Win Or Lose, Discrimination Suit Is Having an Effect On Silicon Valley 349
SpzToid sends word that the Ellen Pao vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers discrimination case wrapped up yesterday. No matter what the outcome turns out to be, it has already affected how business is being done in Silicon Valley. "'Even before there's a verdict in this case, and regardless of what the verdict is, people in Silicon Valley are now talking,' said Kelly Dermody, managing partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who chairs the San Francisco law firm's employment practice group. 'People are second-guessing and questioning whether there are exclusionary practices [and] everyday subtle acts of exclusion that collectively limit women's ability to succeed or even to compete for the best opportunities. And that's an incredibly positive impact.' Women in tech have long complained about an uneven playing field — lower pay for equal work, being passed over for promotions and a hostile 'brogrammer' culture — and have waited for a catalyst to finally overhaul the status quo. This trial — pitting a disgruntled, multimillionaire former junior partner against a powerful Menlo Park, Calif., venture capital firm — was far from the open-and-shut case that many women had hoped for. More gender discrimination suits against big tech firms are expected to follow; some already have, including lawsuits against Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc."
it has already **A**ffected how business... (Score:5, Informative)
Jeez.
Re:There is one effect TFA omits ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... that more and more investors are deciding to not put their money into places where frivolous lawsuits are prevalent, such as the Silicon Valley
It is interesting that news stories never mention that Ellen Pao is a lawyer. I don't know what Kleiner Perkins was thinking when they hired her, and made her a junior partner. If you hire a carpenter, that carpenter is going to try to solve every problem with a hammer. If you hire a lawyer, that lawyer is going to try to solve every problem with a lawsuit. That's what they do.
Re:There is one effect TFA omits ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting that news stories never mention that Ellen Pao is a lawyer. I don't know what Kleiner Perkins was thinking when they hired her, and made her a junior partner. If you hire a carpenter, that carpenter is going to try to solve every problem with a hammer. If you hire a lawyer, that lawyer is going to try to solve every problem with a lawsuit. That's what they do.
Yes, what a shame it is that they hired someone who knew enough to assert her rights if she faced gender discrimination. Much better to hire someone from inside the tech industry who had acclimated to the gender discrimination properly already.
End Sarcasm.
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it dumb.
Re:There is one effect TFA omits ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a lawyer is more likely to sue you if you do something wrong. It doesn't make it wrong to hire a lawyer.
It doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it dumb.
An engineer is more likely to hold your private key hostage. It doesn't make it wrong to hire an engineer.
Re:it has already **A**ffected how business... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it is having an effect on Silicon Valley.
Yes, it's causing an existential conflict between the hipster liberal side of Silicon Valley that's convinced that evil white males can do no good and women and minorities can do no wrong, and the ruthless capitalistic side that wants to make shitloads of money and just wants the best people for the job.
Latest news! (Score:2)
Ellen Pao just accused John Doerr of KP of sexually harassing her when he gave her a print of "The Birth of Venus"
The only reason... (Score:4, Interesting)
The only reason I don't like to work with women is because of the insane sexual harassment laws and HR policies.
As someone who happens to have been born with a penis, if I so much as smile the "wrong" way, I am instantly a creep, marked a sexual predator, fired, sued into oblivion, and my life ruined - all with everyone immediately believing the woman.
Immediate vilification. There doesn't have be any supporting evidence, or a witness, or anything - I'm immediately bad, no matter what actually happened. It's worse than being declared guilty before being proven innocent; it's simply guilty, with no chance of being innocent.
Women have ultimate power over the career of men. If a woman doesn't like someone, it's 1. Accuse, 2. Fired. Bam. Person gone. Any questions asked are merely procedural.
I have seen this happen to a co-worker, so don't give me that "that never happens" crap. It does happen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My ex-employer had a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment. Imagine this conversation:
Jim: "Hey, Dave. Where's Mary? She's supposed to be at the status meeting."
Dave: "She's got a cold and couldn't make it."
Result of this conversation: Dave and Jim are fired. According to the employee handbook, Sexual Harassment is defined and includes "Mentioning a coworker in conversation that said coworker is not involved in."
Seriously, how could anything get done? Can't even TALK about someone where they
Re: (Score:2)
The next time you are sexually harassed by a woman, feel free to point it out. If they don't follow the same procedure, sue them into oblivion.
