Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Simply (Score 1) 568

by stdarg (#47784635) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

I think your comment would better be addressed to serviscope_minor who made the claim that acknowledging gender differences automatically means the speaker thinks women are inferior. He is the one who took a comment about women having a different point of view than men and turning it into an ism.

Your comment raises a good point about other factors playing a role in sending people to jail though. It's certainly not *purely* related to reasoning. But, all else equal, wouldn't you agree that reasoning plays *a* role? After all there are black guys from poor neighborhoods with broken families receiving pressure from gangs (add in whatever other factors you think play a role) who are NOT in jail. Surely at least part of that is up to the individual's reasoning in choosing one action over another, and not just down to pure luck?

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 568

by stdarg (#47784567) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

It's also a straw man because there are plenty of drives in other, female dominated industries to get more men in.

No it's not a straw man because while there are some resources going towards addressing the lack of men in female dominated industries, it's so much less significant than what is being done to help women that it can only be called a gross imbalance.

Never said it was the same. The OP claimed it was not the case. That is false, as I have demonstrated.

You should try reading OP's post again. He said there was no "crusade" to address the imbalance in female dominated industries. "Crusade" is much stronger than your response of "there are some programs to help men." And if you look at the coverage given to things like these diversity numbers from tech companies, and all the coverage and programs to get women in STEM, it is much more widespread than the programs to help men.

What the fuck are you on about? No one's claiming there's no problem. The OP was calaiming there was no drive to get women into male dominated industries like mining. That is provable false.

It may be provable, but you did not prove it. A handful of crappy websites does not a "drive" make, otherwise like I said we can all stop talking about women in STEM because I can also Google for 30 seconds and find a few websites. The drive exists. It's good enough. We don't need more. Right? Because that's what you said, and what you're now confirming... that a handful of websites is enough of a "drive" that calling for more action (as OP did) is unfounded.

Wow, so ALL women have to do something to gether as a united group before you'll have patience for speeches of equality from some of its members.

No... that is wrong... the people giving the speeches about equality need to believe it, otherwise they are hypocrites. This isn't complicated. When a handful of rich, powerful, or famous women go out and say "I'm going to do something today about.. INEQUALITY!" and the result is "So I'm going to start pushing purely on behalf of women in a select few fields that I'd like to see more women in" that is hypocrisy. This is not hard to understand.

It would be like me, a white guy, saying "I'm going to do something about racism today. I know, I'll start a white male scholarship program!! Man, I am so anti-racism, it's awesome."

You see the problem right? Is it more clear when a white guy is doing it?

You don't see that requiing all women to act together as a single entity is a sexist point of view?

Well technically it's not, because I expect the same thing from men.

I do not support hypocritical pro-male-only-in-the-name-of-equality programs. I can't really think of any modern ones to list as examples. They probably exist but are not nearly as well known as the pro-women programs.

I do not think that means what you think it means.

Yeah I know. You probably don't agree that sexism is discrimination or prejudice based on sex.

Comment: Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (Score 1) 568

by stdarg (#47783689) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Ah the old: It's worse elsewhere ergo nothing is wrong here argument.

That's not the argument that was made. It's not "worse" that some fields are dominated by women, but it is fact. The argument is that a concerted push to end sexism *just for women* is itself sexist. The motivation of these programs to end sexism is called into question since they are sexist themselves.

Also, it turns out there are movements in nursing and teaching to get more men.

Ah, the old: There are some movements to help men, so it's all about the same I guess. Total bullshit. The gender disparity at tech companies gets mainstream national news coverage, calls to change laws, and pleading promises from the companies in question that they are doing everything they can. When "outed" the companies kick off multi-million dollar projects to address the issue.

The most coverage that getting men into nursing and teaching gets is in the comments section to these other articles that command the headlines. Like this case.

All from using 30 seconds of google.

Wow there are a few websites for women in mining! I guess there's no problem! Whew, then we can all relax about women in tech because they also have some websites already. After all you ARE saying this is a good enough effort to get women into mining right? Otherwise what exactly was your point?

Wait, so your argument is that until we have perfect equality everywhere we shouldn't try to get any anywhere? FFS you're a moron.

Comprehension fail.

They, the other, all women together "must" do something before you're prepared to have patience for "their equality crap".

Umm yes they must believe in equality before we will have patience for their speeches about equality. Otherwise it's hypocrisy.

Quite. Some of us are colossal sexist raging morons. Others of us can use our brains and powers of observation.

For what it's worth, I think you are sexist, but that doesn't make you a raging moron. I'd call you more of a naive sexist than a raging moron sexist.

