A 60 Minutes Story on Gender Equality Accidentally Proved the Persistence of Patriarchy (qz.com)

Over at Quartz, Ephrat Livni reports that a 60 Minutes story about gender equality accidentally proved the persistence of patriarchy. Reader theodp shares the report: Good intentions are nice, but they aren't enough, the TV news show 60 Minutes recently proved. The show's producers apparently meant well when they decided to do a segment on women in technology and the gender gap, which aired on March 4. But they ended up punching women in the gut, as the founder and CEO of Girls Who Code, Reshma Saujani, puts it in her response to the segment. Ultimately, 60 Minutes featured a man, Code.org CEO Hadi Partovi. His [tech-backed] organization's mission is to expand access to computer science education in schools.

Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show about a year ago and worked with producers to provide research and interviews, ended up on the cutting room floor while Partovi spoke on their behalf. Here is the cruel irony: As a result, 60 Minutes' segment was accidentally exceptionally effective-it proved that women in tech really can't catch a break. [...] Ayah Bdeir, the founder of STEM learning toy company littleBits, also responded to the episode in a Medium post. She noted that she worked with 60 Minutes for a year, planning interviews, providing research, talking to the producers and reporters, telling her story and that of her organization, which is focused on closing the gender gap in technology. Yet producers wrote to her last August to say that the focus of the segment had shifted and that littleBits would no longer be central in the story. In an email, a producer explained to her, 'It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others'.

Comments

Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Orange man bad?

Re: Does this mean..

[WCMI92]

I am a white male heterosexual Catholic. This means I am not diversity.

But wait a minute: Isn't diversity... EVERYONE?

Re:Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

60 minutes proves again they are part of a hypocritical spin machine. All of their interviews are cut to give whatever impression they desire. Sad, there was a time decades ago where some of them at least tried to be professional reporters.

Re: Does this mean..

[jellomizer]

It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male.
There is a Them vs Us mentality that really isn't present.

The problem is there was a culture of predefined gender roles, which our current economy doesn't support, which we as a culture need to adapt to.

For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now now. No one wants to abolish you. We just want you to take your natural place....sitting in the corner while a real man pleasures your wife.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Diversity means [whatever it needs to mean to fit the narrative]

FTFY

Re:Does this mean..

[ShanghaiBill]

Sad, there was a time decades ago where some of them at least tried to be professional reporters.

Not true. 60 Minutes has never been professional journalism. From the beginning they relied on sensationalism, biased reporting, ambush interviews, editing of interviews to swap in different questions that what the interviewee actually answered, and fabricated evidence. They were doing fake news long ago.

Plenty of examples here.

Re: Does this mean..

[jellomizer]

Diversity is Everyone, but to be accepting of diversity also means realizing people who are not in your classification are just as human as you are, with a same sets of problems and needs that you have. But realizing that there are often old laws and cultural norms, that makes it harder for such people to function, as well as you do.
In America Catholics tend to be looked down on compared to the Protestant majority, however there are so many sects of Protestantism that makes Catholics the largest single sect of Christianity. Which explains how the problem with diversity, it is normally how we classify what group we are in at the current time.

Back in elementary school we had K-4 in individual local schools, and 5-8 were in a unified (across the district schools).
In K-4 there was this kid we weren't friends, (we weren't enemies either, we just didn't have any similarities) However when we moved to the fifth grade to a different school, where most of the classmates we never met before, for the first few weeks, we were friends because we were groups as the kids from that elementary school, because that was the biggest form of classification of the time. Later on other factors of our self classification kicked in and we have once again moved apart, as we were just too different.

We also see a lot of this in the military and during war. In a middle of a war you are classified as a solder for your country as is the other people you are fighting along with. The fact that the other guy may have a different race, religion, sex, political stance... then you really doesn't matter, because during this time, you need each other.

Re: Does this mean..

[jellomizer]

Why should I, I am a white make too.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that the other guy may have a different race, religion, sex, political stance... then you really doesn't matter, because during this time, you need each other.

Color-blindness doesn't help solve the problem of systemic oppression though. It's the same mentality right-wingers have of "all your troubles are your own fault for being lazy". It denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

Re: Does this mean..

[AmiMoJo]

Note that the issue here is not diversity, it's that they were making a TV programme about women in tech and the issues they face, asked women to collaborate and help make the show, and it somehow ended as mostly one guy talking about it.

The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?

Re: Does this mean..

[Z80a]

The mere act of reducing people into their races and genders end up hurting a lot of people, and that's what those reports, and the political actions created by them end doing.
You should ALWAYS judge people by their individual lives, even if its more expensive.

Re: Does this mean..

[malkavian]

It's exactly why I hate Identity Politics. It raises an "us v them" mentality, mandates that any slight, or any perceived wrong (such as being passed over for promotion) has to be because you're a member of group (x). It couldn't be anything other than that.
Once you start looking through the world from that perspective, everything becomes about that. Despite the extremely high likelihood that you're wrong (occam's razor; the fewer assumptions you make, the more likely you are to have a correct assessment). Assuming (x)ism is one hell of an assumption to make.

Re: Does this mean..

[Geoffrey.landis]

Um, in a program about women in tech, spending a year interviewing women for the program but then deciding "we don't need to put any of the women we interviewed on screen, we are only going to feature men saying that women are underrepresented" is, in fact, a solid statement in favor of the point "women are being ignored".

If the program were about Catholic males, and they spent a year interviewing Catholic males but then only used footage of a Muslim woman explaining Catholic culture, you might object, too.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the person they used in the segment to talk about the issue presented it better than some of the other people they interviewed to talk about it?

There's all this assumption about gender and patriarchy - which could be true - but it's not the only explanation. Why are all the other explanations assumed not to be true?

Re: Does this mean..

[colonslash]

> It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male.
These reports blame men, claiming, like this article, that certain differences are proof of a patriarchy. These reports don't usually talk about male vs. female suicide rates, or imprisonment rates, or the lack of male nurses or teachers, or the lack of female bricklayers or coal miners, or about men falling behind in higher education. That's why these reports are an attack on men - they are not about creating a better society, they just complain that women are behind men in a few cherry picked areas, and they blame men for this.

I'm all for helping disadvantaged people, regardless of gender. Maybe that could be based on socioeconomic status?

> For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.
That's exactly what articles like this are doing - feminists wanting women to be treated preferentially. All people should be treated as individuals. Group identity should be immaterial.

Re: Does this mean..

[jedidiah]

It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.

This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.

Re: Does this mean..

[UsuallyReasonable]

"Oppressors". Because of their race and skin color. Yeah okay.

Re: Does this mean..

[colonslash]

Because you bought into the identity politics. It's hard not to - it's pretty pervasive in our culture, and there's a lot of shaming for dissent.

Re: Does this mean..

[UsuallyReasonable]

"White fragility" == reacting appropriately to being told you are a racist when you know you are not.

Re: Does this mean..

[Z80a]

If you even have to make a program about women, the situation is already hell.
You can't fix gender discrimination with more gender discrimination.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Color-blindness doesn't help solve the problem of systemic oppression though

Can you give examples of "systemic oppression" in recent decades? Didn't think so.

t denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

Well, as a gay man, I find that my "oppressors" these days are found in the progressive movement, the social justice movement, and the Democratic party.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

> White fragility has to be the most contemptible thing I've ever seen.

This is just a way to shut down conversations. Privilege is just a repackaging of racist attitudes, because it turns out that it only attaches to skin color, not actual life experience whenever people discuss it and try to get to the bottom of things. There are endless rationalizations whenever some poor slob points out that they haven't had a damn bit of any sort of privilege in their life and gets told that their actual history doesn't matter. Fragility is a particularly interesting deconstruction because you can shift blame to the victim without even acknowledging them as such. It'd be like saying the real problem is all those "fragile" people complaining about stuff like lunch counters, bus seats and water fountains. Because that's who you are. You want contemptible? Look in the mirror.

Re: Does this mean..

[Bert64]

Indeed people today in western majority-white countries are far less racist than other countries, it just happens to be more widely publicised because the media and/or authorities might actually do something about it.
In many non white countries, racism simply happens and is part of daily life and you have no recourse against it whatsoever.
It's also mostly white countries that have allowed mass immigration, and mostly white countries where immigrants can gain the same citizenship rights as those born locally.

Re: Does this mean..

[cascadingstylesheet]

It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male. There is a Them vs Us mentality that really isn't present.

Um, yeah, it is present. A blind monkey could see it.

This "if you don't like our attacks you are the problem" stuff gets really old.

The problem is there was a culture of predefined gender roles, which our current economy doesn't support, which we as a culture need to adapt to.

Might be the other way around. When we pushed women en masse into the work force, we got the 70s ... doubling the labor supply didn't double the jobs.

For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.

Indeed. Example: the anti-white, anti-male jihads.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Including previously excluded folks != excluding you, dumbfuck

Re: Does this mean..

[Mab_Mass]

It's exactly why I hate Identity Politics. It raises an "us v them" mentality, mandates that any slight, or any perceived wrong (such as being passed over for promotion) has to be because you're a member of group (x). It couldn't be anything other than that.

This is a very fair criticism of identity politics, but that doesn't mean the whole concept must be discarded.

If you look at the history of the US, there are long, ugly streaks of racism and sexism that have been supported at the highest levels of power. Things are certainly better than they once were, but many systemic problems still exist.

In an ideal world, we could discard identity politics and just have an actual meritocracy, but this is not the ideal world. In fact, there is still a deep, lingering assumption that white men are qualified to speak about any and all topics, which is the whole point of TFA. A quick racism/sexism litmus test I like to do is to just swap identities in my mind and see what the reaction would be. In this case, imagine an article that is about men trying to make it in nursing where they only interviewed women.

So, yes, identity politics can be deeply flawed. At the same time, though, there are people whose demographics impact them every day (ask black men about white women "purse clutching" in elevators). Is there a practical way to talk about these kinds of issues without invoking some incarnation of identity politics?

Re: Does this mean..

[Z80a]

Identity politics are not helping those groups, if anything, it is just causing millions over millions of victims due this stupid attempt at simplifying an complex problem.
We live on a world where "1%" equates to 70 million people.
There's no space for "the blacks, the whites and the women" on such huge volume.
And your opponents, those who perpetrate those problems, they're also on the same identity politics ride and causing the exact same issues, but with different parameters for the groups as you.
So we should just set this system on fire everywhere, be you or be the sexist or racist people.

Re: Does this mean..

[Quirkz]

The best way to be more inclusive is to exclude white male hetrosexual Christians.

Thank God I'm an atheist then, so I won't be excluded!

Re: Does this mean..

[smoot123]

...that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?

Yup, that seems the question. Presumably 60 Minutes thought this guy was a better spokesman than the women were. That seems presumptively incorrect but I'm not a TV producer so what do I know? Has anyone asked 60 Minutes why they made this decision?

Re: Does this mean..

[serviscope_minor]

"White fragility" == reacting appropriately to being told you are a racist when you know you are not.

What were you called racist for?

Re:Does this mean..

[smoot123]

From the beginning they relied on sensationalism, biased reporting, ambush interviews, editing of interviews to swap in different questions that what the interviewee actually answered, and fabricated evidence.