People claiming they're harassed have a lot of power even though most people bringing harassment lawsuits are bogus, because we as a society have decided it's important enough to prevent real harassment that we're willing to pay the price of having lots of spurious lawsuits.
Re: (Score:3)
I've worked with many women and constantly smile at them, also never been sued into oblivion or accused of being a creep. I even asked one out once, didn't seem to be a problem.
I think some guys are walking on egg shells all the time because they fear being accused of sexual harassment when actually there is very little danger. If it is as bad as you say where you work then your company has a serious problem. It might actually work out for you though because such insane policies are likely to be quite lucra
Multimillionaire? (Score:2)
Genderless information (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're a dickhead (pun not-intended), you'll be treated like a shithead.
Sexual poetry book? Talk to the dude who gave it to you, tell him it's inappropriate. or go to HR (which is usually women-biased) and tell them you felt offended, they will talk tot he dude.
Colleagues discussing pornography on a plane? Tell them to keep it quiet (add "please!" because it's polite) and they will stop. if they don't, do as above.
Men tend to slip back to pseudo-savagery if women aren't around in a workplace for a while, and when a woman comes in, they tend do remain savage unless their eyes are opened. Don't pry their eyes open with a crowbar and acid, do it nicely and all's gonna be okay.
As for the other "reasons", they're dumb and weak.
A male partner touched your leg under a table? C'mon, really now. gender bias right there: imagine a male complaining about the same thing performed by a female: I bet everyone would laugh at him. but noo, when a woman experiences it, it's baaad, it's almost rape! Unacceptable!
It looks like currently the appropriate action is "shut up and sue" rather than "talk to the offender, then HRm then escalate, then sue if issue isn't resolved and he continues".
Here's something that happened at my workplace (which fields men and women almost in equal percentages). There was this new dude who had a rather unpolished character, swearing a lot, etc. One female colleague felt offended and went to HR. Another talked to him directly, in private and explained that he's crossing some lines. Dude got it, stopped, then a week later he's called to HR (follow-up from the first woman's complaint) and slammed with 10% pay cut for 3 months.
After that, everyone (men and women alike) isolated themselves from that woman (socially) because they felt uneasy around her. One could never be sure that they might slip and say something that "offended" her somehow and end up being punished for some little thing they might not have realized.
Being an arsehole swings both ways and can backfire.
Re: (Score:2)
Men tend to slip back to pseudo-savagery if women aren't around in a workplace for a while, and when a woman comes in, they tend do remain savage
No, they really don't. They may make jokes and talk frankly about women, but guess what, women do the same thing about men. Are you calling women savages now?
Re:Genderless information (Score:5, Insightful)
People need to (wo)man the fuck up and talk to each other, let them know where *your* lines are, and only escalate if they continue to *purposely* cross them. Don't be a knob about it and clarify your limits once, then escalate when they make some off the cuff remark a year later; learn to let things go once in a while, as we're all human and we all let things slip occasionally. Unless they're being purposely offensive to you and have made it clear they simply don't care if it bothers you (and they'll typically come right out and say as much to your face, so you don't have to read into things), you probably don't need to (and shouldn't) escalate things, because yes, that can and often do backfire. Sure, the person you complain about takes a pay cut, gets transferred out, or gets fired, but you become a social pariah around the workplace and nobody will have your back if anything actually does happen.
TL;DR: Be nice. Think twice.
Re: (Score:3)
A male partner touched your leg under a table? C'mon, really now. gender bias right there: imagine a male complaining about the same thing performed by a female: I bet everyone would laugh at him. but noo, when a woman experiences it, it's baaad,
Depends on the situation, doesn't it? If the guy was married he might be pretty upset. If he is interested in the women he might not. In any case men are more likely to keep quiet about it because they are afraid of looking weak if they complain, because you know, macho nonsense and all that. That's what people mean when they talk about deconstructing masculinity - it's okay to complain about unacceptable behaviour, it's the right thing to do.
It looks like currently the appropriate action is "shut up and sue" rather than "talk to the offender, then HRm then escalate, then sue if issue isn't resolved and he continues".
According to undisputed court testimony Pao did complain multiple
Have that cake and eat it, too (Score:2)
Doh! Of course Brogrammers! (Score:3, Informative)
Just what can you reasonably expect? Most programmers have been emotionally hurt repeatedly by women (much fewer by men) so it is natural they form protective shells (no not `bash`, the other kind). Yes, that does tar all women with one brush but all men are equally tarred by the misbehaviours of a small minority.
