Another women in tech whine

>>57213562
Getting real tired of these e-drama shit

honestly most of the whining i see is from autistic people on 4chan who think every woman everywhere has stolen their job (when honestly you guys know nobody would hire your abrasive, autistic ass because of culture fit issues, right?)

>>57213579
I already am employed as a programmer, I have no fears about losing the job, and I do think affirmative action is the worst thing to happen to hiring ever. There is no need for women to do men's jobs, it won't improve anything.

>>57213619
you're not going to get fired or laid off to get replaced by a woman. you're more likely to get fired for posting FUD on 4chan like a whiny little cunt.

>>57213628
I already covered getting fired in my post. This is not about firing, this is about hiring less competent people because of their (in this case) sex.

>>57213642
Why does hiring women systematically imply that they're less competent to you in the first place? That's just fucked up.

>>57213654
Would you rather your employer hire based on gender and race policies or on competency?

>>57213654
I have no issues with hiring skilled workers, regardless of their sex.

If you hire just based on skill, you'll arrive at exactly the ratio we have today in tech - majority of men.

Encouraging to hire women more, trying to achieve any kind of men/women ratio is wrong, and that's exactly what this article is trying to do.

>>57213672
>If you hire just based on skill, you'll arrive at exactly the ratio we have today in tech - majority of men.
This is a prejudice maintained by systemic discrimination in the first place. How can women hope to become competent if male employers are always presuming they're not and not letting them land jobs? Women have the same potential as men to be competent in information technologies and, if there is any disbalance in genders in the field, it's the fault of employers.

>>57213669
If they hired on competency and not their prejudiced perception of it, then their employee base would be demographically representative.

>>57213702
That is not what's happening. Systemic discrimination does not exist - women are not denied jobs in favor of men.

>Women have the same potential as men to be competent in information technologies
That's a lie and you know it. Differences between genders are real, they are not imposed by society.

>>57213708
No it wouldn't. Different sexes have different interests. There are almost no men in childcare but do you see anyone complaining? Same with number of female coal miners. All that matters is equal opportunity, but if people just don't apply, don't add stupid policies to make things artificially even.

>>57213654
Forcing a bias toward women and minorities devalues them as people because it reinforces the idea that the only reason they got hired was because someone had a diversity quota to fill.
You couldn't possibly be as mentally competent as a white man! No, you just got in because they're throwing you a bone.

>>57213736
There are as many women in IT in universities as there are men. Stop with your "childcare" and "vaginas are made for different things" bullshit. All what IT requires is logic and knowledge, which were never ever a gender-specific stronghold. To suggest otherwise is just plain disgusting considering that it also implies brushing off all the demonstrated systemic sexism in the IT industry as a fair and expected imperative of nature.

Women are retarded.

>>57213758
>logic and knowledge, which were never ever a gender-specific stronghold.
Please, anon. Throughout the whole history logic and knowledge were a gender-specific stronghold.

>just plain disgusting
You can be disgusted all you want at reality, it won't help your point.

>>57213758
You have been to a university apparently.

>>57213750
The bias isn't towards women and minorities if quotas aim for a demographically proportionate representation. If they want to have a demographically representative amount of women and minorities in their employee base, then it's a bias towards everyone.

Quotas are made to go against discrimination that already demonstrably hinders women and minorities in the job market in the first place. The dumbass employers won't pull their head out of their ass and hire people purely based on their skill, they favor white men. So quotas are there to make up for it. There wouldn't be quotas if there weren't discrimination in the first place, so... If you don't like quotas, the ball is in your field.

>>57213562
I love the opening 2 'arguments'

>Not hiring as many women means you are missing out on half the talent
No evidence or explanation given
>Not hiring women means you won't provide a good service
No evidence or explanation given

>>57213781
>dumbass employers won't pull their head out of their ass and hire people purely based on their skill, they favor white men.
That's your opinion and nothing else, and you're trying to force your opinion on others as a holy truth.

>>57213773
It's not exactly fair to base your viewpoint on women on a history the majority of which was spent keeping them in the kitchen away from knowledge, experience and power. But it sure as fuck is convenient for a gross self-entitled suburban white dude with their head up their ass who went to college on daddy's bank account and think they're a self-made man. :^)

>>57213702

>[citation needed]

>>57213781
>demographically proportionate
If a certain race or gender doesn't care for your field, why would you want to force them in at the expense of everyone else who ACTUALLY wants to work in this field?

Since they can't find competent people to fill their quotas, they lower the standards and give them nice "made up" job titles like "diversity manager" "social media evangelist" and "Chief Social Media Officer".
The last one isn't a joke.

>>57213799
College education is free in my country, my family was poor.

>it's not fair
And yet it's a reality. Women genetically developed skills that are not related to logic and knowledge.

I agree. We need to start making more of those girl-only programming courses early in schools. We need to convince more of them to get into the field. I mean, deciding what you want to do for the rest of your life is a really big decision. You can't trust a women to make that kind of decision. We need to pressure them into fields we know they should be in because women are too stupid to decide what to do on their own.