Yeah, I used to like 60 Minutes until they did a hatchet job on the CEO of HP, where I worked at the time. That pretty much reversed my opinion of their coverage overnight.

Re: Does this mean..

[sfcat]

The issue is not his gender or race or anything like that, it's not even the guy himself - it's that women made something about women, but instead of letting women talk about issues that directly affect them and that they are directly involved in resolving, they went with this guy. Why can't women speak for themselves about things they have first hand experience of?

But that's only 1 way to look at this. There are others. For instance, the producer of the piece said, "It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others." You could take that to mean that the man (not all men, just the one in question) they put on perhaps was better at the job of leading this type of organization. Perhaps, these women that were cut from the piece were less effective communicators and got their position by virtue of their gender instead of their qualities and that's why the man's interview was used. That's just one other possible interpretation of this.

Look, for the last 20 years, we have been trying to close this wage gap in tech. It was a two pronged approach: education and a quota system. The education was advertised greatly. But the quota system wasn't until a couple of years ago. Groups put pressure on large tech companies to show employee demographics and if they don't meet some unpublished standard, pressure is applied to change those demographics. How do you think we do that? Only 1 way to do that, a quota system which is what was put into place. And quota systems have only 1 predictable outcome, the protected groups get promoted and placed into jobs for which they are unqualified (in their defense companies do this anyway all the time...the Peter principle is a thing). Given this history, its not hard to see how some might think that this proves the exact opposite point that many here seem to think it does. Its a bit like survivor bias. If all the bomber planes come back with shot up tails do you want to reinforce the tails? Of course not, you want to reinforce everything but the tails. Your reaction to this smacks of this type of bias.

Re: Does this mean..

[temcat]

What if the person they used in the segment to talk about the issue presented it better than some of the other people they interviewed to talk about it?

Even if so, it's obvious that he presented it better only due to centuries-long Systemic Oppression! Don't you know how it works nowadays?

Re: Does this mean..

[ciaran.mchale]

It denies the insidious influence of white supremacy, heteronormativity, cissexism, etc. For diversity to be truly meaningful, it needs to actually fight against the oppressors and not just be complacent.

It seems to me that most people think of different forms of prejudice (racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, ableism and so on) as being distinct problems. I have a different viewpoint, which is that different forms of prejudice are not really distinct problems in their own right, but rather are different symptoms of an underlying problem. I do not say that to dismiss any particular form of prejudice as being "not a problem". Rather, I say it for two reasons.

First, racism against, say, African Americans probably different to racism against, say, Chinese people. Likewise, deaf people probably experience ableism prejudice differently to blind people, people in wheelchairs, or amputees. It is common for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals to have different experiences of sexuality-based prejudice. So if you tried to count all the different subgroups of people who experience prejudice in different ways, you would end up with thousands or perhaps millions of different kinds of prejudice. Occam's razor suggests that there can't really be that many distinct forms of prejudice. Hence, the many different forms of prejudice are likely to be different symptoms of a more "unifying" problem.

Second, if you do any reading about psychological biases, you may well get the feeling that some psychological biases offer a (partial) explanation for prejudice. Confirmation bias is a prime example.

If my intuition is right that most/all forms of prejudice springs from psychological biases, then I don't think it will ever be possible to eradicate prejudice entirely, because psychological biases appear to be fundamental to being human. However, if awareness of psychological biases were to be widely taught, then I think this would help to reduce the severity of multiple forms of prejudice because being aware of one's psychological biases could help to guard oneself against them.

Re: Does this mean..

[Aighearach]

If there is systemic oppression, that does not tell you that you even have individual "oppressors."

If you're making accusations against individuals, but your gripe is actually about something systemic, you're attempting to oppress the ones you accuse.

And, the reason the people you have a feeling of conflict towards are "in the progressive movement" might be simply that those are people who interact with you at a higher rate, and that you feel oppressed overall. Perhaps people oppressing you would be mostly-invisible, because they're the ones that didn't spend time with you, didn't do business with you, didn't return your call, etc. You apply for something, some right winger denies your application, and then when you come into their office to complain, they make some liberal talk to you about it. To you, it is that person who wishes they could help you that is oppressing you, but really it isn't.

Re: Does this mean..

[zugmeister]

What were you called racist for?

Easy!
Just be white.
Really, that's all it takes to be called a racist, almost always by someone shooting for points in the oppression olympics or trying to score brownie points by signaling.
For extra claims of racism, just point out when (insert oppressed minority label here) is being racist. That'll do the trick in spades!

Re: Does this mean..

[Kartu]

or about men falling behind in higher education

In US, boys are behind at all stages. And for decades.

Re: Does this mean..

[Kartu]

Ironic.

Re: Does this mean..

[ShieldW0lf]

Who is John Galt?

Re: Does this mean..

[ShieldW0lf]

None of the people who visit this website were involved. No male Slashdot readers were consulted prior to the airing of 60 minutes. There is no conspiracy. Some woman thought she was going to be on TV but it didn't happen. If there was a male conspiracy, we would use our power to make you stop guilt tripping us when we just want to read about technology.

Re: Does this mean..

[Darinbob]

There was no evidence given here that the male's presentation was better, the implication was that his was just one of several voices saying the same thing. They just trimmed and cut back on what they were showing, and it was a guy who was left as the primary presenter. The fault here lies with the producers not seeing the obvious problem with the optics.

Re: Does this mean..

[serviscope_minor]

Just be white.

Well, when you don't have the facts, just make stuff up.

Re: Does this mean..

[Darinbob]

And take those shoes off!

Re: Does this mean..

[Darinbob]

It hasn't really died, it diminished somewhat but is still alive and well if you look around in some places.

Re: Does this mean..

[mapkinase]

What a bullshit argument. Catholics are major group, Muslims are minority. If you reverse your example, you will see the reality: catholics teaching us about Islam in media

Re:Does this mean..

[ShanghaiBill]

Your list on Wikipedia missed the GM truck side impact explosions, where they put explosives in the truck to make it happen.

That was "Dateline NBC", not 60 Minutes.

Re: Does this mean..

[ShieldW0lf]

Then why were women overpaid at Google, and why do so many Asian people do so well in technology?

Re: Does this mean..

[quantaman]

It's a solid statement about them being ignored by THE NEWS MEDIA. It's a pretty blatant example of the media lying to you. Whatever agenda you wand to support beyond that is dubious.

This is a great example of media bias, not a confirmation of the victim hood narrative.

Gender inequality isn't confined to the tech sector.

Women are under-represented in the tech sector, particularly in more senior positions, for the same reason they're under-represented as interviewees in the news media.

Re: Does this mean..

[quantaman]

Then why were women overpaid at Google,

There's a huge gender gap in tech.

Google tried to correct this in their organization by aggressively recruiting women.

But the primary source of the gender gap isn't in job applications, it's due to cultural factors primary and secondary schooling discouraging women from CS.

and why do so many Asian people do so well in technology?

Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America. So if you're ESL but have the cultural and economic resources to pursue a good education you're going to do so in a technical field where you're not as hurt by your poor social skills. And if you're an Asian parent you'll do the same as any other parent and push your children towards the fields in which you think they'll succeed, and for Asian parents their experience will say that's technical.

Move forward a generation or two and boom "Asians are good at math".

Re: Does this mean..

[quantaman]

Being a minority and speaking English as a second language really inhibits your social skills in North America.

How do you know all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition' problem in North America?

I never said "all Asians face that 'social skill inhibition'". I said that Asians who still have ESL are going to weaker social skills in North America, which is pretty obvious since being ESL makes talking harder, particular if you're coming from a Far Eastern language with a bigger difference.

How do you know that? Or are you saying that one must have 'poor social skills' in order to qualify as an Asian?

WTF are you talking about? The basis of this is about people who struggle at English moving to sectors where that's less of an issue.

Really?

Are you speaking out of your own experience or are you talking out of your ass?

I'm talking about having met lots of Asians, both immigrants and several generations in.

And applying some basic reasoning and logic to the topic.

Try Google 'vedic math' before you utter any more of your bullshit again.

Asians do not need to go to North America (and they do not need to wait a generation or two) to be good at math.

No one said Asians who don't live in North America aren't good at math, you're riling yourself up over nothing.

This is a very simple concept I presented.
1) People who struggle with English immigrate to Western nations.
2) When you struggle with English you lose out on a lot of good jobs, technical fields aren't as affected.
3) Therefore, they move into technical fields and train their kids to do the same.
4) Therefore, a cultural stereotype of that group "being good at math" emerges.

Re: Does this mean..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like redefining words so they don't apply to you anymore.

Minorities can't be racists, women can't be sexists, Muslims cannot be ati-semitic.

Punching people is fine, as long as they disagree with my progressive views.

Faking a hate crime is OK, as long as I'm black, because it was bound to happen eventually.

Re: Does this mean..

[c6gunner]

Are you seriously suggesting that women are a minority group?

Re: Does this mean..

[c6gunner]

It's only an "obvious problem with optics" if you assume that his gender matters. An inherently discriminatory assumption.

Re: Does this mean..

[mjwx]

"White fragility" == reacting appropriately to being told you are a racist when you know you are not.

If you know you're not a racist... you've got no fear. Anyone who calls you a racist when you're not one just looks like an idiot.

So it's not "fragility".

"White fragility" == the fear that someone, somewhere who is not white and male is being treated the same as a white male.

BTW, I believe in white privilege. Its awesome, so awesome I believe everyone should have it regardless of skin colour.

Re: Does this mean..

[samwichse]

https://www.aclu.org/gallery/m...

Re: Does this mean..

[Mr. Slippery]

If you know you're not a racist... you've got no fear. Anyone who calls you a racist when you're not one just looks like an idiot.

That does not follow at all. May I refer you to the entire concept of "defamation"? People being called some bad thing who are not that thing and know they are not, are the foundation of a whole lo of lawsuits.

BTW, I believe in white privilege. Its awesome, so awesome I believe everyone should have it regardless of skin colour.

Racism is real, but calling "not being subject to a penalty" a "privilege" is both inaccurate and poor rhetoric. Telling a white guy in a West Virginia town ravaged by mining pollution, drug dumping, and a generational history of poverty to "check his white privilege" is not an effective way to talk to him about, e.g., police violence against black people.

Blame it on GitHub!

[DickBreath]

This male dominated industry never ceases to amaze me with their constant "pull requests".

Re:Blame it on GitHub!

[93 Escort Wagon]

This male dominated industry never ceases to amaze me with their constant "pull requests".

But... it was just my finger!

Re:Blame it on GitHub!

[thomn8r]

Actually you need to push and merge for 20 minutes or so, and then the pull request

Re: Blame it on GitHub!

[TimMD909]

Agreed. On a related note... Anyone have advice on best practices for merge conflicts when they arise?

Correction : 60 Minutes edits story to fit politi

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't prove anything. Since the facts of the story weren't showing what they wanted the story was edited and fixed with a narrative that better fit the political agenda they wanted to push.

Closing gender gaps selectively

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering, wouldn't closing the gender gap on trashmen be as valuable? Or teachers, which at least on my country are almost all women (and reasonably well paid). Oh, is that just chauvinism?

