Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Keep it up? Nobody's going to see change overnight, especially when there are 29 year old white male programmers still ready to declare that diversity efforts are pointless due to "biology."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Forgot to mention that most overt discrimination is gone.

Come again? This dude LITERALLY JUST WROTE AN OVERLY DISCRIMINATING SCREED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Female engineer here, and the special programs and resources you are talking about don't exist in my industry - which is aerospace. In college we did have SWE (society of women engineers), but men were welcome at all events, including networking events.

As for the flexible workplaces you talk about - where available, they benefit men just as much as women (i.e. not special benefits available only to women). I will concede though that maternity leave is more generous than paternity leave.

I have definitely experienced hostility at my work, and I'm in my mid 30s so I'm not talking about stuff that happened a long time ago. I'm talking about stuff that happened recently. Women are harder on women at work (i.e. I've found that many female admins are hostile to female engineers, but are very nice to male engineers)

Some of my OLDER male colleagues with stay at home wives don't understand why I can't afford to put in extra hours at work and don't seem to understand the concept of efficiency. (i.e. My 45 hour work week is more productive than his 60 hour work week).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Forgot to mention that most overt discrimination is gone.

This thread is literally about a man who posted a 10-page memo on his company intranet that states as a scientific fact that women, on average, have more neuroticism which may contribute to lower numbers of them in "high stress jobs" (e.g., leadership roles), while men have a higher drive for status.

How much more overt does it have to be? "Women biologically can't do this job, while men are driven to excel at it."

I don't recall any quotes remotely be like that. Can you provide some?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Forgot to mention that most overt discrimination is gone.

This thread is literally about a man who posted a 10-page memo on his company intranet that states as a scientific fact that women, on average, have more neuroticism which may contribute to lower numbers of them in "high stress jobs" (e.g., leadership roles), while men have a higher drive for status.

How much more overt does it have to be? "Women biologically can't do this job, while men are driven to excel at it."

I don't recall any quotes remotely be like that. Can you provide some?

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Forgot to mention that most overt discrimination is gone.

This thread is literally about a man who posted a 10-page memo on his company intranet that states as a scientific fact that women, on average, have more neuroticism which may contribute to lower numbers of them in "high stress jobs" (e.g., leadership roles), while men have a higher drive for status.

How much more overt does it have to be? "Women biologically can't do this job, while men are driven to excel at it."

I don't recall any quotes remotely be like that. Can you provide some?

How about you summarize, in 2 lines, what you think he said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

So isnt' this a great business opportunity? If law firms are providing a hostile work environment for women in certain practice areas, why doesn't a women start up a firm to compete against them, and provide a better work environment? Same with the technology industry -- why don't more women start firms and ensure this isn't the case?

It seems like they'd do better than those firms that are discriminating or providing a hostile work environment, since a happy worker is going to be more productive. Heck, they could even drive those other firms out of business!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

So isnt' this a great business opportunity? If law firms are providing a hostile work environment for women in certain practice areas, why doesn't a women start up a firm to compete against them, and provide a better work environment? Same with the technology industry -- why don't more women start firms and ensure this isn't the case?

It seems like they'd do better than those firms that are discriminating or providing a hostile work environment, since a happy worker is going to be more productive. Heck, they could even drive those other firms out of business!

I'm not sure that when you're talking about the Googles of the world, starting another firm is really a viable solution. Plus, as other scandals have shown, Silicon Valley discrimination also exists at the funder level, so it's not so easy to just snap your fingers and start a firm.

But I don't think you're totally wrong. In my industry (law) I worked for a women-founded/woman-dominated firm, and it was an excellent place and recruited and retained excellent women. After that experience, I'd likely never join another law firm (or take any job, really) that didn't have a substantial number of women at the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

So isnt' this a great business opportunity? If law firms are providing a hostile work environment for women in certain practice areas, why doesn't a women start up a firm to compete against them, and provide a better work environment? Same with the technology industry -- why don't more women start firms and ensure this isn't the case?

It seems like they'd do better than those firms that are discriminating or providing a hostile work environment, since a happy worker is going to be more productive. Heck, they could even drive those other firms out of business!

Do you think that's what black peoples should do, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Female engineer here, and the special programs and resources you are talking about don't exist in my industry - which is aerospace. In college we did have SWE (society of women engineers), but men were welcome at all events, including networking events.

As for the flexible workplaces you talk about - where available, they benefit men just as much as women (i.e. not special benefits available only to women). I will concede though that maternity leave is more generous than paternity leave.

I have definitely experienced hostility at my work, and I'm in my mid 30s so I'm not talking about stuff that happened a long time ago. I'm talking about stuff that happened recently. Women are harder on women at work (i.e. I've found that many female admins are hostile to female engineers, but are very nice to male engineers)

Some of my OLDER male colleagues with stay at home wives don't understand why I can't afford to put in extra hours at work and don't seem to understand the concept of efficiency. (i.e. My 45 hour work week is more productive than his 60 hour work week).

OK, but doesn't this also affect younger men, or basically anyone that doesn't have a SAH spouse?

Also, aside from that, your examples are only of other women being hostile to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

You think that at the margins the top 11-20% of women engineers will be outperformed by the bottom 10% of top performing male engineers such that the competition hiring the men will will eat you alive? I think you vastly overvalue the input of people who are rank and file engineers. They're not game changers.

Ugh let me try this. You hire the best engineer period. The race/sex of them is irrelevant. Hiring a less qualified engineer because they are a woman/URM is stupid and is why diversity quotas/targets/initiatives are stupid

Sure. But teh fact is: that doesn't happen. Women get hired less. They get promoted less. And this knuckledragger thinks they shouldn't be there at all.