>>57213781
>The dumbass employers won't pull their head out of their ass and hire people purely based on their skill, they favor white men

I'm 100% convinced this is a troll now. We live in a meritocracy. People are rewarded for skill and hard work. People are hired if they can do a job. Choosing a woman over more qualified man to fill a 'feel good about ourselves quota' is not only discrimination, but it flies in the face of logic and actively damages companies

>>57213796
Oooh, well, maybe you could try googling discrimination in employment and tell me how many scientific studies share my """""""opinion""""""".

It's just a coincidence that your head happens to be up your ass and that you're ignoring arguments that are to make you realize that you are privilege and that others deserve more than they're getting, right? It's not like there could be cognitive dissonance coming into play or anything, comforting you in your magical thinking, your presumptions that nothing have to change. It's just a coincidence that any stance that suggests that things aren't perfect the way they are when they're in favor of your success gets dismissed by you with presumptions about other people's worth.

>>57213811
That's not how quotas work, dude.

>>57213822
>google my argument for me
>insults

Does this ever work out for you?

>>57213562
>?tm_source=Google&utm_medium=Newsstand&utm_content=Women

why is /g/ so tech illiterate noways?

>>57213816
No dumbass, it's not reality. It's a fiction you hold for truth in your little head because it flatters your ego. Women are as smart as men, there is less historical proof of it because they have been kept in the background for millennia. How is that very simple logic not getting through to you? There were little to no opportunities for women to demonstrate their ability to be fully qualified citizens before they were put in the work force, because taking initiative was systematically repressed until that point.

>>57213824
That is exactly how they work. There are less numbers of X gender/race in certain professions because statistically less of them care about that profession and want to join it. There's not fewer women in programming because of discrimination, there's fewer because on average, they don't give a fuck about it

>>57213838
>How is that very simple logic not getting through to you
Because there is no proof nor evidence. You just present your view of the issue and expect people to blindly believe it. I won't.

>>57213831
You're the one who's putting your head in the sand. If you followed any information channel instead of living under a rock and watching anime, you wouldn't presume the system is perfect the way it is and that no systemic discrimination is happening.

Be honest, anon. You seriously believe there is no systemic discrimination in employment? You really, really believe that there is only up to a negligible amount of employers who presume female candidates are not up for the job and deserve less consideration? I've been arguing with someone with that exact mindset in this very fucking thread. Open your eyes.

>>57213848
There is no proof that women were repressed and kept as simple housewives throughout the entirety of history?

I'll just leave this here

https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/

>>57213856
My eyes are open. People are eager to hire women, but women don't show up. Yes, I do believe systemic discrimination against women is made up.

>>57213865
There is. It's not what I'm talking about.

You're not presenting no proof nor evidence that there are no biological differences between male and female brains. That at least is necessary to claim that on average women and men have same potential as man in any area.

>>57213879
You're the one making the claim that keeps hard-working women in lower wages and lower employment prospects while you stay on top of the whole deal and preserve your privileges. You should have to come up with evidence. Your "evidence" was that women historically accomplished less than men. I proved it to be invalid because the game was rigged against them by men in the first place.

You made the gross sexist claim. You owe up to it. Society doesn't have to accommodate you because you just feel like you're superior and it's convenient for you that you're considered as such.

File: github white heterosexual male license.png (255KB, 1001x1905px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1001x1905px

If women were really 1:1 equivalent to men in the field of software engineering, they wouldn't require a billion outreach programs, and weekly flawed studies about how women are smarter because their pull requests are accepted 5% more often,even though that's WELL within the margin of error.

Also, I'd like to point out that only women are passive aggressive enough to pull shit like this.

>>57213865
History is the keyword. Women have had exactly the same rights and opportunities as men for generations now, and still the statistics show they favour certain fields, certain professions, certain working styles etc. You are the one trying to force women to be something they're not, which is quite ironic tbqhwyf

>>57213899
The burden of proof is on you because you're the one trying to change status quo.

If you really want me to, I'll find studies showing differences between connections in neurons in male and female brain.

>>57213914
They require outreach programs and studies because bigots like you are unwilling to hire them unless they suck your dick for considering them for a job in the first place.

The end of what you call "discrimination against men" will not come until discrimination against women ends on its own, and the ball is in your court. End of the story.

>>57213922
Culture takes time to change. A lot of women are more comfortable in traditionally women-specific roles because perpetuating cultural tropes is easier than going against them, for one thing because the world is already arranged in your favor, and also because bigots like you make it really risky and difficult for women to go the other way.

>>57213967
>"ur le bigoot man": the post
go be a femtard somewhere else

It makes me sad that I can't tell if the "feminist" posting ITT is trolling or not.

I pray that I either win the lottery tomorrow, or get pummeled to death by a tractor trailer.

>>57213758
>There are as many women in IT in universities as there are men.
Bullshit. Absolute, complete bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself.

>>57213938
No, you think the burden of proof is on my because you're self entitled. You're saying women shouldn't have the same opportunities as men based on your personal prejudice. You don't want to judge people on an individual basis, based on their merit and their personal qualities, you want to take a shortcut that puts you systematically on top of others. You're asking for a lot more than you're giving, and therefore you have to prove that you deserve it.