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[green1]

Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.
Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs, and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job. There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles, or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[JaredOfEuropa]

Actually over here, the predominance of female nurses and teachers is increasingly seen as a social problem (especially regarding teachers), and we recently had some discussion on effecting affirmative action in those professions in order to get more men to sign up.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[dmiller1984]

There are plenty of programs to try to get more men in nursing (and teaching). Here is just the first Google result I found, but you can find plenty more: https://dailynurse.com/recruit...

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Cederic]

However, since male nurses are discriminated against (e.g. being expected to do all of the heavy lifting) men would be fucking insane to enter that profession.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[GuB-42]

Male nurses are highly sought after. Though I don't know what kind of incentive they have but if things stay the way they are now, a male nurse will never be without a job.

Besides diversity, one reason is purely physical. Nursing can require physical strength. That's especially true in psychiatry, where patients are often uncooperative. A burly man will be better off than a small woman. Not only when it comes to resisting physical aggression but also because even madmen may think twice before attacking someone twice their size.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Stonent1]

I find it interesting that most of the people behind the whole gender wage gap issue are people who are not in the industries they complain about. College professors that mostly exist in the qualitative realm, complaining on jobs that mostly exist in the quantitative realm. Such as sociology, or gender studies professors complaining about microbiology.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[dbialac]

And women are proportionally much more likely to be in the social sciences than men, yet there's no big push to get more men into the field.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[AmiMoJo]

There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs

In fact the whole women's equality movement really got moving when women started doing factory work during the first world war. Low paid, lower than the men in fact, dirty and dangerous. But very welcome.

These days examples would include sports, plumbing, the armed forces...

There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles

There is. Getting equality for fathers, such as equal access to parental leave, is all part of an effort to get men to participate equally in child rearing. That in turn helps courts see fathers are equal to mothers, as loving parents with an equal entitlement to access, and that the relationship between father and child is equally important.

Another example would be the push to recognize domestic violence towards men. Unfortunately it's still the butt of many jokes or simply not believed when presented to law enforcement and courts.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[malkavian]

Interestingly, under 30, the average pay of a woman is greater than the average pay of a male. This is left out of all the 'gap' stories, as it indicates exactly what the media don't want people perceiving; women aren't oppressed, they're actually doing rather better than average.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[religionofpeas]

Everybody knows male teachers are all perverts.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Evtim]

Ha, dream on....

Did you hear about the particle physics conference dedicated to gender equality (what?!?) where one of the attendants showed clearly by bibliometric data that women in physics are taken into positions with half the credentials of the male candidates. So not only there is no glass roof, but women are promoted unfairly against more competent males.

Few days later 1600 cunts, most of them men, singed a petition called "Particles for justice"(LOL!) where they condemned "the dehumanization of women" apparently exhibited by that guy. Yes, in fact this is dehumanization as you look at the SCIENTIFIC credentials of the candidates, both male and female. Perefecly fine for males, unacceptable and dehumanizing for females....So what's the alternative? Look at their horoscope?

BTW, there is nothing worse than a woman who is a dick and man who is a cunt! To"quote the great philosopher Sir Bronn of the Blackwater, "There is no cure for being a cunt".

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[dmiller1984]

There is

Citation? Seriously, I dare you to campaign for it. I dare you. I bet you won't. Because if you do, you'll be labeled a "Mens rights activist", or MRA for short. And you'll have everybody attacking you for being a misogynist. Prove me wrong. I dare you. After all, if things are as you say, you have nothing to fear for campaigning for the courts to treat men and women equally in custody battles.

First Google result: https://www.verywellfamily.com... There are plenty of men's-advocacy groups when it comes to custody battles.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Gavrielkay]

For most professions that are classically dominated by women, there is a more highly coveted position that's dominated by men. Men are pushed to become doctors rather than nurses. There are more male college professors than female. Men are pushed to be managers, foremen etc while women are allowed to be satisfied in support positions like secretaries and assistants.

I think it would be great if people chose what profession they are most excited about and everyone else was happy for them. But it's stupid to pretend that the problem is that there aren't more female trash collectors.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[lgw]

Over where? I don't think you actually live on Europa ...

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[colonslash]

Where is 'over here'? From your username, are you talking about a moon of Jupiter?

> affirmative action in those professions in order to get more men to sign up
Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group. Getting more people of a certain group to apply is something I can get behind. The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[thegarbz]

I appreciate the sentiment because it's what you get in the news, but what you have is a laundry list of ignorance.

Nurses are majority female, and there's no talk at all about encouraging more men to join that high paying profession.

Some industries benefit from diversity more than others. For nursing that benefit doesn't exist which is why there's no real push for it. Also where do you live that makes nursing a "high paying professional"?

You know where there is a problem? Teaching, and unlike the GP's assertion that is constantly at the forefront of principle's minds with male role models predominantly grabbed up by prestigious schools. Pretending like that no one cares about that gender gap is just ignorance.

Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

Ever wonder why? Here's a hint: The ideal paramedic team is 50:50. The female gender role is a benefit for the same reason female nurses are preferred. THe male gender role is a benefit as paramedics often have physically demanding components to their jobs.

 

There's never pressure to get more women in to menial or low paying jobs

There's never pressure to get anyone in low paying jobs. But again observer bias is strong with you. Women are well over represented in many low paying jobs, just take a moment to look at those which don't actually require physical manual labour.

and there's never pressure to get more men in to any job.

This is known in traditional English as horseshit, or bullshit in US English.

There's also no pressure to get more men to win custody battles

Worth comparing who is leaving whom before you get to claim there is a problem here.

or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

That is observer bias since there is pressure in most countries to raise awareness of the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault against males. Hell they ran an a TV campaign about equality in domestic violence in Australia two years ago. Why not more? Well equality given how rare these cases happen against men.

There's also a gigantic funding difference in research to cure diseases that hit mainly women (i.e. breast cancer) vs those that hit mainly men (i.e. prostate cancer).

Indeed their is and so there should be given the survival the 5 year survival rate of prostate cancer in men is 100% and 10 year survival rate is 98%. The vast majority (>90%) of diagnosis are at this stage. Go to the doctor no need for major investment, just convince your fellow bros to go get a finger up the bum, and there's a good chance you'll be just fine.

In the meantime breast cancer spreads quickly to neighboring lymph nodes which means it's very difficult to detect in a non-invasive stage. Got a lump? Good chance it's already to late. 5 year survival rate in the lymph nodes is at 85% and even less if spread to other parts of the body. Only a tad over half of cancers are detected while they are still confined to the breast and even in that case lopping off the tit doesn't give you that wonderful 100% 5 year survival rate enjoyed by men.

And that's before you consider that the incident rate of breast cancer is roughly double that of prostate cancer too.

But I'm sure the funding is all because no one likes men.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[jedidiah]

You are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcomes. All you're doing is alienating a lot of people that would otherwise be sympathetic to "the problem".

Your stupid narrative is also actively discouraging people. It's like you are trying to beat girls away from the profession with a stick. It's the exact opposite of the glamorization of law or medicine that has existed for pretty much forever.

Hating on geeks harder isn't going to bring more girls into the tent.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Dan East]

Paramedics are majority male (slim majority, not nearly the imbalance of nurses) and there's constant pressure to "fix" the situation.

I wouldn't call it a slim majority - 2/3 of those obtaining paramedic education are male, and of those remaining 33% even less follow through and stick with the career very long.

As someone who has worked in EMS, including with many women, I will tell you why there are more male paramedics. Try carrying a 300 pound dude out of a house on a stretcher once. Heck, try it with just a 200 pound dude. It's hard, and no, backup options are typically not available (try to call the fire department to send assistance every time you have to load a patient and see just how far that goes).

Am I generalizing? Of course, that's what this whole story is about - generalizing. Sure there are women way stronger than me, and that love EMS and handle it just fine. But on average, women would not find the physical demands of lifting and loading patients something that they can do reasonably day in and day out.

That leaves two options. Try to go beyond your physical limits on regular basis, which can lead to strain and injury (and possible risk to others), or have others carry your load. Do either of those sound appealing or very satisfying? As someone who took EMT classes 25 years ago, even that far back there was zero barrier for women to be in EMS - it was encouraged. I'd say nearly half the class was women. But when one of your classmates weighs 115 pounds soaking wet and they realize part of the literal job description is to have to pick people up and move them around, well, that doesn't sound very fun. They tend to quickly migrate to other healthcare related positions that are more enjoyable and rewarding to them.

And, having said all that, in this particular field there are very few people that work in the EMS (talking about in the field, clinical patient care at that level) paramedic role long. I just googled it and the average career length is 3.5 to 5 years. Ridiculously short. It's just that women are smart enough to move on sooner, while men can handle the physical demands a bit easier so they stick with it longer.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[JaredOfEuropa]

Bingo

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[lgw]

Cool. Good to see it's not just the dirty Scandis pulling out all the stop to eliminate any gender-based obstacles to career choice.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[green1]

No, what people ARE saying is that every high paying or desirable job must be AT LEAST 50% women, and low paying menial jobs don't need any women to apply.

If a job is already over 50% women, there is no incentive to correct that to allow more men, but if it's currently less than 50% women, and seen as a desirable job, all the stops must be pulled out to get more women in it.

I'm all for equal opportunity, but we passed that point a couple of decades ago. It didn't suit the agenda of all desirable jobs must be over 50% women, so now we go to equal outcome instead of equal opportunity, and THAT is where I have a problem.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[green1]

Your ignorance is the problem. You think female nurses are more desirable than male nurses, got any proof for that? or is it just your way of discriminating against men?

You also claim that domestic violence against men is taken seriously, yet near 100% of domestic violence shelters refuse to accept any men. So obviously that's being taken super seriously.

You can rationalize your discrimination all you want. But it's still discrimination.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[green1]

Paramedicine is currently 40% female, and increasing fast as 60% of paramedic graduates are female.
Nursing is 7% male and somewhat stagnant.

So yes, when comparing the 2, the gender difference in paramedicine is "slim".

The rest of your post confirms how ridiculous it is to put so much gender based hiring pressure out there to up the number of women in ems while ignoring the low number of men in nursing.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[green1]

Oh look, you found a paper. Get back to me when you find actual programs spending real money to make a difference. These exist for many "male dominated" fields, but not the other way around.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[PaulBu]

Somehow I had this vision of Nurse Ratched, she seemed to be able to deal just fine! :-/

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Shotgun]

I find it interesting that the whole issue is illogical to the point of lunacy. The same people whining about wage differences are screaming that corporations are greedy psychopaths that would sell their mother for a dime.

If the said greedy corp could get women to do the work of men for even 1% of the cost, men would not be able to find jobs.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Shotgun]

That should be "for even 1% less"

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[GonzoPhysicist]

Whataboutism. Sure that's an issue but we're talking about the tech sector here. Why change the subject?

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[fox171171]

A burly man will be better off than a small woman.

A burly man will be better off than a small man as well.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Krishnoid]

Then that's definitely a bad sign.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Kartu]

There is. Getting equality for fathers, such as equal access to parental leave, is all part of an effort to get men to participate equally in child rearing. That in turn ...

Demonstrates hypocrisy of the said "equality" organizations, blocking shared parenting bills left and right.

A fun fact: UK women group protesting against women and men retiring at the same age (they wanted to keep it old ways, when women would retire when 5 years younger) had "for equality" in their name.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Kartu]

If you really want to know about "reality", it is Scandinavian countries, Sweden in particular, that has actually looked into "male underrepresented" jobs.
They actually spent money on programs encouraging men.
Programs had a very short lived effect (of about 2 years).

