Harsh Truth of diversity hiring and difficulties faced by mens.

2 years ago, # |

← Rev. 4 →

-26

Girls are getting hired more than boys just to increase the ratio of girls to boys in offices. You must be aware that mostly men are working in offices, and women were not allowed to work in offices in the past. And hence the representation of girls was very less. So they needed some kind of reservation, so that they get some incentive to pursue engineering and go for work in offices. And by the way girls have started getting reservation only from 3-4 years back in India. So, this shouldn't be the reason to get annoyed.

You should instead be annoyed only because there exists caste-based reservation in India. Very well off people from SC and ST category are taking reservation to get admission into colleges just because they belong to that category. They are given much better colleges and much better branches than what a 'General' category student gets with much higher marks than those SC and ST students. This is the epitome of inequality which is faced by General Category students. SC and ST category students have been getting reservation for so many decades, but still they want more reservation.

India should change its policy of giving reservation on 'caste basis' to 'income basis'.

P.S. — Everything written here is in context of India.

→ Reply

Asif17r

18 months ago, # ^ |

-6

Approximately 73% of teachers in India are women, and around 89% of nurses are women just to name a few. My question is, where is the quota for men in those kind of sectors?

Biologically, there are differences between male and female brains. Boys are better at special tasks. Girls, however, excel at verbal recall tasks. But I think we should skip science and just hire in a 1 boy:2 girl ratio to ensure women safety! Skills don't matter. We are here for Nobel work.

→ Reply

18 months ago, # ^ |

-12

That's exactly what I am saying. SCs, STs, and OBCs should not get reservation just because they are born into that community, no matter what their income level is.

Colleges also do not take admissions of students with more talent, they just follow the reservation system on the basis of birth. Here also skills don't matter.

Then why are you getting annoyed only about girls being hired more than boys ? You should also be annoyed about the reservation system which is being followed in India.

→ Reply

wish-nu

18 months ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

I think the OP's issues were with the Private Firms preferentially hiring Female candidates. I have never seen Private Companies preferentially hiring Indian students who belonged to the reserved communities. They do not care! They obviously want the best available candidates, as they aren't doing any social service, they are for-profit firms!

But the situation isn't the same with the case of Girls! I hope it clarifies why the OP wasn't annoyed( or rather didn't talk about it at all, you brought it up kind of arbitrarily xD ) by the reservation system followed in India! If you want to discuss the pros and cons of Preferential Hiring of Female Candidates, you can comment on the topic.

→ Reply

18 months ago, # ^ |

The reserved category student who got admission into a better college obviously gets the advantage in the hiring process of Private Firms over other more talented general category students studying in some other lower ranked college. This has already created the situation of "skills don't matter", as the OP was saying in his comment.

Eventually, for-profit firms are not able to hire the best available candidates because of these reserved category students taking place of meritorious general category students during college admissions.

Now, if he is not getting annoyed by the reservation system, then he should not be annoyed by the situation of "preferential hiring of female candidates" either.

→ Reply

wish-nu

18 months ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 5 →

Good point. In general, companies that come for placements just check the strength of the candidates wrt their peers. If a reserved category student gets placed on December 1, IIT placements, it pretty much means he was good enough for the job profile. If the candidate isn't skilled+prepared enough, it would be hard for them to get the job on any day. And if a candidate is less talented, he has to work extra hard to compete with the more talented ones. I think things balance out in terms of Placements within an institute, and only the skills(+preparation) matter, not how the candidate got into the institute. But between different institutes, a deserving candidate may not even be able to appear for the tests/selection process. This is messed up. But this is totally on the company, as with the Girls' issue. They didn't choose to discriminate against a smart non-reserved candidate, but they were too lazy to test/evaluate a larger population pool before making their final list of most-deserving candidates to hire. They are making bad hiring decisions that don't necessarily optimize for the candidates' talent. That said, if the companies feel that the additional efforts required to find the best of the best from a larger population pool aren't worth the effort, it's just about right; they are for-profit organizations after all, they aren't taking any decisions for any social cause, for them time is money!

→ Reply

18 months ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

It's good to see atleast someone finally understood my point.

I agree it is not possible for the company to hire from all the colleges, but the disadvantage in placements faced by the more meritorious general category students can be resolved by removing reservation on the basis of birth from India.

Anyways, it never feels good to see a friend who is less deserving than oneself, getting admission into a better college or a better branch due to his/her reservation on the basis of birth benefits.

→ Reply

wish-nu

18 months ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 3 →

I agree, mate. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, should be the end goal. But the government isn't capable of giving everyone the same opportunities to grow in life. And reservation's primary goal should be eliminating the need for its very own existence in society. But apparently, after many years of independence, not much has changed. Anyways, it's a much larger socio-political issue than what we can discuss in a CodeForces Comments Thread. Female reservation is supposed to be progressive, but as usual, equality of outcome isn't gonna happen without negatively discriminating against the more successful groups. Anyways, IDK what to say. If private orgs are doing something, it probably means that it benefits them in some form.

