Actually, it's education, increased health, and being better off economically that resulted in the decline of religion. When people have access to better health care, they have less motivation to pray to god to heal them. When they are better off economically, they have less need to pray that god lets them win the lottery as a reward for believing. And when they are more educated about science in general, they can see just how stupid and devoid of proof all religions are. That's why religion is more and more a cultural, rather than a religious, thing.
And no, believing in superstitions, ghosts, ancestor spirits or lucky numbers does not get you counted as a proper atheist. Atheism is the rejection of ALL supernatural beliefs.
Are you saying that if the DNC and Hillary's campaign hadn't colluded that Sanders would still not have won the nomination, and not gone on to wipe the floor with Trump?
Both parties have to share the blame.
Perhaps voting rights should be contingent upon demonstration of minimal critical thinking skills. Kinda like how you can't get a driver's licence if you cannot demonstrate you can drive.
How quaint. This series is devoted to people with drivers licenses who cannot drive. Can't park without hitting another car and driving off. Can't stay in their lane. Routinely step on the gas when they want to brake. Can't see, but won't get glasses. Have totaled many cars. Who are afraid of driving in traffic. Who cut everyone off. Who stop in the middle of intersections. Who make right-hand turns from the innermost of 3 lanes. Who don't understand what traffic signals mean. Who talk on the phone while eating and doing their makeup in the rear-view mirror while driving (that one was a real estate agent who claimed she could multitask, but missed stop signs). Who thought the maximum speed limit was just a suggestion, and you could go as fast as you wanted. Who somehow got their license and have never driven since because they KNOW they can't drive.
Trusting a medical opinion because the person giving it is a celebrity is not critical thinking. Trusting someone because they're a celebrity is how you got Trump as president. And people continue to trust celebrities even after they've been caught in lie after lie after lie. Why? Because even if we did invent a vaccine against stupidity, they would be against it because they're stupid.
the flu vaccine is filled with mercury and asbestos isotopes
PLUTONIUM! You forgot plutonium. And little spy cams that migrate to your eyeballs so they can see what you see. And each dose has a different RFID tag that's injected into you that can be tracked by satellite. Must remember the satellites!
For what it's worth paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep, it starts when you're always afraid, step out of line the man will come and take you away.
You most certainly can do experiments yourself to prove that vaccinations work (the current topic). The same primitive techniques that Louis Pasteur used didn't die with him.
Given your ignorance of stuff you should have learned in high school but didn't, perhaps it's a good thing that you're in the minority.
'd rather air (sic) on the side of caution. When my children are adults they can decide for themselves if they want to take that poison.
Please do so. Hopefully they will die from one of the childhood diseases that vaccines can prevent, and end the spread of your genes.
Now as for the article stating:
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them.
Paranoid personality disorder is almost impossible to treat, because (1) paranoid people take anything, even coincidences, as evidence that someone is out to get them in one way or another, and (2) they believe their paranoid delusions are validation of their inner self, and any attempt to point out the contrary is just more proof that their paranoia is justified.
It doesn't have to make sense, because we're dealing with people showing signs that in any other situation would be seen as a break with reality, but because of "we must give equal weight to all opinions, even the totally batshit crazy ones," you're evil if you try to do so in this case, again reinforcing their delusions.
Can anyone who isn't an anti-vaxxer deny these people are showing signs of mental illness?
The memo wasn't that long. You lied, and you got called out on it. Obviously your reading and retention abilities are seriously impaired, which explains a lot about you. I guess that's what happens to old virgins - you were warned that too much masturbation was damaging, just as too much video gaming (and we all know how much you love video games).
Also, you're full of shit on your "10 lies" as well as your comments about my appearance, as anyone who's seen me on TV or in person can tell. Just like your whole life is full of shit - you spend your days trolling on the net and playing video games and then you wonder why you're an aging virgin with no real life. Hint - it's your (lack of) personality.
By creating a hostile work environment, you opened google up to lawsuits from other employees if they didn't fire you. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Suck it up, snowflake.
You got caught in a lie, and your claim that he "self-identifies" as a liberal and that you think that's sufficient is directly contradicted by all the times you've rejected the validity of my self-identification as a woman. You're a lying hypocrite.
