power pushing for war were losing their own children.
I like your tactic: if you can't find something about progressives that you don't like, you just invent things they've done.
No, he's got a point. Sure, not all "progressives" have that particular viewpoint, but just because you don't doesn't mean none do. And I use that term loosely because it's a total BULLSHIT term. When somebody identifies as progressive, what they're really saying is that they think their opinions on any given matter are all forward thinking, and every contrary opinion is backwards, even if that other person identifies as progressive.
Just to give you perspective, Prohibitionists, KKK members, and Nazis have all identified themselves as being progressive at one point or another. Why? Because they're assfucks who can't stand anybody who has a different opinion, just like today's so called progressives who go so far as to implement censorship of unpopular viewpoints at major universities, which are otherwise supposed to be bastions of free speech, no matter the viewpoint.
I prefer people to use common sense. I know, I know, it ain't as common as it used to be, but if people have to rely on it and not get to skirt written laws and test how far they can stretch them, they usually are more polite.
There's a simple rule: Don't be a dick. What's a dick? I know one when I see one. Now get to work!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Where in a professional environment do you have to tell a raunchy joke or drop a racial slur?
So how could you possibly even get into hot waters, no matter what might be considered common decency?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
because if it isn't 50/50 across the board it must be discrimination. That's their logic anyway.
No such thing as reverse discrimination.
What you're talking about is discrimination against politically correct targets to attack.
In 1938, it was politically correct to attack Jews. That didn't work out well.
In 1960, it was politically correct to attack blacks. That didn't work out well.
In 1980, it was politically correct to attack gays. That didn't turn out well.
Bigots of any stripe may hide behind their political correctness, but hating someone because of their gender, sexual orientation, or race and trying to get away with it because it is politically correct is still wrong.
...prove the point of the summary.
That is just dumb to say!
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
The commentary here is representative of the undereducated and uneducated on matters more complex then declaring a variable and writing a method. Very sad and indicative of exactly why this kind of study was done in the first place. Grow up or do us all (men, women and gender neutrals) a favor and find employment in a different sector.
Sure, not all "progressives" have that particular viewpoint, but just because you don't doesn't mean none do.
That's a silly argument because it applies to just about any group offer about 5 people. I could equally say you're a man, that guy over there said something stupid, therefore my criticisms of him apply to you.
Also, the counter to progressive is conservative. Progressives generally want things changed, conservatives think the best option is keeping things as they are. In principle. Except it almost never works like that. Many conservatives actually want things to change into a Christian theocracy of sorts.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Im wondering aboutthe efacacy of restricting this study to open source developers. Developing what exactely? IT products, games, systems software, 3d VR? Need to really look more at "mainstream tech" to detrrmine correlation or deviation For example, most "web dev" now is HTML, Javascript, angular, jquery, etc. Is "that" open source? Technically yes, but effectively no.3
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Know how I know you are ignorant?
Because there are efforts to get more men into nursing and more men into early childhood adjacent roles (pre-k and elementary teaching) positions.
Why does some stupid motherfucker always say that no one is concerned about those roles when it is trivial to google and discover that, indeed, people are concerned about not enough men being in those roles.
Why, it's almost as if those stupid motherfuckers are trying to push an agenda or something.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Does your skull bend light?
I've never heard that before. Love it. I'm laughing so hard right now.
There are big ego's in the tech field? And they are often rude to people they consider less awesome than themselves? This can't possibly be true.
People don't play well in teams sometimes? Really? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Clearly it's all because of race/gender/LGBT issues and not because humans of different age and maturity levels have had the same issues for the last thousand years or so. THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!!!
There are snowflakes who run to HR the moment they feel the least bit of pressure? And Catbert is oh, so concerned. Please...
Ten percent of the people do 90% of the work, and often get paid more than the other 90%? THAT'S SO UNFAIR! It doesn't force mediocrity on everyone! THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW!!!
Murphy was an optimist
Try working with some liberal cunt for five minutes in IT.