As for discrimination, I personally consider it cowardly -- fair competition, and let the best [wo]man win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doh! Of course Brogrammers! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just what can you reasonably expect? Most programmers have been emotionally hurt repeatedly by women
WTF? Almost every programmer that I know is in a stable and good relationship with a woman. Except for one female programmer, who is in a stable and good relationship with a man.
It will have an effect all right... (Score:5, Interesting)
It will encourage high tech companies in general and venture capital firms in specific to:
A). Locate their businesses in a state (like Texas) where Social Justice Warrior [battleswarmblog.com]-type lawsuits have little chance to succeed.
B). More carefully screen potential employees for Social Justice Warrior tendencies so as to minimize the chance of future lawsuits.
Businesses exist to make money, they don't exit for believers in victimhood identity politics to wage politics and cash in at their expense.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, they could just stop discriminating and avoid lawsuits that way. Seems easier than trying to screen for people who might sue them, which itself may fall foul of discrimination laws if they start asking about certain aspects of that person's life.
Unintended consequences? (Score:5, Interesting)
This also makes it more risky for companies to hire women. They need to increase the HR budget to make sure there is plenty of data to back up promotions. This is a very subjective area. Especially for a company like this one where I seriously doubt anyone is a slacker. It's like trying to judge between all 4.0 students. You have to look at things that are impossible to measure.
I'm not saying if she is right or wrong.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are people really that stupid? Huge payouts in these sorts of lawsuits isn't going to demonstrate to companies they should spend all their time policing their "everyday subtle acts". It's going to convince them women are legally dangerous and shouldn't be hired at all. It's a hell of a lot harder to bring a suit against a company that never hires you than against one for which you're employed, and business owners know this.
Re: (Score:3)
If a company never hires women it's pretty easy to catch them in a sting where you send two more or less identical CVs, one with a woman's name and one with a man's. If the women's is rejected and the man gets an interview it's lawsuit time.
The only way to avoid being sued for discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to do more of it.
women/shehmen....robots will win in the end (Score:2)
"Women" have done no such thing (Score:5, Informative)
In fact women of great standing within tech have long said the exact [linuxjournal.com] opposite [forbes.com] and that it's the constant lies and fearmongering from Social Justice types convincing people there's a wage gap that doesn't [qz.com] exist [smithsonianmag.com].
There's a word for when someone uses fear and lies to control someone else's behavior for their own gain. Generally we call that an abusive relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a word for when someone uses fear and lies to control someone else's behavior for their own gain. Generally we call that an abusive relationship.
Sounds like most employer/employee relations nowadays.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds a lot like what modern Social Justice does to women. Uses lies to spread fear stir up mass hysteria, then convinces people they can't live without it, and if anyone stands up for themselves or tries to leave they're either guilt-tripped or outright terrorized.
Re: (Score:2)
In this journal entry I posit that SJWs 15 minutes of fame is almost over [slashdot.org]. There's some arguments going on there for both sides (ok, all sorts of sides).
SJWs have shown themselves to be trolls looking for emotional, rather than rational, reactions. Probably because it's not all that exciting to try to actually solve the problems via calm discussions, and it doesn't get them the attention their egos crave.
They've done everyone on both sides of the gender divide a disservice by polarizing people. Fortunatel
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
THE CLIQUE OR THE COMPANY? (Score:2)
Citation needed (Score:3)
"Even before there's a verdict in this case, and regardless of what the verdict is, people in Silicon Valley are now talking," said Kelly Dermody, managing partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who chairs the San Francisco law firm's employment practice group.
"People are second-guessing and questioning whether there are exclusionary practices [and] everyday subtle acts of exclusion that collectively limit women's ability to succeed or even to compete for the best opportunities. And that's an incredibly positive impact."
Which people? I'm in Silicon Valley, unlike people who work in San Francisco.
