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
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.
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?
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.
So men are coming on to women more often then women come onto men? What a shock, something needs to be done about this.
This survey was designed by GitHub with valuable input from the research and open source communities. We especially thank: Anna Filippova (Carnegie Mellon University), Andrea Forte (Drexel University), Edward Galvez (Wikimedia Foundation), Rebecca Weiss (Mozilla), and Laura Dabbish (Carnegie Mellon University) for conversations, research questions, and prior art that informed the questionnaire design.
Anna Filippova is not the "lead researcher". Not to mention the fact that the second person in that list is a professor at Drexel in the College of Computing and Informatics and Laura Dabbish is a faculty member at CMU with a PhD in Computer Science.
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.
It's not a problem *for you*. Because you're a man and don't have to deal with it every single day. And precisely what authority do you have to determine what is and isn't a problem for other people? Why is it so hard to imagine that it might be an issue to get unwanted attention from a physically larger potentially threatening person, or a person in a financial position of power over you?
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.
Whether you're a creep or not depends solely on whether the woman you're talking to wants you to fuck them. If you're fuckable, then they like it and you're not a creep, if you're not fuckable then they are afraid and you're a creep for that. If she makes advances, you're not allowed to call her a creep, though, even if you aren't interested.
Mirroring it is if a woman doesn't warm to your advances, she's gay, and if she does, she's not. Whether or not a woman makes advances to you is not your choice, you will enjoy and welcome it or you're gay.
This is the result of that dichotomy of who is supposed to make the advance. And currently there's a change, but it's not anywhere near done. Woman are nearly finished getting their sexual independence, but society still wants to privilege them, so women get to decide if they want independence or not, and don't have to indicate what their outlook is. Men aren't yet allowed socially to forgo dominance in sexual contact, but the few men who HAVE decided that they're not going to risk being thought of as a creep for no good reason and go their own way are fairly widely despised as MGTOW (many vocal MGTOW however say and do things that deserve this). And women are getting more and more pissed off that men aren't initiating the contact (leaving only the arrogant dregs to do the dating) any more and that they're not even bothering to try to flirt or have sexual relations with a woman (as a partner rather than just entertainment).
But that's because despite women's independence, they still widely want the old way to continue, so they can choose on a whim which way they will work. But many men are realising that women, if they want to get intimate, can work for it instead, it's no longer up to men to do it all and risk their self esteem.
It is, but IT people don't usually change diapers during work so it doesn't affect the workplace in question.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
Why is it so hard to imagine that it might be an issue to get unwanted attention from a physically larger potentially threatening person, or a person in a financial position of power over you?
That's not hard to imagine, but plenty of women do want attention from tall rich guys, and are waiting for them to make the first move. How are you going to tell the difference ?
You be respectful, move slowly and actually listen to the feedback. The attitude "oh these stupid women complaining about me offering my virile and high-quality sperm" doesn't gives me much confidence that that happens.
Despite the assumption of the "men's right's" contingent of slashdot, women are not in general trying to get offended, or damage your desperately fragile ego. It's not actually fun to do that. But when you're faced with this sort of 'offer' every day, when it's a common occurrence to be called a "frigid bitch" by a stranger because you don't want to be chatted-up on the bus, well you can imagine that your attitude to future encounters changes, can't you?
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.
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?
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."
The parent poster's point is legitimate, but somewhat crassly expressed.
We live in a social sphere with literally centuries of cultural tradition of men initiating intimate relationships with women. This pattern is ingrained and reinforced throughout our culture, and changing it is an evolutionary process that can take decades and more than a generation to evolve. Further, I think there's an evolutionary biology component to it that makes it resistant to change.
It also suffers from what I would call a bargaining imbalance. Usually in a negotiation, the first person to make an offer bargains from a position of weakness -- they expose their bargaining position and expose themselves to rejection. Thus it seems likely that women generally do not want to give up their default bargaining position, further ingraining the default position of men as initiators.
There's also a signaling problem, which is probably the most complex aspect of this. Should signaling be up front and literal, or should it be subtle and ambiguous? Given that women would want to retain their bargaining advantage, they have have an incentive to keep relationship signaling subtle and ambiguous because it provides them with an advantageous information asymmetry. This further weakens potential partner's bargaining ability because they are both unsure of what terms are acceptable *and* unsure if the partner is even receptive to an offer.
The last complication is the icing on the cake, the growth in general promiscuity. As a culture we've become quickly accepting of low-attachment sexual relationships.
So, why is it women get unwanted sexual advances? Men know that there is some possibility that a woman will be willing to engage in low-attachment sexual relationships. Women are ambiguous in their signaling as to their receptiveness to intimate contact. Men have internalized their role as initiators, and also know that since they are bargaining from a position of weakness, they face a high probability of failure. But since they know there is some chance of success generally, they know they have to make a lot of offers in order to achieve successful bargains. Intermittent reinforcement is a very powerful reward mechanism.
In my opinion, women just need to be more vocal in stating their unambiguous disinterest in intimacy. Don't be subtle, it only confuses the person into believing that you are engaging in bargaining somehow.
You don't know who it was performed by. It just says, "this survey was designed by GitHub." That you assume it is a womens studies major (which by the way would not prevent it from being rigorous) reflects your bias.
Actually, yes - the fact that a study is performed by a women's studies major does indeed mean that it would not be rigorous, in much the same way that an "IQ study" performed by the KKK would also not be rigorous.
