51–60 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is that mind blowing?
Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.
I'll offer one explanation: because the women that go into the field get treated like shit and burn out. There are many documented examples of tech businesses with systemic sexual harassment problems[0]. If your business takes steps to ensure its corporate culture does not fall into that same trap, then women who don't want to be sexually harassed will flock to you. That's how you get 50% women in a sexually-discriminated field: do the hard work of actually rooting out sex pests.
[0] Ubisoft, Activision-Blizzard-King, Microsoft, etc
Quoted post unavailable.
a lot of very bitter and petty assholes here, I say curiously and in good faith
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the interview process the same for each role regardless? How does the size of the pool matter?
The interview process may be the same but the hiring choices ultimately must be discriminatorily skewed to achieve 50% women in the workforce if the percentage of women among the applicants is way less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a lot of very bitter and petty assholes here, I say curiously and in good faith
I’m frankly just disappointed. There’s a comment in this thread questioning how much they had to “dumb down” the interviews for women. It’s fucked up in this field and it frustrates me to no end because the women I’ve worked with are far and away some of the best and they constantly deal with this attitude. It’s not okay and the bar should be higher for this orange website.
"Fire brigade relaxes strength and fitness test to make entry easier for women" [1]
This stuff has precedent.
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375381/Fire-servic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.
Isn't the interview process the same for each role regardless? How does the size of the pool matter?
I've come to terms with it as the results have been pretty impressive in the last place I worked. It creates a 'put up or shut up' environment where excuses don't really get much traction. I led a team of eight SWE and six were women, representing both the top and bottom of skillset and teamwork in my crew, one in particular being easily top three engineers I've worked with in my 25 year career. She has the potential to go very very far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the pool of male engineers is ~4-8x larger than female candidates, so hiring 50% women is intentionally hiring worse employees because of their genitals.
Ok, but why is the pool of engineers 80% men when the population is 50% women? I'll offer one explanation: because the women that go into the field get treated like shit and burn out. There are many documented examples of tech businesses with systemic sexual harassment problems[0]. If your business takes steps to ensure its corporate culture does not fall into that same trap, then women who don't want to be sexually…
Is it conceivable to you that women may also be inherently less interested in tech- and more so in people-jobs compared to their male counterparts?
Maybe this interesting talk titled "Autism and the male brain" can serve to enlighten you on this topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjE_yaJjXE8
Maybe they realized that 71% of Silicon Valley being foreign-born H1b visa holders isn’t really the best image for ‘diversity’? https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/meta-facebook-layoffs-h... Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. Reminds me of a screenshot of WPengines ‘diversity’ pledge on their website that proceeded to state nearly 80% of their staff were female. They changed it not long after.
> Bonus: almost half of Meta employees are from Asia. That seems low for a global company as around 60% of the global population is in Asia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_and_contine...
Because America has a moderately[0]-restrictive immigration system, people who come here on a visa are committed workers. If you decide you don't want to work for one company after moving here, your options are to leave the country in 30 days or find another firm knowledgeable enough about the immigration system to adopt your existing visa application.
The reason why this happens is because the system is designed to be deliberately difficult to use. The idea being that if it's hard to hire an H1B visa worker, you'll hire an American instead. But because this works as intended, companies that know how to work the system get access to hordes of cheap, pliant labor. So instead of protecting American workers, we protect well-connected businesses that can screw over American workers.
[0] Compared to EU nations, at least