No fucks are given in many countries. And, I recall when someone wanted to encourage boys to become veterinars (for practical reasons, the field, which is now dominated by women, needs people who could deal with big animals like cows, when most women stick with dogs/cats and smaller cuties), it was shut down, by... you guess it which group crying out loud about oppression and inequality.

Heck, even an attempt ot have a dude that would look into dude's mental health issues, was shut down, cause, equality.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[zugmeister]

Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group.

Yes, and that preference is usually based on group characteristics rather than, for instance, skill / ability to perform the job in question.

The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless...

So how is this second quoted statement in any way compatible with your first quoted statement?
If you give "preference" based on group identity, how is this fair in an otherwise competence based assessment?
Are you sure you've thought this through?

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[AmiMoJo]

Do you think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy?

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[serviscope_minor]

And, I recall when someone wanted to encourage boys to become veterinars (for practical reasons, the field, which is now dominated by women, needs people who could deal with big animals like cows, when most women stick with dogs/cats and smaller cuties),

Um what. It doesn't matter if you're a 90lb girl or a 303lb pro wrestler if it comes to a match of strength between you and a cow you lose and you lose hard. They weigh 3/4 tons, can run at 25mph and jump a fence. Likewise a horse. There's a reason "strong as an ox" is an expression.

And, find me a human who can carry another round on his back for 6 hours up and down hills. I actually know a few horse people (some male, some female) and none of them use strength to deal with horses because they all know it's a losing proposition.

Re: Closing gender gaps selectively

[mapkinase]

NCI funding in FY2017

$545M breast cancer. $233M prostate cancer

2016 deaths wordwide

586K breast cancer
355K prostate cancer

It is both approximately proportional and noticeably disproportional which is in accord to what you said about the nature of desease development

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[misexistentialist]

maybe, but doubt they are considering a 50% mandate, or higher than 50% as the female affirmative action usually turns out

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[misexistentialist]

So the male nurse is called to restrain the madman fighting like a wolverine, while the female nurse back from maternity leave prepares the medication, and they get the same pay because of "equality". "Sought after" but not with money. So the work ends up being done by men with lower qualifications because it pays better than hammering shingles or working as a bouncer, and the patients are treated according.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[GuB-42]

Probably, yes.
Men have been given dangerous and physically demanding jobs since the beginning of humanity and before, and it makes a lot of sense. Men are adapted to that kind of job: bigger, more physical strength. Even psychologically, one of the gender difference that everyone seem to agree on is that men are less risk adverse. Biologically too: if you kill all men in a tribe but one, it will recover in a couple generations because one man can impregnate many women. The opposite is not true. Statistically, men also have a lower life expectancy.
So yeah, men are disposable, that's a fact of life.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[Cederic]

It doesn't matter if you're a 90lb girl or a 303lb pro wrestler if it comes to a match of strength between you and a cow you lose and you lose hard.

I've been to a rodeo and trust me, the men get the beef into the dirt.

While I'm sure a woman could do too I think there's definitely an advantage in having a man's build and strength for that one.

But that's not what we're talking about with cows. If you're going to go shoulder deep into a cow's vagina it's probably to pull something out, and I can see where strength would be an advantage.

Still, I suspect most female vets just want to look after cute cuddly animals, not deal with dangerous smelly livestock. Because women are sensible and choose safe comfortable jobs.

Re:Closing gender gaps selectively

[jdoeii]

There is one HUGE gap between men and women that no one in the mainstream media talks about: incarcerated population. The number of men in prisons is 10 times greater than the number of women. And it's not just the US, it's across the world, all cultures. Why don't we talk about convincing more women to take the path of crime?

But seriously, higher rate of male convicts and a higher number of male CEOs have the same underlying reason: men are more likely to take risks.

I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[Kokuyo]

Let's be honest, this is about marketing. The interviewed people get named with their companies and their products, correct? How much do you want to bet someone just wanted to have their name front and center and paid a pretty penny for it?

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[DickBreath]

You may on to something!

Paid for by Americans for Renewable Complaining and Sustainable Whining.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[AmiMoJo]

I don't know 60 Minutes but from what I read it's a heavyweight long-form bit of journalism, meant to enlighten the viewer and maybe even push the discussion forward a bit by providing a forum to air views on the subject, as well as to investigate.

So it's kinda sad that it's apparently failing so badly to do that. Society needs good journalism to inform and question and reveal, otherwise it's just partisans on soap boxes.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[nerdbert]

CBS said that Bdier didn't make the points as well as others did. That's a highly subjective judgement, but one that journalists do all the time, and it's nearly always true that no matter how expert you are, there are folks who can explain something better than you do. It's *extremely* rare that someone who discovers something like say, general relativity, explains it as well as someone coming along later with a broader, more conventional view.

In this case, Bdier was a developer, intricately involved in her project. The along came a conventional CEO Partovi whose whole job involves public relations, managing messaging and expectations who gave a better interview and CBS went with that. How is that surprising? It's like expecting Torvalds to make an excellent public relations representative for Linux rather than a leader of coders. Sure, in theory he could be, but I'd be rather surprised that someone who coded up a kernel would also have the skill set to smoothly manage the press.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[lgw]

60 Minutes has a long history of bad journalism. They've been busted doing shit like filming different interview questions than the ones the interviewee is answering. They dress it up to look like good journalism, but just like the rest of them they just make shit up.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, so why is my post trolling? I'm saying its a bad thing that they suck and you seem to agree.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[lgw]

The same reason my posts are often marked trolling at random. You have stalkers.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[Shotgun]

What it actually is a way to attract eyeballs in order to sell advertisements so that the producers can get paid.

Any writing claiming they are anything else isn't fit to line a bird cage.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[AmiMoJo]

Wow. We actually agree on something. Shame it had to be that.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[lgw]

We both have it better off than SuperKendall.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[AmiMoJo]

Stack Exchange has a nice system where if it notices you are systematically modding a certain person it undoes all your moderation and hammers your rep down. Slashdot could do with something similar.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[thejynxed]

That would involve the people who currently operate Slashdot to do something other than add more advertisements and annoying shit under the navigation menu.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's in the to-do list right below Unicode support.

Re:I have a feeling there's more going on here...

[Kokuyo]

This is the kind of painfully dry humor I appreciate :D.

I don't see how....

[aslagle]

How does this prove "the patriarchy"? Doesn't it really prove that media organizations don't practice what they preach?

Re:I don't see how....

[Opportunist]

All it proves to me is that stories like this sell. Think we'd be discussing this if it was actually a story about women in IT?

Re:I don't see how....

[Cederic]

It doesn't prove "the patriarchy". It doesn't even prove that media organisations are full of shit (which we knew).

It merely proves that the precious darling bitterly complaining doesn't understand that media organisations are full of shit and that sometimes being a woman isn't enough to get special treatment.

Sometimes.

Re:I don't see how....

[Nidi62]

How does this prove "the patriarchy"? Doesn't it really prove that media organizations don't practice what they preach?

In a story about women's increasing presence in technology they cut all the interviews with women in favor for an interview with a man. It's like doing a documentary about wineries and having as your main interview the CEO of Coors.

Re:I don't see how....

[avandesande]

The funny thing is that people think that 'patriarchy' will go away if you replace the men with women. Patriarchy is a system of hierarchical social structures that really don't depend on the sex of who is in it.

Re: I don't see how....

[aslagle]

Well, except "patriarchy" is a word specifically denoting a male-led societal structure. I get your point, though, a matriarchy can be just as bad if the pendulum swings too far the other way.

Re: I don't see how....

[avandesande]

You are correct that is the dictionary definition but a lot of people read more into it than that (yeah PT is pretty trash)
https://www.psychologytoday.co...

Re:I don't see how....

[JesseMcDonald]

The funny thing is that people think that 'patriarchy' will go away if you replace the men with women.

It will though, because then you'd have a matriarchy rather than a patriarchy. I'm not saying that this would be any better... but the term "patriarchy" does refer specifically to males being in charge. It comes from the Greek word patriarkhia meaning "ruling father".

Re:I don't see how....

[lgw]

Not any more, it doesn't. Even if women are in charge, women are still the oppressed victims of "internalized patriarchy".

You may be thinking "that makes no logical sense", but what you don't understand is that under post-modernist doctrine logic is a tool of the patriarchy. Every time you point out a logical flaw, you're oppressing women!

I seriously could not make this shit up, I'll never be that creative.

Re:I don't see how....

[Shotgun]

You succeeded.

Been doing this 20 years, and I can name very few women that didn't move into "program management" and away from writing code at their first opportunity. Now days, they're calling it "scrum manager".

Re: I don't see how....

[Shotgun]

I've worked in a couple matriarchal organizations. The are much, MUCH worse. Never again for me.

Re:I don't see how....

[asdfman2000]

In a story about women's increasing presence in technology they cut all the interviews with women in favor for an interview with a man. It's like doing a documentary about wineries and having as your main interview the CEO of Coors.

If the point of the piece is about how wineries are unfairly discriminated against in the alcohol industry, then a interview from a direct competitor supporting that point lends more gravitas to the argument.

It's more a question of "I'm so oppressed, give me money" vs "the oppression is bad enough that even people who gain from it are speaking out" than it is some feminist conspiracy theory of patriarchy.

Re:I don't see how....

[Solandri]

If you believe in gender equality, your goal should not be making hiring rates for both genders equal. Your goal should be making it so gender doesn't matter when it comes to hiring. The difference is subtle but important. If you're trying to make hiring rates for both genders equal, you're assuming unequal rates indicates discrimination. If you're trying to make it so gender doesn't matter, then unequal rates may or may not indicate discrimination.

The problem with the former approach becomes more apparent in the long-term. As your anti-discrimination campaign succeeds, fewer people discriminate. However, just by random chance alone, sometimes you'll have statistical blips of inequality. If you assume inequality is due to discrimination, you end up wrongly condemning innocent people associated with those random blips. Recent examples include the weatherman who said coon instead of king (I didn't even know "coon" was a racial slur until that story broke), and the sports writer who wrote "chink in the armor" not realizing an alternate meaning was a racial slur.

Likewise, I'm an immigrant so didn't know watermelon and friend chicken were considered racial stereotypes against blacks, until a black friend pointed them out to me. (I'm still unclear why these are considered derogatory, but I avoid them so as not to stir up a hornet's nest.) The important thing being that I didn't know they were stereotypes because the anti-discrimination campaign had succeeded. But ironically that very success leaves me, an innocent, more vulnerable to wrong-headed accusations of discrimination if I had happened to cluelessly mention one of them.

As your anti-discrimination campaign succeeds, the number of true discrimination incidents decreases. But this causes the percentage of incorrect discrimination accusations against innocents to increase. This slandering of innocents causes people to come to resent your anti-discrimination campaign. Do you seriously think the man you turned down for a job or promotion in favor of a woman is going to take it all in stride if he learns he had better credentials but lost the job/promotion because of his gender? Eventually there are enough of these people to start a counter-campaign. And public will ends up swinging the other way.

