Actually, that's what I was talking about with affirmative action being "good intention, awful implementation" - government hiring is often based on factors other than qualifications because the government is under no obligation to turn a profit or perform at any particular level.

However, that's not applicable to non-governmental firms that are not doing government business. Some may have quotas, but I find it very unlikely that they will have hard and fast quotas when it comes to hiring a very in-demand skillset in a very competitive sector, and when a bad hire can have a very bad downside. Certainly it would not happen repeatedly to the point where it is a systemic problem - there simply aren't enough female applicants to go around for it to actually BE a problem where men find themselves systemically discriminated against in hiring for highly skilled and in-demand roles.

Except that's really not true in this context.

The article and my response is about hiring skilled workers in a very in-demand field in which there really are NOT a lot of female applicants.

If a guy is finding it hard to find a job in this industry because he is somehow unlucky enough to be applying for jobs that the vanishingly small number of female applicants are also hiring for at the vanishingly small number of technology firms that are actually using some kind of arbitrary quota system for skilled technologists, then I would venture to say the problem is that said guy is living in an alternate universe, because that in no way, shape, or form represents the reality we live in.

For unskilled jobs, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. For jobs in fields where there is a surplus of skilled workers, yes, I'm absolutely sure people run afoul of quotas all the time. But for jobs in fields where skilled workers are in short supply and there is high demand? Nope, sorry, not buying it as a systemic problem.

Why? Just as I'm not responsible for the behavior of any individual but myself, I'm also not responsible for the behavior of any organization I'm not a part of.

You're making my point - you're holding me accountable for, or at least suggesting that I have a responsibility to take action about behaviors I had nothing to do with, which is ridiculous.

I'm actually quite consistent: When there is some way to differentiate individuals, I treat them as individuals. When there is literally no way to differentiate individuals, I have no obligation to try and make any distinction.

As far as I know, you're the same person who called me a cunt in another post because you have chosen to post in such a way that I literally have no way of knowing otherwise. Shame on you for using such language!

No, the fact that someone was hired does not mean they're hot shit. It means they were hired.

My point was about the converse: If someone is not being hired in a field as in-demand as the one that is the subject of this article, then it's more probable that they aren't very good at their job than it is that they are somehow having their jobs sniped by the tiny pool of female candidates for said positions.

Oh, for sure - people absolutely tend to stereotype. It's incredibly convenient when you're dealing with people in the abstract, but it really, really sucks as a tool when you're dealing with people on an individual basis. Thus the whole problem.

I absolutely can see where they're coming from, and actually, I have great sympathy for them. I also have some biases/stereotypes that go through my mind when I meet individuals who fall into certain categories, but I make a conscious (and sometimes incredibly DIFFICULT, and sometimes failed) effort not to apply my biases to them or to make them answer for it. I'm not perfect, far from it, but I make the effort. The point here is that if people make the effort, things will get a little better.

Honestly, the reason I don't just "deal with it" is because I don't have to. I'm fortunate enough to be in a situation where I'm able to be selective and one of the categories where I choose to be selective is "not wanting to be held accountable for unknown behaviors of people who are not me."

Everyone has things that are deal-breakers for their workplace - you don't care about being stereotyped, which is your prerogative - but I do. Likewise I'm sure there are things I couldn't care less about but that you find vitally important. Different people are different.

Don't be so irrational. I'll dismiss the slurs you used because I have to assume you aren't able to control yourself while within the grips of such strong emotions.

I can understand from your hysterics here why you think a meltdown may have occurred, but my handling of the situation was diplomatic enough that, as I said, I was still offered positions despite clearly stating my lack of interest due to a poor fit.

I don't think it's oversensitive or self-important to call an early end to an interview where you know it won't be a fit and you don't want either party to waste any more time. Frankly, I'd find it fairly rude to do otherwise.

First, let me say it sounds like a shitty situation you're in, and you sound really frustrated (and rightfully so) about it. I've known a few trans-folk (men and women) and it just sounds like a totally raw deal any way you slice it. All the negatives of either gender, none of the positives, with a healthy heaping of irrational hatred on top, when it comes to how society treats you. For what it's worth, you tell me you're a woman, and that's good enough for me, because I really don't give a damn about what you've got in your undies.

Second, there's no way I can answer your question about how you should deal with this. You're asking me to explain, in some way, the behaviors and beliefs of people who are not me, and then how you should handle that. The best I can do is say "well, some people are assholes and if they're assholes to you it's probably better to not put too much stock in what they say" but that kind of doesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot since it's pretty much a platitude.

The only thing I can tell you is that you would probably benefit from finding some way to let go of your (certainly justified) anger. It doesn't seem to be doing you much good, and frankly seems like it would just alienate many people who might otherwise be allies or at least not assholes like the people you described.

I consider myself to be a feminist - actually, rather, a humanist. I think you're probably using the term "feminist" to mean something more akin to "feminazi" or "people who use the term feminist in order to justify treating men like shit."

