MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
The memo that this engineer chap at Google wrote, for which he got fired, was based on sound scientific evidence. It was also very balanced and not motivated by hate or disagreeableness (make sure you read his thesis before you comment0.
Still, it was politically a hot issue, perhaps understandably so. Nevertheless he got fired for, ostensibly, speaking the truth.
What does that say about society? Is there a point at which the political situation is more important than what the scientific data tells us?
51 minutes long!! Funk that!
What's the TL;DW?
Understand or have experience before commenting...ppfffff.
Fake news, i'm out.
was based on sound scientific evidence
sources (plural) please.
If you are going to say something like that then you'd better be able to show that that is actually the consensus of Scientific opinion. It's not enough to just highlight a single source.
[edit] A quick skim of the test and I'm calling some of his arguments crap as there are plenty of things that are social constructs that he seems to taken a given and the result of biology.
12 pages.
Straw man first mentioned on page 3.
Mod warning on page 11.
Junky to be last poster.
🙂
Not sure what TL;DW is but ostensibly he suggested that not 100% of the gender gap in tech or leadership is down to bia, but might also be the result of genetic differences that impact things like personality and motivations between men and women.
If you are going to say something like that then you'd better be able to show that that is actually the consensus of Scientific opinion. It's not enough to just highlight a single source.
Fair comment. They're all there below the video, about a dozen scientific papers are cited to back up the original memo's claims.
TL;DW
Too long: didnt watch
^not how I read it.
TL:DWlols
too long; danger ****?
I'll be back in 3 hours after I've written an algorithm to tell me how I feel about all this.
I just knew from the OP and thread title that somewhere, someone was being unfair to some poor oppressed man. Ostensibly.
If you got fired for writing an internal memo that was scientifically correct...
What is your question?
What is your question?
Is there a point at which the political situation is more important than what the scientific data tells us?
It was pretty clear.
I just knew from the OP and thread title that somewhere, someone was being unfair to some poor oppressed man. Ostensibly.
Well that's not what I'm doing here nor is it what the original memo was also doing.
What I am doing is challenging the ignorance of people's views.
The NYT did a good piece on this, if anyone wants a more balanced view of the story...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/google-engineer-fired-gender-memo.html
The science isn't pretty clear.
reads like its written by an entitled, rich, silicon-valley nerd.
Apparently theres a glut of those.
The science isn't pretty clear.
The problem with that piece, just like all the other rebuttal pieces written in response to this, is they all presume the original paper was trying to blame 100% of the gap in tech and leadership on factors other than sexism or biggotry. It's not; it's saying that those factors alone might not account for 100% of the gap and MAYBE there are other variables, empirically meausred ones, that might also play a role.
As I inderstand it, his first mistake was offering an off-script opinion when he wasn't asked for it.
Second was making it official in the form of an internal memo.
As for the "he's only speaking the truth" argument and how he wasn't motivated by hate - well he turned down interviews with every mainstream media outlet in favour of a couple of anti-feminists on YouTube.
What I am doing is challenging the ignorance of people's views.
In which case why aren't you criticising the author of the memo? His view is the one that appears to be ignorant.
I've yet to see any evidence that biology makes men and women better or worse at particular jobs, other than through bias during their formative years at school, and bias from men who believe that engineering, either mechanical or electronic, and maths, are not areas where women have appropriate skills.
Which is bollocks.
Apologies in advance for the straw man argument (why wait till page 3 eh?)
We shall suppose that you can definitively prove women are worse programmers. How do you prove that's anything to do with biology and not just an impact of social norms present throughout their life?
I imagine for instance that being black in apartheid South Africa probably informed your personality, education etc much more than being a [esp. white] woman, i may of course be wrong about that.
"Do not try and bend the [s]spoon[/s] woman, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth...there is no [s]spoon[/s] woman, only another human. Then you'll see that it is not the [s]spoon[/s] woman that bends, it is yourself."
I've yet to see any evidence that biology makes men and women better or worse at particular jobs
That's a good example of how the argument is either misframed, misrepresented or just not understood.
The data does not suggest this. The data suggests that there is a difference in motivation and interest that arises as a result of gender that lead people to make different choices.
The argument is also not one about biology, that's not where the data is coming from. It's about small measurable differences in persnoality traits between men and women. Now these might well be socially constructed and perhaps that is the correct discussion to be had. But the point is that the these differences in things like agreeableness, neurotocism, conscientiousness (all recognised and measurable personality traits) do have an impact on the choices we make.