>>57213967
There's a bias in favor of women in STEM fields, though

The only time I've seen "woman in tech" work is if it's a giant corporation that can afford to piss away money.

Small startup operations that requires people to get shit done will rarely if ever have any "woman in tech" types.

>>57213976
Oh I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings with my dissident opinions. You're welcome to go back to /pol/ and bitch and whine about how I'm hurting your freedom of speech by arguing with you. They'll comfort you by assuring you that I'm nothing but a jewish numale cuck and that your detachment from reality and your contempt for people who are different from you and less privileged is totally justified.

Fucking pussy. You want the system to make things easier for you and harder for others and you can't even handle being called out for it. It's pathetic.

>>57213654
>why does positive discrimination imply that less qualified people will get hired?
This shit just makes me depressed now. This is how stupid the average person is while thinking they're morally justified.

>>57213967
Here, found it for you.

There you go: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823.abstract Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

Here's another link from the post you conveniently ignored: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/

>>57213982
>You're saying women shouldn't have the same opportunities as men
I'm clearly not saying that.
>I have no issues with hiring skilled workers, regardless of their sex.
My words from a post earlier.

The only difference between me and you is that you think current men/women ratio is explain by discrimination, and I think it has natural causes.

>>57213967
The outreach programs are sexist and the studies are fundamentally flawed and therefore invalid.
They're literally hurting the cause of "women in tech" because it makes everyone hate women.

Competent women always existed in software development, but now they're being treated like diversity hires and people are assuming that they're retarded because these outreach programs are literally promoting them as a retarded social class that requires handholding at every step of the education ladder and get scared away when nerdy men look at them.

yes I know i'm being trolled 10/10 i'm mad

>>57214014
You can't be so sure, the Internet is full of people who genuinely believe this.

>>57213866
Kek

>>57213967
>They require outreach programs and studies because bigots like you are unwilling to hire them unless they suck your dick for considering them for a job in the first place

lol, I don't give a fuck if women are hired provided that they are hired based on merit. It's just annoying to hear how much women are 'held down by the man' when it's the opposite since they're actually preferred during the hiring process. If less women are in a field that they have equal access too, then there isn't a problem.

equal opportunity > equal outcomes

>>57214007
>There you go: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/823.abstract Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain
Thanks for wasting your time but there is no way in hell you're going to prove that women are inherently incapable to do well in the tech industry with superficial studies on neuron connections.

>Here's another link from the post you conveniently ignored: https://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mask-gender-in-technical-interviews-heres-what-happened/
This very study demonstrates that the gender-inherent problem they found was strictly about women's performance in interviews and their ability to fall back on their feet after a bad interview. Which brings us to a different issue which you're also probably willfully ignorant of: How women are raised in terms of having ambitions and feeling entitled to success, compared to men. A problem which, obviously, people like you are perpetuating because you think them having no confidence is """"""natural"""""" (because it's so convenient for you!)

My gf is studying CS, and I can already see how women in tech suck. I'm in EE personally, but what she thinks is a 'great achievement' in programming is making a basic data structure in java.
She's good at 3d modelling shit in Maya though, so I encouraged her to focus more on that.

File: jack-november-6-at-11-01pm-when-your-friends-with-someone-3305411.png (185KB, 500x668px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 500x668px

>>57213758
>To suggest otherwise is just plain disgusting

>>57214003
>le "go back to pol" maymay
i never even called (((You))) a jewish numale cuck so stop strawmanning

>>57214014
Okay, so hiring a competent woman makes her less competent is she's hired by a company that has gender quotas?

And there we go with the inferiority complex. You've creeped out women in the past and now you resent them for not considering you sexually attractive. It's their fault you creep them out and all that.

It just always comes down to this, doesn't it?

>>57214039
They're not preferred if the goal is to hire an amount of women that's proportional to the amount of qualified women who postulate.

>>57214041
>How women are raised
>A problem which people like you are perpetuating
How is a random anon perpetuating this problem? Is this random anon the person who raised all women? Why don't you blame the parents who are raising their girls to be without confidence?

>>57214060
No. It's funny, it fits the context and it seems to annoy you. What is my incentive to stop?

>>57214041
>Thanks for wasting your time but there is no way in hell you're going to prove that women are inherently incapable to do well in the tech industry with superficial studies on neuron connections.
I'm demonstrating a biological difference. There is basis for my belief that men at women are predetermined to have different performance.

>Which brings us to a different issue
You still need to demonstrate that those traits are imposed by society and not genetic.

Also if you agree with results of the voice modulation study, you can't claim that discrimination exists.

>>57214075
oh so you're just baiting me. how silly of me to fall for it.

>>57214069
By blaming women for the cultural luggage that holds them back, you're obscuring the problem and hence, the solution.

The reason you're not coming to the conclusion that they're held back by cultural luggage is because concluding that it's the fault of their inherent incompetence is convenient for you.

YOU SHOULD BE MATURE ENOUGH TO CONSIDER NARRATIVES THAT ARE NOT CONVENIENT FOR YOU.