Also, I understand your strong sentiments against reservations based on community. But usually, the people involved themselves don't decide those rules, and it is an uncontrollable external constraint. So, even if you detest the rule, it isn't very useful to be mad at individuals who were the beneficiaries of such systems! We can only work with what we have :)

It was slightly painful for me to know that girls have it easy during placements. But at the end of the day, I can only worry about things that I do have in my control and boy; I had so much in my control(except for the ability to take action on the things I can control xD) :)

→ Reply

PerfectoZ

2 years ago, # |

+10

Only if we could do something :), the only thing we can do is try to convert what we get, recently a girl in my college got selected in an intern without an interview and got shortlisted for another interview even without appearing for the test :)

→ Reply

trashaccountasf

2 years ago, # |

Although I agree to some extent, Let me be the devil's advocate here. All these opportunities where diversity is a criteria are mostly "comfort jobs", basically jobs where a monkey if trained can probably perform as good as the next guy, these are the kind of jobs where organizations can actually try to increase their diversity because it is very hard to distinguish one person's work from another's, and the overall impact of the work provided by the employee is for the most part has very little significance to the organization.

There are no diversity in non-comfort jobs like construction, military or jobs where some sort of specialization is needed like technical architects, hard science researcher, etc. Although there will always be biases in hiring as these are all ran by people and humans are inherently flawed. If hiring a minority made me feel that my chances of going to haven are higher I would probably go for it as well. I would like to add more things but I guess good enough for now.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # |

← Rev. 2 →

-16

China and Russia should take advantage of this situations and overtake the western tech companies. China have already took over the US in terms of AI and Quantum computing .

→ Reply

achvanov

2 years ago, # ^ |

"Russia should take advantage of this situations and overtake the western tech companies." So true. Another war will certainly make the IT environment in Russia even better.

→ Reply

H-1

2 years ago, # |

true

→ Reply

CountZero

2 years ago, # |

+33

I strongly suspect that these international corporations have some global KPI like "we need to hire 45% of women this year". The problem for them is that European and US laws strictly prohibit discriminatory practices, not only in hiring but in event organizing too. For example, take a look at this contest: https://codingcompetitions.withgoogle.com/codejamio. Its description says "for women", but there's actually no mention of gender in its rules, not a single one — indeed, they don't want to get sued.

So what these companies do? Indeed, they go to countries like India, boost their KPI by discrimination there, and then their top managers proudly report about "increased diversity" and all that in US.

This world is cruel.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # |

← Rev. 2 →

"equality" is too broad a word. It means too many things and you can literally justify anything as "equality" in some way.

The difference you are confused about is "equality of opportunity" vs "equality of outcome".

equality of opportunity := same opportunity for everyone

equality of outcome := even results across the board

So, while equality of opportunity focuses on a level playing field for the individual, equality of outcome is about overseeing results.

In the end what is important is individual happiness. And from what I can see, equality of opportunity is the way to go. STEM field has less women because this field is less desirable for most of them. You can try to increase the amount of women, give them all kinds of advantages. But that will end in some women being 'forced' into a career they are unhappy with. Men are equally unhappy because women have an 'unfair' advantage.

Social media is similar to a hive mind, something that sounds good in the first 5 minutes is approved of. Everyone approves that women should have equal rights. But most people don't know what that even means... The problem comes down to some people basing their decision on the opinion of social media. Especially universities in Canada/USA have this problem currently.

Another problem is something we Germans call "Gratismut" (gratis = free, Mut = bravery). It means doing something that is perceived as bravery, but really is not. Creating programs that allow more 'equality' in the world is such an example. It sometimes does NOT come down to doing something good, but doing something that is initially perceived as good. Remember that humans decide how the world works, and some humans simply value their image and career about everything.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # |

← Rev. 3 →

+43

I think in this discussion there is a misunderstanding about what equality of opportunities means. Some here see it as the state that you have reached, while I would argue equal opportunities means considering the path that it took you to get there. Please let me present you with an example.

First, let's begin with myself. The state I've reached is, hopefully, that of a skillful computer scientist. And I'm of course proud of my achievements, my degrees etc. But the path to get there, to be honest, was to some extent laid out to me. I grew up in a safe environment in Germany where I could fully focus on my studies. And when needed, I got plenty of assistance from my parents, who both have a high level of education themselves. Whenever I went to coding camps or lectures, I was surrounded by men, confirming my perception that I was on the right path. And I had not only historical role models to look up to, but even multiple of my family members also work in IT.

A friend of mine, meanwhile, will soon start her Masters degree in computer science. Her path to reaching the state was very different. She was born in Afghanistan, where their inferiority is conveyed to girls from early on and, in most cases, they are not even allowed to attend school. Her parents were killed by the Taliban and she had to flee the country and change locations many times, getting along mostly by herself in very different cultures speaking very different languages. To obtain her bachelor's degree in computer science, she had to shatter a multitude of barriers, and that includes the obvious barrier of working in a male-dominated field as a woman from an Islamic country. (I also don't mean to disparage Islam, many religions are abused as justification for suppression of women)

In comparison, my competitive programming rating is likely higher than hers, my grades are likely better and my academic experience larger. But I would argue that her achievement is significantly greater than mine, because the path she took to get where she is now was much longer and harder and required so much more perseverance.