It's not politically incorrect, it's just fucking moronical in the extreme.
Let's think, hm, I wonder why it is that now that it is no longer criminal to be gay and there are legal protections in place to protect people who are known to be gay from discrimination in some places, that more people would identify as gay.
I'll say it again without the sarcasm because you are obviously too fucking stupid to understand:
The number of people *openly* identifying as gay (or transgendered too) has been growing steadily BECAUSE IT ISN'T FUCKING ILLEGAL TO BE GAY ANYMORE and because there are laws (in some jurisdictions) preventing discrimination by fucking morons like you against people who are gay.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Are you seriously this fucking stupid?
It isn't like gayness was decriminalized and suddenly everyone in the US was like "oh, it's cool that people are gay even though previously I hated them and think they are abominations in the eyes of god and would fucking kill my kid if he was to come out as a fag".
It was decriminalized, and some protections were put in place, but there are still people who HATE gay folk (many of them in politics, at least one of them is the Vice Fucking President).
Gee, do you think that even though it isn't criminal some people might still have a problem being openly gay? It's not exactly hard to understand, unless one is - like you - an absolute and utter fucking moron.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
It is, but IT people don't usually change diapers during work so it doesn't affect the workplace in question.
Never adminned a Windows Server based shop, I see.
I've heard a lot about the shortage of male nurses, although not so much babysitters.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not so sure about that. This isn't the first time we've had high-tech militaries compared to what we had. Consider the introduction of indirect-fire artillery and radios and complicated vehicles. We dramatically expanded the size of the army before and during WWII using conscription while using more advanced technology than we'd had.
The goal of high tech is usually to make things more effective and ideally easier on the user, at the cost of greater initial cost. It may require a group of geniuses to devise a cool new device, but it may be easy for the average conscript to use.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If members of a project aren't already naturally abiding by any reasonable Code of Conduct, I don't want to be part of that project.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Lol, being confronted with the truth makes you ANGRY, huh?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I wonder why it is that now that it is no longer criminal to be gay and there are legal protections in place to protect people who are known to be gay from discrimination in some places, that more people would identify as gay.
As I said above, I'm pretty sure homosexuality wasn't considered criminal in the U.S. in 2012, yet the numbers have risen since then (according to that Gallup poll anyway).
Sorry to challenge the dogma.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
What if it isn't about the gay? I bet there are a higher number of magicians in Github as well. And car modders. And anything else that makes one unattractive to the opposite sex and or ostracizes one from one's peer group. Coding provides an outlet for people who couldn't make it in society otherwise.
And that includes myself.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Ah, so you're a troll then - please, do go on about your sad little existence.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Because there aren't any. They are urban legend!
Github wanted to host a conference.
Apparently the speakers were chosen "blind", i.e. the proposed topics were put to a panel without any details about who the speaker was who'd be presenting that topic. That way the panel was able to choose the speakers for the event without knowing their names, sex, race, sexual orientation or anything else about them. They were choosing purely on the topics the speakers wanted to present.
Result: a whole lot of fucking white males!
Obviously that's unacceptable, so naturally they had to cancel the conference rather than host a lineup of speakers chosen purely on merit. /s
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensR...
Being a part of that community, but fairly "normal" by most metrics, I'm inclined to think the group is actually pretty welcoming. Hell, there are furries and bronies, and they're judged by the quality of their code submissions.
I'm a very poor coder, a hack job coder - more than anything, and yet I'm accepted. Trust me, you don't want my code - unless you *really* can't find a better source. Yet, they'll take something like my "fix" and make it better. I love that they explain what changes they made - and why. I love that they're grateful for my spotting a mistake and trying to fix it. I love that I've been made to feel welcome, for a long time - even if my code hasn't improved that much. ;-)
(I'm not a professional programmer. I'm a retired mathematician.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
And usually so we know what kind of behaviour we cannot expect from HR or the C-Levels.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think you're take on this is correct. Most opposition to women in combat came from outside the Pentagon
This is also on point. The Pentagon has no use for a draft anymore
Conscription isn't compatible with the needs of a high-tech military.
