3 ms·

- Because women are discriminated against - How do you know that? - Because women told us!!

bluGill 7y ago
That too doesn't make it so. It might be so, and in some cases it is. However I've also observed people claim discrimination when there wasn't.
jimbokun 7y ago
> Because women told us!! The frustrating thing is most of the analysis completely leaves this part out. I would be interested to hear from women about ways they have been discriminated against, and how the industry can improve to make that less likely to happen. But most analysis I see on line is just "Most programmers are men! That is sexist!" With no analysis going beyond that.
m0zg 7y ago
Women have unrealistic expectations sometimes. Elsewhere in this comment section someone (you?) mentioned that men are "unaccommodating" to women. But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_. How do we know this? _Because men told us_! You're asking for special treatment and you don't even realize it.
- throwaway8548 7y ago
  > But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_ This is not about generic workplace disagreements. Yes, those happen all the time. > How do we know this? _Because men told us_! I know that's tongue in cheek and only half serious but I'll reply anyway. Even if 99% of men are more accommodating, that 1% would still make employment unbearable. After 10 years you probably met a few dozen assholes and just want to quit the industry because it's not worth it.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    It's not "workplace disagreements". In the workplace you're generally competing against other people, including men. But that doesn't mean that men don't compete against each other. I never got a break/accommodation from anybody just because there's some mythical network of "men" in the workplace that makes things easier for men. I quite routinely see women get a break where a man would not nowadays, however. Yes, 1% of your coworkers will be assholes, but guess what, they're assholes regardless of gender of the receiver, perhaps even more so towards men because man-on-man assholeism is more socially acceptable. To give a few examples of preferential treatment for which I have first-hand information: - a hiring committee at Google is officially more likely to rule in favor of hiring a female in "borderline" cases; men go straight down the shitter in that case. Promo committees similarly treat women more favorably. - at Microsoft a hiring manager can't hire a male candidate, especially, god forbid, a _white_ male candidate, unless they filled their diversity quota, without first obtaining an exception from their VP (which very few people bother to do). This is extremely frustrating to them, because MS gets FANG rejects as it is. I suspect similar policies exist at other tech companies as well. This is special treatment already. This is "accommodation" to the fullest extent.
    - throwaway8548 7y ago
      I think we're talking past each other about very different things here. We can both be right/wrong independent of each other.

That too doesn't make it so. It might be so, and in some cases it is. However I've also observed people claim discrimination when there wasn't.

jimbokun 7y ago

> Because women told us!! The frustrating thing is most of the analysis completely leaves this part out. I would be interested to hear from women about ways they have been discriminated against, and how the industry can improve to make that less likely to happen. But most analysis I see on line is just "Most programmers are men! That is sexist!" With no analysis going beyond that.

m0zg 7y ago

Women have unrealistic expectations sometimes. Elsewhere in this comment section someone (you?) mentioned that men are "unaccommodating" to women. But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_. How do we know this? _Because men told us_! You're asking for special treatment and you don't even realize it.

throwaway8548 7y ago
> But men _are_ in fact more accommodating to women nowadays than to _other men_ This is not about generic workplace disagreements. Yes, those happen all the time. > How do we know this? _Because men told us_! I know that's tongue in cheek and only half serious but I'll reply anyway. Even if 99% of men are more accommodating, that 1% would still make employment unbearable. After 10 years you probably met a few dozen assholes and just want to quit the industry because it's not worth it.
- m0zg 7y ago
  It's not "workplace disagreements". In the workplace you're generally competing against other people, including men. But that doesn't mean that men don't compete against each other. I never got a break/accommodation from anybody just because there's some mythical network of "men" in the workplace that makes things easier for men. I quite routinely see women get a break where a man would not nowadays, however. Yes, 1% of your coworkers will be assholes, but guess what, they're assholes regardless of gender of the receiver, perhaps even more so towards men because man-on-man assholeism is more socially acceptable. To give a few examples of preferential treatment for which I have first-hand information: - a hiring committee at Google is officially more likely to rule in favor of hiring a female in "borderline" cases; men go straight down the shitter in that case. Promo committees similarly treat women more favorably. - at Microsoft a hiring manager can't hire a male candidate, especially, god forbid, a _white_ male candidate, unless they filled their diversity quota, without first obtaining an exception from their VP (which very few people bother to do). This is extremely frustrating to them, because MS gets FANG rejects as it is. I suspect similar policies exist at other tech companies as well. This is special treatment already. This is "accommodation" to the fullest extent.
  - throwaway8548 7y ago
    I think we're talking past each other about very different things here. We can both be right/wrong independent of each other.