So out of the two of us, whom should a company hire? When companies consider not only the level of skills you have obtained, but the hardship you overcame to get there, it often makes sense for them in the long term because it says a lot about your ability to overcome obstacles and can perhaps predict the amount to which you will grow in the future. I would argue that providing equal opportunities in this way is also important to get along in a democratic society, where your future should depend on the hard work you put into it and not on your birth or other circumstances out of your control.

And while the author argues that women were suppressed in the past, this is actually very much an issue of the present according to Wikipedia. While women make up more than half of the population, they hold less than 15% of the power in Indian Parliament. There is still significant difference in the access to education, in the height of the salary for equal work, in the legal protection and, perhaps most importantly, the social status of women. I don't want to single out India here, there are few if any places in the world where you could argue that women have reached equality.

Of course, I am not an expert on hiring practices in India, so please don't understand me as saying that everything is perfect and the problems you mention don't exist. When you say that the path for women is much easier than for men, that obviously would not be fair. I just want to contribute this perspective to help you make a good overall evaluation.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

You're comparing extremes bro. Compare an average boy to an average girl, in somewhere like the US. Not a girl from Afghanistan... Now regarding woman holding 15% of parliament jobs and etc. Do you really think that numbers should be equal? Have you studied the amount of women/men who have applied to the parliament jobs?? NO, you just want equal numbers, I am not from India, but from another 3rd world country, judging by my own country experience, its probably not easy for the Indian men to get government jobs as well, because as in all corrupted countries, the jobs aren't given by gender, or merit as well, but to friends/relatives and etc. so countries like India should focus on having theyre governments cleansed of corruption first, and not focus on some stupid numbers(statistics) becoming equal. This is a broad topic in of itself, you can't just say: look, there are less women, now lets give them all the advantages that we can to equal the numbers. No! You have to study this things much deeper, what is the root of the problem, why are there less women. Maybe because they are not pressured by there family from the age of 8-9 that they have to excel in there studies so they could sustain a family?(usually boys get a lot of parent pressure in poor countries). Maybe because men HAVE to have an income to survive, whereas women are MUCH more relaxed, an it is okay for them not to work, they work if they want, but if they don't they can rely on there parents/partner and etc. but parents could reject help to a son, telling him that you're a man and should earn for yourself. My point is that, not everything is so simple. Modern women, especially in western countries, have all the privelages(if not more) that men have there(NOT the refugees plz, lets compare average dwellers), nonetheless there are still less women in Tech jobs compared to men, even in the west, hope that tells you something(doubt that).

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 3 →

+25

This was just an illustrative example of circumstances such as place of birth, wealth, support from parents, and gender impacting your starting conditions. The author of this post also pointed out that (like the overwhelming majority of people) he was not from an affluent family and I totally agree with him that this should be taken into account in a "fair" system that aims to provide equal opportunities for everybody.

Now regarding woman holding 15% of parliament jobs and etc. Do you really think that numbers should be equal? Have you studied the amount of women/men who have applied to the parliament jobs??

What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that women actually don't want to hold a proportionate share of power, they prefer to live in a system where a different group of the population makes all the decisions affecting them?

you can't just say: there are less women, now lets give them all the advantages

There are actually more women than men in society. They only have fewer jobs, lower income, less power than men. If you are born as a woman, then your chances of getting a good job, high income or political power are much much smaller than if you were born as a man. So on a large scale (statistically, not considering every particular instance), I don't think women are getting any advantages, much rather their harder path is sometimes recognized, and even that only in few cases.

Maybe because they are not pressured by there family from the age of 8-9 that they have to excel in there studies so they could sustain a family?

While you're arguing that women should not have jobs, you're at the same time also complaining that men are pressured to sustain the family. Don't you see how these two are inherently connected? At least you're not making an argument here that men would be better at reaching logical conclusions than women ;-)

Modern women, especially in western countries, have all the privelages(if not more) that men have there

I think your text is pretty good evidence of the obstacles that women often have to overcome: a hostile society dominated by men that tell women they don't need jobs, they don't need to excel at their studies, they should just find some partner and exchange their personal freedom for some marital economic dependency.

Please try to imagine for a moment if society was skewed in the opposite direction – if women would hold all the power, make all important decisions in their families, earn all the income. And you, as a man, should be grateful if you find a woman to marry so that then, for the rest of your life, you can take care of her household with the money she gratefully gives to you, if she wants to. Would you be happy that way or would you demand change?

→ Reply

trashaccountasf

2 years ago, # ^ |

What point are you trying to make here? Are you saying that women actually don't want to hold a proportionate share of power, they prefer to live in a system where a different group of the population makes all the decisions affecting them?

I think what he is trying to say is that there is a difference between women and men, it is not necessary that if there is 50 50 population split between men and women then there should be 50 50 split in every field, that is not how it works (atleast from my POV), it is not a direct relationship, it is a multivariate equation for example there are a lot more women nurses, teachers, etc likewise there are lot more men in engineering, construction jobs, etc and there are also 50 50 splits like in doctors. So it is not that simple.