>>57214041
>How women are raised in terms of having ambitions and feeling entitled to success, compared to men. A problem which, obviously, people like you are perpetuating

Almost every human being spends the first 10 years of their lives surrounded by women, whether they are their mother, or teachers. Where is such conditioning coming from then? It's clearly not "people like us" because we're not encountered until much later in a child's development.

>>57214067
>hiring a competent woman makes her less competent is she's hired by a company that has gender quotas?

Yes, because that's the message they're giving.
>you're just a dumb female and would never be hired legitimately if we weren't hiring based on gender quotas

It's incredibly demoralizing.

>>57214090
>women are not confident enough
>how do we solve this?
>let's just give them shit for free that men would otherwise have to work hard for

This is what you're proposing.

File: no_normies.jpg (116KB, 468x494px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 468x494px

>>57213758
Best you turn around and leave, we don't like your kind around here.

>>57214090
wtf is cultural luggage

>>57214090
>YOU SHOULD BE MATURE ENOUGH TO CONSIDER NARRATIVES THAT ARE NOT CONVENIENT FOR YOU.
Such as blaming parents (a difficult narrative) vs blaming a random anon (a convenient narrative).

Parents raise children, not random anons on The 4channel. You are not brave enough to tell parents to raise their kids rights, because that is inconvenient for you. By refusing to face the source of the problem, you are contributing to the cultural norms that have caused this situation in the first place.

Shame on you.

>>57214067
>They're not preferred if the goal is to hire an amount of women that's proportional to the amount of qualified women who postulate.

Yes they are.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

>>57214112
THE PATRIARCHY

You know, that system that benefits men because they're men, but for some reason is a meritocracy but also gives men an easy ride?

File: 1477114329376.jpg (77KB, 960x653px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 960x653px

Why's this a problem? If they're not competent it wont threaten your job security. You'd get to socialize with women around the job and some of them might be qts.
The thing you should be worried about is the immigrants that'll work for half your pay and can barely do the job well enough to not get fired.

>>57214077
>Also if you agree with results of the voice modulation study, you can't claim that discrimination exists.
A single study with a small local sample does not prove that discrimination does not exist. You're not telling me there is no employer out there who actively discriminates against women in their employment, are you?

>>57214077
>I'm demonstrating a biological difference. There is basis for my belief that men at women are predetermined to have different performance.
You're making an enormous, unscientific jump to a conclusion that you wanted to reach in the first place. You remind me of those guys on /b/ who justify slavery based on the shape of black people's craniums.

>>57214091
See this is funny because I convinced you that there was a problem with women's confidence but you're still arguing with me to shoot down everything around my point like your life is at stake.

Yeah, you're not a female role model. Sure. We still have all a role to play in this. Being aware of the problem is essential to solving it, even for men. If men perpetuate the idea that there's no cultural luggage hurting women's ambitions, then women are extremely unlikely to solve that issue on their own-- the other half of the population is weighting against it.

>>57214098
Quotas are not giving shit away for free to women. Quotas are never a "hard" imposed treshold in the first place. Women who get hired still have to be competent. If their presence in the workplace becomes normal and expected, then more women will grow to expect a healthy professional life for themselves. Quotas are a temporary solution that is meant to push things in the right direction, in a situation where quotas would never be needed in the first place.

File: anon pls.gif (3MB, 256x199px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 256x199px

>>57214131
>The thing you should be worried about is the immigrants that'll work for half your pay and can barely do the job well enough to not get fired.

>tfw mexican and you'll never be given the opportunity to steal some white guy's coding job for minimum wage

Either you're saying the evil patriarchy is keeping women from succeeding in tech (Which it isn't considering they are actually favored in the hiring process and have more opportunities for education) or you're saying not 'enough' women are choosing to go into the field for your liking which basically means "women are too stupid to think for themselves so we need to tell them what to do"

>>57214147
>You're not telling me there is no employer out there who actively discriminates against women in their employment, are you?
There are some, maybe. Majority does not.

>You're making an enormous, unscientific jump to a conclusion that you wanted to reach in the first place. You remind me of those guys on /b/ who justify slavery based on the shape of black people's craniums.
You made the claim that there's no genetic differences between men and women, that only society is causing uneven men/women ratios, and this study clearly disproves that, showing that there is genetic difference. We don't know well what it means, but it clearly exists.

>Quotas are not giving shit away for free to women.
That's literally what they are. If anyone hired is judged by fitness for job alone, there are no quotas. And if that's not the case, that's giving stuff away for free.

>>57214041
>their ability to fall back on their feet after a bad interview
Then you admit that women themselves are keeping women out of STEM. Good.

>having ambitions and feeling entitled to success, compared to men
This is an interesting thing to say, because the stats showing 20% of women stop trying after one failed interview suggest that it's WOMEN who feel entitled to success, and not men.

Right now, you're experiencing something that all men are well-versed in: we don't give a fuck about your feelings. I don't give a fuck that 20% of women felt bad after their interview and didn't try again. Do you know why? Because if I was in that position, nobody would coddle me over it. And don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining about that. I don't need or want to be coddled. My point is that if women want to enter male-dominated fields, they're going to have to learn how to compete with men in all ways-- including emotional stability. If a woman is too overwhelmed by her emotions to go for a second, third, fourth interview, that's not because of men, and you need to deal with it.

