No dude. You don't get it. You came in here and agreed with wil. Did you see my post relating some of his idiocy? You agreed with that. Do you? Is liberalism a "disease"?

I don't think you read his posts. That is giving you the benefit of doubt.

Secondly you expressed surprise and dismay that he was banned.

And thirdly, you act like a sycophant in regards to tooth and wil in bfi.

And fourth and finally, you've never posted in this forum. You are a high volume poster and this is a decently trafficked subforum and yet you have never showed up here until now.

Only now to defend the , hands down, worst poster in this sites history. The most aggressively wrong poster to frequent this place.

That's on you.

Think about what you’re actually saying here. It’s making the opposite point you think it’s making.

I don't know, it's possible. I personally never thought they needed to. But I think being the 5% demographic in the design community, maybe they viewed themselves as minorities and felt like they had something to prove. Honestly it never felt like they did to any of us. I never worked with people who turned down a reliable engineer (regardless of sex) in a situation where one was needed. You didn't need to be the BEST employee, just a good one. And the same would have been said during hiring. At that time nobody was turned away if they had a degree in the right field and half a brain.

Now I absolutely believe a woman had to work harder for promotions in tech at the managerial/directorial level. But that's not a tech thing. That's probably true across most fields. And if you told me management quotas by sex per capita would be something Employment Equity could/should track and enforce, I'd be down. Always grossed me out that women had to work so much harder for those kinds of promotions. My wife had to do that.

Seriously, do you not realize what you're saying here? The only women you know worked way harder. The women who worked the same amount....

Did you watch Men of Honor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_of_Honor) and think damn, black men make really awesome divers! They're way better than white divers!


lol. If there are 'reasons' for discriminating against women at the managerial/directorial level - there are the exact same reasons for discriminating at lower levels too. Your point here is just nonsense.

It's hyperbole, a lot of them worked harder than the men, some didn't. But for sure more than 75% of them worked harder. In some cases some of them worked harder to get the respect of their male counterparts I always suspected. Truthfully in most cases they didn't have to.

Honestly jj, you couldn't make it in my field without the right degree, it was the first and most important requirement back then. The programs were empty when it came to women, and the applications were very few. Not sure what else to tell you. My wife worked at a lobbying firm where the women outnumbered the men 4 to 1, but the men still got the promotions easier. So not sure if your argument is really much of one as it relates to why so few of them are/were employed in tech. You have to actually have grads to hire.

jj, at what point in the system were the women turned down? They were snap accepts at the college level if they wanted it with a good GPA, and snap hires at the pro level soon as they applied due to the shortage of good minds not being scooped up the by states. I just don't see where they were denied for being women.

Dude, you can change the percentages slightly, but it doesn’t change the point. You say they didn’t have to work so hard but your numbers say otherwise. The women that didn’t do that or were just as average as the men didn’t have jobs.

In terms of where they get turned down, there’s research on this. The answer is likely everywhere. But at least we get one more example of how you guys are real evidence driven in your arguments. You can’t see how it happens so all the data you see that shows it happening must be ignored!

And of course this is just the super obvious surface level stuff (shown by your own anecdotes!). It doesn’t even cover things like women who were often turned off by widely inappropriate behaviour and discrimination early in the pipeline. Anecdote, a friend of mine and her friend were the only women in their 11th grade programming class. They got tired of being harassed and told to show their boobs in the computer lab so they didn’t take 12th grade programming.

Hey guys, some of you may find this interesting. I took a male:female/science:art bias test. Check out the link:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

I was pretty shocked at the results. It said I had a strong association for Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts. I thought I would be somewhere from moderate to neutral, but no. I'm curious what other members of this forum will get.

When I did this it started off with Male = Science | Female = Liberal Arts and then switched to Female = Science | Male = Liberal Arts. So maybe the switch up made it more difficult. According to the FAQ this isn't too effective.

The percentages for the population in terms for Science goes:
Male
23% Strong
29% Moderate
18% Weak
19% Neutral
6% Weak
4% Moderate
1% Strong
Female

70% have an association with males, 11% have an association with females, 19% are neutral.

So Rafiki holds these views:

1. Systemic refusal to hire women in technology is something he hasn't observed.

2. Hiring quotas and I guess quotas involving promotions for women in tech won't be very effective in bringing more women into STEM fields.

Fair enough Rafiki?

This seems to be an argument that there is a systemic problem only. It doesn't address Rafiki's second point (as I characterized it).

Oh yeah, for the record, I have no idea whether quotas will be the effective in addressing systemic problems with keeping women out of STEM fields.

TheGodson, you’re back. Care to take up our discussion from where it left off?

Just one thing I want to clarify on quotas in one instance where I discuss them, vs quotas in the other.

I don't see a point in quotas at the ENTRY level. None whatsoever. With fewer grads comes fewer qualified employees on the women's side. There doesn't need to be some sort of quota system for people coming out of school, because everywhere you look right now there's a shortage of people to fill the roles. With all the AI and automation advancements right now, at least in Ontario we're back to snap hiring anyone who can code out of school. There's no lack of jobs for female coders if they want one. Just apply.