It's not that simple. You may need to make changes to your organization to keep the best woman engineer that you wouldn't for a man. For example, making sure sexual harassment and intimidation is never acceptable.

It isn't google's problem to single-handedly solve discrimination but it isn't anyone's right to ignore the problem, either. And any professional in STEM has learned about implicit bias which also shows how it isn't that simple. There are best practices for finding and retaining talented women and minorities that do not sacrifice the rights of men. Tiny changes like how a job ad is worded can significantly increase recruiting of these groups without sacrificing skill-set.

What "rights of men" are being sacrificed in current practice?

I think what PP meant is that it's fine to put some extra effort into finding talented women and minorities, but not to the point where less talented people are being hired over more talented people. It's not Google's fault that the overwhelming majority of CS grads are white, asian and male. Insisting that women and non-asian minorities are proportionally represented when the available talent pool is overwhelming white, asian and male will inevitably result in less talented people being hired for the sake of "diversity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Forgot to mention that most overt discrimination is gone.

No it's not, actually. And some of the comments on this very thread bear that out.

But to your other point, all of those things exist (though not universally), and they are making a difference. Women are making gains, albeit slowly. There is some social science research to suggest that it's really hard to get past the 12-15% representation threshold which might explain some of the reasons it's slow in some heavily male fields. But overall the situation is probably better than it used to be.

But this thread isn't about women asking for more. It's about women pushing back on a man who claims that all of the things you mentioned are unnecessary and actually harmful. So what more do we want? Don't listen to and defend that guy.

When I'm referring to overt discrimination its things like "no women allowed", HR directives that don't allow female applicants (or non white applicants) and the like. That stuff has disappeared as you would get sued out of existence for it in the US. I used to live overseas and you would see it in Asian countries with respect to racial issues and women's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Women say, over and over, they would like more access to these fields, but they are discouraged from pursuing them, they are harassed, and they are discriminated against, and at some point its easier to go into teaching or family law or pediatrics where you don't have to deal with asshole brogrammers or litigators or surgeons all day. And instead of leaders saying, hey, we're probably missing out on a lot of great talent (getting the top 10% of men and top 10% of women is better than getting the top 20% of men, after all)--maybe we should listen to what the women are saying and think about whether we should try and change the way we do things to maximize the talent pool, all we hear is "it's just about different interests" and everyone carries on with the status quo.

This thread, and the comments on every article about this manifesto, and the eight gazillion posts on Reddit, are all full of men trying to justify what this guy said. TRY AND JUST ACCEPT WHAT WOMEN KEEP TELLING YOU. Stop assuming they are wrong. Try and imagine what you would do if they were right.

There are already outreach programs for women, extra resources given to women, support groups for women, professional groups for women for networking. Teaching styles, communication styles, and work processes have been changed to be more female friendly. More workplaces offer telework, flex time, and other child friendly policies. Corporations provide education to their workforce or what is considered inappropriate behavior and HR staff get involved in discplinary actions when staff don't meet these needs. Its not the 1950's anymore.

Even in scandinavia, arguably the most gender equitable region in the world has similar divisions between male dominated jobs and female oriented jobs, even when they actually have set asides for research grants and the like.

What do you suggest?

Female engineer here, and the special programs and resources you are talking about don't exist in my industry - which is aerospace. In college we did have SWE (society of women engineers), but men were welcome at all events, including networking events.

As for the flexible workplaces you talk about - where available, they benefit men just as much as women (i.e. not special benefits available only to women). I will concede though that maternity leave is more generous than paternity leave.

I have definitely experienced hostility at my work, and I'm in my mid 30s so I'm not talking about stuff that happened a long time ago. I'm talking about stuff that happened recently. Women are harder on women at work (i.e. I've found that many female admins are hostile to female engineers, but are very nice to male engineers)

Some of my OLDER male colleagues with stay at home wives don't understand why I can't afford to put in extra hours at work and don't seem to understand the concept of efficiency. (i.e. My 45 hour work week is more productive than his 60 hour work week).

OK, but doesn't this also affect younger men, or basically anyone that doesn't have a SAH spouse?

Also, aside from that, your examples are only of other women being hostile to you.

Perhaps, but I can't speak for them... since I'm not one them. On top of that, I can't recall every sitting around and complaining about discrimination with my colleagues.

I am simply relaying my experience as a female engineer and disputing earlier poster's assertion that we females are treated specially at work. We are not.

I gave 2 examples of hostility in the work place against female engineers. It doesn't matter who the hostile party is; the point is that female engineers or STEM minded women are indeed met with hostility, and it doesn't happen just at work. It happens at school, and it even happens at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business."

[blah blah blah extensive discussion about the "science" of how women are biologically less suited to being leaders and coders]

"Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts."

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

Basically he starts from two faulty premise (women are inherently less suited to being engineers and and leaders) and draws a faulty conclusion (therefore, diversity efforts are bad and discriminatory, because men will always be inherently better).

The quotes you provide don't reflect your summary. They state that they may in part explain differences in representation in technology and leadership. The other quotes state that discrimination is not a remedy, and that not all differences are social constructs, and that these need to be considered if you want to provide solutions.

Why do you not consider his statements with regards to traits not to be true? You appear quite dismissive of the science he cites. It appears he chose relatively mild language here in presenting his arguments. Do you have alternative studies to provide that refute his points? Do you feel that discrimination should be a remedy, and if so why is it justified?

just give it up dude. slink back to your MRA sites.