I'm not so sure about that. This isn't the first time we've had high-tech militaries compared to what we had.
A number of nations that have a high tech military have semi-mandatory military service, such as Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Greece, Austria, and Israel. Of these, I believe Norway and Israel are the only two that are gender-neutral.
Further, many other high tech nations reserve the right to use conscription in time of war.
The reality of warfare is that it often is a screwed up mess, and many things that seem logically "obvious" to the armchair general turn out to be very hard. High technology options may not be sustainable in an extended serious conflict, especially if something occurs that compromises industrial production (such as a natural disaster, or something political).
Just try and be a straight fashion designer.
I was once bitching about the price of ladies swimwear. Was challenged to 'make one'...refused to even try it on. Made of clear plastic wrap, dental floss and clear tape, it was a thing of beauty, I've been denied millions by their heterophobia.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Words change meaning. Liberal once meant 'in favor of liberty', not for 200 years though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Or the boss is positioning the company for sale and wants seat warmers, knowing he'll be gone before the shit hits the fan.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Dicks, pussies and assholes...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, precisely; they don't mind saying they're in favour of an "equal draft" because they know it's unlikely to be used, and they know that in the case that any government were thinking about using it they could just protest it in it's entirety.
The above sentence is almost true... but terribly misleading and false because of that.
It's false because it claims that feminists would only support equality because they won't be drafted, and implies that they would only protest the draft if they might be drafted. Neither of those things are true. What is true is (a) they support equality in all things (including the draft), (b) many of them oppose the draft. There's no basis for implying any causal connection between those, any more than there is for implying that they would protest the draft because the oppose anti-abortion laws. Many of the same people who oppose the draft are also pro-choice, but not because one thing really has anything to do with the other; both just arise from a common philosophical basis (well, actually more of a common cultural basis).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Professional environment?
At the titie bar, at lunch with my co-workers...the raunchy joke not the slur. Or at the tittie bar, near the hotel, while on the road with the company president. Or at the tittie bar near the airport, while waiting out a long delay. Strippers are professionals...
BTW Have you ever tried to get a receipt from a stripper, for tips from gyno row? They really ought to have them tucked into their panties.
Women aren't even going to want to be invited, we speak in code about it anyhow. Once, one of them figured out what 'free lunch' ment, saw the sign I guess.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Also, the counter to progressive is conservative. Progressives generally want things changed, conservatives think the best option is keeping things as they are.
Is that so? Well then, explain to me why so called progressives go out of their way to censor speech at universities in order to maintain the status quo.
But, don't bother. The thing is, this line you gave? Also total bullshit. Self identified conservatives want to change things all the time (for example, banning abortion is on their bucket list, and that by definition would be a change.) Progressives also resist change on many topics (as another example, they want to prohibit full incorporation of second amendment rights.)
Woman here. Do you want to know why women don't like to get involved in open source, or date people from work?
1. We're busy.
2. Just look at the comments on this thread. Half of you are discussing the best way to "f***" us. NO.
3. My name is No, my sign is No, my number is No, you need to let it go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMTAUr3Nm6I
If you think feminists are actually concerned about there being far more female teachers than male, or that there's not bias against men in childcare roles because of pedophilia paranoia, you haven't been paying attention.
I do in fact have links to that "curious" claim. The original article is here... sub-headline being "Sentencing systems around the world should be radically reformed to start with the assumption that women should not be sent to prison for their crimes"
And the blog post discussing that article with the comment by Judge Kopf (who, to be fair, is normally a very reasonable guy and one of the better federal judges) is here.
Most estimates have actual gays - whether openly or not - around 10%
7% openly gay would mean that the last 3% are still afraid to come out.
