Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[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.

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.

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

ok.

I disagree with your science. There is plenty of evidence that women are well suited to software engineering and leadership, but are kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping. I think Damore is motivated by sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

The former means that one would always be poor. The later means that you may be poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

[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).

I was with you until that last paragraph. If you can't work the hours the job requires, own it, and understand that's why you're paid less. I'm a woman in a male-dominated industry, and I worked part time when my kids were young, and there's no shame in it. But when I went back full time, I was never the first one to leave. You may tell yourself you're more "efficient," but when something unexpected comes up and you're not there, it's a black mark against you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

ok.

I disagree with your science. There is plenty of evidence that women are well suited to software engineering and leadership, but are kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping. I think Damore is motivated by sexism.

So to clarify, is your view is that women are only kept out due to hostility and gender stereotyping without any other factors involved?

Given the anonymous nature of this forum its difficult to tell with whom I am having a conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

saying that women are biologically less suited for the job and leadership is overt discrimination.

Do you understand the difference between "may in part explain" and are? They don't mean the same thing.

There is a difference for example between the statement, growing up in a single parent home results in poverty and growing up in a single parent home may in part result in poverty.

You're sad. Under the law, "may in part" is overt. This isn't your freshman year philosophy class. You are not as smart as you think you are.

Can you explain further? I have an engineering background and work in patent law and when I see the words "in part" I interpret it as not 100%, but some quantity between 1-99%/

[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).

I was with you until that last paragraph. If you can't work the hours the job requires, own it, and understand that's why you're paid less. I'm a woman in a male-dominated industry, and I worked part time when my kids were young, and there's no shame in it. But when I went back full time, I was never the first one to leave. You may tell yourself you're more "efficient," but when something unexpected comes up and you're not there, it's a black mark against you.

This is a larger issue of the higher up you go the more hours you have to put in. Thats bs. I can work twice as fast as most people at my office. I negotiated multiple work from home days where I can multitask. I cant wait for the older bean counters to leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

TL;DR this and all the previous responses:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
You aren't providing specific examples to back up your points.
If you're right, the market would be rewarding you. Markets are rational.
You are using emotional arguments instead of scientific ones.
You're ignoring the simple explanations and trying to make things more complicated than they need to be.
If you think this is a problem for women, why aren't you also concerned about similar problems men face in other fields?
Much has already been done; if its not enough, why is it the responsibility of companies to do more?
It's better than it used to be so why are you still acting like nothing has been done?

Ladies, these jerk-offs get their jollies doing this. They have an unlimited supply of arguments that they will deploy just to wear us out (and hopefully make us slip up and look dumb). We need to stop engaging--it's not a back-and-forth, it's a dumb game they play because they don't respect us, they just want to toy with us. Leave them alone, in their basements. Talk to real men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

All top Engineering/CS/Math Programs are male




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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

TL;DR this and all the previous responses:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
You aren't providing specific examples to back up your points.
If you're right, the market would be rewarding you. Markets are rational.
You are using emotional arguments instead of scientific ones.
You're ignoring the simple explanations and trying to make things more complicated than they need to be.
If you think this is a problem for women, why aren't you also concerned about similar problems men face in other fields?
Much has already been done; if its not enough, why is it the responsibility of companies to do more?
It's better than it used to be so why are you still acting like nothing has been done?

Ladies, these jerk-offs get their jollies doing this. They have an unlimited supply of arguments that they will deploy just to wear us out (and hopefully make us slip up and look dumb). We need to stop engaging--it's not a back-and-forth, it's a dumb game they play because they don't respect us, they just want to toy with us. Leave them alone, in their basements. Talk to real men.

Sorry you can't handle a logical debate

The vast vast majority of CS/Engineering/Math majors are top schools are male
Companies aren't dumb they hire the best talent and the best talent continue to be largely Male
Forcing diversity targets doesn't help anyone especially the diverse applicants since even the qualified ones are viewed as inferior diversity hires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I want to hire the best candidates I could care less what race/sex they are. All I know is I have to make sure I recommend at least one woman and one minority for our new class every year instead of the top 10 candidates. Its BS

How are you defining best? That's what it ultimately comes down to.