So over the long-term, trying to make the genders equal results in an oscillation between discrimination against women, to discrimination against men, back to discrimination against women, etc. OTOH, trying to make it so gender doesn't matter results in a trend always converging on gender not mattering.

Re:I don't see how....

[Opportunist]

The difference is by no means subtle, I can't imagine anyone not understanding the difference between hiring equal numbers of men and women and hiring ignoring the gender of the employee. Hiring based on quotas (for men, women, people of various backgrounds, sexual orientations, religions...) is NEVER going to be fair. It cannot be. Unless you first find out just how many (insert group here) are looking for a job in a particular field, there is no way to create fairness here. And just hiring equal numbers it not going to cut it. By that logic, if you have 10 women and 1 man applying for two positions, you HAVE TO hire that man, even if two women were more qualified. Is that fair?

Re:I don't see how....

[jouassou]

(Posting to undo accidental moderation...)

Re:I don't see how....

[Cederic]

It's fine, there's a mod war going on with that comment anyway - hence currently being score 3: Troll.

I'd rather people try to refute my point than merely mod it down but that's how things go.

Abstract made up concepts are nice

[Anonymous Coward]

It is so useful to have some made up fluid abstract concept that can be used as a scapegoat for all your ills: "God/Satan", "Patriarchy", "Toxins", etc.

Re:Abstract made up concepts are nice

[LordAba]

I've never done any research on it myself, but I have a feeling any ideology/religion/cult needs 'original sin' and a way to cleanse oneself so that one can divide the in-and-out groups. With the bonus of shaming those who fall outside.

Christianity etc take this literally with the apple, extreme feminists have the patriarchy (and internalized patriarchy) and people who take the worse of intersectionalism claim we are all racist.

Oh damn

[bjdevil66]

In an email, a producer explained to her, 'It's not that the important points you made in your interview are ignored in the story, or that you didn't make them very effectively, they're just made by others'.

I'm not normally an activist type when it comes to women's rights, but that was pretty damn harsh.

You know, speaking of 60 Minutes, someone should contact them about a good story they should investigate. It has to do with a periodical news show that tried to do a segment about gender equality but ended up offending women everywhere. Does anyone know a good producer over there that can explain the whole process to the women so it can get done right?

Re:Oh damn

[Opportunist]

You're assuming he's telling the truth. What he probably should have said is "Of course you make good points. But if you make them, nobody gives a shit. If I have a man make them and you get cut, the stink this causes is more free advertising than this report could possibly generate any other way".

Re:Oh damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly this sounds as if the producer was too polite to say "you're bad at bringing points across".

She's the CEO of an activist organization that focuses primarily on gender. What are the odds she's a rabid feminist who's just going to put people off and knows little about technology? Their website makes that pretty clear: gender activism first, coding maybe 3rd if we've got some stock photos left over.

Re:Oh damn

[ceoyoyo]

Harsh? That seems pretty gentle and straightforward for a media production. Usually they don't tell you anything, and if you press they just say "we decided to go in another direction."

Re:Oh damn

[Anonymous Coward]

Not 60 Minutes, but I've done extensive work with NPR producing programs. Generally the reason someone ends up on cutting room floors (at least on radio) is that they sound bad. The tone or timber of their voice is grating, the pacing of their speech is off, their speech is loaded with ums and uhs, something like that. Not that I've worked in television, but I suspect the methodology is the same - an interviewee doesn't look photogenic, doesn't maintain eye contact with the camera or maintains a kind of psychopathic stare. At NPR we would often interview three or four people who said essentially the same thing, and picked the best one or two to air. The rest is dropped.

And others have said this as well, but I suspect the real reason the CEO of Littlebits is upset is because she missed out on 3 or 4 minutes of free advertising (albeit with the 60 Minutes demographic, which I think is people over 60, so probably not her target audience anyway).

Re:Oh damn

[bjdevil66]

True, true - It just seems harsh because of the ugly coincidence.

Maybe they were extra polite because they were cognizant to how it may appear to the women when the piece was aired?

Re:Oh damn

[LordAba]

There are a couple options...

One, we live in a patriarchy and these women are oppressed. Two, they were boring as shit and the show can only be so long. Three, the producers/editors of 60 Minutes are sexist assholes. Four, they are Smolletting it up.

Re:Oh damn

[ceoyoyo]

It would be interesting to hear exactly what happened. 60 minutes blocks their content in Canada so I can't watch it, but surely the whole piece isn't just a long interview with the code.org dude?

FFS

[Daralantan]

What is this doing on Slashdot? Is it literally because "Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show-"? I don't not care about issues like this.... It's just stupid that it's on "News for Nerds that Matters." (yes I'm aware more and more often we're getting stuff that doesn't really relate to that.... but FFS) How many people on Slashdot even watch 60 Minutes?

Re:FFS

[bobstreo]

What is this doing on Slashdot? Is it literally because "Women technologists like Saujani who were tapped to appear on the show-"? I don't not care about issues like this.... It's just stupid that it's on "News for Nerds that Matters." (yes I'm aware more and more often we're getting stuff that doesn't really relate to that.... but FFS) How many people on Slashdot even watch 60 Minutes?

Probably to equalize the article from March 4:

https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Re:FFS

[Type44Q]

What is this doing on Slashdot?

Perhaps you should ask the intellectual heavyweight who posted it.

Re:FFS

[kackle]

I like "60 Minutes" and watch it every week. But when I saw the preview for this report, I turned it off. Most have had it up to "here" with such vacuous articles. I have never worked in a place where females weren't welcome. Despite that, I've only worked with 3 coding women over decades.

Coding (insert other careers here) is often tedious or boring, let alone the fact that most of my exceptional coworkers had a propensity for it when they were young (like I did). I wouldn't blame girls/women if they would rather do something else with their time. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

So stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

When the hell are we going to stop trying to push this garbage? There's not a lot of women in tech because they don't give a f**k about it. Most women I know want to use it, not build it. No one complains about chicks who did tech and want to be a part of it. The only requirement is to actually have a little skill and understand stuff is not getting handed to you because you're a woman. It doesn't get handed to men either.

Well, technically...

[Opportunist]

What this means is that whoever makes 60 minutes thought that a report about men in the business sells better than one about women in the business. Or rather that we get a LOT more air time and buzz around a story that is allegedly about women only to be totally about men...

Re:Well, technically...

[AmiMoJo]

Yes, that's exactly the problem. It's like you didn't see major female lead action movies very often, Black Widow figures were hard to find... And then Wonder Woman came along and suddenly Hollywood realizes that a movie starring a woman and directed by a woman can actually do pretty well. Now there are more of them coming, maybe even a Black Widow solo movie after the other core Avengers all got them.

Also, is 60 Minutes really supposed to be about chasing ratings, or should there be an element of trying to do the right thing or draw attention to important issues even if it means a few people tune out? "Ratings" are a pretty lame excuse.

Re:Well, technically...

[Opportunist]

Ratings are all studios care about, though. Any story is only as good as the ratings it brings in and nobody gives a shit about sending a message. That is the sad truth.

I'm still waiting to see how Captain Marvel is going to perform. So far it's looking pretty good from the critics.

Re:Well, technically...

[AmiMoJo]

Ratings are all studios care about, though.

Yes, I'm saying that actually stuff with women in prominent roles actually does do well financially.

Re:Well, technically...

[goose-incarnated]

I'm still waiting to see how Captain Marvel is going to perform. So far it's looking pretty good from the critics.

So did the Ghostbusters reboot. Doesn't mean it was any good. The critics follow the populism wave these days; and that wave right now means that they will highly rate almost any movie that pushes the SJW ideology.

Re:Well, technically...

[HornWumpus]

As long as they have gorgeous tits, plenty of backlit camel toe and nipples iced between shots. That's not news to anyone.

Re:Well, technically...

[AmiMoJo]

Again, Wonder Woman or the recent Star Wars movies. Billions of dollars, women in lead roles. At the very least not doing any worse than male lead films.

Re:Hypocrisy of the Media

[DickBreath]

The basis of my lawsuit is that I went to Playboy.com to read the great articles.

But those women were sexually assaulting me and creating a hostile environment by exposing their bodies on adjacent pages.

Re:Females are treated a billion times better than

[fluffernutter]

You really shouldn't refer to women as ugly and repulsive, that's sexist.

Typical 60 Minutes

[tomhath]

60 Minutes is known for writing the story first, then going out and shooting some video to fill it out; they've been doing it that way for decades.

It's pretty clear here that the women who were interviewed didn't provide the required sound bites - they probably complained about ongoing discrimination instead of happy talk about all the wonderful opportunities girls have today. 60 Minutes has always pushed their political agenda; it's pretty clear that they didn't want to admit that initiatives which were started over two years ago aren't working...

Re:Typical 60 Minutes

[Rastl]

60 Minutes is known for writing the story first, then going out and shooting some video to fill it out; they've been doing it that way for decades.

It's pretty clear here that the women who were interviewed didn't provide the required sound bites - they probably complained about ongoing discrimination instead of happy talk about all the wonderful opportunities girls have today. 60 Minutes has always pushed their political agenda; it's pretty clear that they didn't want to admit that initiatives which were started over two years ago aren't working...

My (probably not) cynical view is that she didn't look good enough on camera. It is a visual medium and no matter how well she presented her points if the producer didn't find her attractive enough she wasn't getting into the story.

Meh

[fluffernutter]

Normally I'm all about the big bad corporation but quite frankly, it's possible that the material from the women just wasn't all that compelling or revolutionary enough to be in an hour long news show.

SJW DOT

[pecosdave]

MAKE IT STOP

Slashdot reads like a left-wing propaganda site these days.

Today's stories include "How you're stupid if you question any vaccine on any level, how using the scientific method to question any aspect of climate change makes you unscientific, ten reasons why you should kneel before Apple and Tim Cook, and the patriarchy - how it's still real, and despite proof that the legal system and the culture in general favor women you need to accept it's because you're the patriarchy, you're evil, and it's your fault for possessing a penis!"

Re:SJW DOT

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also no place for legitimate scientific discussion of the flat Earth model or evolution.

Re:SJW DOT

[drinkypoo]

Why do we vaccinate kids in the US for polio if polio was eradicated in 1979?

Because it was not eradicated. It has been "all but" eradicated, but it's not actually gone. When we are sure we've found all the isolated populations, and there's been no new polio cases for several years, maybe then we can declare victory.

Re:SJW DOT

[Myrdos]

I agree that this story is an opinion presented as fact, but as to the sciency parts of your post... science makes it possible to know things. Sometimes those things are very simple to discover, like whether pumping carbon into a volume of air will cause it to retain additional heat from sunlight travelling through it. Or whether vaccines cause autism. A simple study of kids with and without vaccines, with a tiny bit of statistical analysis is all that's needed. Very very simple things.

And yet, a huge number of people disagree with these findings. It's a conspiracy by left-wing types pushing their hidden agendas, and they explain that if we reduce carbon emissions then left-wing types will benefit at the expense of right-wing types, because only left-wing types build hippy electric cars and renewable bullshit. And also the scientists make millions by fooling us in some way. And we'll lose jobs and life will suck and the other side will -win-. Also, vaccines fit in there somehow now.