I don't treat men like shit, nor do I think all men are rapists, so I can't answer to your statements of "feminists do this" because, in my experience, they do not, and I certainly don't.

Think about it in reverse - if I were to say "you're just like every other guy out there, you think all feminists are bad people blah blah blah" it would be stupid, right? Because not ALL guys make blanket statements about feminists like you just did. I can say YOU are making a poor argument because of your blanket statements, but it would be completely unfair of me to say that ALL of whatever term I want to apply to you (men's rights activist? I dunno) aren't capable of making a reasonable argument.

Personally, I think it sucks that ANYONE has to live in fear of another person being an asshole (and, you're really describing "assholes who happen to identify as feminists" rather than feminists), and I wish it were different, but alas, we live in this world, not fantasy land.

The thing is, I totally get the sense of humor thing - but not in the guise of "we had a woman, she didn't have a sense of humor, so we're asking you this because she didn't." It would be no different than saying "we had a (insert whatever irrelevant demographic category), they didn't work out, you must answer for something you had nothing to do with."

When I said we discussed the culture during my interview with the place I ultimately went with, I mean we talked about exactly the kind of things like toasting marshmallows etc. We talked about our personal programming projects, home network set-ups, random geeky shit that lets you get a feel for if someone is really interested and driven or just doing it for the $$$. We also talked about how people in the office generally comport themselves - including having a sense of humor/sense of perspective about things. But the point here is that at no time did I feel like I was being presumed to be lacking just because someone else in a similar demographic bucket to me was lacking.

But it actually reinforces my point: I literally cannot tell AC's apart so they may well be the same person. One IS capable of telling two different human beings one runs across on the job apart, and so should treat them as individuals.

For me it was being encouraged to ask not just why but how. Why do magnets attract/repel and how can I make it happen, for example.

Even with 'girly' things I was given (an e-z bake oven for example) I was encouraged to think about how it worked and what that meant.

The other part of it was, I think, that my mom was raised hyper-traditionally, rebelled against it, and would be damned if any child of hers would grow up thinking anything was off limits just because of their gender. Whenever I experienced someone saying x was for girls or y was for boys, I also experienced my mom saying that was horseshit, so I guess I internalized it.

I'm a woman and I was recently doing a job search and interviewed at a dozen places before settling on one that I liked (and have since come to love).

It was, overall, a very uncomfortable experience for me. I was, at many of the places, subjected to comments along the lines of "I've worked with a female developer before, and it was really difficult because she didn't have a sense of humor/couldn't take a joke/made us feel like we had to be on our best behavior - would you be like that?" Seriously. I was repeatedly told that one concern was the rest of the team feeling like they might have to walk on eggshells around me.

When I heard these things I essentially shut down the interview and let them know I would not be interested. I explained that I appreciated their honesty, but the fact that they had concerns along those lines made me know it wasn't the place for me, and I thanked them for their time.

It isn't that I don't have a sense of humor, or that I'm easily offended - it's that I really don't want to have to be responsible for all women ever, and I don't want to have to worry that my co-workers are continually holding me accountable or interpreting things I say or do as if I were somehow the same as the other women they had worked with. And despite my shutting it down, I was *still* offered jobs at half the places.

The place that I liked - and have come to love - gender never came up during the interview. We talked about the tech, we talked about the work, we talked about the long term goals for the position, and we talked about the culture. The only time gender has come up was when one of my co-workers, who has a daughter, asked me how I came to get so interested in technology and science because he wanted to encourage his daughter as much as possible without pushing her.

Looking at the comments here, there's a whole lot of "othering" going on. A lot of comments that seem to treat women as members of some kind of hive mind wherein certain behaviors are just expected. This is completely unfair - it would be as unfair as me treating all men like rapists just because some men are. There's also a lot of anger I'm sensing from a lot of the guys - feeling like they're being discriminated against in some cases by quotas (real or imagined) or whatever. You guys are certainly entitled to your anger, just like I'm entitled to be bugged when idiots can't distinguish me from some other woman despite us being entirely different people.

The thing I would recommend to people - all people - is to take everyone you will be dealing with as an individual AS an individual. Just as you wouldn't want to be held responsible for things you had nothing to do with, so, too, other people don't want to be made responsible for everyone who shares their gender, race, ethnicity, or other arbitrary trait.

For the record, I think hiring quotas are stupid. Affirmative action is "good intention, wretched implementation." That said, the people saying they've been turned down for developer/in demand jobs because they are white/male/other majority class must be incredibly unimpressive candidates. If you were such hot shit that you "deserved" the job, you would have gotten the job. Businesses are in business to make MONEY, they will hire whomever will make them MONEY, and if you couldn't make it clear you would make them more MONEY than some other random person, that's on you.

For elementary and early high school, this would be a useful tool, since the content isn't as important as learning the basic forms.

Even so, it would still need to be just a part of the toolkit - have the machine grade the grammar, have the teacher then read through and judge the content without wasting time proof reading or spell checking.