File: KANSHA.jpg (393KB, 1000x1311px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1000x1311px

Is it true that you're guaranteed a job in silicon valley if you walk into the interview wearing a dress and claim you're transgendered?

>>57214200
Only if you were female initially.

File: 1477243803592.jpg (30KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 550x412px

>>57214169
Just bring up the fact that you're mexican and come from an underprivileged upbringing. If you half-know what you're doing companies will just hire you for decoration. I'm half ruski half arab but the ruski bit doesn't get as much diversity points so I just go with that.

Everyone's whining about this pc-culture when they could very well be taking advantage of it. If you can predict what's happening in the near-future, even if you think its a negative, you can take advantage of it.

>>57214196
Women aren't used to having to face rejection. You can't blame them for that

>>57214209
Sounds like a discrimination suit.

>>57214196
My point is women give up because they are not firmly convinced that they belong in the field, and a failure is enough to topple their ambition because it confirms to them their fear that they're being discriminated against or that they're going the wrong way by living up to their ambitions.

You don't have to be empathetic but you should at least be able to understand the way people feel.

>>57214200
Of course not. Male to female trans people are just men trying to encroach on women's culture and space. Female to male trans people are just women who wish to contribute to the patriarchy and hold other women down.

>>57214200
KANSHA

>>57214227
And you should understand why people would be against handouts for less ambitious. If we want something, we were taught to work for it. Of course we would vehemently oppose other people getting it for free just because of their sex.

>>57214213
>half ruski
>half arab

Aslanbek pls.

>>57214250
Are you addressing me like I'm a woman? Because I'm not.

That you presume I was shows you can't remotely fathom that someone would be arguing for interests that are not theirs.

You're a twat.

>>57214264
I never made any assumptions about your gender.

>>57214264
Where did they say what gender you were. We vs you were in terms of which side of the argument you were on.

>>57214227
>they are not firmly convinced that they belong in the field
What, and men are? Uncertainty has nothing to do with gender. But giving you the benefit of the doubt, that kind of uncertainty does not begin to account for 1/3 of women quitting, and let me emphasize this for you, AFTER ONE FUCKING INTERVIEW.

Imagine a white man moves to China and interviews for a R&D position with a Chinese tech company, doesn't get the job, and then quits and says it's because Chinese people are racist. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound?

GOD I FUCKING HATE WOMEN REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

There's your headline, Washington Post, now fuck off.

>>57214264
>please understand my viewpoint
>please understand mine
>nah you're a twat

lol

>>57214286
Chinese people are incredibly xenophobic.
A white man would never get a white collar job in china and yes, he would eventually blame it on the racism because it's very real.

>>57213654
Because the women that are competent are already being hired based on their merit.

>>57214310
That was an incredibly bad example that he came up with, because, I agree with you, some asian countries are extremely xenophobic, but he wouldn't give up after one try (which you do acknowledge since you said evenually).

>>57213838
Nobody said anything about one sex being smarter. They just have different interests

>>57214310
>Chinese people are incredibly xenophobic.
Staying in Malaysia, where roughly a quarter of the population is Chinese, I did not find this to be the case.

>>57214344
And this is coming from a south east asian jew who regularly turns down webdevs with 10 years of experience because they can't solve your stupid arbitrary codegolf questions.

>>57214343
It's just really convenient that women's interests have to be about cleaning the shit off babies and old people while men's interests are about running high tech companies and making six figures.

>>57214227
if a woman fails her interview because she doesn't have the technical knowledge should she get the job just to have another female on staff?

https://css-tricks.com/tales-of-a-non-unicorn-a-story-about-the-trouble-with-job-titles-and-descriptions/

lel

>>57214310
>eventually

No, this is after one interview. Is it a fair for this man to give up after one attempt and use that failure singularly to cast judgement on an entire society? Moreover, after this man tries several times to get a job and cannot, does that mean no white man can get a job in China? What about Taiwan? Or India? Can this man go to those countries and justify giving up instantly by calling those societies racist?

The answer is no, he cannot. And likewise, a woman can't blame her own lack of perseverance on an imaginary conspiracy. The results from the posted study show that the only people getting in the way of women are themselves, and in actuality, women have a slight advantage.

>>57214359
How often do interviews fail over technical knowledge? You usually get called in for an interview after making an application which gives the employer a good idea of your technical knowledge. The interview is mostly a test of being able to reflect well professionally and socially with your possible boss.

>>57214377
Any non-shit company will have multiple rounds of interviews over the course of months, starting with HR, and eventually an actual engineer or roundtable of engineers.

Really, they don't care about your "culture fit" they're just looking for any reason to reject you because they have 200 more interview candidates that week.

>>57214356
When looking at job preference, men tend to prioritize earning more money while women tend to prioritize job satisfaction.

The gender roles in our society still skew toward "Men are the providers while women are care givers" in a broad sense, but since there is just as much opportunity for women to go into these high paying jobs as men, it doesn't make it a problem that every single profession doesn't have an exact 50/50 male female split.

>>57213562
Companies can only hire so many secretaries.

