3 ms·

all I got from article is implication that somehow women are less skilled (slower in article) otherwise they would be on up escalator as well? I certainly don'

by cunac 13y ago

all I got from article is implication that somehow women are less skilled (slower in article) otherwise they would be on up escalator as well? I certainly don't agree with that implication.

venomsnake 13y ago
If you are a white male you have built in nitro in your car while driving the streets of life. The women are as skilled but you just got the edge. You won't be dismissed after and interview with "girls cannot use oscilloscope". It will be more like my first interview "Self thought C programmer at age 16 - you are hired, don't know what EEPROM is - no worries kid - we will teach you"
- cunac 13y ago
  I understand that lots of people discriminates by gender,age,you name it and I don't agree with that. Where I am coming from population was (at time of my childhood) 98% white so no advantage being white :-) My high school year had 6 girls and over 200 boy because it was technical school and girls didn't choose to attend , other high schools (medical for example) would have reverse ratio and some would actually be close to 50:50 split. That would later translate in similar ratios at university. I wouldn't dare to say that technical aptitude is ingrained in male population but sure sometimes seems like that.
munificent 13y ago
No, the author explicitly states that the escalator is separated by gender specifically, not by speed: > The escalator moving up is full of men. There is no room for women on this escalator. The implication is that the men and women in the analogy both have the same average speed on their own. The men, purely by virtue of being male, then get a positive bonus applied to their speed by the up escalator. The woman get a negative speed penalty from the down escalator. If you want it in pseudo-code: human_speed = rand(min, max) male_bonus = some_positive_number female_bonus = some_negative_number male_speed = human_speed + male_bonus female_speed = human_speed + female_bonus The point of the article is to refute all of the arguments made that presume a simpler model than the above.

by cunac 13y ago

all I got from article is implication that somehow women are less skilled (slower in article) otherwise they would be on up escalator as well? I certainly don't agree with that implication.

venomsnake 13y ago

If you are a white male you have built in nitro in your car while driving the streets of life. The women are as skilled but you just got the edge. You won't be dismissed after and interview with "girls cannot use oscilloscope". It will be more like my first interview "Self thought C programmer at age 16 - you are hired, don't know what EEPROM is - no worries kid - we will teach you"

cunac 13y ago
I understand that lots of people discriminates by gender,age,you name it and I don't agree with that. Where I am coming from population was (at time of my childhood) 98% white so no advantage being white :-) My high school year had 6 girls and over 200 boy because it was technical school and girls didn't choose to attend , other high schools (medical for example) would have reverse ratio and some would actually be close to 50:50 split. That would later translate in similar ratios at university. I wouldn't dare to say that technical aptitude is ingrained in male population but sure sometimes seems like that.

munificent 13y ago

No, the author explicitly states that the escalator is separated by gender specifically, not by speed: > The escalator moving up is full of men. There is no room for women on this escalator. The implication is that the men and women in the analogy both have the same average speed on their own. The men, purely by virtue of being male, then get a positive bonus applied to their speed by the up escalator. The woman get a negative speed penalty from the down escalator. If you want it in pseudo-code: human_speed = rand(min, max) male_bonus = some_positive_number female_bonus = some_negative_number male_speed = human_speed + male_bonus female_speed = human_speed + female_bonus The point of the article is to refute all of the arguments made that presume a simpler model than the above.