1
102

[–] noblefool 1 points 102 points (+103|-1) ago  (edited ago)

"But mah sexism!"

While the studies sample size is too small to say anything conclusive, all they've done is reaffirmed general trends from people who actually bothered to study workplace discrimination. Generally, Women are not discriminated against.

1
69

[–] tchouk 1 points 69 points (+70|-1) ago 

No, see, the fact that women are worse at dealing with failure is the fault of Patriarchy and the only solution is to never allow women to face failure.

Yep, the strong independent super gender is just to much a victim to deal with life and its blows.

18
13

[–] 9-11 18 points 13 points (+31|-18) ago 

women are just terrible at everything when compared to a man, except for just a few things i can count on one hand. it's mind boggling to see how this experiment started out quasi-straight forward, but when the outcome seemed to reinforce my point, she rejected the completely obvious reason and instead bent over backwards to blame it on something besides the failures of women at pretty much everything.... started doing meme charts and pulling excuses out her ass. typical though.

2
3

[–] twee 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

LoL feminists are not helping their own sexual orientation get ahead by overprotecting them?

Say it ain't so...They're just as bad as the misogynists who say women shouldn't even try.

2
50

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 2 points 50 points (+52|-2) ago  (edited ago)

And everyone who's worked in tech and doesn't have an axe to grind goes "no shit." You know how hard large tech companies work to hire women? Headquarters actually denied a local office of the business I work for from expanding because their ratio of women to men wasn't high enough to meet their Bay Area standards, even though it has a great ratio compared to the surrounding area. The office tries as hard as it can to hire even slightly competent female engineers, and still they can't find them.

Women just don't want to work in tech. They are either generally worse at it than men are, or the ones who could do as well as men choose to go into something else because they find it more interesting to them. It's time people accepted reality.

1
28

[–] IdeaGhost 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

It's time people accepted reality.

this is the best tl;dr on most of today's mainstrean issues from my point of view.

For reason reason people have a really hard time accepting things as they are if it doesn't fit their world view.

I can almost see this, somewhere in the future, lots of miserable workers that hate their jobs because of all these unnatural pushes towards shit people don't like.

0
12

[–] peacegnome 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Generally, Women are not discriminated against.

And men are.

0
3

[–] FormerlyKnownAsGkar 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've been playing with "inverting causation" for the last few years.

For example - the general opinion is that going to Harvard helps you in your career. However, consider that driven, high-performing people will do well in their careers even if they went to the local community college. But they don't - they're smart. They go to Harvard for the boost they get out of it, and since they are overperforming superstars, they get in, do well, and graduate high in their class.

In other words - it's not "successful people come from Harvard" it's "successful people choose Harvard in the first place."

Another example - certain big-name actors "draw audiences to movies." I really don't think anyone goes to a movie just to watch Tom Cruise for two hours. But consider that Tom Cruise is a smart guy, so he chooses scripts and directors that make good movies. Also, when Tom Cruise is in a movie, the studio is going to pour cash into its marketing. So - Tom Cruise movies do well because Tom Cruise only chooses to act in good movies, and the studio makes sure you hear about them.

Back to women in STEM

To date, STEM (and especially IT) is one of the most merit-driven fields, at least at the lower levels. You have to work hard and have some natural talent to get to a level where you can reap the rewards of being in a technical field. What a lot of STEM types might be in denial about is that once you get onto the ground floor, you're really only going to make it big if you have political acumen. You have to be able to play the game.

So let's say you're a smart woman with a bright future. You could go STEM, bust your ass for four years of college, keep busting your ass for 5-6 years in the rank & file to get to a point where you can start to leverage your leadership abilities to start really pulling ahead. Or you can go into a "softer" field, network & intern for four years, graduate top of your class because half the class is only in that major because they're lazy, and immediately start going for C-Suite roles from day one.

tl;dr: Is it possible the smart women aren't in STEM because they're smart enough to know they can get more, faster in other fields?

0
1

[–] noblefool 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's not only possible, I'd say it's strongly likely. Particularly given that, empirically, Women have different values than Men in general.

0
87

[–] CowWithBeef [S] 0 points 87 points (+87|-0) ago 

I love when a study sets out to test a theory, finds something else, and actually publishes the results.

0
38

[–] dabork 0 points 38 points (+38|-0) ago 

I, too enjoy when people obey the basic laws of scientific research and don't just use studies as a means to push their particular agenda.

1
5

[–] ThisIsMyRealName 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

The latter is actually how the USDA and AHA were pushed to set the US's recommended dietary guidelines to a diet high in carbohydrates rather than fats. True story. Look up Ancel Keys.

0
13

[–] pm-me-your-pm 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

When science is pursued for the sake of advancing knowledge instead of agendas, obtaining unexpected results is often more pleasing than confirming suspicions.

0
1

[–] Turn_Coat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It really is nice, science can be awesome.