>>57214356
the men who aren't in high tech companies are fighting the wars, doing the trades, and the other jobs no one else will do

>>57213758
>>57213779
>>57213981
They might be as many women in IT in university, doesn't mean they'll be graduating at the same rates.

>>57214389
but they can hire plenty of "interactions engineers"

File: percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png (137KB, 873x907px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 873x907px

>>57213758

Everyone who participates in "are genders different?" should really watch Brainwash, a documentary done by a Norwegian comedian, who also has a degree in social studies. He goes in it with the intention to prove that women and men are equal on an interest level and a biological level, but proves the opposite.

https://vimeo.com/19707588

It's subbed in English.

>>57213562
>women don't make up a large enough portion of the technology sector
>if you don't hire women you're missing out on half the talent pool

>>57214475
Beautiful. If I recall correctly, this video resulted in that gender studied institution getting closed.

>>57214476
>people without higher education don't make up a large enough portion of the technology sector
>if you don't hire people without higher education you're missing out on half the talent pool

>>57213866

>Voice modulation

Modulation does fuck all, women and men speak differently and it's very clear someones gender regardless of how the voice sounds. Not just the mentality of the talk but the very way you structure sentence flow and pronunciation.

It's the reason why trying to pretend you're a woman with one never works, you talk like man.

>>57214519
This.
If you want to sound female when doing voice modulation, you have to talk like a flaming gay guy.

the sheer amount of /pol/ in this thread is upsetting.

>>57214672
Go back to your hugbox sweetheart.

>>57214672
Not everyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is from /pol/. To borrow from the SJW movement, that kind of labeling is a form of othering that's becoming frighteningly commonplace. It serves nobody to stick your head in the sand while shouting "POL, POL, POL" as a signal to everyone else to stick their heads in the sand, too. It's a horrible habit, and you should stop doing it. And to be clear, the left, right, and "alt-right" all do this, and I think it's lame on all fronts.

>>57213654
Because there are simply much more male programmers, period.

If you assume that programming skill follows a normal gaussan curve for both genders the chances of "skilled male programer" is much higher than "skilled female programmer" in the labor pool. (the chances of horrible male programmer are also higher btw but it's easy ti fish out the good ones from the bad ones in interviews)

>>57213562
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox#UC_Berkeley_gender_bias

>We want to be in Tech
>But only want the high paid upper management position with hell load of competition not some stupid programmer job

Why are all these posts so condescending?
People don't hire men over women because they hate the idea of having female employees.
They pick the best person for the job, because that is how business makes the most money.

File: 1385661382347.jpg (65KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x500px

>>57213702
>This is a prejudice maintained by systemic discrimination in the first place.
Let me guess, the system discriminates when you fail an application test and men score better than you.
But the system doesn't discriminate when you test well and get ahead of other men.

Ah the stupidity of social justice idiots.
They want all the cake without pulling any weight, and call it discrimination when the platter never appears.

You know why you social justice evangelists fail so hard at your bitching and retardation?
Because people don't want other women to succeed, only their own.
You can never ever convince anyone that they should care about any other woman on this planet like they care about their mother, sisters, gf, family, select few female friends.
The rest are irrelevant. The rest are competition. The rest are best kept down so your own women can succeed.
And this little struggle that's sanctioned by nature's laws since the first living being appeared on this planet, will never change.

You need to convince people to treat all women like they treat their family. Except that will never happen because family and love is special, and it can't be treated lightly or devalued by projecting it onto any random bitch out there.

>>57213708
>all demographics have equal numbers of suitably skilled individuals for each occupational area!
How fucking deluded do you have to be to believe this?

>>57215345
Picking the right person for the job when you don't have a diverse enough employee base is discrimination!

File: 1385741860959.jpg (52KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x707px

>>57213758
>All what IT requires is logic and knowledge
No. It requires working 16 hours a day, and attempting to compete with the kind of people who work 16 hours a day on the same task, every fucking day.
It requires sacrificing social life, it requires being fully dedicated.
It goes for both Engineers who spend hours every day projecting and drawing and calculating on paper, and coders who spend hours every day typing and writing code and memorizing shit and playing with shit.
If Chemists also had the opportunity and ease of access to resources, they would also spend 16 hours a day mixing, torching, destroying, combining, and wasting godly amounts of chemicals and resources in order to further their experience, curiosity, and skills.

Knowledge and logic are memes without some serious dedication and obsession.

You have thought too little about this shit. Partly because you are the kind of idiots who would do things "casually" and prefer to have some time holding rallies, signs, and having little backpatting meetups with your feminist friends,
while hard-working people in the field are proportionally going ahead of you and leaving you in the dust because you wasted time on social events while they worked.

And this is why women have no presence.
Not because of some Illuminati discrimination system,
but because females tend to be more social than men. They are extremely social creatures.
Sacrificing social life for work makes you a "loser", a "virgin", and ironically this stigma is the same time you keep advancing any time you insult random people on the Internet of being virgins and losers when they whine about your precious feminism.
A catch 22 happens.

>>57213579

Are you just literally retarded? We complain because the tech industry is removing the meritocracy and hiring cunts simply because they have tits!!! Do you not get this or something?
Do you think anyone would think it right if there was apparently not enough women as Medical doctors and they were just given medicine degree's without having done the required study and hard work?