Now on the other side, you have the concept of management/leadership quotas. The management environment is an obvious boys club that believes you have to work 12+ hours a day to climb the corporate ladder (in tech just like law or investment banking) and travel a ton. They live jobs almost 24/7 and the results do shine through. In a lot of cases on top of the work that means golf, drinks, schmoozing, basically being well liked by the upper level management. And that game gets played everywhere, my wife had to fake all that to make director too. Inside that framework you have the stereotype that women can only play that game for so long before they want to pop out their 1.5 or 2 kids, and in a lot of cases the established system isn't interested in that lack of continuity. Nobody wants to lose leaders to mat leave, or illness, or whatever else.

So sadly even the ones not intending to have children get stereotyped into this mess. And I think somehow we need Employment Equity to correct this and some sort of corporate change.

Quotas at the entry level will not solve this problem. In fact it's quite likely to just make it worse. More qualified men not being hired because of quotas will probably just lead to resentment. Managers may even resent the women they HAD to hire over some quotas.

Your problem is 100% real, I believe it every step of the way. It's your solution I disagree with. We have to fix the colleges, highschools, and parents. Everything else without that is for nothing.

Btw the one interesting question is why the Chinese and Indian women are racing into tech where the white ones are not. Same schools, same harassment I'd think? To me the only difference is family values. Their parents encourage it. And that's a big part of all this too.

I don’t think I ever said quotas were the solution. I think the solution is much more complex.

Edit: As for the rest, you still seem to just be sticking your head in the sand.

One thought I've had for a while is that tech (and to a lesser extent math) is implicitly associated with lower social status in the US and social conditioning in the west is such that women are more sensitive to social status by way of association than men, who in turn are more sensitive to social status by way of comparison. There seems to be some kind of taboo within the tech community against admitting that tech isn't really all that cool or high-status, which I think explains the disconnect. Top-tier women who could go into tech are going into medicine, law, investment banking, management consulting, etc in part because all of these fields confer higher status than tech.

So what's repelling women to some degree is this push (I'm not saying this is bad, just an observation) to make tech accessible and this idea that anyone can be a programmer. If you're some rich white girl going to an expensive private school (or anyone who aspires to that idea of status), the idea that all of her upbringing, schooling and "hard work" don't mean much and she would get to work alongside random people from bootcamps. This isn't how it actually is - top tech employers are massively elitist, they just try not to sell themselves that way, unlike top investment banks or management consulting firms for who elitism is a selling point - but this is how the tech is selling itself to the world. At least given the way women are socially conditioned in the west, they love gatekeepers - consider how much more elitist medicine, law and finance are for instance and the extent to which women are willing to fight through considerable pain, including blatant sexism and misogyny, to get in the door.

Never thought of that before. Interesting. Certainly the character traits of the female lawyers and investment bankers I know are really drastically different from the tech ones I know.

Victor, also don't like liberalism. Lets gamboooolll.

Meh, must we all like the liberals to belong? Ideas aside, this is what I do not like about liberals. Many are arrogant and assume everyone else around them is a liberal.

Also, google discrimination. Obviously women are discriminated against by the poker gods, because look at how few female professional players there are compared to men. Gender discrimination, and systemic problems, lol.

But, there are females who like bridge which has elements to it, so I wonder why women prefer bridge.

It's possible that there's discrimination as well, but I tend to think most women just aren't as interested in computer science as men.

Any guesses why women aren't as interested in math and computers their genius?

fyp

*there, fyp.

I'd first defer to the psychologists, and their IQ and related tests, and see if there is a genetic link, and then look at what the sociologists have to say about discrimination in the workplace, etc. It's also in my view, looking at the YouTube about the children, and toys, it's optimal after only one hour of interaction to treat the males and females by stereotype while learning more about what their preferences are. You should be biased at the outset, because men and women are different, but these biases should be altered with reality over time through learning. This is also true in poker where part of the game is figuring out what your opponents think about playing poker, and why.

On voting: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/...ll/index1.html

**** you

"I happen to be a closeted supernerd" - around 1 minute in

Even in their propaganda they message to girls bad things about programming. She's so pretty, she looks nothing like a programmer, so she's in the closet about her nerdy hobby.

Where you raised by wolves?

What point are you making on voting? My sarcastic fix of a previous post was intended to point out the silly position that perhaps women just aren't interested, implying the disinterest is due to genetics or "just their nature". Many such silly arguments have been made in the past.

Yes, and what you stubbornly don't realize is that women aren't disinterested in voting, and also that voting is not similar to computer programming, so there's no analogy.

add:
Gender and intelligence is a hot topic in research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_di...n_intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_di...eflection_Test

I'd think CRT's would be considered evidence suggesting that women are less likely to take up roles as analysts (and, analyzing is important in computer programming) because of genes. Of course, I am open minded about the topic. I have not spent lots of time looking into it.

Let me connect the dots.

An excuse like that may have been used back before they had the right to vote. Now that they do have the right, it has become increasing clear that, by golly, a lot of them are interested and participate in politics and voting and whatnot.