Special Treatment for Minority Tech Employees (Score:5, Interesting)
In the mid 2000's, I worked as a first level manager in a well-known tech firm everyone here would recognize by name. (Hint: it's one of the parties to the anti-poaching lawsuit who hasn't settled yet) I had a handful of subordinates, up to six at a time, perhaps a dozen total over three years, including two minority females. Mind you, all of my team were competent, technically proficient, and generally not problem employees. But each year at Ranking and Rating, there was a pointed questioning, only about the minority female technical employees, that was HR-driven. "What is your justification for not ranking this employee higher?" "What are you doing to make sure that this employee is promotion-ready next year?" On the basis of those directed questioning, one of the minority women was given a specific high-profile task by my manager, which she completed competently. On the basis of that task that was steered to her based on her gender and skin color, she was promoted. To the best of my knowledge, she has no idea that she was treated favorably; I know I never told her.
The other was when a minority female candidate was identified late in the process for a very weirdly specific job opening I had. I had identified three decent candidates, all of whom happened to be white males, interviewed them all, and made an offer to the top candidate before HR found this new resume for me. My department was given an extra FTE from magical goodness-knows-where to interview and extend an offer to this lady. You NEVER get free headcount--but I did. So, we interviewed her, but found she had already accepted another offer from another (non-competitor) firm. I was then authorized to beat their offer to get her on our team, and did. So, we ended up with an extra person to do the job, and life was very good for a while, since she turned out to be an even better fit for the job than the white guy we were already in the process of hiring.
Again, over the course of the several years I knew them, both of these women were middle- to top performers among a bunch of other technical specialists, but NEVER have I seen any white male bent-over-for like these two were.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish some of these social justice types would imagine your story with your employer favoring the white males instead, and then realize the hypocrisy in their politics.
Re: (Score:3)
You racist cunt. I live in a country where white people were slaves.
I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAIN) (Score:4, Informative)
I find it interesting we are bashing tech (AGAIN).
If you look at the Fortune 500, there are 5.2% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 tech companies, there are 8% women CEOs.
If you look at the Fortune 500 non-tech companies, there are 2.8% women CEOs.
(1) Tell me again how this is a tech problem, and not a systemic problem.
(2) Tell me again that tech is not on the right trajectory, compared to all other businesses.
(3) Tell me again how tech is not more progressive than every other business sector.
By all means, lets go back to bashing tech, the only place where this social issue is being redressed in any meaningful fashion. I'm sure there will be absolutely no backlash from beating them up over something they are actually doing something about, while giving everyone else who is doing *NOTHING* about the issue is given a pass.
It's not like tech is full of people who are familiar with how bullying works... the actual bullies *ALWAYS* get a pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bullying comment was specifically in reference to the press bullying tech over something tech is already more cognizant of than any other industrial segment.
In terms of personal bullying, I think a lot of people who enter tech were bullied when they were younger, which has driven them towards technical pursuits, where they are less likely to have to associate with the general population. Perhaps, by implication, more young women should be bullies to address the STEM imbalance? I would not suggest that
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers are destroying the country (Score:3)
Win or lose, merit or nonsense the lawyers always win.
crazy idea, maybe employers are screwing everyone (Score:2)
Maybe they write up crazy job descriptions that almost no one can fill out of a false estimation of what they need?
Re: (Score:2)
I see women whining about this issue making claims, you're not bothered by that?
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the whiners, indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
I can hardly wait for the inevitable posts from while males complaining that if there's discrimination going on, they're not seeing it except against themselves. Their whining is so...
White males are the one group that it's tacitly deemed "okay" to discriminate against. Especially if they happen to be Christian, and even more so if they're Protestant ("WASP").
You just can't have a civil, enlightened society if there's ANY grounp it's okay to fuck with. Even if you think they deserve it. Even if retaliation, based on group identity, against those who didn't personally decide historical events (with their enduring consequences) is somehow your idea of "justice", and simultaneously not y
Re:Just in tech? (Score:4, Insightful)
But in reality the actual pay difference is about 7%. Now look at the number of sick days women take compared to men, about 50% more. And guess the primary cause of that.....
Re:Just in tech? (Score:4, Informative)
IMHO everyone should have that amount of time off. People working 40+h/w for 50+w/y is just ridiculous. Give everybody 2m/y off and work 30h/w, then we will have less unemployment and more efficient businesses.
Re:Just in tech? (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO everyone should have that amount of time off.
Why? You may value time off. That doesn't mean everyone does. When I was younger, I routinely worked 60-80 hour weeks, and loved it. My work was much more interesting than anything I could sit at home and watch on TV. I got a lot of bonuses for getting stuff done, and at that age the extra money was far more important than time off. Now that I am older, with a family, and stable finances, I prefer the opposite tradeoff. But I am not going to force my choices onto anyone else.