You got caught in an easily debunked lie. The question I have is why you feel you have to lie. What is so wrong with you that you think you won't be called to account for it? Same as you all so often divert discussions off-topic to focus on my transsexuality. You have a problem.
Also, you earlier said he "self-identified as a classical liberal." Since when do you accept people self-identifying as anything, or is it just transsexuals who don't have the right to validly self-identify? You really are a bundle of contradictions.
You're like a former co-worker who I told 10 years ago to get psychiatric help for his personality defects because they were seriously interfering with his quality of life. I warned him that if he didn't, we'd be having the same conversation 10 years later, and he'd be a 40-year-old virgin instead of a 30-year-old virgin. Well, he didn't get help, and he's literally a 40-year-old virgin. Same trajectory as you.
That you lack any insight into your own motivations for your actions is just another form of denial. Get help. You can't do it on your own, nobody else will do it for you, and trying to fulfill the void by continually trolling a transsexual is just lame.
The claim that men are pushed into less satisfying jobs, and the claim that men choose less satisfying jobs, are contradictory. You can't have it both ways.
And the claim that they choose to work in toxic work environments, with death marches, unpaid overtime, and abusive management for "status", if true, shows just how f*cked up men can be. It also shows how self-destructive men can be (and sadly, how they take pride in such self-destructive behaviour, as if it's a badge of honour to have "survived", rather than an admission that they really are powerless to effect change in their own lives).
You also failed to address one of the consequences - that men of the latest generation are, more and more, "failing to launch" in the rest of their lives, with limited social contact outside of work, to the point where you've got men in their 30s and 40s whose "social life" is online video games, often in mom's basement.
Even the author's arguments back this up.
10 years ago I had warned a former co-worker to get help or he'd end up a 40-year-old virgin. He didn't, and he is. The ability to isolate yourself from the real world in a tech job gives a "safe space" for people who haven't developed social skills, but it's a trap - it's self-reinforcing behaviour that ends up with people who simply cannot function well in other environments, so they continue to justify their behaviour to themselves by "being proud" of being willing to put up with the crappy work conditions, when the fact is that they don't have other options, and their employers know that they can kick the workers around because it fulfills their psychological need to find pride in something, even if it's only being able to tolerate a terrible work environment.
Now if you want to look at some facts in the real world, the vast majority of divorces are initiated by the woman. So much so that the document templates assume it's the woman asking, and on the rare occasion when it's the man, they have to be edited to reflect it. Women are demonstrably less willing to put up with a situation that they don't like. Given that women are 5-1.2 times to be the victim in domestic violence, it's logical that one of the consequences will be that women initiate most divorces and relationship split-ups. The fact that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she's exiting a relationship shows just how dysfunctional wounded male "pride" is.
So again, why would anyone, male or female, accept to work in a job that is less satisfying if they have other options? In the case of the people pushing the biological meme, it looks like in reality they are trying to avoid the fact that they don't have other options due to personality defects that limit their options, not because of any external "push" to take less satisfying jobs.
After all, who says that having a satisfactory job means you can't have pride in your work, or that you have to have less power (which is what males seem to equate with success even if it's at the cost of personal satisfaction in their lives).
He claimed that male conservatives are best suited. Not only are males, according to him, biologically superior when it comes to tech, but conservatives are best suited because they are more conscientious.
Try reading his actual memo. Everything you've said here is false. He doesn't even mention conservatives at all, and self-identifies as a classical liberal. Everything he said here is 100% consistent with classic liberalism. His overall premise is that males and females are better suited for different roles, and it is a very correct one: It's well backed by science that women are less suited as firefighters and athletes for example.
Again, you are a liar, and really stupid because it's easily disproved. Here's just one quote:
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
The term "conservative" appears 4 times. So much for your ability to read, to understand what you read, to interpret it accurately, or to be anything other than a stupid lying scumbag.
As for "conservatives tend(ing) to be higher in conscientiousness", judging people by anything other than their suitability for the job (such as whether they are a conservative or not) is the opposite of a meritocracy.