As an outside observer who could care less about the left vs right political struggle in the US, (I assume you're from the US?) I'm amazed at this mental thrashing about. Otherwise intelligent people are unable to see that, in spite of everything else, and all of the scandals and conspiracies and scientists making bad predictions, that adding carbon to air causes it to retain more heat from sunlight. And we are adding carbon to our air, and therefore... what? What will happen? This is not a trick question.

All of the bickering over climate models and jobs and whatever else is just a distraction. It's irrelevant. It doesn't change the physics of very simple experiments like this one. Measuring the carbon in the athmosphere, also not that hard to do: https://commons.wikimedia.org/...

But enough of this. I think we can both agree on one thing: Apple products are overpriced and overrated, and minor improvements to smartphones aren't real news.

Re:SJW DOT

[SuperKendall]

He's not reading it as a personal attack - he's telling you exactly what is happening. You are too blind to see how correct he is...

How is laying out facts "responding to a personal attack"?

Re:SJW DOT

[Anonymous Coward]

@AmiMoJo. Yes, let's burn down and raze culture. Damn the patriarchy! Equality of outcome for everyone! And anyone who disagrees with SJW posts like yours and the OP are clearly intolerant misogynistic bigots who do not understand their privilege. I (AC), for one, look forward to the day when idiot policies and "forced" norms completely emasculate men in the USA. People like you will then turn around and complain that there are no men to be found and "we need men to be men." Apologies in advance if you are one of those emasculated men. Hope it feels good knowing you are helping to create John Galt on nationwide scale? When you destroy the spirit of man, he will not fight for anything and will strive for nothing. If there are any sensible men left, they will rightfully opt-out of these stupid culture wars and let the edifice burn to the ground.

Re:SJW DOT

[green1]

No, You're stupid if you question all vaccines, or if you question the concept of vaccination, but you're not stupid to question any individual vaccine. Now you revert to being stupid again if after questioning it you're shown many many studies proving you wrong and still hold to it. But there's nothing stupid about questioning ANYTHING as long as you're willing to be proven wrong.

The whole idea of calling people stupid for asking questions is the problem, not the people wanting proof of the things they're told.

Re:SJW DOT

[BytePusher]

Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....

Re:SJW DOT

[WaffleMonster]

Maybe try not reading every story as a personal attack?

This is a problem given goal of media is propagation of fear or outrage for the purpose of self enrichment.

From 60 minutes, to Saujani to Slashdot and everyone else in the chain of covering this placement was based on the premise of ability to draw ATTENTION, stew controversy and outrage rather than providing useful information.

Also please try to understand what patriarchy is. Men are sometimes disadvantaged by the legal system due to their gender, but that's because in a patriarchy women are seen as the more "natural" parents and toxic ideas about masculinity, that men are less suitable parents and less loving, are all part it.

By addressing this the system will get fairer for everyone, including men.

Assertions of patriarchy are clearly ridiculous in the context of this article. It's invoked not from reason but from the need for attention where none would otherwise be warranted.

Re:SJW DOT

[Mab_Mass]

he's telling you exactly what is happening.

Sounds more like your biases line up perfectly with his.

You are too blind to see how correct he is...

Kettle, meet pot.

Re:SJW DOT

[serviscope_minor]

Today's stories include "How you're stupid if you question any vaccine on any level

Oh christ you're an anti-vaxxer (that's the only reasonable interpretation for your wild misrepresentation of the recent stories).

Now to be fair most of the anti-SJWs here are as firmly against the idiot anti-vaxxers as the rest of us. Now I wonder are you going to get modded up because you're anti-SJW (a very fashionable choice on slashdot at the moment and alomst guaranteed to get upmods) or are you doing to get modded down becuse you're clearly an anti-vax idiot.

Re:SJW DOT

[Mab_Mass]

Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....

I disagree. It is unfortunate, but at this point, women gaining social status DOES mean that men are going to lose status.

Currently, a man, especially a white man (like myself) can easily been seen as an expert on anything, and the status of white male is generally taken as the default human state. In the US history, white men have reigned over most of the money and power, and giving other people access to this same money/power/status requires white men to lose some status.

Note that this is different from *individuals*. If I as an individual treat women as equals and show them respect, I have not lost anything. In fact, I may even gain advantages of different perspectives, respect, etc.

As a group though, equality does mean that men lose their special status, which is why there is so much backlash to any efforts at equality.

Re:SJW DOT

[LordAba]

....You do know the history of child custody, correct? Men used to be the primary caregiver until someone made arguments that women are the "natural" caregiver and it snowballed into what it is today. Didn't hear from women wanting an equal split then! So no, in a patriarchy men would still be given preferential treatment.

Hell, using the same logic I can claim we live in a matriarchy. Men do the dirty jobs, men die in wars, men commit suicide more, men are more likely to live in the streets. Women gain preference in courts and women's issues are aired more than mens. The only reason why some men rise so high is because that's what is expected of them in a matriarchy (not to mention the only way to stand out in the female led dating pool).

Re:SJW DOT

[pecosdave]

Liberal yes.

Progressive/SJW no.

Liberal has a proper definition and a soiled definition. Unfortunately so many prefer the soiled definition a new term - Libertarian - had to be invented.

Re:SJW DOT

[Shotgun]

That reality is only well-known to liberals, and it is well-known that liberals live in their own realities. You know, like the one where socialism actually works.

Re:SJW DOT

[pecosdave]

Women's involvement is tech is a great thing. I've worked with quite a few women as peers that were great peers.

On the whole, men seem to be more likely to naturally gravitate towards tech, women not so much. There are exceptions, yes, but statistically this is the norm.

What I am upset about is being clubbed over the head with the concept that men naturally preferring STEM type things while women are less likely to is an atrocity and I'm somehow guilty of something horrible because reality is what it is. I'm also upset over people like you calling me a misogynist and putting words in my mouth that very obviously weren't there by implying as such.

FYI - my daughter has announced she wants to be an electrician. I will consider this STEM. My reaction? I needed to replace the cord on my compressor pump, the existing cord had an old Eagle DIY plug on it. I bought a new extension cord, cut off the end and wired it into my compressor pump. I took the old Eagle plug, gave it to my daughter with the scrap I cut from the extension cord. I then explained hot, neutral and ground to her (mansplaining to a sixteen year old girl, I know how you think -see, I can do it to) and had her make me a 1 ft extension cord for work so I don't have to reach under the desk at work to plug things in. I also told her I thought it was a great career choice. I was proud to give her what was to be her first high-voltage project, no matter how small it was.

Here you go - my real reaction to women in STEM
https://photos.app.goo.gl/9YYS...

Re:SJW DOT

[pecosdave]

That's right, never question ANY of them EVER or you deserve a tin-foil hat!
https://infogalactic.com/info/...

Remember, never, anywhere is a polio vaccine dangerous because all of them quit being dangerous 40 years ago!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/p...

You know, you can believe (good) vaccines work, get them, and still question them.

Re:SJW DOT

[sfcat]

Social status is not a zero sum game. Women gaining status does not mean men lose status....

I don't think you understand social status. Its quite literally the only zero sum game in the real world. Attention doesn't grow on trees.

Re:SJW DOT

[pecosdave]

Some scientist who've worked in the industry have been bullied, forced to resign, and generally shunned over doing just what you said.
https://www.thenewamerican.com...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...

Seriously, there's groups - some of which have more traction than they should - that believe you should be arrested and jailed for questioning it.
https://www.newsweek.com/shoul...
https://theoutline.com/post/22...

Here come all the slashdot women

[BringsApples]

I love all the women.

Re:Females are treated a billion times better than

[DickBreath]

Police Officer: Yes, Ma'am. Our department does have a policy of not giving tickets to pretty girls. Now sign here please.

Sexism in 60 min, not tech

[Anonymous Coward]

Granting that these editing decisions were made on sexist / patriarchal grounds, wouldn't that say a lot more about 60 Minutes than it does about the tech industry?

Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

The smartest women go into medicine. Most of these women could go into tech but prefer this field instead. There is a natural draw to this field for women and frankly it is more rewarding for someone that enjoys human interactions. The trend will likely continue until women utterly dominate medicine. https://news.aamc.org/press-releases/article/applicant-enrollment-2017/ Some fields will be dominated by men and others by women thanks to freedom of choice. Women now make up the majority of medical and law school students. Women as a whole don't want to go into tech in the numbers that men want to and its reflection of personal choice more than patriarchy.

Re:Freedom

[jeff4747]

There is a natural draw to this field for women and frankly it is more rewarding for someone that enjoys human interactions.

You apparently have not spent much time around people in medicine. There's not much human interaction, and massive pressure to eliminate as much as possible.

You finally got us ladies.

[Anonymous Coward]

After 100,000 years of keeping all the evidence secret, ya finally uncovered the ultimate proof of the male conspiracy over women. Good work! It's true, the patriarchy is real. We all meet in secret and plot against yall. Congratulations for finally finding the proof. That next patriarchy meeting is sure to be a doozy! We'll all be blaming those incompetent boobs over at 60 minutes for spilling the beans!

Seriously though, is this weird conspiracy theory of "the patriarchy" really the only explanation here? Not say, 60 minutes is selling eyeballs to advertisers, and will cut the segment to draw as many eyeballs as possible? Oh no... it couldn't be old fashioned money... it just has to be a shadowy conspiracy to disempower women known as "the patriarchy".

Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this little quote is from the "Girls Who Code" website:

“At Girls Who Code, I wanted to do something that would focus on the hyper-sexualization of women in video games. I proposed my idea to Sophie Hauser and she wanted to do something with me to address social justice. She made a joke saying, ‘Why not have a game where you throw tampons at people?’ At first, we laughed, but after talking about menstruation and how embarrassed we were about it, we realized that it could be worth exploring. In video games, we see blood all the time, but menstrual blood is stigmatized.” ~Andrea Gonzales

Re:Uhm

[LordAba]

Well, this little quote is from the "Girls Who Code" website:

“At Girls Who Code, I wanted to do something that would focus on the hyper-sexualization of women in video games. I proposed my idea to Sophie Hauser and she wanted to do something with me to address social justice. She made a joke saying, ‘Why not have a game where you throw tampons at people?’ At first, we laughed, but after talking about menstruation and how embarrassed we were about it, we realized that it could be worth exploring. In video games, we see blood all the time, but menstrual blood is stigmatized.” ~Andrea Gonzales

Yet I'm the one who is a sicko for suggesting drive by bukkakes...

Menstrual blood is a waste product. I mean us guys might brag about clogging the toilet every once in a while but we generally don't discuss how shit should be de-stigmatized.

Gender gap?

[TimMD909]

Problems with gender equality? You mean like how Google found it was underpaying men? Seems these days that the media is purposefully gas lighting us...

Re:Gender gap?

[AmiMoJo]

It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.

Can we at least agree that it's a good thing that feminists pushed for it to be examined, now that it is helping men at Google?

Re:Gender gap?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.

Amazing, every word of what you just said was wrong.

The people complaining the most about examining the gender wage gap, are complaining against examining it too closely and would rather we just trust them and "fix" things to benefit women.

Re:Gender gap?

[WaffleMonster]

It's ironic how the people who complain the most about any effort to examine or quantify the gender wage gap, are also the first to demand it gets fixed when men are on the losing end.

Nobody here was demanding anything get fixed. They are providing antidotal evidence to support premise underlying narrative is BULLSHIT based on occurrence of the reverse happening at Google.