Comment: Re:Programming: You're doing it completely wrong (Score 5, Interesting) 119

by spitzak (#47761275) Attached to: The Grumpy Programmer has Advice for Young Computer Workers (Video)

Actually more often I have seen the opposite: claims the new stuff is going to be faster, the compiler is not smart enough to figure out that they are the same, and thus you should use the new stuff.

There was a coworker who insisted that using C++ std::foreach for loops was faster because "the compiler knows you can't break out of it and thus can optimize the whole thing". I had two objections to this: first of all it would be a really stupid optimizing compiler that could not figure out there are no "break" statements inside the for loop. And second the C++ was still allowed to throw exceptions in both cases.

The other objection I had was that the functors were unreadable.

Yet another objection is my suspicion that the optimization would be far worse on the functors due to the enormous header files of templates they actually used and I expected the optimizer for the simple for loop to have fewer bugs in it. But I did not test this.

Comment: Re:Men in education and healthcare? (Score 1) 329

by stdarg (#47749095) Attached to: ACM Blames the PC For Driving Women Away From Computer Science

a generalization that men are more selfish than women.

They aren't? Who runs the charitable organizations and social service organizations?


What, so we should expect less from boys? That's part of the problem now...parents now aren't expecting or teaching their boys HOW to sit down and do quiet play or reading but focusing on their athletics.

We should expect something different from boys. Whether it's less or more is not a valid question because you can't compare these qualities numerically.

One of the signs that we are expecting the wrong thing from boys is the increase in medication for behavioral problems in boys (ADHD etc). It makes more sense to suggest that some boys need a different learning environment than others than to suggest a good percentage of boys need to be medicated to fit in.

How are conformity and group awareness feminine traits?

I find it hard to believe you're not aware of research indicating women favor collaboration, building relationships, and listening more than men do.

I love that you unblinkingly accept generalizations like "men are more selfish" but balk at obvious and well known stuff like this when applied to women.

Aren't grades themselves objective?

No. Grades are objective if they are assigned objectively, that's all.

An example of an objective grade is getting an "A" on a math test where the grade is based on the number of questions you answer correctly.

A classic example of non-objective grading is getting a "C" on a history paper because the teacher doesn't like your viewpoint, even if it's well written.

Most grades are objective, but grades are not "themselves objective" i.e. inherently objective simply because they are grades.

The numbers of male teachers are still higher than they were in the 20's, 30's and 40's.

That's because those are the years around WWI and WWII. I suspect you knew that, which makes your point intellectually dishonest.

What's the equivalent clear external reason that explains the decline of male teachers since the 70s?

Men seemed to do okay in education then when there were even MORE female teachers so what's the problem.

I would be interested in seeing stats on male vs female administrators, and also the effect of unionization on the demographics of teaching.

Comment: Re:Playing with the stereotypes (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47672105) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that maybe on average women are perceived to only be 70% as valuable as men (consistent with salary statistics) and that this perception discourages employers from being willing to pay them 85% of a typical male salary (effectively overpaying them by 21%).

I'm ready to give up on you. Of course that occurred to me. That is the central point that I am relying on in my argument. To suggest that it hasn't occurred to me tells me that you haven't understood, or possibly haven't even read, most of what I've been saying.

In one line, my argument: The false perception that women are less valuable economically than men opens up room for a smarter entrepreneur to out-compete the rest of the industry by taking advantage of undervalued women.

Now you have come up with a few criticisms of that which I feel I have answered:
1. You said it would result in severe understaffing and it would take 10 years to hire each woman. That's ridiculous and hardly deserves a reply, but I noted that the labor pool of qualified women is already large enough to supply companies like Google with thousands of qualified female employees (and you'll note it didn't take them 10000 years), so finding 20-30 for a startup is obviously not going to make a dent on the labor pool.
2. You said if everybody did it, then it would stress the labor pool and result in higher wages due to competition. I reminded you that I'm not talking about "everybody doing it" but just one or a handful of entrepreneurs.
3. You said if you pay women more than they currently earn in order to lure them away from their current employers, that would automatically mean you can no longer 'reap the "underpaid women" bonus' (your words). I pointed out to you that simple arithmetic can provide you with a solution. Here's a concrete example: Sally gets paid $70k at Google for the same job that her male coworkers earn $100k. I will pay her $80k, which is a sizable raise for her (over 14%), and still saves me $20k.
4. Now, instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you say that my hypothetical entrepreneur wouldn't be willing to pay Sally $80k because he would erroneously perceive her value as only $70k, like everybody else.

My only response to that is that you obviously did not read or understand anything I've written. My ENTIRE PREMISE is that out of the thousands of people who start tech businesses each year, at the very least a handful of them are smart enough to read the news and learn that Sally earns $70k but does the same work as John who earns $100k and come up with a plan to profit off of that market error.