Maybe you should actually read the whole thing, where he said that men were better fit biologically, and that conservatives were better suited because, quote:
conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness
Only a conservative would say such an unproven, self-congratulatory thing about conservatives. Same as much of the rest of what he wrote is standard conservative drivel. His position is the exact opposite of a meritocracy. But you wouldn't notice that because you're stupid.
Republicans identify as such. Some actually are. Also, the brand of conservatism in the US that was practiced 100 years ago is dead - mutated into something weird, same as liberals in the US.
The definition of conservative has greatly changed over the years, same as the definition of liberal. As an example, the US democratic party is in no way, shape or form a "liberal-leaning" or "left-leaning" party, even though they claim to be.
You have to look back well beyond the last 50 years to see how the meaning of both conservative and liberal have changed in the US. Also, it might help to look at the 95% of the world that isn't the US to see how others define the two terms, both today and historically.
Would it? Well, given the slagging I routinely receive on slashdot for what I am, probably not. Men are simply not as accepting of it as women (not individually, but in the aggregate - fewer men think that changing sex is a great thing for someone to do, even though it's freaking awesome, at least from my point of view). Also, there just aren't enough of us to make a significant difference in terms of balance. All we can do is bring our own particular experiences and the insights gained from seeing things from both sides of the gender divide to the table.
That being said, it's one of those YMMV things - Briggs-Meyer says I'm an extrovert now, but I certainly wasn't before. The ease with which I make friends of both sexes now just seems natural and pretty much effortless. Go figure. It's like a lot of other things that changed during transition - my sense of smell, how someone leaving the toilet seat up irks me now, how I'm less reserved in expressing empathy. Even dogs treat me differently (probably because I smell different to them).
Can someone who doesn't identify as female pull it off? For a while, maybe, as people wouldn't expect significant changes of behaviour right away, but over the long term, sitting in a meeting where they used to be a prime participant and now being talked around, over, or just ignored... we just roll our eyes at such displays of disrespect because it happens so often that it's expected of men that we hardly even notice any more. It's not worth trying to compete with male egos battling each other in a pissing contest, or marking their territory. If you push back too hard, you're a bitch or a cunt.
It's stuff like that which makes tech increasingly unattractive to women. It happens elsewhere, but it's the norm in tech.
Where did he say anything about one gender or another being superior?
He didn't.
Yes, I read the whole thing, and it is rather long.
Either you're blind or your reading comprehension is really low, or you're just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Here are a few choice quotes:
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
So how is saying women have higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance not saying women are inferior?
Also, how is the following quote not an admission that men's behaviour is dysfunctional and ultimately self-destructive?
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.
Basically, he's saying that men are somehow being pushed into less satisfying jobs, and yet he's also claimed just before that men gravitate to these same less satisfying jobs. Whichever one is true doesn't matter - the fact is that women have less tolerance for this shit. Why would anyone devote a significant portion of their lives every week doing something they find less satisfying? If it's for status, I have to ask "status in whose eyes?" Because generally women see people who are so devoted to working at their job that everything else is secondary as losers. We all know these guys - all they can talk about is their job, because they've voluntarily excluded everything else from their experience to have status in other men's eyes. This explains the male pissing contests, the death marches, the long hours of uncompensated overtime, the expectation of being available 24/7. So they can have status in the eyes of other men caught in the same trap.
A more pertinent question is why so many of today's male tech workers are experiencing a "failure to launch"? Not leaving their parents' home, or not having a well-rounded set of experiences and abilities so that they can have a social life, instead making do with porn, video games, and more work. If a career in tech is so great, why does it lead to so many men who can't grow up to become well-rounded fully functional members of society?
In light of this, women who have options are mostly going to go elsewhere, because the tech work culture sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's education, increased health, and being better off economically that resulted in the decline of religion. When people have access to better health care, they have less motivation to pray to god to heal them. When they are better off economically, they have less need to pray that god lets them win the lottery as a reward for believing. And when they are more educated about science in general, they can see just how stupid and devoid of proof all religions are. That's why religion is more and more a cultural, rather than a religious, thing.
And no, believing in superstitions, ghosts, ancestor spirits or lucky numbers does not get you counted as a proper atheist. Atheism is the rejection of ALL supernatural beliefs.
