Remember: Words are not violence.Make your own groups!!!
I have a close relative who went into game design. There were only a handful of women (including herself) during her years there. She graduated at the top of her class. She had *far* more breadth of game experience (the vast majority of the males only every played and focused on first person shooters). She won competitions while there.
She didn't get nearly as many offers as the obviously less qualified males.
Nobody is asking for less qualified women to get jobs that would go to more qualified males. The reality is that less qualified males are hired over more qualified women *all* *the* *time* in industries like game design, programming, and cybersecurity.
Why does this happen? Because of people very much like you. You *think* you are being fair, but you (like most) have bias in your decisions, and thus pick less qualified males all the time.
Furthermore, the primary reason many women don't want to go in these fields is because, again, of people very much like you. The rude and lewd comments. The condescension. The assumption that men are inherently more qualified.
By making a commitment to hiring more women, they aren't looking to make their company less effective. You are an utter moron if you think that is what is going on. Instead, they are making a real effort to attract even more people to the industry so that they can hire even more qualified people.
And it's funny how people like you point out low-paying male dominated fields while completely ignoring the tons of low-paying female dominated fields like teachers and child care.
Spend more time learning and less time spouting nonsense.
As long as there exist people out there who think the opposite gender can't do a specific job, this will be a problem that will need artificial fixing. Blizzard has proven they had a culture that was toxic towards the female gender and minorities. This is an answer to that, although not perfect.
My female friend working in a tech shop can confirm this bias still exists and how toxic it is. She was hired specifically because of her knowledge in building computers but she constantly have to deal with male customers wanting to talk to a male employee instead because "a woman can't possibly know that stuff" although she quickly proves them wrong. She finds it very demotivating even though her coworkers are very supporting of her and will always just point to her regarding any PC issue.
Her being a techie does make her a role model for other girls who maybe don't feel like they can work with this stuff because of artificial social roles. The game industry is the same. If it is not welcoming towards a specific gender then of course less people of that gender will apply. And female interest in gaming has risen substantially the last few decades.
Because of this I support evening out the odds even though I would prefer all applications to be genderless/photoless and being based 100% on merit. Problem is you need only one asshole, female or male doesn't matter, to ruin the days of other coworkers and not dealing with that because you lean towards one gender more than the other is unacceptable.
I'm not specifically referring to anything. There is a broad array of soft metrics that can determine suitability for a particular role, outside of whatever the baseline requirements are. It largely depends on the field, the job position, the hiring manager, etc.
Personality is a good example. If someone's standoffish or bristles in an interview, those behaviors can be indicative of a poor fit for a particular role. Someone's interview performance likely isn't indicative of their personality as a whole, but can give a glimpse into how they manage their behavior.
Last edited by Femininity; 2021-11-01 at 01:05 AM.
Remember: Words are not violence.Make your own groups!!!
So... because you might be standoffish and still get the job you are 100% qualified for, over someone who isn't any more qualified at all but is warmer and more friendly you find the idea of holding that position disagreeable? Seems like a pretty stupid stance, particularly since in the typical, current situation you could be more qualified on paper and have better "soft metrics" and still get passed over simply because of your sex, and is predicated on the idea that somehow the women competing for those jobs must have some flaw that makes them still inferior to their male peers.
Cool story, I have been passed on jobs in the teaching field as a male because I was white, as in the other people in the interview told me the head principle didn't hire me solely because of my race, even though I had worked in the district for years as a substitute teacher, I had lived in the district all my life and was a member of the community.
Assuming they are going to somehow not be biased towards women now with this "mandate" is laughable. They are certainly going to be biased now (that isn't to say they were before, we can speculate they were but blizzard as far as tech has been fairly diverse) and they will pass on equally if not better qualified candidates to satisfy a diversity quota. The simple fact is tech at large gets SIGNIFICANTLY more male applications than female, so it is logical they would have more males than females (because it is logical that over the long run the candidates would equal out on skill across their demographics).
<~$~("The truth, is limitless in its range. If you drop a 'T' and look at it in reverse, it could hurt.")~$~> L.F.
<~$~("The most hopelessly stupid man is he who is not aware he is wise.")~$~> I.A.
Depends entirely on the position. All else being equal, desirable personality traits tend to win in both hiring and employee retention.
It's 100% illegal (in the US) to not hire someone because of their sex. There are a wealth of factors that might appear to be sex-based discrimination, but without either an audit of a company's hiring practices or a company willingly making those practices public, those factors are often indeterminable.Seems like a pretty stupid stance, particularly since in the typical, current situation you could be more qualified on paper and have better "soft metrics" and still get passed over simply because of your sex, and is predicated on the idea that somehow the women competing for those jobs must have some flaw that makes them still inferior to their male peers.
An easy example is nepotism being legal and accepted in the private sector. Lost out on a job to some idiot or otherwise underqualified man? Probably has an uncle or cousin somewhere up the chain.
Last edited by Femininity; 2021-11-01 at 01:32 AM. Reason: Nepotism example
Remember: Words are not violence.Make your own groups!!!