Re:Gender gap?

[LordAba]

Isn't that a bit "cart before the horse" thinking? Maybe the reason Google was underpaying men was because they didn't want to bring down the shame mobs if it was found out that guys made more...

TFS is utter bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

If the "patriarchy" continues, why the hell are almost 2/3 of all college students in the US female?

Yeah, TFS is just pushing the "victim" culture.

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[lgw]

Doesn't that mean the wage gap that exists is even more of an issue?

Well, women who have the same seniority and work the same hours only make a little bit more than men, so the wage gap isn't too big of an issue right now.

Or did you mean to suggest that women should be paid the same as men even if they choose to work fewer hours, or choose less demanding work? Sort of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" sort of thing?

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[Virtucon]

Well being the victim is where it's at. Unfortunately no client I've ever had has cared about gender, race or socioeconomic status; they just want it fixed. I loathe the day that tech organizations are filled with people who have less tech in the game than social justice. In some organizations I think we're already at that tipping point and it stifles creativity.

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[Bert64]

Businesses are out to make profit...
If it were possible to pay women less than men but otherwise achieve the same standard of work, don't you think that all companies would be exclusively hiring women?

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[whoever57]

You assume that hiring and promotion decisions are decided completely rationally.

LOL.

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[im_thatoneguy]

Except "businesses" are generally effectively run to benefit each employee in whatever position they hold. Generally, that means that in practice every employee seeks to do the minimum work while still keeping their job or being promoted. That means most decisions are pretty "lazy" and nothing is lazier than hiring someone you know.

The problem with that is you generally know people of the same gender\race\socioeconomic status. So many jobs are in reality not filled through an unbiased recruitment strategy but "hey my nephew is interested in your line of work and just graduated." "Oh yeah, send him on over we're currently hiring!"

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[Win0ver]

Big Corps have no problem destroying the environment or exploiting children in Bangladesh to increase profits, yet you believe they would stop at "patriarchal prejudices"? Give me a break.

If hiring women meant same work for less pay, men would be massively unemployed.

Re:TFS is utter bullshit

[whoever57]

Again, you assume that hiring decisions are purely rational.

Your example shows not rational behaviour, but lack of ethics.

Re:Hypocrisy of the Media

[DickBreath]

Someone suggested that American news organizations make things up and call it news.

American news organizations DO NOT make things up and call it news.
They call it BREAKING NEWS.

Re:Females are treated a billion times better than

[TimMD909]

I've been treated like shit my whole life... Every time I hear this Jewish bullshit propaganda, designed to make males and females hate each other to further the Jews' plans to exterminate all races except Jews...

Maybe you're being treated like shit for being an resentful, antisemitic person? It's pretty damn hard to like someone like you who hates another simply for the circumstances of his/her birth.

It all depends on what you measure

[chrism238]

...and the number of minutes on television or column inches in the print media is not a valid metric.
There's many articles demonstrating that if we include health sciences in STEM, that the tables are turned:
http://www.aei.org/publication...

Re:It all depends on what you measure

[chrism238]

It's quite a reasonable position to be against the writing of progressives, feminists, leftists... without having to push a barrow for "the other side".

Re:Just start laughing

[DickBreath]

operator: 911 What's your emergency?

caller: a biologist is lecturing at my school and says that gender is NOT a social construct! He cannot be allowed to say that because this campus is supposed to be a safe space for all points of view. Therefore his point of view must not be allowed!

0% "proof" of anything

[therealkevinkretz]

It's ironic but not "proof of" patriarchy. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a redundant interview in a documentary piece is just a redundant interview. If there were five women and five men interviewed, and their inclusion were chosen by coin toss, with a man-heavy lopsided result, would that "prove" the patriarchy of coins? Of statistics?

This is not by any stretch of the imagination an article about tech. Please keep Slashdot on-topic.

Re:Not for long!

[iggymanz]

Haha, you believe the marketing hype about "artificial intelligence" . Those of us who have to work with those AI wankers know it's all smoke and mirrors and nothing new for decades.

There is no threat from AI to lawyers, doctors, etc. No one is going to trust the diagnosis of a machine despite the hype stories you swallowed.

And no, most humans who actually have sex with other humans don't want a robot sex toy. Slashdot manlettes jacking off in their basement don't get an opinion on the subject.

Re:Hypocrisy of the Media

[Frobnicator]

No, it doesn't prove anything

The story only proves that the writers used strong, loaded language. Even the headline "accidentally" is loaded meaning ignorance, "proved" is loaded as an absolute.

The article is filled with loaded, emotional, and biased terms: "punching women in the gut", "the cruel irony", "proved that women in tech can't catch a break", "tried to rationalize", "accidentally exceptionally effective", and more.

This bit of writing in the story is a real gem: But ultimately Bdeir felt that she could not explain away the show’s mistake, or blame herself, or her organization’s size, or the fact that English isn’t her first language. She could not ... wait, what? How do you parse that thing? She could not blame herself? She could not explain away how she blames herself? She couldn't explain that English isn't her first language? Everything after the first "or" turns the writing into nonsense.

Parsed: Explain, blame, blame, or blame

[tepples]

"But ultimately Bdeir felt that she could not explain away the showâ(TM)s mistake, or blame herself, or her organizationâ(TM)s size, or the fact that English isnâ(TM)t her first language." She could not ... wait, what?

Wrapping each noun phrase in a variable:
"she could not explain away A, or blame B, C, or D"
Distributive law:
"she could not explain away A, or blame B, or blame C, or blame D"

Thus I parse it as Bdeir having felt that she could not do any of these:
- explain away the show's mistake
- blame herself
- blame her organization's size
- blame the fact that English isn't her first language

Oh no, the Patriarchy!

[Anonymous Coward]

When people say "The Patriarchy" I think of it as "The Illuminati" or "the Jews" or "The White Man" or even just "The Man".
It means exactly the same thing.
It's about people blaming their own problems on something that they think is keeping them down. It's a convenient excuse for our own perceived (or actual) failures.
The thing is though, that life itself is a difficult, and it's difficult for almost everyone.
When you start blaming someone else for why things didn't turn out like you wanted, especially an imaginary someone else... Well, that's when you've truly lost.
If you can't admit your own failures, you may as well be just burning someone in effigy.

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean my "white privilege checks" that I get each month are going to stop coming?
Will I have to actually go out and get a job like those "other" people now?

Re: Question

[c6gunner]

Those are all common problems women and minorities deal with on a regular basis

[Citation needed]

the fact that you never see them is because you're in the privileged class

Sure. "I totally have a unicorn in my garage. You just can't see it because it's invisible."

Re: Question

[Immerman]

Don't believe me - try it for yourself. Start *really* paying attention to how people around you get treated. Especially when assholes are involved.

Re: Question

[c6gunner]

And of course if anyone doesn't see the ghosts in your house, it's because they're not really trying to see them. Makes perfect sense. When you REALLY try to see shit, you'll see it!

It's time to stop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do cucks keep posting SJW lies and propaganda on this website? So annoying.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

[jbssm]

Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...

We need more female firefighters.

[Kuruk]

For a profession that has single digit female representation.

Re:We need more female firefighters.

[serviscope_minor]

Sure, so what are you doing about it?

Re: Incel tears incoming.

[green1]

We passed equality of opportunity a very long time ago, it didn't get every high paying job to be greater than 50% female dominated (we ignore the high paying careers that are female dominated, and only focus on the ones that are male dominated), so it wasn't enough. Now we have to focus on "equality of outcome" which translates to active discrimination against white males.

Discrimination is discrimination. Just because it's against a group that used to be "in power" doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

The only way past this is to stop telling organizations what gender or ethnicity they must hire, stop asking everyone what their gender and ethnicity is (the only reason to ever do so is to discriminate) and let organizations do what they do best: Hire the person who is best suited to do the job. Businesses don't want to hire a lesser person just because of skin colour or genitals. Businesses are in it for the money, they don't care about gender or ethnicity unless forced to.

Men who are victims of Domestic Violence

[Anonymous Coward]

... or to believe men who have been victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

Actually, I've seen a number of people push to emphasize that men are victims of domestic violence and sexual assault too and that they have a more difficult time reporting, for example. There hasn't been a #metoo movement for men in part because it's even more culturally taboo for men to be a victim, and I believe there is a real shortage of DV shelters that take men, but anyone who looks at domestic violence in a more than cursory way knows it's a problem.

Re:Men who are victims of Domestic Violence

[green1]

A problem with zero political appetite for resolution.

Context, End Goals, and Ego

[eepok]

I'm part of an ethnic minority and I work in an industry that's traditionally dominated by a majority ethnicity. Were I to be interviewed for a segment on "ethnic minorities in this industry", but for that interview to be cut, I would still judge the entire segment within the context of its goals.

I would like to watch this 60-minutes segment and see if the goals of the segment (presumably to increase the acceptance of women in tech and to improve their treatment within the industry) would benefit or be hindered by Saujani's interview. If Saujani comes off as a firebrand and not a uniter, I wouldn't hold it against 60 minutes to omit her interview.

That is, of course, pure conjecture and that's all we have until we see everything.

You and I can have exactly the same goals of reducing racism in areas of high persistence of racism, but I guarantee my method of inclusion and sharing will consistently do more for our goals than would screaming at people and calling them racists. If you're genuinely goal oriented, choose the method that will most likely result in the achieving of those goals-- even if success isn't seen in your life time.

It's lauded discrimination .....

[King_TJ]

"Gender equality" should be something encouraged by ensuring both genders have the same OPPORTUNITIES to better themselves. If you're trying to give one gender additional opportunities not given to the other one? That's about artificial (and discriminatory) manipulation of the outcome.

No different, really, than situations like McDonalds recently announcing they're donating a large sum of money to help give black kids scholarships to colleges and universities. As a private business, McD can spend its money any way it wishes. But let's call it what it really is; discriminatory favoritism purposely given to a group that's perceived as needing more financial help to pay for higher education. If this was REALLY about promoting equality, the scholarships they fund wouldn't have one's skin color as a prerequisite. What about the poor white kid who lives in an inner city, who could excel in college if he/she was only given the opportunity? Clearly, McDonalds thinks it's more beneficial to ignore that kid because he/she is "too white" to make them look good.

It doesn't, it's click bait

[rsilvergun]

There's a massive SJW backlash on the Internet right now. It's generating a ton of advert revenue. This is just more false controversy drummed up for clicks. Like the Captain Marvel/Rotten Tomatoes story. They're winding us up and sending us off to make money off our eyeballs.

The same thing's been going on with the YouTube skeptic community. A bunch of skeptic channels I rather liked became 24/7 rants about SJWs and feminism because the anti-Homeopath and pro-vaccine stuff they were running wasn't paying the bills...

Re: Hypocrisy of the Media

[houghi]

I don't get all Thai s. I learned long ago that the stronger gender the is actually the weaker ine because of the weaknes of the stronger gender for the weaker one.

(This applies, no matter what gender is what. I like Apache helicopters)

Re:Hypocrisy of the Media

[lgw]

The basis of my lawsuit is that I went to Playboy.com to read the great articles.

But those women were sexually assaulting me and creating a hostile environment by exposing their bodies on adjacent pages.