Are you saying that if the DNC and Hillary's campaign hadn't colluded that Sanders would still not have won the nomination, and not gone on to wipe the floor with Trump? Both parties have to share the blame.
Perhaps voting rights should be contingent upon demonstration of minimal critical thinking skills. Kinda like how you can't get a driver's licence if you cannot demonstrate you can drive.
How quaint. This series is devoted to people with drivers licenses who cannot drive. Can't park without hitting another car and driving off. Can't stay in their lane. Routinely step on the gas when they want to brake. Can't see, but won't get glasses. Have totaled many cars. Who are afraid of driving in traffic. Who cut everyone off. Who stop in the middle of intersections. Who make right-hand turns from the innermost of 3 lanes. Who don't understand what traffic signals mean. Who talk on the phone while eating and doing their makeup in the rear-view mirror while driving (that one was a real estate agent who claimed she could multitask, but missed stop signs). Who thought the maximum speed limit was just a suggestion, and you could go as fast as you wanted. Who somehow got their license and have never driven since because they KNOW they can't drive.
Trusting a medical opinion because the person giving it is a celebrity is not critical thinking. Trusting someone because they're a celebrity is how you got Trump as president. And people continue to trust celebrities even after they've been caught in lie after lie after lie. Why? Because even if we did invent a vaccine against stupidity, they would be against it because they're stupid.
The way to fight ignorance is by making truth available. Not by telling people "you're brainwashed".
The study shows otherwise. It's almost impossible to overcome paranoia, especially with facts.
And what's so bad about that again? :-) Except that now you have one more person telling you to put the damn seat down when you're finished!
the flu vaccine is filled with mercury and asbestos isotopes
PLUTONIUM! You forgot plutonium. And little spy cams that migrate to your eyeballs so they can see what you see. And each dose has a different RFID tag that's injected into you that can be tracked by satellite. Must remember the satellites!
For what it's worth paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep, it starts when you're always afraid, step out of line the man will come and take you away.
Fucking moron. No vaccine is 100% effective. Nobody claimed it was, so you're just another straw man with a head full of straw instead of brains.
Computers are based on logic. Have you performed experiments with OR, AND, XOR gates yourself?
Obviously the only logic they're familiar with is NOP :-)
You most certainly can do experiments yourself to prove that vaccinations work (the current topic). The same primitive techniques that Louis Pasteur used didn't die with him.
Given your ignorance of stuff you should have learned in high school but didn't, perhaps it's a good thing that you're in the minority.
'd rather air (sic) on the side of caution. When my children are adults they can decide for themselves if they want to take that poison.
Please do so. Hopefully they will die from one of the childhood diseases that vaccines can prevent, and end the spread of your genes.
Now as for the article stating:
What seems to have happened was that the pro-vax campaign was taken by anti-vaxers as just another attempt to lie to them.
Paranoid personality disorder is almost impossible to treat, because (1) paranoid people take anything, even coincidences, as evidence that someone is out to get them in one way or another, and (2) they believe their paranoid delusions are validation of their inner self, and any attempt to point out the contrary is just more proof that their paranoia is justified.
It doesn't have to make sense, because we're dealing with people showing signs that in any other situation would be seen as a break with reality, but because of "we must give equal weight to all opinions, even the totally batshit crazy ones," you're evil if you try to do so in this case, again reinforcing their delusions.
Can anyone who isn't an anti-vaxxer deny these people are showing signs of mental illness?
It's a reminder that the underlying processes of computers are still made by humans.
Not for long ...
The memo wasn't that long. You lied, and you got called out on it. Obviously your reading and retention abilities are seriously impaired, which explains a lot about you. I guess that's what happens to old virgins - you were warned that too much masturbation was damaging, just as too much video gaming (and we all know how much you love video games).
The lie where you said he didn't even mention the word "conservative", when it appears 4 times in the memo - anthen you had to admit you were full of shit, because it was obvious you hadn't even read the memo.
Also, you're full of shit on your "10 lies" as well as your comments about my appearance, as anyone who's seen me on TV or in person can tell. Just like your whole life is full of shit - you spend your days trolling on the net and playing video games and then you wonder why you're an aging virgin with no real life. Hint - it's your (lack of) personality.