Re:Just in tech? (Score:5, Informative)
IMHO everyone should have that amount of time off.
Why? You may value time off. That doesn't mean everyone does. When I was younger, I routinely worked 60-80 hour weeks, and loved it. My work was much more interesting than anything I could sit at home and watch on TV. I got a lot of bonuses for getting stuff done, and at that age the extra money was far more important than time off. Now that I am older, with a family, and stable finances, I prefer the opposite tradeoff. But I am not going to force my choices onto anyone else.
The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else. Worker productivity has steadily risen since at least the 1950s, meanwhile wages (indexed against inflation) have remained relatively stagnant. That would be equitable if the number of hours worked per week had been reduced, but it hasn't (that, by the way, is what steadily improving technology could have brought us, but it's never enough, the owners want more, more more).
That means someone's getting screwed, and unless most of your revenue comes from investments or other unearned income, that includes you. If you don't work the overtime and place your corporation above your family, you're "not a team player". Because these are conflicting goals, they cannot all be simultaneously satisifed. One must be chosen at the expense of all others, meaning some group who want it one way are going to force this upon everyone else. Currently, in so many work environments, this favors those who want more work and less free time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, the workaholics and institution types effectively have forced their ways on everyone else.
Then negotiate your contract to get more days off. I've done it, you can do it, too.
The catch is, you won't get paid as much, and most people aren't willing to put up with that.
Re:Just in tech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, the biggest problem here is that people aren't willing to take a paycut. If you're not willing to do that, then it's a lot harder.
Re: (Score:3)
"But if you're a programmer, you do."
Yeah, right. Meanwhile, back in the real world where companies will simply not renew your contract and hire someone who WILL work the full hours....
Re: (Score:2)
Get two jobs. IF one really works 80 hours/week, then I hope they're not salaried but get paid 1.5-2.5x for any time over 40, the facts however are that most people working 80h/week only get paid to do "~40".
Actually... No. (Score:3)
Give everybody 2m/y off and work 30h/w, then we will have less unemployment and more efficient businesses.
Actually... No.
You are incorrectly assuming that the per-employee cost for hourly employees to the business for 3 x 30 hr/wk is the same as for 2 x 45 hr/wk. It's not. There is cost loading to the business in the form of unfunded government mandates, such as employer provided medical insurance, workers comp, social security, and so on.
As a specific example, there's a social security tax cap, and employers must match employee contributions. What this effectively means is that if I have 2 employees, my bus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most businesses wouldn't have any major issue spending that little extra money; if they did, they wouldn't if they were slightly more efficient or if the CxO's got a few million dollars less.
Eg. Coca-Cola has 130k employees. Increasing their employee base by 50% (I assume an average cost of $100k/employee) would cost $6.5B/y or barely 15% of their yearly revenue.
You can make the same calculations for a number of companies, unless the company is severely mismanaged or inefficient (in which case it should fai
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, approximately 76% of their 8.5 billion net income for 2013. Think anybody's gonna rate Coca Cola's stock a "buy" if their dividends fall by 76%?
I know it's fashionable to be ignorant of how finance works here on Slashdot, but what you're proposing is literal suicide for any company that tries to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most businesses wouldn't have any major issue spending that little extra money;
Then why aren't they? The ability to operate at 66% capacity with one person out sick, instead of at 50% capacity? Also, assuming you temporarily 1.5X the hours of the remaining two workers, you operate at 100% capacity, instead of 50% capacity? The answer is that the math does not work out like that; the per employee costs overwhelm any potential benefit to the employer.
if they did, they wouldn't if they were slightly more efficient or if the CxO's got a few million dollars less.
People keep saying this, but if you divide the number of employees into the salary of the CEO of McDonals, it comes out to ~$8.65 *PER
Re: (Score:3)
Revenue != usable, spare income.
For the past few decades, apart from a spike in 2010, Coca Colas profit margins have hovered roughly between 15% and 20% - so a 15% increase in cost base would have left them borderline profitable or unprofitable for quite a lot of that period.
Re: (Score:2)
We have two people - one who completes a set amount of work in 35 hours, and another who completes the same amount of work in 50 hours. And you want to pay the second person more ...why exactly? To encourage slacking off on the clock?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then explain why an American worker today can be more productive than his or her predecessors, yet paid a substantially smaller fraction of the proceeds from his or her labors?
