Users too. When I heard this nonsense I started using bing.

I'm speculating about half the male employees at google reacted like "well yeah LDO, but please shut the **** up about it. It's like you just told my 6 year old santa clause and the easter bunny aren't real and now he's going to be crying in the car ride home for 2 hours"

Not everything in the article is necessarily scientific for example he writes: "For the
same work though, women get paid just as much as men".

I don't think there's a scientific consensus around this. Example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/2.../#11cd44394709

oh you mean to tell me a 10 page memo isn't a rock solid encyclopedic bible of inexorable truth/blasphemy and not a mere suggestion that we maintain an open mind instead of blindly conforming to the jezebel worldview when making our hiring/firing/promotion decisions to enhance diversity in light of the multitude of scientific studies that imply our current approach may not be the best one and that there may be other ways to improve diversity and inclusion, but that they fall outside the jezebel worldview and we should at least be tolerant of discussion?


Thanks.

I say we hang him

You don't get my point. I don't argue against that women on average have different life goals and that plays a role in a gender gap.

I argue against that the differences in aspirations and so on are the sole cause of a gender gap. In fact I state that even if you filter complete for this the discrimination still stands.

I completely agree with formulations in this article, where they state that this differences are one of the reasons for gender gap.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

I'd buy into this in a general sense. I'd say women have an entirely different value structure than guys. There are very few extremely poor, low value women (like living alone in parent's basement) and similarly few that have high status outside of being famous/hot.

Could be a pretty interesting social theory to map out. Although you'll prob end up with "look hot, have nice things someone else bought" and end up looking super sexist.

I've heard it put forth that women who out themselves as women are less likely to have PRs merged. This also avoids the obvious confounding variable of women outting themselves as being representative of the whole. Many of these "studies" are observational which can literally never show conclusions, just hypothesis generation. But given the scientific literacy of the world at large... here we are.

Think saying they're paid the same as your prior is a pretty solid viewpoint. You'd def need to show your work for the idea that they aren't. (Keep in mind that women in general are less educated/experienced, so they should, in general, track slightly below male "peers". In addition there is some conflicting research on negotiation and how women generally don't engage in playing the office politic game as well to extract higher salaries. But I'd venture this is may have some cross cultural issues.)

It was a much more specific argument. We were discussing a country, I think France (4 srs), where most of the judge positions were held by women. SJW claimed this was a form of sexism and the male lawyers had duped the women into taking these positions because it was lower paying than what top male lawyers expected to earn. (ya really, couldn't make this up.)

I claimed that once money hits a certain level for a lot of people there are other things which factor into what is a desirable job: the prestige of being a judge being one of them. I have no idea if that holds true across the globe, if it's true to begin with, and I also imagine that it's largely regional.

law firms struggle keeping top female talent cuz it turns out working 70hrs a week isn't a blast.

Totally reasonable IMO.

Problem is that these things aren't really testable and that rustles all the jimmies. You disagree with the super liberal party line. (Apparently saying that different people have different genetic makeups which may affect ability, or that feature/pigmentation evolution for certain climates is a thing borders on phrenology for many.)

I guess we could always claim that racist white men wanted to make IQ tests to prove Asian people are smarter to reinforce their bans against them coming over in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Seems legit.

Dammit JFC I just realized there was an August thread because it took so damn long for it to be created I forgot to switch months. This forum posting thing is hard. What'd I miss?

I think I scrolled past some Google sexism memo discussion which I've been discussing quite a bit elsewhere.

Monte:



N1H:



DT:



Mihkel:



Rusty:



MLYLT:



Pretty sure that hits the high points.

In other news, lol failing democracies. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...p-proposed-it/

Rusty didn't poop --- until he did.

Well done recap, Monte.

Well played Monte.

Lol wonderful. Much appreciated.

A+

Sometimes I want FB reactions on 2+2, that was pretttay good

Steven Pinker on sex differences. In addition to an introduction to the literature/evidence on the subject, it starts with the important framework of mean differences, individual differences, and the tail spreads

A similar paradox occurs when arguing about maternity leave and paternity leave.

Arguing against increasing maternity leave is sexist against women.

Arguing against increasing paternity leave is also sexist against women.

Paternity leave is lol

Both are lol when you think about it, but somehow society thinks we should support ****ting out kids.

How are either even remotely lol? Haven't had a kid myself, but from what I understand it's a pretty stressful time. Seems like a good idea for a modern society trying to have a high quality of life to ease up on employees during that time...

You really want to do this here?