I would love to fly a plane but that doesn't mean I am ready for the sacrifices and the efforts that have to be put in into becoming a pilot or that aligns with my interests. If you look in the real world there are a surprisingly more women who look for financial dependence on their counterpart, now there is nothing wrong with that as there are plenty who would provide that lifestyle for them but maybe not as many that would for a man, and also women apart from being a contributing member of society hold a very important position of being the creators of life itself. Women are genetically made so that their interests are more aligned towards being a mother, and as hard as it is, it puts a lot of restrictions. Something to think about.

In comparison, my competitive programming rating is likely higher than hers, my grades are likely better and my academic experience larger. But I would argue that her achievement is significantly greater than mine, because the path she took to get where she is now was much longer and harder and required so much more perseverance

I get this but isn't there a better way to deal with this than hiring more girls? Maybe you can give more hiring on the basis of their economic situation rather than gender or diversity(not necessarily I agree with this either)? let's say in your same story if it was a boy, does it make his struggles less? more? now not only he had to struggle with his country, now he has to also struggle with getting a job?

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 3 →

Sure, there are some differences between men and women, such as giving birth or average body height. But how do you go from "able to give birth" to "they don't want proportionate political representation"? How do you go from "their average body height is different" to "instead of well-paying jobs, a life in economical dependence is their natural preference"?

I don't want this to sound too harsh, because I think you're making arguments in good faith here. And there certainly is a lot we don't know in the scientific realm, which may of course be discussed. But I still need to point out that it is pretty dangerous to use some genetic features in order to argue that a group of people should have lesser rights. It has been a common historical practice to use such arguments as justification for even the greatest sins. There has never been any truth to it. It's completely unreasonable to think that some genetic differences could make any group of people less interested in decision making power or high income jobs. Please be careful here.

If you don't want to become a pilot, that is absolutely your choice. But the emphasis is on choice here. There is nobody telling you "it's not suitable for people of your kind to fly aeroplanes" or "if you're lucky, then you can perhaps find a pilot willing to marry you". If you manage to become a pilot after your family forbade it and after many pilot schools didn't support you due to some societal prejudice, then it would be an impressive testament to your perseverance and companies will certainly be eager to hire you.

→ Reply

trashaccountasf

2 years ago, # ^ |

-27

Hey I don't think you quite got what I said, so let me try to elucidate myself little better,

Now from what I gather, you seem to be blaming prejudice for the low representation of women in certain 'selected' statistics, which might be, but look around you, do you see any discrimination against women? we aren't living in the 1600s anymore, you are trying to solve a problem that simply does not (or not at the extent you think) exist.

But I still need to point out that it is pretty dangerous to use some genetic features in order to argue that a group of people should have lesser rights.

You seem to be mistaking rights from high playing employment/political power, these things are not rights, they are earned no one is born as a CEO, I took no rights from anyone, women/men are free to do whatever they want I was just mentioning one of the reasons that makes women less likely to opt for certain kind of high demanding jobs, I don't stop anyone from doing anything.

Also, you seem to be only talking about the fruits of a job, everyone wants political power, everyone wants more money, these are not the reasons that women are less inclined to do those jobs it is because the requirements for those jobs require immense sacrifice, risks, responsibilities, etc which more men are likely to do, it is not that a women cannot do those tasks it is just that there are "personality/traits" differences between those two, women prefer to be less risky and live a more stable lifestyle. Now this is also reflected as more homeless are men, more prisoners are men, etc so does this mean we should make it easier for women to be prisoners by incriminating at little offences to make it 50 50? No.

Even by my pilot example I just wanted to convey that even though I want to fly a plane it is the hardships that turn me down from becoming a pilot not that I am not interested in flying planes. By removing those hardships for me not only you make a worse pilot, you stop someone from becoming a pilot who might have been much more interested in becoming a pilot than me.

Now as far as engineering goes, I think we can agree that a person who is more interested in "things/objects" would be more inclined towards becoming an engineer as compared to someone who isn't right? as it turns out it is a proven study that women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things, is one better than the other? No, but as a consequence there are a lot more men engineers than women. It is these little differences that make big differences at the extremes.

Finally as far as your criteria of giving benefit to the one who has struggled more goes is noble and I know we all want good for the world, is unrealistic and impractical as one's struggle is subjective and cannot be quantified. (unless you are saying that all women struggle more and are born at a disadvantage, which I hope you are not as it is very sexist and wrong on so many levels).

In summary my overall point is that it is not as simple as "not expected statistic means must be discrimination must force it to be expected" there are a lot of factors and sometimes these little differences have huge impact at extremes, and if you think carrying a stable household is less important than doing a high paying/powerful job then you should look within yourself first. I have added some material here that talk about similar issue and from where I have learnt as well. a b c

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 4 →

+37

I am quoting your reasoning why it is supposedly fair when men are doing stuff with high salary and decision power and women are not, why the current enormous imbalance of power and opportunities seems justified and natural to you:

the requirements for those jobs require immense sacrifice, risks, responsibilities, etc which more men are likely to do
women prefer to be less risky and live a more stable lifestyle
women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things

So when you are talking about IT jobs, please tell me exactly, what kind of great risks and responsibilities are required to code algorithms? Which great dangers are you facing, that women would not be able to withstand, while sitting in front of your desktop computer? Is your adrenaline level really going up and down with every semicolon? Are you aware that the python programming language is actually not about taming a real poisonous snake?