7
42

[–] Megacrazy 7 points 42 points (+49|-7) ago 

All this bullshit and nobody can admit men are better at technical jobs...something that's been known for ever. Women are better at other things...so what?

Just do whatever you're good at.

0
24

[–] Zaqwert 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

That's what it all boils down to. It's fun to say "men and women are equal at everything" but deep down that just isn't true, men and women's brains on average function differently and have different pros and cons and aptitude. Many so called "gender gaps" have nothing to do with discrimination and are simply natural, scientific differences manifesting themselves.

0
8

[–] Sosacms 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I like using American Ninja Warrior as an example of gender differences and how little it matters to people. Women get a lot of attention because they aren't physically equal to men and yet they still train and compete right along side men. The crowd goes insane when people finish each challenges, man or woman. Go ballistic when a woman is the first woman to tackle a challenge or see her painstakingly power through a challenge. It rewards the effect put in.

American Grit is a good one too. No girl power bullshit but Americans and their grit to power through.

Haven't checked out A part a in yet, but those are the shows I love to watch. I just love seeing the high energy camaraderie.

0
4

[–] bob3333 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It stands to reason if they were equal at everything you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. The fact that you can should be informative on the subject.

1
8

[–] idle_voating 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

This is clearly an example of gender roles being a social construct that oppresses women. It's also oppression that these male-dominated jobs are the ones that pay the most. Really, gender itself is a social construct made to oppress. /s

/s. Lots of /s.

0
1

[–] repoman 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think the problem is that men are much better at things that actually increase profits like engineering while women are good at things like HR that don't ostensibly do much to boost the bottom line. I say "ostensibly" because I'm sure someone out there can explain the importance of HR.

0
1

[–] piratse 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think the problem lies in two fronts. Women (and cucks) who think women and men are equal no matter what. Which is just completely retarded. And men who think women are not better at anything. Which is equally retarded. Women are equipped to be better at things naturally as men are. The whole thing is nonsense. And you should shun a proponent of either extreme.

0
1

[–] WarGy 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'd say that if you really want to prove to someone that women and men are biologically suited to different tasks, you should be able to point to other examples of it in nature.

1
37

[–] Zaqwert 1 points 37 points (+38|-1) ago 

Cliff Notes: Women are way more likely to pussy out when faced with adversity than men are, and that explains the so called "gender gap"

0
20

[–] Le_Squish 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

It's a problem with the way society raises girls but no one wants to admit that we raise our girls to be incompetent twats. When boys fail they are taught to self reflect and become better. When girls fail...well, 'it's not your fault, poor baby'.

0
15

[–] Sciency 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

This is the best explanation for their finding imo. Women and men have essentially the same biological aptitude for logical tasks, but western society coddles women and shields them from failure until someone is honest enough to let them know they suck at something.

If you want to handle failure better, you'd best start failing early while it doesn't matter so much.

0
2

[–] Ch3ck3rs 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You are right. I must say, as I get older, I become more and more thankful for having a military father with a Type-A personality. He didn't let me slide on the whole, "it's not your fault baby girl." If I didn't try hard enough, or gave up, or even if I put in 100% and didn't win he would say look at what the winner did and beat that next time. I hated it when I was younger because I thought he was being too harsh, but now especially in my job I can't thank him enough. If I fail I don't run and hide, I fess up and say I'll do better next time. Then actually do better the next time. I can definitely tell the difference between how I handle the gruff guys at my plant vs. how the other girls handle them.

For example, one of my team's projects was falling behind (we are all first year out of college) and the department superintendent came to talk to us, he was stern and said get your crap together, but was very lenient in my opinion, more like an older brother warning you that dad'll kick your ass,then mine, if he catches you. Most of us said thank you we will get on it and started working. After he leaves, this one girl just goes, "I can't even handle anything right now after getting yelled at like that." I mean the boss was stern, but he never raised his voice and even cracked a joke with us. That is not a yelling. Sorry if that rambled, not enough coffee yet.

0
3

[–] Moderately_soluble 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

It also can account for the remainder of the "wage gap" once you factor in hours worked, type of job (everything that matters that idiots ignore to make the gap larger).

A woman would be less likely to view herself as worthy of a raise, and even if she does, she has to have the confidence to assert herself.

1
3

[–] goblin_ghost 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Plus there's also the fact that women just plain fucking suck at cooperative effort.

0
1

[–] Gargilius 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

...and what is scary, is the 'solution' suggested in the article: increase the number of women who enter the field (the author suggests a three to one ratio in favor of women) to account for attrition - i,e., female students just quitting when the going gets tough;

Now, assuming that we accept the implied premise that we should guarantee equal outcome rather than equal opportunities which is an entirely different can of worms all by itself, in an ideal world where universities/engineering school can offer an infinite number of spots to accommodate every applicants ever, it might possibly work. The problem is that we do not live in an ideal world, and universities/engineering schools only offer a limited number of spots; so every person who gets in to satisfy some kind of quota is taking the spot of a more deserving - as in, a non-quitter who will eventually see it through - candidate.