By creating a hostile work environment, you opened google up to lawsuits from other employees if they didn't fire you. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Suck it up, snowflake.
You got caught in a lie, and your claim that he "self-identifies" as a liberal and that you think that's sufficient is directly contradicted by all the times you've rejected the validity of my self-identification as a woman. You're a lying hypocrite.
You got caught in an easily debunked lie. The question I have is why you feel you have to lie. What is so wrong with you that you think you won't be called to account for it? Same as you all so often divert discussions off-topic to focus on my transsexuality. You have a problem.
Also, you earlier said he "self-identified as a classical liberal." Since when do you accept people self-identifying as anything, or is it just transsexuals who don't have the right to validly self-identify? You really are a bundle of contradictions.
You're like a former co-worker who I told 10 years ago to get psychiatric help for his personality defects because they were seriously interfering with his quality of life. I warned him that if he didn't, we'd be having the same conversation 10 years later, and he'd be a 40-year-old virgin instead of a 30-year-old virgin. Well, he didn't get help, and he's literally a 40-year-old virgin. Same trajectory as you.
That you lack any insight into your own motivations for your actions is just another form of denial. Get help. You can't do it on your own, nobody else will do it for you, and trying to fulfill the void by continually trolling a transsexual is just lame.
No, they are not "scientifically proven."
The claim that men are pushed into less satisfying jobs, and the claim that men choose less satisfying jobs, are contradictory. You can't have it both ways.
And the claim that they choose to work in toxic work environments, with death marches, unpaid overtime, and abusive management for "status", if true, shows just how f*cked up men can be. It also shows how self-destructive men can be (and sadly, how they take pride in such self-destructive behaviour, as if it's a badge of honour to have "survived", rather than an admission that they really are powerless to effect change in their own lives).
You also failed to address one of the consequences - that men of the latest generation are, more and more, "failing to launch" in the rest of their lives, with limited social contact outside of work, to the point where you've got men in their 30s and 40s whose "social life" is online video games, often in mom's basement.
Even the author's arguments back this up.
10 years ago I had warned a former co-worker to get help or he'd end up a 40-year-old virgin. He didn't, and he is. The ability to isolate yourself from the real world in a tech job gives a "safe space" for people who haven't developed social skills, but it's a trap - it's self-reinforcing behaviour that ends up with people who simply cannot function well in other environments, so they continue to justify their behaviour to themselves by "being proud" of being willing to put up with the crappy work conditions, when the fact is that they don't have other options, and their employers know that they can kick the workers around because it fulfills their psychological need to find pride in something, even if it's only being able to tolerate a terrible work environment.
Now if you want to look at some facts in the real world, the vast majority of divorces are initiated by the woman. So much so that the document templates assume it's the woman asking, and on the rare occasion when it's the man, they have to be edited to reflect it. Women are demonstrably less willing to put up with a situation that they don't like. Given that women are 5-1.2 times to be the victim in domestic violence, it's logical that one of the consequences will be that women initiate most divorces and relationship split-ups. The fact that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she's exiting a relationship shows just how dysfunctional wounded male "pride" is.
So again, why would anyone, male or female, accept to work in a job that is less satisfying if they have other options? In the case of the people pushing the biological meme, it looks like in reality they are trying to avoid the fact that they don't have other options due to personality defects that limit their options, not because of any external "push" to take less satisfying jobs.
After all, who says that having a satisfactory job means you can't have pride in your work, or that you have to have less power (which is what males seem to equate with success even if it's at the cost of personal satisfaction in their lives).
He claimed that male conservatives are best suited. Not only are males, according to him, biologically superior when it comes to tech, but conservatives are best suited because they are more conscientious.
Try reading his actual memo. Everything you've said here is false. He doesn't even mention conservatives at all, and self-identifies as a classical liberal. Everything he said here is 100% consistent with classic liberalism. His overall premise is that males and females are better suited for different roles, and it is a very correct one: It's well backed by science that women are less suited as firefighters and athletes for example.