Have you noticed that ICPC teams consist of three students each, because software development is a very cooperative task?

When talking about jobs in parliament, does this not require some interest in people? Wouldn't you want your representatives to act "less risky" and "more stable"? It's "We the people" and there are plenty of "people's republics", but I've never heard of even a single "republic of things".

Meanwhile, does cooking and cleaning really require such great interest in people, isn't this more about things actually?

And isn't bringing up a child essentially about "immense sacrifice, risks, responsibilities"?

Your reasoning is flawed. It does not make any sense whatsoever. It only serves the purpose to help ignore the obvious injustice you (we all, I guess) inherited from previous generations, which now you apparently want to continue benefiting from. It is hard to disprove some alleged genetic properties, which science supposedly is still to unravel. But since my hint apparently did not suffice, let me give you a more vivid excerpt of how this logic of biological supremacy has been used for suppression throughout history:

Slavery: "These slaves don't have the mental capacity to fulfill complex tasks. We (slave owners) are actually doing them a favor by keeping them under our control."
Colonialism: "People living in these colonies don't have the character traits needed for successful statecraft. They are inherently lazy, stupid, etc., so it is for a good purpose that we (colonial powers) assume the responsibility they are unfit to assume and take all the decisions concerning them."
Nazism: "Jewish people have inherent evil character traits and cannot be contributing members of society. We (nazis) are doing the world a great service by eliminating them. Our genes are simply superior."

Discrimination against women is (mostly) less violent and less deadly than those. But you are using the same, terrible type of reasoning, you are trying to establish the biological superiority of one group (men) and the inferiority of another group (women). You may say that your point is actually not about superiority, but in effect, regarding political, economical and social power, it is. You are using deeply flawed pseudoscience (of course, people feel drawn to what they are taught and used to, so measuring that provides little information) to argue that it would be just when women live in subordination to their husbands or families, while men benefit from superior rights and opportunities. But this is not just, it is merely convenient if you are part of the group in control. While it is fine to observe biological differences, you must never abuse biology to establish superiority.

By the way, since you also argued that "we aren't living in the 1600s anymore", please note that, formally, all of the above (slavery, colonialism, and nazism) have been abolished long times ago. But the discrimination persists for billions of people in their present everyday life. There is stil great prejudice against black people in most places of the world, people in former colonies are still facing severe economic disadvantages, Jewish people today are still threatened with their elimination from multiple parts of the world. So it is ridiculous to say that discrimination against women has been abolished. I just asked my girlfriend today and she gave me a long and very convincing list of examples how women are being discriminated against in the present day in Germany. I also gave you some obvious examples like limited or no political representation and frequent economic dependency.

To summarize in one line: YOUR GENES DO NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR TO ANYBODY! They also do not make you inferior. There are roughly 8 billion people on this planet and everybody deserves an equal share of power and the same opportunities. This is the only way we can get along peacefully. We must never stop working towards that. If you do not accept this fact, then no sustainable organization will want to hire you.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

I think he did not mean those biological traits are reasons to not hire or hire certain candidates. He meant that they could be the factor to the fact that less women are in certain fields, and not the reason to be bias towards them.

Could you also please list the discriminations your Gf has listed to you(this is not sarcasm, I am genuinely interested, as I am currently not in a western country and I thought there were no problems with gender discr. there)

→ Reply

kal013

2 years ago, # ^ |

A very recent example: Overturning of Roe v Wade where men are deciding what women can / can not do with their own bodies.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

-10

When Roe V Wade was overturned the votes were 5-4 from the Supreme Court. That 5 votes includes a women judge. So you cannot say men are deciding what women can/can not do with their own bodies. Also all the pro life movement(which supports anti abortion) are organized by women. There were no single men which organized this. Many Republican women including Candace Owens supported anti abortion movement.

→ Reply

kal013

2 years ago, # ^ |

+26

When Roe V Wade was overturned the votes were 5-4 from the Supreme Court. That 5 votes includes a women judge. So you cannot say men are deciding what women can/can not do with their own bodies

When there is only one women out of 5 in favor of overturning, I am correct in saying that men are deciding what women can do. IIRC, there were 2 women against the bill which you conveniently left from your argument.

This brings up 2 points when we look at the complete picture:

There is abysmally low representation of women (33 %), especially in a ruling concerning women.
Amongst men, those in favor were 66% while the opposite is true for the women involved in the ruling.

While the bench is small that we can not extrapolate statistics to the whole population, my prior would be that a higher % of women (if not the majority) compared to men would be pro choice given the fact anti-abortion laws take away their freedom.

Also all the pro life movement(which supports anti abortion) are organized by women. There were no single men which organized this.

While I highly doubt your claims are well researched and correct, your arguments are bordering on whataboutism. I was simply giving an example of discrimination faced by women, which is in part caused by low representation of women in political forums as has been pointed by Gregory.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

-10

No you got me wrong.

