321–330 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way are social justice causes authoritarian?
Why is this question downvoted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another weird attribute of her theory about setting the bar and paying premiums for talent is that her engineering team, according to LinkedIn, is in India --- which is a radically different market for software talent than SFBA. In particular, the gender distribution of CS grads and programmers in India is very different from what it is here. One possible interpretation --- and there are probably equally credible oth…
Oh interesting. Where did you find this? (My cursory check didn't show turn up any info on that)
1. I went to LinkedIn
2. I searched for "Silverlabs"
3. I found the page for their company
4. I clicked on the link labeled "14 employees and former employees have LinkedIn profiles"
5. I observed that all the engineering profiles were in Hyderabad.
I'm being a little snarky but also it's good to know how superficial this "research" was so it's not at all unlikely that I'm totally wrong about this.
what if we started young boys to get interested in gender studies?
Some of the reasoning in this post is very weak. It's not very long, and its kernel is an anecdote about how her son is interested in programming and her daughter in photoshop. My daughter is also more interested in art than my son (who is more interested in video games). Both would make exceptional programmers, and both have a latent interest. Both are setting a course for STEM careers, but, like all 18 and 16 year…
The big companies only recruit juniors out of universities, usually the well known ones. An aspiring programmers will never get an interview without a degree.
Once inside the company, you will realize that virtually everyone has a degree. People who don't have a degree are discriminated during every step in the interview pipeline.
> Despite that, we paid premium salaries to bring a few women who did well in our interviews. But, they lacked the energy to put us into overdrive. Worse, they were starting to drain the energy from the rest of the team. Eventually, we had to do the right thing for the company and let them go. This is one of the most disturbing thing's I've ever read in an article proclaiming to promote change in the tech gender gap.…
Who said it is? It's a woman who wrote that, after all. And right after what you quoted comes this:
> That said, I’m proud to say that our freelance journalists on UrbanAMA are predominantly women and are kicking butt on the AMAs they are hosting.
Oh god how horribly disturbing.
All of this kiddo shit is the result of not listening to Camille Paglia. Close the intellectual honesty gap before you worry yourself further.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disapprove of this response on a number of levels. One of the biggest reasons I avoid these discussions is ironically, the "safe-space" crowd has managed to offend, insult, and ignore me more effectively than almost any other group, and ironically, they do so because of my race and gender [white, male]. Working in tech I work with probably 80% minorities (Indians, Asians, women, gays, Iranians, Bangladeshi, Pakista…
"'safe-space' crowd has managed to offend, insult, and ignore me" Poor neglected you. I can only assume that the reason why you are being so incredibly defensive, offended and acting like a child is because the criticism hit home. In the end it doesn't matter of course, changing is coming and you will have to adapt to it.
Uh. You could assume that. You could also consider that perhaps your ad-hominem response plays a role.
I feel like you've successfully illustrated my point for me though and am going to exit this exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
About what I would have expected. > What exactly is this supposed to mean? What exactly does it mean to "lack energy" and to "drain energy" from other people? How on EARTH did she come to this conclusion? And WHY would this be a problem inherent to women? Absolutely mystified. > This tells me more about her management style than it does about any woman at her company. Suddenly, no longer mystified at all. Not that I…
Please don't add new text to your comment after submitting it, it comes off as disingenuous and warps the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially when the term "privilege" is used, it turns downright hostile Part of the reason that word is such a hot button is that anybody even has to explain why. It simultaneously dismisses a lifetime of effort of people on both sides of the word based solely on racial and gender stereotypes that nobody can personally validate for any single individual.
I've tried to have that discussion here and ended up at the point where it seems like its the word itself that causes the problem, but after asking "well what if we just changed the word to be something that evokes the lack of barriers" and the usual response is essentially "fuck you I deserve what I have.", which may be 100% true but straight white men (like me) who think that everyone is on a totally level playing…
That's the other thing that's problematic about reverse-isms. They essentially dismiss the effort and good work oppressed people have done to rise above their circumstances, by telling them that they need handicap-scoring because they're part of some magical grouping. The commonality is rising above circumstance, and that is something that spans across all the "isms" and groups that are currently hot-topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again: everyone knows the candidate pool is overwhelmingly comprised of men. There's no real dispute anywhere about this fact. It's not part of the debate; there is no debate about it. Nobody can reasonably believe it's realistic to expect parity in hiring in the immediacy, and all the available evidence suggests --- like you'd expect! --- that Google doesn't expect that either. That makes that part of the argument i…
Note: The percentage of women in computing is roughly 25%. I don't know how she got the 90% and 98% numbers.
> "In the name of diversity, when we fill quotas to check boxes, we fuck it up for the genuinely amazing women in tech." And, why aren't these genuinely amazing women in tech otherwise being found? How is it that things are so easily "f'd up" for them?
Dilution of merit.
Well, my question was rhetorical, but your answer underscores my point: when a man performs poorly, the "merit" of other men is not "diluted".
And, it certainly doesn't lead to the risk of other "genuinely amazing" men going undiscovered, which doesn't seem to be a problem in the first-place. In fact, it would be silly to make any of these assertions about men.
Such statements only apply to women and other "out-groups". By uttering them, the author is making the argument against her own case.