Again, you are a liar, and really stupid because it's easily disproved. Here's just one quote:
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
The term "conservative" appears 4 times. So much for your ability to read, to understand what you read, to interpret it accurately, or to be anything other than a stupid lying scumbag.
As for "conservatives tend(ing) to be higher in conscientiousness", judging people by anything other than their suitability for the job (such as whether they are a conservative or not) is the opposite of a meritocracy.
conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness
Only a conservative would say such an unproven, self-congratulatory thing about conservatives. Same as much of the rest of what he wrote is standard conservative drivel. His position is the exact opposite of a meritocracy. But you wouldn't notice that because you're stupid.
Republicans identify as such. Some actually are. Also, the brand of conservatism in the US that was practiced 100 years ago is dead - mutated into something weird, same as liberals in the US.
The definition of conservative has greatly changed over the years, same as the definition of liberal. As an example, the US democratic party is in no way, shape or form a "liberal-leaning" or "left-leaning" party, even though they claim to be.
You have to look back well beyond the last 50 years to see how the meaning of both conservative and liberal have changed in the US. Also, it might help to look at the 95% of the world that isn't the US to see how others define the two terms, both today and historically.
Are you claiming that there are no conservative politicians? Or that the accepted definition of conservative hasn't changed in a couple hundred years?
Would it? Well, given the slagging I routinely receive on slashdot for what I am, probably not. Men are simply not as accepting of it as women (not individually, but in the aggregate - fewer men think that changing sex is a great thing for someone to do, even though it's freaking awesome, at least from my point of view). Also, there just aren't enough of us to make a significant difference in terms of balance. All we can do is bring our own particular experiences and the insights gained from seeing things from both sides of the gender divide to the table.
That being said, it's one of those YMMV things - Briggs-Meyer says I'm an extrovert now, but I certainly wasn't before. The ease with which I make friends of both sexes now just seems natural and pretty much effortless. Go figure. It's like a lot of other things that changed during transition - my sense of smell, how someone leaving the toilet seat up irks me now, how I'm less reserved in expressing empathy. Even dogs treat me differently (probably because I smell different to them).
Can someone who doesn't identify as female pull it off? For a while, maybe, as people wouldn't expect significant changes of behaviour right away, but over the long term, sitting in a meeting where they used to be a prime participant and now being talked around, over, or just ignored ... we just roll our eyes at such displays of disrespect because it happens so often that it's expected of men that we hardly even notice any more. It's not worth trying to compete with male egos battling each other in a pissing contest, or marking their territory. If you push back too hard, you're a bitch or a cunt.
It's stuff like that which makes tech increasingly unattractive to women. It happens elsewhere, but it's the norm in tech.
Where did he say anything about one gender or another being superior?
He didn't. Yes, I read the whole thing, and it is rather long.
Either you're blind or your reading comprehension is really low, or you're just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Here are a few choice quotes:
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
So how is saying women have higher anxiety and lower stress tolerance not saying women are inferior?
Also, how is the following quote not an admission that men's behaviour is dysfunctional and ultimately self-destructive?
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.
Basically, he's saying that men are somehow being pushed into less satisfying jobs, and yet he's also claimed just before that men gravitate to these same less satisfying jobs. Whichever one is true doesn't matter - the fact is that women have less tolerance for this shit. Why would anyone devote a significant portion of their lives every week doing something they find less satisfying? If it's for status, I have to ask "status in whose eyes?" Because generally women see people who are so devoted to working at their job that everything else is secondary as losers. We all know these guys - all they can talk about is their job, because they've voluntarily excluded everything else from their experience to have status in other men's eyes. This explains the male pissing contests, the death marches, the long hours of uncompensated overtime, the expectation of being available 24/7. So they can have status in the eyes of other men caught in the same trap.
A more pertinent question is why so many of today's male tech workers are experiencing a "failure to launch"? Not leaving their parents' home, or not having a well-rounded set of experiences and abilities so that they can have a social life, instead making do with porn, video games, and more work. If a career in tech is so great, why does it lead to so many men who can't grow up to become well-rounded fully functional members of society?
In light of this, women who have options are mostly going to go elsewhere, because the tech work culture sucks.