No, I mean that you have to look at the amount of women who applied to parliament jobs or tech jobs. If 80% of the applicants are men, it woulnd't be logical to strive for 50-50, because the proportion of applications are not the same. If woman do want equal representation, then they should apply as much as men, afterwards if the proportions would still favor men, we can look at why are women not getting selected on average as men are. Is it that there merit is lower, or is it that the people who select the employees are biased towards women.

Come on man, you have 2k cf rating, but can't comprehend my text correctly, getting too emotional and not understanding what I mean(or was I unclear, if yes I appologize). I did NOT argue that woman should not hold jobs! I said that the reason there are more men in tech or government jobs is because there are more male applicants => the reason there are more male applicants is because men are generally pressured more to get a job. I did NOT say this IS good or bad. I said that this is what it is, perhaps families should pressure women to find a job as much as they do to men, maybe that will help with the numbers, I didn't say anything I wanted or did not want, I just stated a possibility why there might be less woman.

Now you are pointing at a hostile environment. So perhaps instead of giving woman 50% of jobs, disregarding the fact that women simply apply less, maybe then people should deal with the hostile environment? My last point was, that western women aren't told to not work, can study whatever men can, why are there still MUCH less of them in tech jobs that men(applicants, studying in Unis and etc.)? Please answer this question! My point is, perhaps this will trigger everyone, that biologically, men have a bigger desire, tendency to earn, because otherwise women do not recognize them, nobody respects them, that is why you will always have more male representatives at tech jobs for example, this is what I beleive to be true, not that I want it to be as such or not, just what I have paid attention to!

Now please, I don't hate women, but don't read whatever I posted with emotions, my point is, if there are inequalities proposed towards women(they are pressured by a society not to work, or if employers are biased towards them) then this should be solved directly, and not just simply granting 50% of jobs to them. I hope I have expressed myself correctly.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

+26

Women get more jobs => more socially desirable for women to have jobs => women pressured more, men pressured less to get jobs.

If men and women both work, you can obtain the same output with only half the work done by men.

Bonus: Women would then no longer be living in subordination to their husbands/families, but would actually be able to live their own lives according to their own decisions.

→ Reply

oxig8

2 years ago, # ^ |

Gregory was that the bite of 87'?

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

-17

Interesting logic:)

If by that logic the intrinsic women quality of hypergamy changes(i.e they will not only choose partners who earn at least as much as they do), thus men having less pressure of earning, then I agree, perhaps jobs will be split approx. 50 by 50.

However I and biology doubt that, nonetheless, have a good day, lets see what happens to the western society with this approach, hope life doesn't get worse for men and indeed equals out as you wish it too...

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

+23

Germany might offer some insights here. While still a less frequent occurrence, it is actually not that uncommon, especially in the younger generation, that a man would mainly take care of the household or the child while his female partner focuses on her career and earns big money. For example, my brother and his wife are mainly doing this, while she is currently completing her degree in medicine. At a later point of time, maybe they will switch, or not. Less pressure, more happiness for everyone.

An issue exists primarily in cases where men are still brought up with misleading stereotypes like "you have to be the leader of your family, must have a great career, be successful with women", and whatnot. Instead, the lesson I would convey to boys is that there are many different paths to happiness. Sure, it is usually nice to be in a relationship with a woman. But similarly, it is nice to have excellent hearing. Now there are many people in this world who have bad hearing, and that certainly is an inconvenience, but I have little doubt that most of these people are still living a joyful life, and, in many cases, accomplishing great things. Even if you're deaf, you should not feel sorry about it, it is usually not your fault. Society should accept you in exactly the same way. And similarly, it is often not your fault if you don't have a female partner. It really is not terrible, many people actually prefer to live this way. Instead, maybe you have many friends. So in my opinion, society should (where this is still the case) perhaps stop portraying relationships as ultimate goal and stop defining a person's success through that persons relations with the opposite sex. I know that this pressure can feel quite intense, for men and women alike. That's totally unnecessary. Ultimately it is for yourself to define what brings you happiness and you should not feel pressured in any way.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

-18

Bro whatever happens men will always consider as the protectors of the family and their fellow women. This is a natural truth. No one cannot change that.

Lets say someone broke into your house which includes your strong, high earning girlfriend but the person going to confront the robber will you.

It's sad to see Germany like this!.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

+13

This is exactly the stereotypes I've been mentioning, thank you for providing this example.

FYI, my girlfriend is studying law, so the person bringing a robber to justice will certainly be her.

→ Reply

sprudra5001

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 3 →

I still think you didn't get the main point of this thread, Gregory.

Suppose there is a software company that requires to hire 20 developers. A pool of 100 people applied there, from which 50 were men and 50 were women. The company decided to create two separate pools based on gender and then conducted the hiring test/interviews separately for both the pools. As a result, the company hired 13 men from pool A and 7 women from pool B.
Later the company found that the men who were ranked at 14th to 20th place had significantly better scores compared to the top 7 performers of the women's pool.
Then, won't this be injustice to snatch away the opportunity from those 7 men (ranking 14th to 20th in men's pool) and giving it to those top 7 women from pool B, that too for the post of developers ?

