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.

I hope this guy is outed and never is employed again by anyone, anywhere.

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

Ugh, so maybe those programs exist because they're actually NOT hiring the best engineers based on their own innate biases. I don't assume the program is effective just because it exists, but I don't assume that someone who gets hired from the program is unqualified just because they're a female / URM.

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was a pretty good rebuttal...from a man, and former Google employee

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

And he's not wrong on any account. The whiner who wrote his neck beard-ifesto should have been escorted out of the building for creating a hostile work environment. It's not "non-pc." You just called all your females colleagues special cases who don't deserve to be there.

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

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.

Yes, and yet it's very common in education and PR and nursing, for example. Look at most PR firms and it's almost all women. Same with preschools and elementary schools -- nearly all women. Where is the outreach to get more men into those fields?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree. Women can code and be as technical (or more technical) than men and therefore better at it. Working in technology with men is difficult at best. I think many engineers have difficult personalities to begin with, couple that with the constant need to work harder than men "to prove myself" makes for a very horrible work environment. This manifesto is so representative of white and Indian men in tech. There is an outright dismissal of women being technically competent.

Humm

Of course a woman can be be just as good or better. Anyone who makes it through the hiring process belongs there. However when you have HR pushing diversity down your throat people are going to start wondering if a woman/URM really belongs there or is just a "diversity" hire. If I were you I would tell the diversity people to shutup and focus on hiring the best candidates period.

Separately I know there is an issue of women being treated like crap in India. Perhaps some of that is still in place with Indians who have not totally adjusted to American culture. Many Indians (like any other minority group) only hang out with their own minority so culture norms continue to be reinforced.

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.

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.

Not sure why you think the female engineers are a liability.

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.

I think it makes sense not to include men and women in certain jobs together. Like on a submarine in the middle of a mission that hasn't surfaced for 40 days.

But at Google? Sorry pal, they'll be removing the foosball table to install a women's bathroom. Because women pee too.

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree. Women can code and be as technical (or more technical) than men and therefore better at it. Working in technology with men is difficult at best. I think many engineers have difficult personalities to begin with, couple that with the constant need to work harder than men "to prove myself" makes for a very horrible work environment. This manifesto is so representative of white and Indian men in tech. There is an outright dismissal of women being technically competent.

Ugh this happens so much on DCUM who cares about the tone/author/grammar etc

Focus on the overall points/content

I read the manifesto. He sounds entitled and whiny.

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.