The argument is, to what degree does choice also play a role in the differences we see in gender representation in certain aspects of work.
We shall suppose that you can definitively prove women are worse programmers.
This is irrelevant since this is not being suggested. This is a good example of how your own bias or prejudice is leading you to mis-read or mis-represent the disucssion.
Have a read of his paper and you'll see what i mean.
You can't go bending all these people unless you're a licensed chiropractor, have you learnt nothing from the Simpsons?
I read the memo.
I see some broad statements backed by Wikipedia links on the topic of psychological differences between men and women. I'm not quite feeling the scientific rigour, and it seems driven entirely by his preconceptions about 'PC gone mad' in his employer's policies.
Copying all of his peers and managers into his polite rant perhaps is the most telling sign that perhaps he doesn't have the skillset or psychological profile to succeed in one of the world's biggest corporations.
Then again, Google should know that many of those who end up working in its sector fall partly or wholly into a particular neurological subset, one which may render them at a disadvantage when it comes to some of the less binary, more nuanced areas of gender politics.
Is there a point at which the political situation is more important than what the scientific data tells us?
it's a political situation because it needs to be, it should not be driven by empirical data.
there is inherent bias in gender selection for different types and levels of job. those are the facts that need to be understood. scientific data in this situation might help to explain why there might be a natural leaning towards a particular gender selection, but pushing science as the agenda does not help at all - it will only be used by people to excuse the current situation and do nothing about it.
employment decisions need to ignore gender - that is the situation. employment decisions are made at an individual level, not a macro level. so making assumptions as to someone's theoretical competence based on scientific information about a sub-group they happen to be part of is a phallusy (lol).
I see some broad statements backed by Wikipedia links on the topic
The links in the Peterson video on Youtube are largely to scientific papers.
For example, the research that suggests men are interested in things and women are interested in people (I speak as a man who actually contradicts that profile by the way).
[url= http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Men-and-things-women-and-people-A-meta-analysis-of-sex-differences-in-interests.pdf ]Research Paper[/url]
was based on sound scientific evidence. It was also very balanced and not motivated by hate or disagreeableness
If you are a sexist moron waiting for confirmation bias to come along them I am sure it is indeed as you describe total balanced proof that men are better than woman., However back in reality its just sexist BS that sexist will jump on to show as "fact - oh look its happening already
thanks to STW very own mans rights activist for bringing this indisputable scientific fact to the attention of us oppressed men
I also have some equally good scientific facts that show darkies are thick and lesbians are ugly man haters PM for me a you tube link to the proper peer reviewed sciencey stuff.
I find the OPs desire to belittle women using "science" as odious as I find the commentator he is defending
IMHO you are a sexist and worse you think its everyone else is one as you think women are different by which you mean lesser.
FWIW I find you generally lucid and intelligent but on this one issue you are tinf foil hat wearing loon who sees sexism everywhere but where it is
I know not what has caused this and I care not but hope you get over it one day
Don't hold back, Junky. 🙂
there is inherent bias in gender selection for different types and levels of job.
How do you know? How do you know that this is not the result of the population of candidates putting themselves forward for these roles?
How many men are queuing up to be nurses, care workers or nursery/primary school teachers? There aren't many.
Now we should definitely consider the reasons why that is, in particular to extent to which socialisation might be responsible for these differences in motivations and pre-dispositions for certain roles and paths through life. But to say that it can only be because of selection is both stupid and ignorant. It could ONLY be that if you were 100% sure that every job application had an equal split in male and female candidates and I can't see any evidence that this is the case.
Wow who knew that massive generalisations about the genders were erm generalisations and you could equally find differences within the genders as withoutthe research that suggests men are interested in things and women are interested in people (I speak as a man who actually contradicts that profile by the way).
Its also best to not counter the paper you are citing as an authority - god arent men dumb eh and unable to process the simplest of things.
I like the way you try to appear rational and like you could be persuaded:roll:
Better things to do that try and persuade the sexist not to be sexist
Sexist nothing more nothing less
thanks to STW very own mans rights activist
I'm not ashamed of that monika.
I find the OPs desire to belittle women using "science"
Oh FFS sake junky where the hell did I do that?
How do you know? How do you know that this is not the result of the population of candidates putting themselves forward for these roles?
Surely things will never ever change if you take this point of view?? Existing biases just continue forever?
We shall suppose that you can definitively prove women are worse programmers.This is irrelevant since this is not being suggested. This is a good example of how your own bias or prejudice is leading you to mis-read or mis-represent the disucssion.