They're not paid a smaller fraction of the proceeds.
(1) The proceeds are "after taxes, medical, and other costs", all of which are higher
(2) A substantial amount of the productivity increase money has gone into subsidizing cost reduction to the eventual consumer. Think "everyday low prices at Walmart"
Thank you for being more productive, comrade; lettuce is now cheaper, and even though you personally don't eat lettuce, know that your efforts are appreciated by those who do.
Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score:5, Funny)
And this is why across the nation, top-level executives are all biting the bullet, tiightening their belts and demanding that their boards pay them less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Greater productivity per worker means less demand for workers. Less demand means lower price. Thus, more productive workforce means worse-paid workforce.
Yay capitalism.
Re:You are missing the obvious point! (Score:4, Insightful)
Greater productivity per worker means less demand for workers.
No it doesn't. It means more demand. Read up on Jevon's Paradox [wikipedia.org]. As a resource (including labor) is used more efficiently, demand for it goes up, not down, because of greater opportunities. It would only go down if the Lump of Labor Fallacy [wikipedia.org] wasn't a fallacy.
If you owned a factory, and you had a way to make your workers ten times more productive, would you fire 90% of them? Or would you realize that your profit per worker was now ten times higher, and expand your factory and hire more workers?
more productive workforce means worse-paid workforce.
That explains why high productivity like America, Western Europe, and Japan, are mired in poverty, while countries like Somalia, Liberia, and Afghanistan, which avoided the "productivity catastrophe" are prospering. Whatever.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you owned a factory, and you had a way to make your workers ten times more productive, would you fire 90% of them? Or would you realize that your profit per worker was now ten times higher, and expand your factory and hire more workers?
Doesn't that depend on what I'm making? After all, if I'm making laser guided missiles or nuclear bombs, I have a limited number of 'customers' I can sell them to (legally anyways), so if my 100 employees are suddenly 10x more productive... *yes*, I might fire 90% of them, or maybe 80% of them and hire a few lobbyists to spend the extra money bribing... er, lobbying... politicians to increase the budget for my products, or at least swaying them towards invading "Wherethefuckisthatistan" where I know my pro
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is, people aren't coal. A coal seam can sit unused for a hundred million year with no ill effects. An unemployed laborer can't. He either gets a job fast or falls into poverty. Supply of labour cannot go down in response to market situation;
THIS!! Read the Research! (Score:4, Insightful)
Good grief I am so tired of hearing this bullshit argument by people when it is so easily discounted with.. oh my.. FACTS! The only I can believe at this point, is that people in power are desperate to keep us pitted against each other so they are dumping shit tons of money into the extremist feminist movement. Everyone needs to just start boycotting. Turn off any TV station that repeats the bullshit, turn off the radio station, don't buy the publication, and don't read the blogs.
Women don't want to work in tech! Oculus proved it, and even stated openly that they gave favoritism to women. Women did not apply for jobs, so how can they "fix" the balance unless these dipshit SJWs start forcing women into a career they don't want? Everyone knows that IT jobs in general are longer hours, less vacation, less time off, and extremely high stress. I don't blame women for not wanting to work in the field, and see nothing wrong with their choices.
Without all the recent hype, and since the very early 70s, women have been on an unequal field in THEIR favor! There are more women graduating college today than men, there are more women PHDs than men, there are more women in education than men, there are more women than men in industries like child care where women can be closer to their kids. Further, the rate of suicides for women is much lower than men while their work participation is at an all time high, meaning they are not suffering from the same stress as men.
All the bullshit about a patriarchy and rape culture is exactly bullshit. Most women get it and ignore the feminists, so why the fuck are our politicians and media outlets giving them so much air time hmm? I believe the answer is what I started with.. people in power want us pitted against each other and the argument is too simple to latch on to.... if you are a useful idiot that is
Re: (Score:2)
Most women get it and ignore the feminists
Exactly, the only way the summary makes any sense to me is if you replace the word "woman" with "feminist".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most women get it and ignore the feminists
Exactly, the only way the summary makes any sense to me is if you replace the word "woman" with "feminist".
