Sexism isn't getting better in Silicon Valley, it's getting worse In the technology field, many people like to think that they are at the forefront of human development, but it is becoming clear that the industry is failing when it comes to dealing with sexism against women. In January, a survey from Stanford University of women who'd spent at least ten years in the tech industry found that …
....boys are behind at every stage of education.
If the feminazis wanted "Equality", we would see them campaigning to stop what must obviously be sexist education from the age of 5.
We don't see that because they don't want equality, they want to be given the top jobs.
I'm not sure that you understand your point. Education, at least in terms of the three R's and in the west, is not sexist - boys get taught the same as girls. Developmentally, though, boys do advance slower at this stage - it's normal. Do you feel that boys should be given a leg up over the girls? Or, are you saying that, in a true meritocracy, girls are winning at this age - and therefore, in the pre-higher education age bracket, they should have the balance of power?
Or are you just insecure and confused by a matching pair of sex genes?
Ah, so you admit men and women are not the same ?
So differences in the jobs they do can be attributed to their gender.
So the feminazis are totally wrong to engineer society so every ( good ) job is done by at least 50% women.
Thank you for your support in fighting them.
> Education, at least in terms of the three R's and in the west, is not sexist - boys get taught the same as girls.
Except the teachers are 80% female, who tend to grade pupil based on effort, attendance and calm behaviour. And the subjects are skewed from maths and natural science toward - I don't know, some generic humanitarian gibberish? And any form of competition, between peers being considered a bad thing.
Other than that, boys and girls are treated equally, and expected to act the same - as good girls they are.
@srgvd
Can't agree with you.
As you used the phrase I don't know let me offer a counter view.
The skewing if any that you witness is I believe by school. Our local comprehensive happens to have a Maths and Science specialism - well it did while such things were in place under the last Labour government.
Competition is fostered, the kids are under no illusions that the world beyond those gates is one festering pile, populated with a appreciable share of those who do and will exploit any advantage for personal gain.
All of that - Maths and Science focus, with competition means that the school sent 3% of its students to Oxbridge and a hefty percentage thereafter to Russell Group (A far more important metric in my mind!)
The gender bias - Shhh don't tell anyone - it's fairly even and tends to oscillate one year more boys, another more girls.
@Bahboh
Ok! I'll bite!
Do you just come here to lick your balls, take a shit and say "Feminazi" - because a look back over you history suggests that you have serious problems with women and any suggestion that efforts to re-level a tilted playing field are discriminatory.
You might not like that there is a bias - but to help you visualise it - imagine a football match played on a sloping pitch where the wind is blowing from the higher end to the lower. Under your approach, the team playing with the wind would continue to do so for the full 90 minutes. It doesn't work that way. At half time, the advantages are reversed. I do hope you find that helpful
On a side note - one can only guess at how badly slapped down you must have been in a past life - but seriously - go a get some help, go and get a life!
Anon - because I have no desire to incur the shit that will probably ensue following the fact that someone points out what a dick you are! I quite enjoy The Register and as one other comment pointed out - the risk with feeding the troll is you get to keep it. Some things penicillin just cant clear!
Those feminazis sure do get everywhere, putting our boys down, angling for those top jobs and never mind those poor. fragile males they boot as they climb the corporate ladder.
What a depressing comment thread, you kicked off, BahBoh. First post/ first troll.
And to those who cry "clickbait", "politically correct", "goodbye El Reg" I have this to say:
What fucking planet do you live on. Grow up.
Can we stop this nonsense of people generalizing Valley tendencies as if they are the rule of law across the entire industry.
The gender imbalance is _VERY_ geographically dependent and somewhat "part of the industry" dependent as well.
Similarly, try unwanted sexual advances on your Serbian colleague for starters. You will think of Alice from Dilbert as a gentle, kind and caring soul after that. Whatever is left of you.
As far as the workplace going nastier I have a slightly different theory. It is not so much a question of who enters the workplace (it was geeks then, it is still geeks now). It is a question of who is the role model. The "Social Web" role models - the "successful ones" have an extremely strong sociopathy streak in them. That was not around 15 years ago. Sure, you could drown in testosterone and adrenaline on a bad day in the office. The sociopaths, however, were few and far between and they were not particularly successful.
Indeed. Would be nice to see if America could do something about the incarceration rate of black men: 25 - 33% (sorry, no current stats to hand) of black men spend some time in jail. To my mind that's a far bigger disgrace than any of the "quota" issues. All kinds of policies have failed to have a significant impact on this.
It is indeed. However it is possible to do more than one thing at once, so I'm sure you'll agree that racism is not the only inequality which needs to be addressed now.
I do agree and obviously didn't make myself clear. On the other hand, it looks like I'm heading for my own personal best in downvotes, which is nice.
I highlighted the incarceration rate of black Americans because it remains high even after decades of affirmative action.
I'm even more sceptical that any of the tokenisms such as IWD and the various feel-good about diversity boondoggles which ever be good for anyone other than the organisers.
"Would be nice to see if America could do something about the incarceration rate of black men"
Such as preventing them from committing crimes you mean?
Black Americans are arrested at 2.6 times the per-capita rate of all other Americans, and this ratio is even higher for murder (6.3 times) and robbery (8.1 times).
Let's see: "Decent social welfare system to keep people out of poverty".