You appear to be in violent agreement story of part of my post while ignoring the point in the first half. Would you like to try again?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
High technology survived in early WWI, despite nobody having an appropriate industrial base. The British lacked the ability to make enough machine guns, and all armies struggled with ammo shortages. High tech can get strained, but I haven't seen it go away.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The point of your first part would have more relevance if progressives aren't frequently caught applying the same argument themselves.
I mean, a great deal of protest against Trump was that because *some* people supporting Trump are racist/sexist/homophobic/deplorable, if you support Trump, you are also somehow deplorable.
There's that memtastic video of Carl the cuck and Aids Skillrex shouting "you're a white male" as if that's some sort of rational retort.
During the GamerGate debacle, we have people who dismiss any and all concerns from people who associate with the label, simply because a few (allegedly, AFAIK nobody's been caught and charged) people harassed and sent death threats.
While we did point out that many major racists, sexists, and other bigots were voting for Trump, it was part of a warning that Trump is actually a racist, sexist, piece of shit, and if it wasn't obvious from his actions, then it should have been obvious from the fact people from David Duke to Richard Spenser were embracing his candidacy and describing him as a fellow traveler.
Who?
No, we rejected the concerns because they were bullshit. We also pointed out that Gamergate's participants comprised of a large group that were harassing, at various levels, from dogpiling and other Internet obnoxiousness, to death threats and SWATing, women on the Internet, and then lying about it and pretending it wasn't happening.
Gamergate's arguments weren't worth jack shit. There's no ethical problem with video game reviews bemoaning a lack of diversity. There's no ethical problem with a journalist having a brief sexual encounter with a developer whose work he barely covers. There's no conspiracy by feminists to take away your computer games, just a desire to see more games aimed at groups other than a rump of white males. None of you had even watched a single episode of Tropes vs Women in Video Games, which you made all kinds of claims about, as obvious from the claims you were making that had nothing whatsoever to do with anything in those shows or beared any resemblance to anything Anita Sarkeesian ever said.
Gamergate was a flowing fountain of bullshit that propped up a serious attempt to intimidate women in computing. Everyone who was involved in that campaign ought to be embarrassed they had anything to do with it.
or male vets or male biologists
You appear to be in violent agreement story of part of my post while ignoring the point in the first half. Would you like to try again?
No, I haven't. What I'm getting at is the term progressive is really vague, and ultimately labeling onesself as progressive is for one single purpose: Telling others that your opinions are unilaterally better than theirs because they are progressive, which I might add is perfectly consistent with the behavior of prohibitionists and nazis.
No, we rejected the concerns because they were bullshit. We also pointed out that Gamergate's participants comprised of a large group that were harassing, at various levels, from dogpiling and other Internet obnoxiousness, to death threats and SWATing, women on the Internet, and then lying about it and pretending it wasn't happening.
What the fuck are you talking about? Brianna Wu was caught numerous times fabricating harassment against herself/himself. For example, he/she was caught red handed creating a sockpuppet steam account to harass and denigrate his/her main account to try to prove that gamers were bad.
Anita Sarkeesan wasn't much better, and her major crime was making a big shit about everything that was un-PC about gaming, in addition to way over dramatizing the actual threats made against her. Why do I say over dramatizing it? Because the FBI identified all four (yes, four) that made the vast majority of those supposed threats, and after their investigation they felt it was benign enough that it didn't warrant any arrest. And even if you want to argue that the FBI was just biased, she could have always filed civil charges against them, and civil charges have a MUCH lower burden of proof than criminal charges.
In addition to this, a few homosexual and feminist journalists (who themselves would have been just as big a target of gamergate) actually came forth on youtube and said that when they tried to investigate this for themselves, both Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesan started blaming them for being part of this giant conspiracy, and put their fans up to harassing them.
That said, both of them strike me as being just like the lady that harassed Hugh Mungus, and they're both just two assholes trying to assume some kind of moral high ground.