Am i not right in thinking that his suggestion is, there are somethings to which women are more or less predisposed than men?
Whether that's programming or being an astronaut isn't actually relevant (but I'm guessing you knew that) the point is you can't separate what biology makes of them from what society makes of them.
Look at somewhere like Saudi, do you think that you'd find more or less women on boards, more or less who aspired to be, more or less armed with the education and experience/personality etc to be than, say the UK? Would that be because they're naturally less suited than women in the UK to doing those things, or because society makes people what they are?
So long as society treats any group of people differently you'll have no problem finding differences between those people.
Is this the geek version of "I was just telling the truth, what happened to freedom of speech?"
Has anyone used the term 'victim blaming' yet?
Surely things will never ever change if you take this point of view
I agree, which is why any argument that I make does not start with 'we should stop worrying about the differences in representation'. My own personal view is that these problems have existed and will continue to exist and we should do something about them.
However, I also believe, as do a lot of other people, that the differences cannot be 100% explained just by bias. Other factors are important and the danger is that you politicise those factors and you, at best, disuade them from being considered, and at worst (as in this instance) penalise someone for bringing them up.
That's the route of both facism and prejudice.
Well it's reassuring to see that the name calling and misrepresentation is well under way and the thread has already descended into a vitriolic argument about whether the science behind James Damore's memo was right or wrong.
The point of James Damore's memo was that he (and many of his colleagues) felt as though the corporate culture within Google was an ideological echo chamber which actively suppressed, silenced or eradicated differing opinions even going so far as to posit illegal, or borderline illegal practices when it came to recruitment.
The fact that he was fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes" certainly reinforces his point.
Regardless of your personal political viewpoints (radical leftist ideologues aside) I think most right thinking open minded people should at least be troubled by the fact that a global organisation with as much power and influence as Google should be so partisan, and yet their morality can always be put to one side if the money's right ie in China.
Don't do politics at work.
Don't complain if you get fired for doing politics at work.
Just do work at work.
Seeing a certain result then finding the facts that fit it whilst fail to consider others
That's the route of both facism and prejudice
Am i not right in thinking that his suggestion is, there are somethings to which women are more or less predisposed than men?
The data shows measurable differences in peronality traits and characteristics between men and women. The overlap in commonality is very large, so really we are far more alike than we are not.
The data also shows that differences in personality and the subsequent motivations people experience, are somewhat correlated with choices we makes about our careers.
The hypothesis is, to what extent might these differences account for SOME (not all) of the differences we see in gender representations in certain industries. And if that is the case, what should we change or do differently as a result.
That is the hypothesis (which has data to support it - but note no one is suggesting it 'proves' the point, just that it's worthy of discussion) that is articulated in the memo and for which the author got fired.
How many "famous" software tech companies, similar to the likes of mybookFace, Upple, Giggle, Microsift, have been started by female entrepreneurs? 😆
If they are that good surely they have started something but hey where are they? I want to use alternative technology but guess what? None of the software I am using now have been started by female. Yes, they might be employed to write the software but hey ... where is the motivation? 😆
I don't think female is less capable but they simply do not have the drive in this field. 😆
Obvious is obvious ... 😆
Yeah, but aren't boobies brilliant though!
Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
Are you saying, if you were recruiting for a technical position, you would choose a man over a woman for the role?
If that’s not the case, you disagree with the whole premise of what he is saying.
If you agree? Well, actually, I’m not even sure I can say what I’m thinking without expecting a very long ban hammer...
Rachel
Yeah, but aren't boobies brilliant though!
Don't say that at work either.
Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
WOW!
No, not remotely. I'm not saying that. No one is, not even Jordan Peterson.
Where the hell did you get that idea from?
Are you saying that we should specifically prioritise some candidates because they are either women or BEM just because they are (all other things being equal)?
allthegear - Member
Are you saying, if you were recruiting for a technical position, you would choose a man over a woman for the role?
Surely gender should not be a question for recruitment but if they (companies) artificially employ difference gender etc, just to be politically correct to meet quota, then surely there is something wrong is it not? 🙄
Is this the geek version of "I was just telling the truth, what happened to freedom of speech?"
Pretty much, I think it's fundamentally wrong to fire someone for holding an opinion, if they act on that opinion at work by, for instance, not hiring women into tech jobs, then that's a different matter.
If we start firing employees for holding opinions we disagree with there aren't going to be whole lot a people in work tomorrow.