That is my premise.

You are the one begging the question, by telling me that my premise cannot work... because... my premise cannot work. That's literally begging the question, which now you're astoundingly accusing me of doing. None of your arguments have been convincing, so now you're just flat out telling me "Oh it didn't occur to you that women are perceived as less valuable, so nobody will want to overpay them."

Whatever. Please feel free to reply and have the last word. I'm not going to bother to reply if I feel that it's yet another complete failure to understand what I'm talking about. You win.

If you come up with an argument that actually makes sense and works with my stated assumptions but shows that my reasoning is flawed, or that an assumption is just too unrealistic, then I will reply of course.

Comment: Re:Playing with the stereotypes (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47670783) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

Not at 30% below male salary, no.

You must be unfamiliar with claims that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same job as men. That's what I'm referring to.

So now you're agreeing with my statement "And then ten years later, after you finally get your second female applicant, you'll agree that there is a dearth of women in tech."

Sure, if you want... I can see how me saying "it'll just take longer" equates to "it'll take 10 years between every applicant." Come on.

The entire premise was that some company could hire only women to reap the "underpaid women" bonus. Now you're suggesting that if you pay the women more, you'll get them to come work for you.

I think you missed the entire premise of this thread actually. I'm responding to the claim that women do the same job for less money. Look at the first post in this thread. Pick whatever figure you want... 30%, 20%, call it X%. Offer women a pay raise of X/2% to split the difference, and you are paying women more, while still saving lots of money over paying men for the same work.

Yea, I should've read your whole post before I even started typing. You're suggesting that companies pay women more to steal them away from the competition. You seem to have forgotten that the entire context of this discussion was women being paid less.

So you do understand that this thread is about women being paid less... but you fail to see how giving women a raise could still result in them being paid less? Think about the X/2% idea above, then get back to me.

Comment: Re:How about some real number? (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47668769) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

A company large enough where any disparity cannot easily be explained by randomness.

That makes sense given your view that hiring based on gender is illegal.. you'd have to be able to demonstrate the reasonable possibility that it happened by chance.

I'm not sure if you're simple or genuinely ignorant. You know gender (not women) is a protected category for employment, right? That makes having such a policy completely and utterly 100% do not pass go do not collect $200 illegal.

I'm neither simple nor ignorant. While gender is a protected category for employment, that law does not necessarily apply to affirmative action programs.

"In the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, Congress specified that nothing in the Act “shall be construed to affect.affirmative action, or conciliation agreements, that are in accordance with the law.” In short, the Court and Congress have concluded that affirmative action can be a useful tool to combat barriers to equal employment opportunity."

While you may be right that an openly stated policy of "We only hire women, and the reason we do that is to save 30% on labor costs" would be asking for a lawsuit, it seems possible to contrive a way to use affirmative action to end up with an 80% female workforce, thus realizing most of the benefit.

Comment: Re:Playing with the stereotypes (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47666279) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

And how many highly qualified male tech workers? Many thousands of women won't be able to fill many hundreds of thousands of jobs.

That's irrelevant to the view of a single company. Let's say 10% of the tech workforce is female. It would be impossible to achieve 100% female employment across the entire industry, but certainly possible for a single company. You'll have to interview 10x more people to go 100% female with your workforce.

Well, you don't even have to interview the guys if you know you're going after women, so you'll interview the same number of people, it'll just take longer to get those applications.

When you advertise something like "We pay 15% better than Google" I would imagine you'd get at least a few takers, including female Googlers who are tired of being underpaid.

Sure. Go the 14 women route. And then ten years later, after you finally get your second female applicant

What exaggeration! Google has 30% * 47000 = 14000 female employees. 17% among tech workers.

A startup looking for 50 female applicants could pull that off by walking around the Google parking lot for 15 minutes at lunch before security kicked them out. Carry a sign that says "Bring us your paystub, get an immediate offer with a 15% pay jump and a long-term management position."

False premise, argument not sound.

That's my line...

Comment: Re:Good question, and I'm guessing (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47665989) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

that women end up being cheaper is therefore a permanently unexpected bonus

It's not unexpected. The gender-wage gap is well known. I know it, you know it, everybody who moderately pays attention to the news in the last 20-30 years knows it. It's always an issue, it's always being looked at and criticized.

Do you honestly believe that among the hundreds or thousands of new tech businesses each year, some portion of whom go on to get funded and hire a bunch of people, NONE of them have thought of this?

How about the smaller group of venture capitalists who advise the new company? NOT ONE of them ever said "Hey you know, you can save a boatload in the long term if you hire women. Keep that in mind." ???

