i'll just leave this here...

[Th3Scourge]

I honestly wish they could make the hiring process for programming jobs just completely blind tbh. Fake name, no picture and straight text interview / online skill testing questions. Not really feasible I guess, but it'd be nice to see people hired just on straight talent without gender or race or religion coming into it. It'd hopefully lead to a more diverse workplace

This has been tried and leads to less women being hired because people were hired on the merit of their qualifications

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-...-study/8664888

[muto]

probably due to societal conditioning... including how we're raised even from an early age...

Probably has some influence, but I think nurturing is just an innate trait that females have.

[VinylScratch]

As someone who worked for a company that tried to be "inclusive" by hiring a bunch of minorities in short odder just to look good, we ended up with some very under skilled (although most where at least nice to work with) workers who had to be chaperoned most of their time at the company. when I left the company only two of them where left one who had been moved to cleaning staff, and one who I will admit put in a lot of effort to learning the craft and made something of himself, the other 12ish employees ended up fading away.

Don't ever doubt for a moment that some companies will just pick someone up, because HR says they need more of them...

Yep, that's how I actually got forced out of my first job when I was 20. I started working at age 18, was put into management primarily due to seniority and being the best worker at the store at the time our manager quit. Was a manager for a year and some change, our store made a pretty good turnaround where workplace enthusiasm was much higher, our turnover rate dropped like a rock because I was willing to cover so my employees could have their days off if nobody would cover. My workers got along with me really well. At a point during 2014 our store in the midwest was one of the most profitable stores according to corporate when we were just acceptable prior. One of the biggest changes being the people in our kitchen were a lot happier working so they put out better food due to morality which was the bulk of what we sold.

Got forced out of that position because corporate decided we needed more minorities in leadership which is a noble goal but it should never be the result of literally installing them which is what happened to me. I was told in a subtle way by the regional manager that corporate had decided one of our better functioning stores needed a minority managing to make a better impression on the public by basically saying "A black manager operates one of our best stores!" That exact store was closed down within a year. I don't know all of what went on but from my former coworkers who were basically friends she was my polar opposite. Where I was strict only when necessary she basically pulled rank over everything, where I seldom considered myself the manager of the store she wouldn't hesitate to remind people that she was the manager and what she said went.

About the closest indication I had aside from that about the store going downhill fast was chatting with the cashier and them telling me they were down to four people on staff, and people were basically getting hired then quitting in two weeks because they couldn't tolerate the new manager's attitude.

[Th3Scourge]

probably due to societal conditioning... including how we're raised even from an early age...

It's an evolutionary trait.

[muto]

lol... no... also don't call us "females"...

That's what a woman is. What?

[Femininity]

That's what a woman is. What?

Part of the semantic argument differentiating gender and biological sex.

[schwarzkopf]

its rly funny how people think its sexist and people get hired for their gender if its women,but when a company hires 99% men its perfectly fine

As many have said, the problem with IT hiring is at the source - education has favoured men.

No-one is happy at 99% men, nor are they happy at hiring someone just because they are women.

What people want is for everyone to have equal opportunity, not necessarily equal outcome.

[Femininity]

woman is specifically human... female is not specific to humans and could refer to any species...

plus it's just fucking grammatically weird and inappropriate to use an adjective rather than having a subject in the sentence when talking about a person...

I'm a female. Call me what you like. Interesting hang-up.

[muto]

woman is specifically human... female is not specific to humans and could refer to any species...

plus it's just fucking grammatically weird and inappropriate to use an adjective rather than having a subject in the sentence when talking about a person...

- - - Updated - - -



i and many of my friends must have missed the 101 on what makes a woman... because nurturing shit can fuck right off...

I wasn't talking about "a person" I was talking about females in general.

And I quote "Probably has some influence, but I think nurturing is just an innate trait that females have."

And yes that applies to all species as well, hence why mother bear protects her cubs.

[Femininity]

i and many of my friends must have missed the 101 on what makes a woman... because nurturing shit can fuck right off...

I mean, same here, but it's far more likely that societal conditioning has bucked the trend of women being nurturers than reinforcing it.

[Soon-TM]

I once read in a book about a young girl who wanted to study astronomy at the university back in the early 1950s. When she finally managed to get an interview, the following conversation ensued between the university officer and her:

"I'm sorry, young girl, you are not eligible for this particular career."

"But why, I haven't even gone through the admission test, and I have almost straight A's in high school."

"Astronomy isn't meant for women, period. Can you name me at least one female astronomer of note?"

Going by several posts ITT, no affirmative action should have ever been taken LOL.

Women tend to gravitate toward "nurturing" professions like teaching, childcare, healthcare, etc... That's not really too surprising.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Ryzeth]

Oh look, the guy who has made a number of troll/bait/flame/shit threads in the past week, that he doesn't post anything in besides the baity OP, made yet another thread.

Somebody wanna explain why MMO-C doesn't permaban?

[sunhawk spy]

i and many of my friends must have missed the 101 on what makes a woman... because nurturing shit can fuck right off...

that means you're an evolutionary dead-end

[Zeons]

So many men are threatened when their historical privilege is corrected. The reality is that the portion of women in scientific degrees has increased over time and even places like MIT now have more female undergraduates than male. The notion that you can't increase the portion of women employees without reducing employee quality is just false. In fact, female students, on average, outperform male students.

[sunhawk spy]

ok? i don't care what happens after i'm dead...

that's not an admirable attitude

[muto]

women is the word for woman in plural...


nope... just a myth...

Yeah it is, but saying "That's what a women is?" is not grammatically correct. I guess I could have said "That's what women are.", but it's the same concept.

Also I said "woman", because you said "us".

[Soon-TM]

Yes, and I can point to at least two people - right here and now in this decade - who were chased out of jobs working with kids because, "Any man who wants to work around kids is probably a pedo."

Are cases like these you mention as common as with women? If yes, then by all means start a grassroots campaign in order to have such a manifest injustice corrected asap.

[Soon-TM]

We have the same evidence for them that we have for supposed discrimination against women - that is, wide disparities in the genders working in those fields.

So yes, these things are pretty common, if the statistics are to be believed.

Care to share these statistics please?

[agentsi]

its rly funny how people think its sexist and people get hired for their gender if its women,but when a company hires 99% men its perfectly fine

they arent getting hired because they are women,they are just stoping the male favortism

Do you think it's favoritism to hire the more qualified human being? Regardless of their biological sex? What happens when the more qualified individual is male? Are you now going to not hire him because you want to include more females? Because that is exactly what Blizzard's statement, and your statement state.

you have to face the facts there sweetheart, you're clearly sexist. You should really learn to be more inclusive of other people.

[BossManRoth]

Implying that a woman cannot possibly be as qualified as a man. Interesting.

That's not at all what I'm implying. The example I used just happened to be exactly that. I'm saying when you have quotas to meet that have nothing to do with skill and qualifications, you will drop your requirements for skill and qualifications to meet your quotas. You can also look at college admissions in the US and SAT scores. Certain demographics need either higher or lower scores than average for admittance, because they are trying to fill certain nonskill/qualification based quotas.