His points are valid (although I dont' particularly agree with them, but obviously there is a train of thought that does)
What was he thinking sending a memo however, foolish in the extreme.
Is there a point at which the political situation is more important than what the scientific data tells us?
Well, Google's tech staff is apparently largely white & Asian men.
You could go off and cherry pick research on the comparative intelligence of Afro-Americans to try to justify this.
But that would be a bit dickish, not to mention politically inappropriate.
If you are the sort of hate-filled right-wing nut job who believes all that crap then you also believe that corporations can hire and fire at will so you're SOL when they decide to do just that.
Unless of course you're a whiny entitled cockbag who embellishes their CV in which case intellectual consistency and honesty is probably not your strong point.
Surely gender should not be a question for recruitment but if they (companies) artificially employ difference gender etc, just to be politically correct to meet quota, then surely there is something wrong is it not?
This would be valid if it were true. However most tech companies are sausage fests and continue to be so. It's not like tech companies hire women who can't do the job just because they are female. It's moronic to suggest they do.
As an aside, how happy would people be if Mr Former-Google-Engineer had said the same thing about an ethnic group? After all, they're far less represented than white people in tech firms.
The problem with posts like this, presented in this fashion is that they aren't conducive to forum discussion. Instead it quickly descends into an arsehole jamboree, with confirmation bias aggressively being bandied about.
I'm out, I'm afraid.
What I am doing is challenging the ignorance of people's views.
Challenging the "ignorance", the views, or indeed the people. Can views be ignorant?
This would be valid if it were true.
Well it sort of is true, that was one of the points the engineer was making in his memo; he claims that in numerous meetings on diversity, none of which were recorded (all other meetings in Google are recorded as part of a programme of transparency and honesty), pressure was placed on people to give preference to women or individuals from a minority ethnic group over other candidates. He's (now) suggesting that this might have been done in this way, i.e. with no paper trail, because Google knows it would be ostensibly illegal.
This is of course debatable; I don't know if it's true or not but I do know that the US for a long time, at a governmental level, did have a policy of positive discrimination, so its not like there isn't precedent for this (BTW I'm not saying that Affirmative Action was wrong; I think in many ways it was entirely justified. I am saying that it existed and that it will have actively disenfranchised some people as a result).
By the way I think the publishing of the memo is something they are all encouraged to do - I might be wrong about this but it was done as part of a 'think tank' exercise, where employees are encouraged to write papers, share ideas, stimulate debate etc as part of a drive to promote intellectual debate, rigor and creativity.
The problem with posts like this, presented in this fashion is that they aren't conducive to forum discussion.
That's not a problem with this post, it's a problem with this subject. The debate gets shut down every time by the things you cite and not just here, everywhere.
That is the very problem that Prof. Peterson is specifically railing against.
Seriously geetee72? You’re actually agreeing with someone who feels it is appropriate to judge the ability of someone to do a job simply on whether they happen to be a man or not?
The guy is not doing that, he is saying men are more likely, based on his analysis of scientific research, therefore a 50:50 split is not the right target i.e. the top graph not the bottom. However, few people understand statistical distributions and think he is saying men are always better.
[img] 
:large[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
bencooper - Member
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
Women really need to "pioneer" something in the software industry, even something in the social media will do. Some new ideas coz I have not seen anything "new" from them yet.
Ya, they can do software coding but where are the "new" ideas? Where's the "innovation"? 😛
[i]Women really need to "pioneer" something in the software industry, even something in the social media will do. Some new ideas coz I have not seen anything "new" from them yet.
Ya, they can do software coding but where are the "new" ideas? Where's the "innovation"?[/i]
Getting an Apollo spacecraft to the moon and innovative enough for you?
[url= https://www.nasa.gov/feature/margaret-hamilton-apollo-software-engineer-awarded-presidential-medal-of-freedom ]https://www.nasa.gov/feature/margaret-hamilton-apollo-software-engineer-awarded-presidential-medal-of-freedom[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
At least do some basic research you wazzock.
There does seem to be a specific problem in computing, and it's been getting worse for 30 years.
That's interesting data. What's particularly interesting is that it
a) only shows the [u]ratio [/u] between men and women chosing comuter science as an undergraduate major. It does NOT show that the number of women chosing that subject is declining, only that the ratio has declined. It is entirely possible (indeed far more likely given the date range) that the decline in the ratio is because the number of men chosing computer science has risen by a much higher factor than women.
b) the date range is significant. It peaks around 1980; how many people in total do you think were taking computer science as a major at university in 1980? It wasn't many especially compared to today!