It's not reasonable. The only explanation is that the premise is false. If there's a pay gap, it's far less significant than 30%. Maybe 5%, maybe less than that.

not something which the recruitment process is equipped to take advantage of

No, as we see in these articles, big companies apparently try to recruit minorities and women to increase their diversity. It's clearly possible to do. It would be even easier for a small company since the somewhat restricted women-only labor pool would pose less of an obstacle. (I mean, if you need to hire 20 people for your startup, it's not significantly harder to hire 20 of the 10000 women looking for jobs as opposed to 20 of the 40000 men looking, using hypothetical numbers. You're not stressing the capacity of the pool.) The question is simply why more people don't do it given the obvious advantages. (If they were real.)

Comment: Re:Playing with the stereotypes (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47665929) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

You would be right if suddenly every company tried to hire women exclusively. But they don't. So the question is, why don't just a few companies do that, and succeed wildly, undercutting all their competition while delivering superior shareholder return yada yada. The business plan writes itself. "We're going to do the same thing as IBM, but with women, and our costs will be 30% lower!"

In that context, understaffing is not an issue. Google alone has thousands of highly qualified female tech workers, showing that the labor market has the capacity to supply many thousands of women for tech jobs. Any startup, any small business, any medium sized tech business should be falling all over itself to hire predominantly women, because they'll save so much money. You got $2 million in venture capital? You can hire either 10 guys for a year, or 10 women and give yourself a raise, or 14 women. All with the same budget. What kind of idiot would say "Oh gee I'll take the 10 guys please." That's the worst option.

The reason you have no answer is because it's just wrong. The premise is faulty. Women do not make 70 cents on the dollar for the same job. That's just obvious crap and it's unbelievable that anybody would attempt to stick to that story after a few seconds of contemplation.

Comment: Re:How about some real number? (Score 1) 561

by stdarg (#47665715) Attached to: Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White

I'm a loss to know what that even means. Yes, sometimes women are hired instead of men. That is indisputable.

I didn't say sometimes women are hired instead of men. I said at least sometimes there should be a case where women are hired more than men.

Um by the time a company gets large enough to have a statistically significnt workforce

Statistically significance comes into play when you're doing an experiment and you're wondering if the combination of sample size and effect size is due to randomness.

I don't know what you mean by "statistically significant workforce" since we're not talking about an experiment.

it makes no sense to talk about "one" company since hiring decisions are made locally.

What? Of course it makes sense. It's proof by contradiction. If it's true that women do the exact same quality and quantity of work for significantly less money, then there should be a big success story by now of an all (or nearly all) female tech company that does the same quality and quantity of work as its competition, but either charges significantly less or has significantly higher profit margins.

You don't have an answer for this contradiction, that's clear. It's because there is none... the premise is false.

Besides, no one would be dumb enough to make that an official policiy because it's probably illegal and would invite the most awful PR.

What official policy? It's perfectly fine, and would be lauded, to start a tech company "for women, by women" or whatever. You're grasping for straws here.

Forget 100% women, why aren't there tech companies that are 80% women and 20% men? That obviously wouldn't be a big scandal since there are plenty of 80% men, 20% women tech companies. Saving 30% of salary on 80% of your labor force would be a huge advantage. You see that right? Do you understand what I'm talking about, and why it would make strong business sense to do... if it were possible?

The answer is, as I said, yes it would make great sense, and so the reason there isn't a single example of such a company is that... it's not possible. Women don't accept 30% less pay for the exact same work. If you're paying a woman 30% less than a man, it's because her work is not as good as the alternative.

OK, basically you're arguing that a measured pay gap doesn't exist because people are too clever even though there are plenty of stupid people.

You're joking right? The measured pay gap? If you actually read the reports that come up with things like "women make 70 cents on the dollar" you'll find that they are looking at aggregate income across the entire population. Once they start correcting for differences, the pay gap magically shrinks. Last I saw, when factoring into account education, experience, time commitment, and a bunch of other factors, it was like 92 cents on the dollar. As they add more control variables, the gap gets smaller and smaller. It's disingenuous at this point to even say an 8 cent pay gap exists.... what exists is an *unexplained* 8 cent pay gap.

And once again you're missing the fundamental idea of proof by contradiction. Yes there are plenty of stupid people. Good job. But there are at least some smart people right? So out of the tens of thousands of entrepreneurs just in the tech industry in this country, and the top 0.1% of those people who are smart, cunning, ruthless, and willing to do anything to make a buck... why haven't ANY of them stumbled on this rather obvious idea and used the gender pay disparity to mop the floor with the competition?

You have no answer for that.

It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. - Voltaire