My experience as an engineer and hiring manager is that women tend to come to the table with less technical experience/expertise for a variety of reasons, but it's still pretty easy to spot which ones have potential. They do tend to be much more focused on producing usable technology, and that tends to make them more productive from the get-go despite maybe having to learn more skills in the beginning. Most men I've worked with don't start to understand how to make their technical work useful until they've been working much longer. It's a good indication that the criteria of "best" is not sufficient to produce good results.

An example is that a few years ago my DH went to bat for a woman candidate who impressed him based not on her technical merits (which were strong but not the "best") but on how much she had accomplished as a PhD student despite some obvious lack of support and resources. She did have a rocky start for about a year, but now she is consistently one of his best junior engineers. He knows projects that go to her will get done, which is much more valuable than the Harvard PhD that he ultimately had to demote because he was always pinning the blame for failed projects on others and refusing to hold himself accountable when projects he was leading did not complete.

Right off the bat lots of people consider the "best" someone who is 100% committed to their job--and they assume most women will eventually take off for maternity leave, so no woman in her 20's or 30's will even seem as good as a male applicant that age with similar technical qualifications and experience.

Which is why some people need to be TOLD to hire women. (And to deal with it if they go on leave for 8 weeks!)

But its not 8 weeks. Its 12 weeks and then complaints that they need 'more time' and asking for six months. It's ridiculous.

Signed,

a woman

I am constantly asked at interviews if I have children, which is illegal! But what can I do? If I turn them in, I won't get hired. If I reject them outright, it may take me forever to find a job!

FFS it is not illegal to ask a candidate for a job if she has children. It may be unwise, but there's no law against it. There's also no federal law against basing a hiring decision on whether the candidate has children (there may be a state law prohibition).

Sometimes people are just making conversation -- even in a job interview.

[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?

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).

I was with you until that last paragraph. If you can't work the hours the job requires, own it, and understand that's why you're paid less. I'm a woman in a male-dominated industry, and I worked part time when my kids were young, and there's no shame in it. But when I went back full time, I was never the first one to leave. You may tell yourself you're more "efficient," but when something unexpected comes up and you're not there, it's a black mark against you.

This is a larger issue of the higher up you go the more hours you have to put in. Thats bs. I can work twice as fast as most people at my office. I negotiated multiple work from home days where I can multitask. I cant wait for the older bean counters to leave.

If you ever get to be in leadership, I think you'll feel differently. You have no idea what the higher ups have to deal with. You think you do, but you don't, until the buck stops with you. Among other things, they deal with emergencies when the person who was supposed to handle it went home because they (and I've had both men and women employees like this) because they worked so "efficiently" that day. I'm a woman and I work very efficiently, but I also remember who was there when I needed them. Those people get promoted, because I could depend on them. People like you undermine any arguments women make about gender equality. Equal pay for equal work. Not equal pay for the amount of work that you think is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

All top Engineering/CS/Math Programs are male




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.

Unfortunately if you can't address these points, one comes out sounding the same as a climate change denier. It becomes almost a religious viewpoint more so than a rationale one.

One''s mind shouldn't just dismiss data that they don't like. Assuming that we all work in STEM here, that can lead to disastrous conclusions!

TL;DR this and all the previous responses:

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.
You aren't providing specific examples to back up your points.
If you're right, the market would be rewarding you. Markets are rational.
You are using emotional arguments instead of scientific ones.
You're ignoring the simple explanations and trying to make things more complicated than they need to be.
If you think this is a problem for women, why aren't you also concerned about similar problems men face in other fields?
Much has already been done; if its not enough, why is it the responsibility of companies to do more?
It's better than it used to be so why are you still acting like nothing has been done?

Ladies, these jerk-offs get their jollies doing this. They have an unlimited supply of arguments that they will deploy just to wear us out (and hopefully make us slip up and look dumb). We need to stop engaging--it's not a back-and-forth, it's a dumb game they play because they don't respect us, they just want to toy with us. Leave them alone, in their basements. Talk to real men.

Sorry you can't handle a logical debate

The vast vast majority of CS/Engineering/Math majors are top schools are male
Companies aren't dumb they hire the best talent and the best talent continue to be largely Male
Forcing diversity targets doesn't help anyone especially the diverse applicants since even the qualified ones are viewed as inferior diversity hires.

Sorry you're so threatened by women