Everything you'd said so far is ludicrous. It is not even remotely sexist to point out that men and women are different. You're truly delusional if you think we are.
Really? Big push? Like, the "we're going to spend $50,000,000" type of big push, or are we talking more like the "hey, more men should do these things, but we're not actually going to do anything" type of thing?
>Sorry, but when I hear a MRA whining about how bad men have it, it's just asking for violin.
Your attitude is exactly why so many people cannot identify with the feminist movement. Pure hypocrisy You claim to fight sexism.... by being sexist.
>It's too much to ask for men to not rape?
Once again, this argument is entirely non-sequitur. We are not talking about rape, we are talking about sexist hiring practices in tech companies. At this point I can only figure that you are a troll.
It doesn't go to "mens education" it goes to education in a field that is dominated by men. Women were not told they could not participate, they simply opted not to.
You're ignoring the fact that men and women have different interests. You can argue til you're blue in the face that men and women should have the same interests, but they don't. What you're essentially fighting for is that men and women be the same, which they should not be.
I do not want the androgynous future that you're apparently fighting for.
So what are you proposing? Men be put at a disadvantage for the next ~million years to make up for the apparent suppression of women that took place when humans were barely human?
>"Why are you trying to encourage more [massively underrepresented group X] into [profession Y]? That's discriminatory to [group !X]"
Underrepresented? Why not ask *why* it's underrepresented, maybe then you'll see that there's a simple lack of interest.
Where's the big push to get men working as nurses, librarians, grade-school teachers, secretaries, and any number of other female dominated professions? Oh, because talking about that is *sexist*.
>I neither mentioned "white" or even "minorities".
You directly implied it since this story is about how white males are the disproportionally represented in the the sector, then you said there is racists doing the hiring.
Simple deduction is all that is needed to clearly identify that you are implying white people are being racist against other races at this companies.
> End of discussion.
Is this your way of convincing yourself that you're correct and I'm wrong?
Let me try that: I'm right and you're wrong! Replying to me will only prove me more right!!!
When you say "racists exist", are you aware that they come in colors other than "white"?
If we postulate that "racists exist" then surely those non-white managers doing interviews/hiring suffer from the same affliction, correct?
Unless you have actual evidence that these businesses are systemically choosing white males over other qualified applicants, I will assume there is no such practice taking place.
>I'm assuming that knowing somebody's race or sex doesn't tell you anything about how likely they are to be good at CS.
Which is exactly why race and gender should not be considered when hiring, and why this story is garbage. Forcing diversity in the work-place directly implies prejudice on the part of those doing the hiring.
You know the US government says stuff like this *all the time*.
How many times have I heard the US gov say it's ok to spy on non-Americans, or even that non-Americans don't have the constitutional right to a trial before they kill you.
Everyone was up in arms over an American that was killed by a drone strike, but those same people shrug when non-Americans are killed by the same drones.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm for bringing more people into the field. I am not sexist enough to be opting to have more or less of a given gender.
You don't even realize how crazy you are, do you?
Everything you'd said so far is ludicrous. It is not even remotely sexist to point out that men and women are different. You're truly delusional if you think we are.
>There is societal pressure for men to not want to be nurses, should we bribe them too?
Men should totally get higher salaries and more vacation time than female nurses, that'll totally make things more "equal".
Really? Big push? Like, the "we're going to spend $50,000,000" type of big push, or are we talking more like the "hey, more men should do these things, but we're not actually going to do anything" type of thing?
Where's the $50,000,000 being spent to promote these any of these causes? Oh that's right, those were just 2 articles *talking* about the issue.
Two articles. Good work.
Claiming that men have no legitimate qualms when it comes to gender equality; that is sexist.
>Sorry, but when I hear a MRA whining about how bad men have it, it's just asking for violin.
Your attitude is exactly why so many people cannot identify with the feminist movement. Pure hypocrisy You claim to fight sexism.... by being sexist.
>It's too much to ask for men to not rape?
Once again, this argument is entirely non-sequitur. We are not talking about rape, we are talking about sexist hiring practices in tech companies. At this point I can only figure that you are a troll.
What a terrible argument.
It doesn't go to "mens education" it goes to education in a field that is dominated by men. Women were not told they could not participate, they simply opted not to.
>"Simple lack of interest" is such bullshit
You're ignoring the fact that men and women have different interests. You can argue til you're blue in the face that men and women should have the same interests, but they don't. What you're essentially fighting for is that men and women be the same, which they should not be.
I do not want the androgynous future that you're apparently fighting for.
So what are you proposing? Men be put at a disadvantage for the next ~million years to make up for the apparent suppression of women that took place when humans were barely human?
>The problem is that young women are being systematically discouraged from even trying to be part of the 1%.
You do realize "the 1%" is a fraction, and by nature it can only be a tiny minority of people.....
What a strange statement.
If they started explicitly recruiting only men, you would have no qualm then, correct?
Rape has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Your bar for equality is ludicrous.
>"Why are you trying to encourage more [massively underrepresented group X] into [profession Y]? That's discriminatory to [group !X]"
Underrepresented? Why not ask *why* it's underrepresented, maybe then you'll see that there's a simple lack of interest.
Where's the big push to get men working as nurses, librarians, grade-school teachers, secretaries, and any number of other female dominated professions? Oh, because talking about that is *sexist*.
How is it hyperbole? The very existence of this program guaranties this is happening.
The only reason people aren't turned away is because they weren't allowed to apply in the first place, so they didn't.
>Are you trolling?
Are you?
>I neither mentioned "white" or even "minorities".
You directly implied it since this story is about how white males are the disproportionally represented in the the sector, then you said there is racists doing the hiring.
Simple deduction is all that is needed to clearly identify that you are implying white people are being racist against other races at this companies.
> End of discussion.
Is this your way of convincing yourself that you're correct and I'm wrong?
Let me try that: I'm right and you're wrong! Replying to me will only prove me more right!!!
No, I'm saying it's strange to see this outrage from Americans over something non-Americans have been outraged by for a long time.
It's hypocrisy.
When you say "racists exist", are you aware that they come in colors other than "white"?
If we postulate that "racists exist" then surely those non-white managers doing interviews/hiring suffer from the same affliction, correct?
Unless you have actual evidence that these businesses are systemically choosing white males over other qualified applicants, I will assume there is no such practice taking place.
Are you accusing these companies of racist hiring practices?
Please present the evidence supporting your claim. General demographics of the company's employees is not evidence.
>I'm assuming that knowing somebody's race or sex doesn't tell you anything about how likely they are to be good at CS.
Which is exactly why race and gender should not be considered when hiring, and why this story is garbage. Forcing diversity in the work-place directly implies prejudice on the part of those doing the hiring.
You know the US government says stuff like this *all the time*.
How many times have I heard the US gov say it's ok to spy on non-Americans, or even that non-Americans don't have the constitutional right to a trial before they kill you.
Everyone was up in arms over an American that was killed by a drone strike, but those same people shrug when non-Americans are killed by the same drones.
Graduation rates do not indicate talent, skill or grades.
Merely passing a course with a D average does not entitle you to a job at the biggest and most sought after IT companies in the world.
Someone want to explain to me how it's "bad" that they hired people they deemed qualified for the job?
Why would Google/Facebook/Yahoo or any other company be paying attention to the race, gender or religion when hiring? Doing so would be prejudicial...
I'm not following...
Your example doesn't generate PHP code, it runs PHP code.
PHP is a server-side language. No one spits out PHP, PHP is used to generate HTML.