I think the real joke is that Playboy.com eliminated all nudes a few years back. They stopped offending the people who just wanted to read the fine article! Not sure how long that lasted.

They're just after clicks

[rsilvergun]

and you fell for it by clicking. The reason you're seeing so much SJW crap is that it gets clicks and comments. You got a +5, meaning at least 3 other folks looked at your comment and moderated it, meaning community engagement which in turn means more content generation for /. (which is the point of /.).

Go find the /. thread about Captain Marvel. I complained about the same thing there. It hit 800+ comments. YouTube is awash in anti-SJW sentiment because those videos get clicks.

If you want to make this stop start ignoring it. SJWs aren't like the White Supremacists. They're poorly organized and fight among themselves. They're mostly a few angry college chicks who grow out of it after graduation.

Left alone the SJW crowd is mostly harmless. Yes, there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything in this wide world, but the harm from obsessing over them is far, far greater. While you're focusing on this the wealthy are packing the courts with pro-corporate judges and doing things like forced arbitration, letting companies get away with putting lead in your air and water and stripping you of access to education and healthcare.

Re:They're just after clicks

[pecosdave]

I agree that SJWs are stereo typically a few angry college chick who may or may not grow out of it after graduation.

The fact that all the fucking news cameras are pointed at them and they seem to be able to drive the narrative from such a small minority position that irks me. In reality, that was the significant underlying point of my parent post. Giving massive news coverage to something that's a cultural abnormality skews the public perception of normal, and eventually leads to shift in normality if enough people adjust their views.

Slashdot is fueling false perceptions by favoring so many skewed articles. To their credit there is an occasional post to counter the rest, but it's a nine to one or greater ratio.

Re:They're just after clicks

[sfcat]

Left alone the SJW crowd is mostly harmless. Yes, there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything in this wide world, but the harm from obsessing over them is far, far greater. While you're focusing on this the wealthy are packing the courts with pro-corporate judges and doing things like forced arbitration, letting companies get away with putting lead in your air and water and stripping you of access to education and healthcare.

When major mainstream media outlets are parroting SJW ideology consistently, I'm not sure its so easy to ignore them. If they were, as you say, a few people on college campuses we wouldn't see articles like this one. Spot on on the packing the courts part though...

U.S. women don't have healthy relationships w men?

[Futurepower(R)]

"Blame it on GitHub!"

That joke is in the direction of indicating the true underlying craziness of the topic.

More than 30 years ago, while backpack traveling outside the U.S., I became friends with a medical doctor. She gave me a book to read that said, "In Italy, feminism is pro-woman. In the U.S., feminism is anti-male."

That seems correct to me. To me, women in the U.S. seem to make themselves unhappy. It amazes me that women in the U.S. don't realize that being anti-male will make themselves unhappy.

Yesterday, I had a first conversation, by telephone, with a Brazilian woman who is in Brazil. She was very happy.

Re:Yes, whites do get welfare [Re:Question]

[UsuallyReasonable]

His statements were correct, your attempt at pedantry notwithstanding.

This tired, sexist bullshit

[Iamthecheese]

"The patriarchy" as feminists mean it is trivial to prove or disprove. Just do the following: Perform a randomized cross-society poll. Ask these questions:in a random order: Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman?
Is it ever acceptable for a man to hit a woman?
Would you like to contribute to the Women's March?
Would you like to contribute to the Men's March?
How do you feel about the recent murder of 500 girls in Afghanistan? Is that something Congress should act on immediately?
How do you feel about the recent murder of 500 boys in Afghanistan? Is that something Congress should act on immediately?
If The Patriarchy is real obviously people will choose to help and protect men at the expense of women. Tell the above to a feminist and she'll start talking about systems of power and oppression, but it's just more bullshit. Pin them down on one definition and the definition will change. Feminism is female supremacy and it needs to die.

Wizard of Oz type stuff

[Hillie]

This is pretty amazing that one accidentally proved something that is fictitious.

There is no such thing as patriarchy.

See Christina Hoff Sommers debunk all the nonsense of gender studies in the classroom.

This is also, by the way, the reasons many universities have made it against the rules or illegal to record their classes even for reference purposes the way you used to be able to.

Because they don't want it getting out what they are teaching to the students in various liberal arts classes.

We need to get liberalism out of colleges and put back rightful education. Stop turning our kids into liberal propaganda mouthpieces.

This matches many real world experiences

[WillAffleckUW]

From working in tech to having a young tech woman as a roommate trying to get in the field, I've seen this happen time and time again.

One of the things I like about the setup here is that there is a critical mass of women in STEM fields, so you don't get the lone woman in a committee or a project, but it's a larger number.

However, women need to continually reinforce credit for other women when they speak up. Even unconsciously, men tend to not hear them when they contribute, and incorrectly assign credit to other men in the group, and talk over them as well.

Re: Hypocrisy of the Media

[Areyoukiddingme]

(This applies, no matter what gender is what. I like Apache helicopters)

Pervert.

SJW propaganda

[DidgetMaster]

I worked for a company back in the early 90s. Most of my fellow programmers were male, but a few of them were female. One of the ladies on my team decided that she wanted to get laid off for a severance check since she didn't really want to work anymore. She tried everything to be a part of the next round of 'reduction in force'. She came in late every day and went home early. She played games on her computer. She was behind on nearly all of her tasks. At the next 2 layoffs she was not among those picked to leave. Finally, she just quit without any severance because all her attempts failed. If I had tried even a tenth of the stunts she pulled, I would have been out on the street in a New York Minute.

Valuable to who?

[rsilvergun]

The point of this is to drive more workers into the industry so the last few making good money get their wages dropped down.

In any case the Gender pay gap will take care of itself as more women graduate college than men. At this point it's just a distraction by the right wing on both sides (right win Dems like to use it to avoid talking about real solutions to working class problems and the GOP likes to use it to rile up their base).

That is not left wing

[aepervius]

"How you're stupid if you question any vaccine on any level" that is not left wing , there are people on either side of the political spectrum which don't vaccinate their kids for variety of stupid idiotic imbecilic reason and many of them left wing - "you should vaccinate your kid" is enither left nor right wing, it is "it is science dumb fuck learn from history on people dying from it dumb fuck" wing. And that was your first one, the one which should be the strongest in an enumeration... There is no need to continue reading.

Re:That is not left wing

[aepervius]

and "dying by it" i meant measle in case it was not understandable from the context. I should have previewed my bad.

Re:U.S. women don't have healthy relationships w m

[Anonymous Coward]

I became friends with a medical doctor. She gave me a book to read that said, "In Italy, feminism is pro-woman. In the U.S., feminism is anti-male."

There was a recent (US-based) conference, Women and Psychedelics Forum, from which I recently read report of. I found the agenda interesting. First topic of discussion: toxic masculinity.

So I'm thinking: Geeze ladies. That's how you want to spend your time in a conference that's focused on women? Talking about men?

So, it's not only 60 Minutes that does this kind of things. Women do it to.

You don't know a lot of nurses, do you?

[rsilvergun]

My family's full of them, and they all have to do heavy lifting for the first 5 years. After they put in their dues most move up to desk jobs handing out pills or backing up doctors.

Re:You don't know a lot of nurses, do you?

[Cederic]

Yeah, it's the nurses I know that told me the men get asked to do all the heavy lifting.

Sure, the women do a lot too. When the men aren't around.

They're not driving the narrative

[rsilvergun]

the pro-corporate right wing is. Specifically to distract you from economic issues with social issues.

The right wing Dems use SJWs to distract their base from things like Medicare for All, Jobs programs, tuition free college and other programs they and their wealthy donors don't want to be taxed to pay for. Right wing Dems abandoned the working class during Bill Clinton's presidency so they need something to distract from that.

As for the GOP (which is all right wing) they use it to rile up their base with a new enemy. Racism is pretty much going away and the Southern Strategy (google the phrase if you don't know it) is petering out. SJWs are the new boogie man to be scared of.

There's nothing there. SJWs have no real power except as boogiemen to distract from the same 'old crappy policies that screw the working class stiffs like you and me. Ignore them. Vote Bernie Sanders. He's the only politician I know who consistently brings the working class together around real issues.

Ignore mainstream media

[rsilvergun]

they're bought off by corporate interests. Go look up Secular Talk and the Young Turks on YouTube.

MSM is doing the same thing that the right wing "Clintonian" Democrats & the GOP are doing: Using SJWism to distract you from the horrible things they're doing to you economically. Don't fall for it. It's a trap.

Re:Hypocrisy of the Media

[zugmeister]

Google says October of 2015 'till February of 2017.
That was a strange thing... you have a product that pushes two different items, nude women and good writing. Someone bitches loudly enough and you remove one of those things you're known for.
Could this be an early iteration of "get woke go broke"?

Re:Men's brains are different than womens

[HornWumpus]

'Women's Studies' should be cooking, cleaning, baby raising, Kegels and suppressing the gag reflex.

Men have always worried about women

[MonsterMasher]

Look,

men have always considered women important enough to work to improve their situation,

and most women now are twisted into vicious #ManHating putrid slime, who 'get-off' on kicking men in the balls, trying to destroy men's lives
(please excuse me as I work in a University setting for years surrounded by lying vicious evil #ManHating cnts.)

Perhaps the women rambled on about "ma-vag" & the man just answered the questions well for all.

https://twitter.com/StevWork/s...

Re:I can think of something worse

[Kartu]

...here's an intelligent rebuttal [blogspot.com] to Alessandro Strumia's presentation....

Not only did it touch as single chart of the long list of facts entioned by Strumia, it still didn't escape hilarious bits:

"...I hence asked one of our PhD students, Tobias Mistele, to plot the same quantity..."

Confirmation bias away please.

Re:He created them male and female

[pecosdave]

No comment on the actual content of your post - I just want to say thank you for showing me that really cool IPFS publishing site I didn't know existed. I know how to put things in IPFS/get them back, but that site seems to actually perform well, which I can't say about all things IPFS.

The 1st "key topic" is "toxic masculinity"!

[Futurepower(R)]

Wow!

Quote: "Key topics that were discussed included: toxic masculinity..."

To me, that indicates a shocking lack of social ability.

Re: Hypocrisy of the Media

[Highdude702]

don't be racist against a gay Apache helicopter.

Re: "inclusive" means ONLY males.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe what they had to say was unintelligible shit?

Re: East-Asian Women Succeed in Tech

[c6gunner]

The success of East-Asian women in computer science and software engineering proves that gender barriers do not exist.

It depends; how does it compare to the success of East-Asian men in the same fields? If the number of east Asian women in the field is statistically indistinguishable from the number of east Asian men, then yeah, you would have a point. However I strongly suspect that this is not the case.

Your segment got cut. Sorry your grapes went sour

[sabbede]

"Patriarchy"? I just looked it over - three interviewees plus kids. Two interviewees were women, one was the Code.org guy.

The topic was "closing the gender gap", not "talking to women in tech". I see no reason to only interview women for the segment. Anybody engaged in bringing women into tech fields is a valid guest. Blaming some phantom power structure looks like little more than sour grapes.

Re:Just start laughing

[DickBreath]

The biologist would be talking about gender and biology. The 'triggered' one would be upset that the biologist does not accept the POV that gender isn't grounded in biology, and has no biological function, but rather is a mere social construct.