Okay, looking at numbers of graduates:
[img] 
[/img]
Nope, no sudden surge in male CS graduates - both peaked mid-80s, then dropped back.
How about if we compare with India where computing has also grown massively?
[img] 
[/img]
Based soley on gut feel ben, I'd have to wonder if that data maybe more representative of poorly phased questioning rather than anything.
I'd be frankly amazed that more people were studying computer science esque subjects in the 80s than [what I'd imagine to be] the boom years of the late 90s.
Based on no facts just gut feel the figures look wrong, to me, as if "web design" for instance isn't included in the figures so the rise of specialisation is actually what your seeing rather than the lack of people studying.
Pure guess though.
Nature nurture blah blah blah
You're right, there was a second peak later:
I've never been able to *hear* sarcasm in post before Ben!
wwaswas - Member
Getting an Apollo spacecraft to the moon and innovative enough for you?At least do some basic research you wazzock.
Crikey, if Obama administration could only find one female to be awarded (award again! 😮 ) from the software industry from the 1960s, they must be desperate or struggling to find another one after her ... 😆
Huston (Woman) we got a problem. 😆
Oh ya, she is not even an "industry" on her own unlike the likes of Giggle, Mybookface, Microsift, Upple, U-bert ... 😆
I'm not sarcastic, I'm just Scottish 😀
Nope, no sudden surge in male CS graduates
But there was a sudden surge in male CS graduates - your graph shows it.
You can clearly see that the rate of change, i.e. the curve, is steeper for men than for women. That would explain why the ratio dropped in the graph you showed earlier. Plus the rate of change in the third graph (the one that shows the double peak) also shows that it was steeper for men in c. 2003 than for women.
Plus this would also explain why there was a noticeable drop in the ratio (again first graph) around 2003. Again it's being driven by an overall increase in both sexes opting for CS, but with a higher increase in male candidates than female.
Of course, this still goes back to the original point; why do more men opt for CS than women. One explanation, which is entirely valid and which I think the data does suggest is [u]partially [/u]responsible, is down to socialisation factors and we should not ignore those and no one, not least I, prof. Peterson or the Google engineer, are saying we should.
Another factor is the differences in background factors between men and women (personality, which then drives motivation and interst). These are small but still significant, i.e. they are real and they are consistent across all cultures suggesting even in counties that do exponentially better at gender equality, such as the Nordics, there is still some persistent difference in expressed choice being made that is not explained by bias or discrimination.
What I cannot fathom, is why the second hypothesis is so abhorent to some people; if a person such as myself acknowledges the first hypothesis that's fine, but if I also acknowledge, postulate or in some way give credibility to the second hypothesis, I get flamed.
Why is that?
I'd hazard a guess that a woman has the capability to be a better programmer than a man, but in reality there is a certain level of 'geekiness' or 'nerdness' required to muster the interest required to learn stuff to the technical depth required to be a good programmer and to also keep learning new stuff to stay relevant.
There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field, or there may not.
But I think women may also be scared off taking that career route as they think that world is full of geeks, which is not really true - amongst the programmers I have worked with in 30 years of programming they have mostly been reasonably normal.
That's where changes are needed, to make that career path more attractive to women, not trying to create diversity by having recruitment targets for women.
And if there are diversity targets then the required qualification levels must definitely not be relaxed.
At work we have a very diverse set of nationalities - that's not because of any targets - it's because the recruitment pool is like that and we take the best candidates. We see very few, if any, women though - maybe in QA but not programming.
There may be a genetic link that means more men are likely to have the personality disorders required to be good in that field,
Interestingly there is more in that comment than you might realise. The hypothesis that Peterson puts forward and which is supported by the data is that the (small) differences in large scale measures of personality between men and women show that on the whole, men tend to score much lower on agreeableness than women.
In the real world, that lower level of agreeableness tends to make men more likely to chose jobs that focused on 'things' rather than people and in women the exact reverse is true (which is why we tend to see more women in care giving/nuturing roles like teaching, nursing and social care than we do men. By the way there is a link to a paper that focused on exactly this feature in the Youtube clip.
And what's wrong with that? Well nothing really; they simply reflect the choices that people make.
However, what is problematic, properly and deeply problematic, is the value we tend to place on those roles (i.e. the care giving roles) versus the technology roles. If being a nurse, teacher or social worker paid the same as say being a systems architect, DB analyst or C++ programmer, I think most of the gender equality issues would evaporate orvernight. They don't however and while it's not hard to see that those roles are paid less becuase by and large they are state financed (rather than privately) it still creates in big delta betwen what the set of all women versus all men earn.