By the way, I can assure you with some surety, majority of the girls (at our pace) who get hired through this process had equal opportunity right up to the point of entering some university, now if still they aren't competent enough compared to some men at same uni, why should those women be offered developer jobs in-place of better male students (who get rejected on basis of gender), that is the injustice we are talking about.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 4 →

+10

You didn't get Gregory's point:) He meant that since those top 7 women had a more difficult time(societal pressure) getting to where there are. They would have faced more difficulties than the men ranked 14-20th to attain the same level of knowledge as they do, due to(again societal pressure)

The solution however he proposes does not cleanse the root of the problem, that is the initial pressure, that is what I do not agree with him. Or however it does fix the root, if both genders were represented equally in the marker. That is his point I believe

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

-15

"Are you saying that women actually don't want to hold a proportionate share of power" — women, on average, value high end careers less than men.

(why? because high end careers usually mean you need to work 80+ hours/week and this is simply not desirable for most women and men. But there are more men than women who don't mind. Also note that according to studies in the USA, if you earn 60k$/year you are as happy as possible. You cannot be happier by earning more money. The reason people do work more is because they become happy through working and being at the top. Usually women don't care about that)

"There are actually more women than men in society" — in which society, India? India is 51.9% male. The world? The world is 50.4%. Germany? 49.5%. Honestly, it does not matter too much either.

"At least you're not making an argument here that men would be better at reaching logical conclusions than women ;-)" — the IQ between men and women is pretty much the same. But that does not mean they think the same. Women, thanks to evolution, tend to be more interested in people. Men, thanks to evolution, tend to be more interested in things. So yes, the average men has slightly better logical skills than a women. Because of how distributions work, this slight advantage will be extreme at the ends of the distribution. The most analytical humans tend to be men 80/20. This is the reason computer science is dominated by men. You need to be logical & be interested in things.

"a hostile society dominated by men..." — kinda sad but every society comes from there. Studies say the most effective way to change this is education.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

80+ hours/week? Firstly, nobody should be working that much, it will not lead to even remotely good results. Secondly, this is not what we are talking about here. In India, only 20% of the labor force are female. The overwhelming majority of working-age women are not in paid employment at all.

"There are actually more women than men in society" — in which society, India? India is 51.9% male. The world? The world is 50.4%. Germany? 49.5%. Honestly, it does not matter too much either.

Let me correct myself: there are usually slightly more women than men in society. This is the natural state. Because women have stronger immune systems and tend to live longer. So why is the situation in India (and some other countries) different? Actually, the answer is at the core of our discussion: Because of discrimination against girls already at this earliest stage. Women are often deemed so inferior that when the child is a girl, the parents will try to get pregnant again. Only if the child is a boy, they will stop. And in some cases, at prenatal stage, parents will even try to abort the child if it is not a boy. You can put this number into evidence.

Women, thanks to evolution, tend to be more interested in people. Men, thanks to evolution, tend to be more interested in things.

Which part of evolution was that? Seriously, I'm not an expert on evolution, so if you can explain this to me, I will be very happy. But my understanding of evolution is that, for example, giraffes developed long necks because leaves were hanging pretty high on trees, so the longer their necks, the better their chances of survival. It is very hard for me to imagine that at some point in early human history, men had better chances of survival when getting accustomed to things (what things? stones? they weren't doing algebra, right?), while women had better chances of survival when dealing with people instead of things (why wouldn't males have had to engage with people?). And that then, this natural selection led to divergence of males and females in different directions within the same species (again, I'm not an expert, but it sounds very rare to me that males and females of one species would evolutionarily develop into different directions)? And then this effect should be so immense that it should still make such a significant difference in today's world, which now is totally different compared to early human history and requires totally different skills. If you have any scientific evidence, or even meaningful indication, for this scenario, I'm sure the world would be interested to hear.

It seems much more likely to me that, when asked, men would rather say they feel drawn to people and women would rather say they feel drawn to things, because as children, boys were rather handed cars and bricks while girls were rather given dolls and horses and because they sense that this is what society appears to expect from them.

You've also been talking about the extreme ends of the distribution, i.e. extremely analytical people. I think there is a relation to the field of autism, which you are perhaps alluding to, where men are more often diagnosed with autism than women, and it is an open research question why that is. But are you aware that the ratio between males and females has been decreasing drastically over time? Originally, only males were considered, so the sex ratio was enormous. In 1995, a large Danish study still reported it at 8 to 1. Currently, it is probably something like 3 to 1 in most measurements (Wikipedia says between 4:1 and 2:1). I do know a number of people in the spectrum (in particular, I've been involved in IOI training in Germany for almost a decade), women still usually get mostly overlooked here, because the diagnosis has been tailored towards men, while women face much greater pressure to adapt due to the stereotypes they are surrounded with. So while I, of course, cannot predict if it will go down to something like 1 to 1, I would still expect this ratio to continue decreasing over time. And it is my personal impression that women and men (e.g. in the realm of IOI) really think very similarly, the main difference is perhaps that women tend to have lower self-esteem and tend to hide their analytical skills more. I just wanted to provide you with this piece of information/experience.