The feminist organizations are much like the federal Rural Electrification Commission. Long after their stated goals have been accomplished, the institution seeks to perpetuate its own existence and exaggerate its own relevance. A sane, rational institution established to accomplish a few clearly stated goals would dissolve itself after those goals have come to pass. But this is not the way of establishments of any sort. They take on a life of their own, complete with their own survival instincts, and b
Narrative, Not News (Score:3)
All the bullshit about a patriarchy and rape culture is exactly bullshit. Most women get it and ignore the feminists, so why the fuck are our politicians and media outlets giving them so much air time hmm? I believe the answer is what I started with.. people in power want us pitted against each other and the argument is too simple to latch on to.... if you are a useful idiot that is
Note that even after we knew the UVA frat rape accusation was horseshit, MSM news articles about it still pushed the talking point that it "raised awareness" and "started a conversation" about "rape culture" and the "epidemic of sexual assault" on campuses. "Win or lose" (i.e. facts be damned) the narrative matters above all else.
Re:THIS!! Read the Research! (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree with you. Here's my thoughts from my efforts in recruiting and trying to hire women in to CS. When posing the question to a woman "what if I proposed a field of study which I could almost guarantee a six figure salary within 5 years of graduation". They perk up and say something along the lines of "oh that sounds great, what is it?". I respond with computer science, and the falling of their face is almost comical, and followed up almost always exactly with "no, I want to do something more social, something where I work with people".
Now, lets take that, and no, this isn't anecdotal, unless you consider all of my recruiting efforts, hundreds of times, to be anecdotal, and look at Oculus vs Facebook. Facebook, a social networking site doesn't have a huge issue hiring women, who seem to want to work in the social space. Oculus, who makes VR equipment and is pretty close to the antithesis of social interaction has a hard time hiring people who seem to want to work in a social space.
I don't know, could there possibly be a connection?
Re:THIS!! Read the Research! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to claim that Oculus is proof women don't want to work in tech, you have to explain why their parent company (Facebook) manages to employ a 30% female workforce.
Maybe those two companies are not doing the same kind of work ?
Re: (Score:2)
In reality the actual difference is NIL, or within margins of error.
Re: (Score:3)
Women make less than men over their careers because they have babies, and that process requires taking a lot of time off work. It's a fact of life. If you don't like it, sue God.
Re: (Score:2)
The subject is tech jobs, in silicon valley. You're all over the board on irrelevant things
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the garbage pickers, ditch diggers, coal miners, EMT workers sure have women clamoring for equal opportunities.
Oh what's that? Only cushy office jobs?
Why so many social justice articles here at /.? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a reader of /. for many years now. While this site has never been known for having the highest quality content, I'm seeing more and more and more social justice submissions making it onto the front page here.
So there's this submission. Just a few hours ago there was one about "booth babes" being banned at some conference. A few hours before that there was one about some British TV host who was dismissed from his show over some incident.
While this stuff may be indirectly related to technology, it's all so irrelevant here. If I cared to read about whatever minor social injustice is trending these days, I'd go read Twitter comments or even the mainstream media.
Yeah, I know I could just ignore this submission, and the many others, but there are just so many of them these days! They also end up taking up front page space that could be used by more interesting and relevant submissions.
I say this as a woman, as well. Just because I was born with a vagina it doesn't mean that I want to read about all of this social nonsense junk. And just because I wasn't born with a penis it doesn't mean that I'm not interested in reading about scientific discoveries or technological breakthroughs or new mathematical proofs! /. editors, please tone down the social justice poop. Give us good articles about relevant topics! Social justice is not a relevant topic here!
Re:Why so many social justice articles here at /.? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I submitted an article about how Wikipedia canned a gaggle of feminist editors from Wikipedia for spewing crap on gender related entries and it never saw the light of day, yet this agitprop makes the grade? Okay, the day will come and indeed is coming when this clear bigotry will reflect very badly indeed on slashdot editors. I know I'd certainly never hire one of them based on their past performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I submitted an article about how Wikipedia canned a gaggle of feminist editors from Wikipedia for spewing crap on gender related entries and it never saw the light of day, yet this agitprop makes the grade? Okay, the day will come and indeed is coming when this clear bigotry will reflect very badly indeed on slashdot editors. I know I'd certainly never hire one of them based on their past performance.
I wouldn't hire them anyway, based in sheer incompetence. The most readily observed incompetence: calling oneself an "editor" while remaining unable to spell-check or understand and apply the 5th-grade English grammar in which most news stories are deliberately written.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just in tech? (Score:5, Informative)
My wife and I have this discussion all the time (she's pretty rational).