You mean systems where it is often better paying to remain on the dole, than to work a job ?
"Remove the racial bias of US police"
Funny, when you adjust the numbers for the actual proportions of suspect race, you find that the police racial bias is non-existent, and tends to be the opposite of what is claimed.
"Providing real education and opportunities for all"
Hmm, that would be why numerous skilled trades positions, that pay VERY well, remain empty, while Ph.D.'s in the social sciences can only find work as baristas. The opportunities are there, and the education is easy to get. It's just that the coursework is actually hard, or requires actual physical labor.
You should talk to Mike Rowe about that. . .
Social welfare programs are a big part of why they are IN poverty. The rate of poverty is not any lower in the US since LBJ greatly expanded social welfare programs in the "war on poverty," but the rate of dependency on government has exploded. Marriage and intact families are way down, crime is way up. Dysfunctional communities that tolerate criminality and eschew education are the norm in the poor neighborhoods.
It's not about racial bias of US police. It's about blacks committing way more than their share of crimes relative to their slice of the population at large. They are 12-13% of the US population, but are responsible for over half of the murder-- and the biggest majority of these murders are against other blacks. Would it be better if the cops started going easy on black criminals who principally victimize other blacks? If they did, people would be complaining that black communities receive inadequate policing and that other neighborhoods receive better protection. It would be a valid complaint.
A lot of people are trying to provide better educational opportunities in poorer urban communities. Unfortunately, the very victims of these poor schools repeatedly vote for candidates who are in the pocket of teachers' unions, which stubbornly oppose any and all attempts to provide school choice or to base promotions and rate of pay on the quality of teachers rather than seniority. The teachers' unions scream bloody murder if anyone tries to impose any form of meritocracy upon them, or if they try to dismiss incompetent teachers or administrators. It's nearly impossible to fire an incompetent teacher in a public school.
In short, you're asking for more of the same policies that created the problems in the first place.
How true.
Here I run a very simple system regarding who does what.
1) Can they do the job?
2) Are they the best of the group doing the job?
3) Can they lead by example?
4) If 1 & 2 & 3 = true then they get put in charge.
For me, the ability in the job is much more important than being male or female. I would employ a green Martian big headed midget if they could do the work better than anyone else.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Bean counters, Spin Doctors and Livestock Oversight
...the three most commonly reviled specialisms (plus Marketing and Consultancy, naturally).
Might there be a touch of correlation/causation fallacy at work here?
Perhaps women (to some degree) experience higher levels of negativity and harassment from colleagues not just because they are women but also because they gravitate towards positions that attract negativity irrespective of gender?
Men experience higher levels blunt force trauma at work. It has nothing to do with gender per se; it is due to the over representation of men in heavy engineering, construction and agricultural labouring.
There is also the question of reporting/sample bias. When I was 19 I had a Chemistry lecturer who made a habit of sidling up from behind and groping students butts. He was gay however so the targets were other men. No-one ever reported him to my knowledge[1]. It was a minor irritation ... especially when compared to the gas attack from the hetero Business Studies lecturer's aftershave if he got close to you.
[1] University. No children involved.
Yes.
I've experienced many criminal offenses that only constituted a minor irritation to me. Littering. Smoking in bars. Double parking.
Perhaps it is something to do with the Northern Line at rush hour, but I'm not especially precious about invasions of my personal space and brief physical contact with strangers.
On the one hand, refraining from feeding trolls is a good policy.
But in terms of real-life discrimination, "simply ignore them" is functionally equivalent to "shut up and take it."
I'm not offering any clear rules. I'm suggesting that situations can sometimes be more complicated than they appear on the surface.
This post has been deleted by its author
You think cis-normative patriarchal micro-aggression is "OK"?!? You'll be suggesting that it is OK to give womyn flowers on March 8th like those degenerate Russian misogynists next.
Saying something that another person does not want to hear is verbal assault, by definition. If there is any sort of potential implication of a future interest in personal intimacy it is sexual assault. Period.
Freedom of speech is just a carte blanche to assault, abuse, ridicule and oppress. Thankfully we are finally moving into to the era of freedom FROM speech which will put a stop to this disgusting "asking someone out" aggression and harassment.
You'll be suggesting that it is OK to give womyn flowers on March 8th like those degenerate Russian misogynists next.
Hehe... We used to do a double round. ALL of our female colleagues got a March 8th bouquet. The ones which objected got an enormous freshly cut lilac one for the 1st of June. As a hint: "grow up".
The rule from the Feds is you can ask once, but not twice.
Some women are really hypersensitive on this issue. I remember one road trip were I asked the customers engineer if she wanted to go out to lunch. She freaked. It really threw me off.Taking the customer to lunch is just something you did. I know from dealing with non-American women that some cultures have issues with it but she was an American.
Yeah...
As most of the ladies would just brush off the first attempt with a uncommiting sentence like "Sorry, I am too busy with the current project", the second attempt once the project is over will be a dice roll. With a critical fumble chart.
Welcome to the wonderful world we live in. You can only ask her out if she wants your advances, otherwise your some evil monster who shouldnt be let out in public. Pretty soon we will need to develop telepathy so we can know if we are allowed to ask them out, except then they will read our interest and be offended at that too.
I do wonder how long until this version of women run off to an island together to escape the men. At least that way they can die out without bothering us.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