That is our fucking problem your imbecile. Get hired on your skill, not your fucking tits.

>>57215594
>No. It requires working 16 hours a day, and attempting to compete with the kind of people who work 16 hours a day on the same task, every fucking day.
>It requires sacrificing social life, it requires being fully dedicated.
Are we talking about IT or a specific branch of IT?
Because most jobs aren't 16hrs a day.

>>57215620
>Because most jobs aren't 16hrs a day.
All jobs are 16 hours a day if you want to become a master at your job.
Even fucking carpenters need to work 16 hours a day until their nerves, eyes, coordination, muscle memory, thinking, evaluation skills, speed, and everything is engineered to be a subconscious reflex and automatic, and until they have gone through so many tools that they even know their tools for work better than the people who make them.
Even field specific memory is a thing. A person will learn to memorize things they never thought they'd be capable of in a field, but for some reason their memory in other things remains shit. That's also a thing that is the result of self-improvement with wast amounts of time being put into it.
And it needs to be maintained constantly or you lose your edge, down to your last day of life.

>>57215645
Oh, please.

I worked 6 hours a week at a postal terminal and had naturally memorized everything there is about mail, addresses, zip codes and areas just from working there for years.

It's not time invested per day that makes you a master, it's time invested over years.

>>57215839
It's time invested per day, and over years.
But others will take less years than you because they invested more than you earlier. They bloom earlier, and grow bigger than you.
They left you in the dust, which makes you a tosser in comparison.
And they will be preferred over you in applications, and rightfully so.
And it's this potential that is calculated because the earlier someone becomes a master, the more probable they are to become a pioneer.
Anyone can become a master at work with correct dedication and sacrifices, a pioneer though is someone who invents new tools for the job, new theories, and furthers the craft itself.
It's these pioneers who have the privilege to high positions, not some retarded bitch whether male or female who whines about system discrimination because they were lazy and were casual.

>>57215645
>All jobs are 16 hours a day if you want to become a master at your job.
If you want to be a literal wage slave, maybe. I don't subscribe to slavery.

>>57218147
>learning new shit on the clock
>slavery
If you said alienation you might have a point, but I don't care I just love making shit that dawn much.
Hell I do it for free (as in beerdom) in my free time.

>>57214412
BTFO
T
F
O

>facebook founded by a male
>ning founded by a female
>what's ning?
>exactly

Can anyone think of a successful startup founded by a female?

>>57218234
During work time? No problem. But I'm not gonna be slaving around extra hours for free just because "work expecience" meme even if it was the fucking world president. Fuck that noise.

The real issue is that not enough women are encouraged to go into STEM fields that aren't medical. If more women studied to become programmers, there'd be more women in the tech field. It's not because people refuse to hire them.

>>57218305
>not being a journeyman
>not enjoying the craft for its own sake
>not reaching for mastery so you can teach a new generation of apprentices
Being a wizard comes with responsibilities anon.

>>57215839
>postal worker
>doesn't work hard
>still thinks he is good at his job
pottery

>>57218340
This
The real "solution" is not hiring more women, it's educating more women
The real problem is, as always, in education and expectation

>>57218340
But it's easier than ever to get in STEM as a grill, the point is that even encouraged they just don't want to do that shit on average.

But why do we care how many vaginas or disks are programming again? Shit's literally completely irrelevant.

>>57213758
Absolute bullshit, go back to your safe space, faggot.

>>57213720
The issue is they are real not because of some inferiority in women that makes them worse at coding. A woman can be just as good as a man, they are just statistically unlikely to be because of the way society has molded them.

If you want more women in tech don't just hire women because they are women, get your female kids into computers and logic and all that shit when they are young. It's tied in with the whole barbies vs legos shit.

You don't just fix a disease when it pops up, by then it's too late. You understand the source and prevent it. Same reason americucks have such shit expensive healthcare.

>>57218375
Except I'm not a craftsman, I'm a doctor.

>>57215594
>16 hours a day
>voluntarely being a slave
>i do it for free
Cuck.

>>57218695
If you've dedicated a decade of your life to do something but don't like it enough that you'd do it for fun if money wasn't on the table I've got bad news for you.

Either that or you have a social or family life, and then it's understandable.

>>57213708
lol

>>57213758
>To suggest otherwise is just plain disgusting considering that it also implies brushing off all the demonstrated systemic sexism in the IT industry
too obvious, 4/10

>>57218670
>because of the way society has molded them
You're jumping to conclusions.
Data shows the opposite, that given you remove nurture factors, nature factors are maximized and since in such cases women tend to on average reproduce "classic" gender roles we can only infer that they don't, on average, like to do such jobs.

It's a long standing argument, but state of the art neuroscience and psychology are giving way more to nature factors than people are comfortable with these days.

Again, individual outliers are possible and do happen, but unless you coherse women into doing STEM jobs or create bullshit jobs to skew the statistics you're not going to get any results.

What's more concerning to me is that we want people to do things they don't want to do for purely ideological reasons.