The thing is that in a lot of industries, and in tech in particular, salaries are negotiated. Sharks and more aggressive personalities always come up ahead with that.
We saw it pretty straight when at one point, she applied for a job in the same department as me, for the same company (we wouldn't work together, but we shared the same department director).
I have more experience than she does, but she has better credentials...roughly a wash. She interviewed a bit better than me. We got a similar initial offer (she got a HIGHER initial offer, and rightly so).
Here's the catch: I refused mine initially. They came back with counter offers, we negotiated for a few days, and I came up way ahead (20%~ higher or so). Even KNOWING this, when my wife got her offer, she just took it as is, no negotiation whatsoever.
Net result: she made about 10-15% less money than me even though she was more qualified.
At the end of the day, hiring managers have budgets and they will try to pay as low as possible without hurting employee moral/retention, and they do expect some level of negotiation. If you take the first offer, you'll be paid less. And less "pushy" individuals are more likely to not negotiate.
That's not the only reason for gender salary gaps, for sure. But its a FUCKING BIG ONE.
Re:Just in tech? (Score:4, Insightful)
Women in any industry have long complained about an uneven playing field
Funny, but I have yet to hear a single complaint from any woman about discrimination in the coal mining, garbage pickup, or commercial fishing industries. Somehow they're cool with men dominating all the fields that require hard and dangerous work. I guess they're okay with inequality when they're not on the receiving end of 93% of all workplace fatalities, the way men are. Don't hear too much from them about THAT glass ceiling, do you?
Re: (Score:3)
I can't help but think the recent attention to the gender wage gap is a convenient political distraction. It's a real problem, but the timing is very suspect. To explain, I'll repurpose a joke I once heard about unions...
A CEO, a politician and a male and female worker sit at a table. There are 302 cookies on the table. The CEO rakes 300 over for himself. He gives one of the remaining cookies to the male worker. Then he breaks the second remaining cookie into 6 fragments, gives 5 to the female worker and ke
Re: (Score:2)
" because they lack talent"
And your evidence for this is...?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not everyone is smart.
Some people lack talent.
Half of all people are women
THEREFORE SOME WOMEN LACK TALENT
Christ
Re:So in other words (Score:5, Funny)
This reminds me of my dad's 5 rules for life (slightly asciified, and probably from someone before him):
^ That way is up
v That was is down
All men are assholes
All women are crazy
Beer is good.
Re:So in other words (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of my dad's 5 rules for life (slightly asciified, and probably from someone before him):
^ That way is up
v That was is down
All men are assholes
All women are crazy
Beer is good.
I prefer red wine, myself. Like maybe a good, dry cabernet sauvignon. But to each their own! Enjoy that beer, my friend. Salud!
Re: (Score:2)
If so, it's pretty darn clever, though I don't think it'll have the intended effect. You see, no matter how clever you are, you can't argue with a fauxminist, because her megalomaniacal self image, combined with her view of men as something lesser beings (which
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's getting worked up?
You! lol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was a series of counter suits combined with public boycotting that finally ended these people in most areas. You know, the ones that would send a few million snail mails to the FCC when someone said something they didn't like, and had numerous people fired from jobs because their viewpoint was not the same. Similar actions are needed against the extremists.
I've yet to witness a Majority which was truly Moral in both word and deed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That problem is solved by providing paternity leave. It the wave of the future, and men should be pushing for it so they can spend some time with their newborn kids as well.
I used to think that too but I changed my mind. There's no point in doing that in the current marriage climate; not enough couples are together so paternity leave ends up useless to the unattached father and thus he may not take it anyway, making him even more valuable than women and attached men.
Unintended consequence: if only 2% of men are unattached fathers[1], they would be selected for the most by employers. This preference would lead to more men forfeiting paternity leave, and this situation would co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Feminists attack, generalize, and stereotype mens character all the time. Apparently this is ok, so why do feminists complain when a specific woman is criticized?
2. Some women are whiners. So are some men.
3. Having people around whose workflow jars with established process creates inefficiency. Ask men who work in nursing how they're treated. Men and women think differently and that's ok. It could very well be that in certain tasks, mixing the sexes is not a good idea.
4. A sex pay gap doesn't exist. Tha