I (and i speak only for myself here) think the issue with your second point is its impossible to separate from the first. You can not objectively assess if these things are a result of millions of years of evolution or of thousands of years of socialisation. (I'm firmly I the camp that its going to be as close to all social as not to matter).
See my mention of SA earlier, it would have been practically impossible to find data which didn't support the natural order of white rule if you took it as your sole sample. Yes the sample data for "your" point is wider but it's just widely spread over societies which, without fail, have marginalised and repressed women over 1000s of years, there is no independent norm, is all inherently sexist and using data from a system which is recognisably flawed and one sided is choosing to be decieved.
If you had this same discussion after 5000 years of equality and your data gave the same result, fair play, but at the moment it's a complete nonsense based on the desire to find a result rather than any sort of conclusive data.
The thing is there's science & there's science.
CBA to read the papers referenced, and don't know much about the field so hard to assess but theres a big problem with the field of psychology, it's inherently subjective in some ways and research is often hugely underpowered compared what's required in other fields of medical science
[url= http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 ]
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science[/url]
Even if there is done truth to it & its a genuinely held greivance the nature of his attack on Google & circulating this memo shows he must have known what was going to happen,
that he ran off to do interviews with some alt-right talk radio trolls straight after, only confirms that he's a Muppet in my non-professionally assessment.
there is no independent norm
I think you make a very valid point and you make it very well. It resonates.
I think there is a valid norm. I think you can draw meaningful inferences by contrasting the results of equality between different cultures and societies. I think this does show that there are some background variables albeit small ones.
I also don't think that it will ever be as close to social as not to matter. You cannot possible dismiss 2 million years of biology as being indifferent to the outcome.
If we disagree though on that point, it will only be about the weight we give to each in offering an explanation.
It's also worth bearing in mind that while societies have marginalised women, they've also marginalised plenty of men as well - all the deaths from hard outside work for example are largely men, suicide is an overwhelmingly male problem, the vast majority of casualties in war are male, you far more likely to be the victim of violence as a man than a women, life expectacny is lower for men but they've until recently been made to work longer.
I'm not saying we haven't marginalised women because clearly we have. I'm simply saying that that process is not asymmetric. I know that this is something that a few people on here will have a major problem but that's OK.
CBA to read the papers referenced, and don't know much about the field
Then I would suggest you just shut up and don't get involved. It's fine to be ignorant about a subject, but if you're opening gambit is 'can't be arsed' to educate yourself, then your opinion is worthless.
Jebus.
Isn't the real point that in an environment where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue (incontrovertible), this numpty decided issue a polemic as to why there was a reason parity would never be achieved? What value is there in saying that? I'd have sacked him (or appropriately exited him from the role) for being thick.
I despair of the climate of open bigotry towards women at the moment. Things were supposed to be getting better, but we've reverted to borderline eugenicist arguments about capability.
What is your underlying issue OP? It's not like women are taking over the tech industry at the expense of men! You just sound totally inadequate.
And yet
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117135943.htm
My point (badly made) was that trying to understand a hugely complicated field of science based on the manifesto of insecure **** who's propped up his Milo yianopolis (sp?) Spoonfed Conspiracy theories with a few hours browsing Wikipedia is not gonna amount to much ....
Wait a minute - are you the guy who started a thread about how unreasonable it was your other half had a period during your holiday, so you couldn't exercise your droit de seigneur?
I despair of the climate of open bigotry towards women at the moment. Things were supposed to be getting better, but we've reverted to borderline eugenicist arguments about capability.
there is no bigotry against women in the IT world - most male programmers would welcome more women into the field (as long as they were as competant) - the fact is that you don't see many cvs from them.
At a recent tech meetup I went to there were a few women there and I didn't see any polarising of the genders in the bar during the break and afterwards (everyone was too interested in getting to the pizzas...).
where diversity at tech firms has been identified as an issue (incontrovertible)
I think you mean gender diversity, and why is it an issue ? If women choose to not fit somewhere on the autistic spectrum but rather live a more normal life and choose a career where they socialise with other people a bit more, then why criticise them for it and force them into a ageist career of endlessly staring at a screen, constantly having to read books to keep up with the industry, work stupid long hours because everyone underestimated the timescales, etc.
You just sound totally inadequate.
The OPs arguments seems a lot less inadequate than your last post...