FCOL - Women's studies make no attempt to hide the fact that they are for the advancement of women, in much the same way that the KKK make no attempt to hide the fact that they are for the advancement of caucasians. A study by a group for the advancement of women that produces a "women are victims" conclusion would get the same skepticism from normal people that a study produced by the KKK that concludes "whites are victims".
Btw: Who do you think is objectively (measurably) the best of demographic in the world? Who do you think is the worst?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Let's compare to other industries and the general public, across all gender ratios. I bet 6 vs 3 percent is far on the small side. Heck, an average model agency is mostly women and probably a much larger percentage of them has received "unsolicited sexual advances". Citing this as a major reason that women aren't in tech is pathetic flamebait.
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.)
I looked up dictinary in the dictionary. It doesn't exist.
Worst. Signature. Ever.
You be respectful, move slowly
Are you sure that that isnt the problem?
When you, as an IT guy, "move slowly", you become this creeper thats always hanging around but never asking her out.
This then causes an animosity that she feels towards you.
The slower you move the stronger that feeling of animus will be, and if that animus becomes too strong then your next move, asking her out, is sexual harassment under the current accepted definition.
As a young man you hopefully learned that the best way to get a date is to ask girls out. Lots and lots of girls. It doesnt matter how good looking, awesome, pathetic or ugly you are as you will always increase the probability of getting a date by asking another girl you.
Thats the nature of it. "Moving slowly" isnt natural and creates all these problems. If Bob had asked Yan out on the first day, he would have gotten either a yes or a no. If the answer was "yes" then it would have been a mistake for both of them to "move slowly" and if the answer is "no" then it was also have been a mistake for things to "move slowly." Moving slowly affords no advantage, only disadvantage, to both parties. These disadvantages accumulate into the observed "problems" that are exactly the result of what you are asking for.
"His name was James Damore."
> 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.
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.
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.
Well it depends on your definition of 'slowly', I don't mean glacial, I mean move at a pace that means you are aware of the other person's feelings, and eventually do actually ask. Most of the time you don't *have* to ask (and put that person & yourself in an awkward position) by waiting a little, because it will become obvious that they are not interested.
It also shows that you are atleast somewhat interested in the person, rather than just the vagina-holding body. If you just ask people out "whether they are awesome, pathetic or ugly" you show that you're not interested in the person, just the fact that they exist at all.
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.
Who do YOU think is objectively (measurably) the best of demographic in the world? Who do you think is the worst?
What does this question even mean? There is no such thing as a "best" demographic. The concept makes no sense.
The only justification for "moving slowly" before getting a date that I can see is in the belief that the act of asking someone out is a profoundly important event in the lives of these two people. This belief is unfounded and probably based on a fallacy.
Sometimes it is a profoundly important event for one person to ask another out on a date, but most of the time it isn't.
Again, if you want to increase the probability that asking a girl out turns out to be a profoundly important event in your life, then sooner is better than later, more is better than less. Lots and lots of girls.
This "move slowly" idea almost seems like a fallacious rationalization that is actually rooted in the fear of rejection.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
Who do YOU think is objectively (measurably) the best of demographic in the world? Who do you think is the worst?
What does this question even mean? There is no such thing as a "best" demographic. The concept makes no sense.
The best-off demographic. The concept makes perfect sense: you can measure characteristics of a demographic and compare those measurements with other demographics. For example, there is a certain demographic of humans who:
Lives the longest,
Has the most college graduates,
Has the highest average income of all adults,
Are, compared to every other demographic, less likely to be the victims of violent crime,
Are less likely to be homeless,
Have fewer special-needs individuals (IQ less than 75)
Get prosecuted less often,
When prosecuted, get lighter sentences (up to 64%) for the same crime,
Has the highest employment / lowest unemployment,
...
If you guessed "white women", you're on the ball. (Yes, average income of white women exceeds avg income of just about every other demographic there is).
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
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."
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
Even if I accept your premise as true, which I don't, you are missing the most crucial factor in what makes these sexual advances unwanted. It's the setting. In a bar, if you are by yourself you kind of expect that people might approach you. But on Github, or in the workplace, or just walking down the street...
In other words, you should wait for that person to signal that they are open to advances, e.g. by attending a social event. People wear rings to indicate that they are unavailable, but we could really do with some kind of "I'm open to being approached" bracelet or something... I seem to recall Star Trek had something like that.
I'm not particularly attractive but I find women do make the first move and indicate fairly clearly to me when they are open to advances. I really don't understand why some people think that it's all up to the man, or who think that the signals are confusing or unclear... Maybe my experience is atypical, or maybe I'm willing to accept a greater lack of success than some guys feel entitled to.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
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.
Please cite the New York law. I believe some daycares might have that policy, and it's probably illegal because it's sex discrimination.
"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.
Your whole premise is flawed anyway. It's not "bargaining" at all, there is no winner or loser in the deal. It's mutual consent to both get what you want. There is no degree of getting what you want, it's all or nothing for both of you. If you have to negotiate how far you get to go, you are doing it wrong.
It is absolutely bargaining -- a mutual consent agreement between two or more parties as to what each party will do for the other.
You are delusional if you think men and women have completely identical interests in a relationship. They may agree in general terms on their interests, but they will assign different preferences for those interests in addition to having at least some interests which the other does not share.
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?
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
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.
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."
You are delusional if you think men and women have completely identical interests in a relationship. They may agree in general terms on their interests, but they will assign different preferences for those interests in addition to having at least some interests which the other does not share.
You know a great way of not getting dates? Treat the feemales like a uniform whole, rather than dealing with the individuals as individuals. Works every time!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.