I am all for equal opportunities - everyone should have a shot at pursueing his/her/its (see - I am being all PC and shit) potential; everything goes down the toilet however when equal opportunity is confused with guaranteed equal outcome.

0
2

[–] WarGy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think you misread the article. The author never suggested that as a solution, they merely stated that if the attrition rates stay the way they are that would have to be done to reach equal participation in the labor force. If you read further, the author's suggestion seems more akin to reducing the attrition rates by increasing women's confidence.

0
2

[–] SilverBanana 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think the author meant that it would be ridiculous to admit ten times as many women and therefore is not really a solution. What I got from it is that women in IT should be extra careful to be resilient and to bounce back from adversity.

0
0

[–] SilverBanana 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well, it was an important result of the data that definitely should be studied more, and female professionals should be aware of it.

3
33

[–] Drenki 3 points 33 points (+36|-3) ago 

it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women.

So even if you modulate someone's voice, there are still tell-tale signs of gender in word choice, phrasing, and inflection. A man modulated to sound like a woman is going to sound like a no-nonsense kind of woman and a woman modulated to sound like a man is going to sound a bit light in the loafers.

But with all the nu-males out there, talking like fags and having their shit all fucked up, this may no longer be true.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Drenki 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Know your shit like a man and I get bonus points for hiring a woman? Sold.

MTF phenomenon is twinks MinMaxing life?

0
2

[–] piratse 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I would love to see a study with a script to SOMEWHAT eliminate this. I know inflection is a big thing, some of the modulated women will end up sounding like a gay man. But it would be cool to see the results. IE everyone went off the EXACT same script and were rated. It was pretty even suggesting no bias. But when we tested off script women did significantly worse.

0
18

[–] Aaaron 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

So while this was an awesome experiment, you can tell they were trying to prove that society is sexist... and it didn't work out the way they hoped. This line especially pissed me off...

After running the experiment, we ended up with some rather surprising results. Contrary to what we expected (and probably contrary to what you expected as well!)

Umm no why would anybody expect anything but the actual result?

0
15

[–] CowWithBeef [S] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

The fact they still published the results is encouraging.

0
3

[–] Aaaron 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Good point! Even if they were originally trying to use the results for a specific narrative, I'm happy they didn't push it too hard.

0
5

[–] piratse 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Relax tiger. The AVERAGE person assuming there is sexism isn't uncommon. Look at the shit they are fed. The fact they are HONEST about it and still posted results that disproved this is a GOOD thing. Not something to nit pick. Telling people they are wrong for thinking something and then changing their mind is a shitty way to interact.

1
2

[–] Aaaron 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Like I said, I'm glad they were honest about the results, but they still went into the experiment with the intention to push a specific narrative.

0
3

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Umm no why would anybody expect anything but the actual result?

Because they're as sexist as the author is.

0
13

[–] Sev_ 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I've worked in tech for over 15 years now, and I've been on multiple hiring committees for technical positions in that time.

I have worked with, and hired, extremely competent women, and every one of them had very similar behavioral traits. They were smart, confident, and assertive when they knew what they were talking about. They had no problem "selling" their viewpoint or ideas in group situations. Basically, they acted like professionals. Their qualifications, work ethic and performance (and subsequent compensation) were virtually identical to their male counterparts.

I have also worked with "diversity hires". Without fail they were ineffective in collaborative environments, unsure of themselves, and generally lacked the specific knowledge required for the role they were in. I cannot count the number of failed project planning steps or implementations that were "giggled away" (oh, tee hee! I guess I forgot to schedule or order the critical component with a 3 month lead time, well, I'm sure we'll figure something out!) while someone actually qualified was assigned the task "behind the scenes" to cover for them.

Sadly, in my experience the ratio of great female workers to "DH's" is easily 1:5, and this little study sheds some light on why the ratio is the way it is. Companies are so desperate to fill the "diversity" slots that they are willing to hire whatever candidates are still in the game, regardless of actual qualifications. Since the female job pool ends up so small at the end of the process, simple "availability" carries just as much weight as technical skill.

The question left open, and what would be interesting to know is why otherwise competent, skilled women (by a significant margin) drop out of the technical career path after so few "adverse events" as compared to men. Based on their data, and my own experiences with "adverse events" throughout my career path (bad interviews, availability of "smooth" technical education paths, and availability) the chances of a female version of me, having the same history, making it to where I am today is extremely unlikely, and it all appears to boil down to attitude.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Thinspiration 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Wait, so they wont hire her for her skills?!?! Whaaaaaa?!

0
0

[–] tame 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Best part, the black chick said she wouldn't use it because "she worries that if companies use blind hiring as a fix to eliminate bias, they might stop actively recruiting people like her."

Translation: The hiring process might become less racist?

load more comments ▼ (28 remaining)