And I don't know about you, but every time I see females playing FPS games and MMOs (and believe me, I've seen hundreds, especially in WoW,) the male gamers never threatened them or made death threats even one time. Do they hit on them? Absolutely, but not because they're gamers. They do it because most of them are basement dwellers and think that because a female has something in common with them (gaming) that they have a good chance of finally meeting a real female.
Either way, this behavior isn't even slightly unique to gaming.
None of you had even watched a single episode of Tropes vs Women in Video Games
I did, and it was a huge orgy of pedantry. Essentially she argues that 8-bit games which wanted to tell a story with very limited resources available were evil for adding things like lipstick and bows to say to their audience that "this is a female". But this is because otherwise most people (even women) just assume that it's a male unless they see clear cues of otherwise. By the way, even female game developers did exactly this. The only way of avoiding these assumptions is to put specific cues in the games. Early games had no or very little story dialogue (you were literally controlling a low resolution sprite the whole game) so those cues were quite necessary. Even for later games she mentioned, like Angry Birds, also have a lack of dialogue, so they needed to add cues to specify gender. In other words, all of this isn't a form of bias, it's just done out of necessity.
Just to give you an idea of what I mean, have a look at pretty much any Anime cartoon. Notice how all of the characters appear white and have round eyes like Caucasians? Well when Japanese people watch these shows, to them the default person is a Japaneses male, and so even though these characters look Caucasian, the viewers in Japan see Japanese people. When they want to override that assumption and have their artwork say "this is a Caucasian", they make the character's nose look really big. Why? Because to Japanese people, white people have really big noses. For a domestic example, consider The Simpsons. Do you know anybody who has dark yellow skin? Even people with jaundice don't look that
Two warning signs stuck with me over the years. "Do not attempt to identify acid by tasting it." posted in a school chemistry lab.
And a warning on a toy basketball goal. "Do not attempt to slam dunk on goal, especially if you have braces."
That second part sounds especially painful just to imagine.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
So how could you possibly even get into hot waters, no matter what might be considered common decency?
Okay,let's take one example. I come from a pretty hard-core geek background and worked for a while with a small group of geeks in software development. We were a mono-culture. Meetings used an extremely efficient unwritten code. When you thought you understood a point someone was making and you either understood or disagreed, you cut them off, and raised your voice slightly. They instantly evaluated whether they thought you had understood them and either continued, raising their voice, or ceded control of the conversation. This could go back and forth for a second or two, with both sides evaluating the strength of their point and the other's point until someone backed down (which usually took maybe 2-3 seconds at most. Failing to cede to a stronger point made you look like an idiot, so there was enough incentive to realistically evaluate.)
As long as everyone was understood this verbal ballet, you could have a 2 hour meeting with barely a single sentence carried to completion. It was an intricate dance with everyone participating, barely a wasted word, and it would also last about 30 minutes instead of the two hours.
It also utterly excluded anyone who wasn't raised middle-class white male geek. The idea that interrupting people was horribly rude, that people who had something vital to say would never speak up because they were raised to not interrupt didn't occur to anyone in the group. The idea that people felt dismissed, demeaned and generally devalued wasn't even on my radar.
Now in this case, no one went to HR. What it took was for me to get ever so slightly annoyed that one of our best programmers (a woman) let us waste half an hour walking into the swamp that she was well aware of. She explained (with far more patience that I would have shown if the roles were reversed) why she did not feel comfortable speaking. She'd never been asked for her opinion. She was usually cut off after a sentence or two, etc., etc.
From my cultural background, it was *her* responsibility to barge in, interrupt us, and if we didn't catch on immediately, raise her voice to indicate this was a "real" point.
Anyway, we did get straightened out, adjusted our meeting culture to take into account the reality that a modern high-tech workforce is probably only 20% standard middle-class white male geek, and that the cultural standards that I assumed were default were anything but.
A code of conduct would have acted as a reminder that one doesn't have to be a jerk to end up being a jerk...
"oft enough" is an actual phrase however. There is not grammar or spelling mistake here, only a missing space.