>>57213708
>I don't know anything about statistics: the post

>>57213758
>There are as many women in IT in universities as there are men.
i kek'd

>>57213822
"This is ostensibly the most competent programmer, but he's a nigger"
"This is ostensibly the most competent programmer, but he's Asian"
"This is ostensibly the most competent programmer, but she's a woman"
said no HR department about a candidate ever.

>>57218912
If only.
Hell even my pussy ass would be able to get some action then.

>>57218814
I don't have a social life, but I want to. And you're right in assuming that I don't like my job and will probably quit sometime soon. Not sure what I'll do afterwards, but things have to change.

>>57213562
>So what?

>>57213562
>they fell for the soft skills meme

>>57215839
>Postal worker
>Skilled
The only think you're skilled at is shitposting

all white women deserve the rope

>>57218929
I have a friend that went through basically the same thing for what it's worth, almost became a optical engineer but bailed at the last minute because he saw the reality of the job and he didn't see himself doing that shit for the rest of his life.
The guy is now happily (and successfully) learning psychology.

Just try to find what you actually like, there's not enough time in life to dedicate any to a job you hate unless you need it to eat.

File: f98.jpg (61KB, 511x511px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 511x511px

>>57218963
>literally a shit poster

>>57213579
Taken my job?
No, changing my job to fit around women? Yes.

>>57218147
>I don't subscribe to slavery.
Of course you don't you lazy entitled cunt.

>>57219005
>endless bikeshedding over feelings and useless "community" management
>"diversity advisors" being given power literally derived from the color of their skin
Office politics are already shit by themselves, but i really didn't need people to inject actual politics into them.

>>57218973
For a while I even considered going back to study compsci but that seems to be an even more wagecuck centric direction so maybe some mix between it and med studies could be interesting? I dunno yet, I need more free time to think this through.

>>57219006
Keep pretending you're happy with your life then.

>>57219099
Fuck happiness, I tried it once, wasn't for me.

>>57219141
You don't sound like you're happy with that decision though.

I am content.
What else could you whish for?

>>57213817
Underrated post

>>57213977
it's pol-false flagging

File: 1305928605440.jpg (142KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 960x540px

We need OLDER people in tech. There's soo many 20-something idiot wanna-bee rockstar developers reinventing the wheel and not enough experienced developers who know whats shit and which trends are clearly fads.

>>57214412
>Social sciences has the biggest jump
No surprise there

This is all silly pandering bullshit desu. SJWs just looking for something else to bitch about.
Just think if instead they started organizing actual real tech training (not girls who code bullshit) they would have enough women to start their own tech company. All the resources and information is out there. But they don't. They would rather bitch and moan to get for free a piece of what other ppl have worked hard to build

>>57219006
t. Wageslave

>>57213982
The back and forth between these comments is amazing!
Basically, feminist: I'm right and you're wrong because you only think you're right due to reasons
Intelligent human being: well, no, we are just different biologically
Feminist: NO, I'M RIGHT CAUSE VAGINA
Intelligent human being: but you're not

File: orlyeh2ra.jpg (51KB, 600x730px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x730px

>>57218893
In as non contrarian a way as possible, do you have any links to the studies or data you are referring to? I'm interested in learning more about it.

File: CpizZy_WcAAxhOV.jpg (166KB, 1200x901px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x901px

>>57220518
As a base of understandig for neurological determinism (or not) you might want to forge yourself an opinion on free will, the common conception of it is kinda compatible with current findings but it's less and less likely that we are deciding that much consciously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
(read the sources, the article isn't really that good a summary to be honest)

For psychology and gender roles you might want to look into the works of Jordan Peterson
(here's him in a debate with some contradiction where he makes, i feel, some good points https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSIEs1ngNiU)

And the mother of all blunders for the "it's just society" argument is the often linked documentary https://vimeo.com/19707588

Of course be critical of everything and do check the sources of claims if you want to elucidate any sort of truth.

Have fun.

>>57213819
>People are rewarded for skill and hard work. People are hired if they can do a job.

not that nigga but you're fucking dumb if you don't think nepotism is one of the best and easiest ways to get a job. skill is less important than tricking someone into thinking you can do a job, or making them like you enough that they overlook your downsides. if you think jobs are only given based on skill then you're living in an insane idealist alternate dimension

ITT: butthurt, white, straight men who can't handle the fact that women are just the same as they are.

also ITT: people wholly unqualified to talk about neuroscience spouting YouTube links and Wikipedia articles as if watching/reading those will provide any academic benefit necessary to have an actual conversation about these topics.

/pol/ please go and stay go

>>57214359
see
>>57214360

do we really need this thread so often? we get it, it's retarded

>>57214343
men have 10% more brain.
asymetrical brain allows higher potential for abstract thought, perfect for logic and programming

File: 1461755298891.jpg (203KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 717x880px

>>57213758
you have to go back

>>57213779
kek

>>57214227
If a failure is enough to topple her ambition she might not be cut out for a lot of roles

>>57214227
>it confirms to them their fear that they're being discriminated against

Hmmm
>there are few women in tech
>media says that women are discriminated against
>women listen to media
>women are discouraged from the field because the media tells them it discriminates against them
>there are few women in tech