Also, I think you're greatly underestimating the extent to which dealing with people is important for software development.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

"80+ hours/week? Firstly, nobody should be working that much, it will not lead to even remotely good results" — that is pretty wrong. If you are forced to work too much, your results obviously deteriorate. If you work with a passion, this is the single most effective thing you can do. (if you don't care about the fact that you won't have a life. But people chose that)

"Secondly, this is not what we are talking about here. In India, only 20% of the labor force are female." — no you were talking about parliament jobs, which are high end jobs. Also, you misunderstood me. I have a working brain, therefore I am 100% for a 45-50% female labor force. But that does not mean I agree with your arguments.

"And in some cases, at prenatal stage, parents will even try to abort the child if it is not a boy." — ye, sounds about right. People in some countries with low education levels do that sadly. The only real solution is more education though.

"Which part of evolution was that? Seriously, I'm not an expert on evolution, so if you can explain this to me, I will be very happy. giraffes developed long necks because leaves were hanging pretty high on trees" — In history, men hunt, women raise children. This is our history and our evolution. If a man wanted offsprings, he had to survive and provide. That means he had to know his tools and be strong. Evolution helped in that regard, men are a lot stronger than women (physically), they build muscles faster, can carry more weight, are taller, have denser bones and are better with things (tools/armor/weapon). The main role for women was to chose a good men and raise the children correctly. Your DNA will not be passed down if your children are not able to grow up. So evolution helped in that regard, helping women be smarter when it comes to human relationships. I tried to find a good source to my claim, you find a lot of articles about it. But the best I can provide in that area is a lecture about human behavior from a clinical psychologist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvqEqIXdhU

"why wouldn't males have had to engage with people" — humans only started farming 12k years ago. Before that time it was pretty much only living in nomadic groups. (no farming = no place to stay. At some point the area will be hunted empty). So no bigger communities. Men obviously had to be in contact with people, but if that did not work they resulted to physical threats and then violence. Women did not have the violence option, so they had to double down on human behavior. You can see that even today. Men are more likely to misbehave viá physical violence, women viá lying.

"it sounds very rare to me that males and females of one species would evolutionarily develop into different directions" — wow. I don't think I know a single species on this planet where males and females are the same. Except maybe animals that are both male and female like snails.

"If you have any scientific evidence, or even meaningful indication, for this scenario, I'm sure the world would be interested to hear." — this is honestly kind of ignorant. There are all kinds of differences between men and women. The best explanation that these are mostly differences made by biology and not society can be found here I think (first 5 minutes are enough): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23b36Kf4S0

"this is what society appears to expect from them." — this is sadly very wrong. Children, after puberty, differ between genders. Physically and mentally. You can obviously give them the same toys before puberty, and I think you should if they want to. But please don't be that kind of parent that raises their boy as a girl or their girl as a boy to proof a point. They will be more likely to develop certain disorders once in puberty. You are supposed to help a child grow in the way it is natural for the child, not to mold it.

"But are you aware that the ratio between males and females has been decreasing drastically over time?" — I have no clue. My uneducated guess would be that we are better at finding autistic people. If we only find them at the extremes of the distribution, having a ratio of 9:1 seems about right. If we are finding them not at the extremes, 2:1 seems about right as well. 1:1? Could be possible, especially with women tending to go to doctors more easily than men.

"women tend to have lower self-esteem" — does not shock me. Its normal for women even outside of IOI.

"Also, I think you're greatly underestimating the extent to which dealing with people is important for software development." — it depends on your job. Indie Game Developer? Have fun communicating with people through Twitter. I am aware that the main differences in income between German and Indian Software Engineers come from the difference in Customers. And that talking with customers is normal for some software engineers. I have not yet seen Junior Software Engineers having to deal with customers, though. And compared to other industries, its a joke. Sure, you may have a few developer who are in conferences most of the time, but this is something that exists in every industry.

What I meant with "interested in things" is, that you won't be a successful programmer if you cannot sit down for multiple hours at a time and just code.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

"In history, men hunt, women raise children. This is our history and our evolution."

You seem to have a pretty concise picture here (which, to be honest, I don't – I think we know very little about prehistoric task distribution and can mainly speculate). However, there are some major inconsistencies:

Gathering: Hasn't gathering actually also been a major part of evolutionary history, probably the dominant part, and isn't gathering very much about things? To me, gathering actually appears to be a much more logic-driven activity compared to hunting (the things you gather will grow in repetitive patterns, so you can deduce where and when you will find what, and it also requires a lot of logic and planning to gather enough for the winter). If you draw any comparison, then gathering should probably be the activity most similar to IT work. Why would gathering have been done by men and not women?
Hunting: Hunting, meanwhile, deals with animals acting irrationally and mainly requires instinct and physical control, I would say. On the contrary, it is worth observing that in today's world, excellent analytical skills often come with motor deficits. E.g. 87% of people with autism also have some motor difficulties. I have seen this in action. Please trust me, these students are extremely bright, but they would certainly never have been good hunters. So I would assume you would find good instincts and good analytical skills on opposite ends of the neurological spectrum.
"tools/armor/weapon": I don't think there have been a lot of weapons/tools/armor around in Stone Age, so that would only concern recent history and have limited impact (according to Wikipedia, bows and arrows have arrived in Europe 9,000–11,000 BCE, while homo sapiens is perhaps 300000 years old, homo erectus over 2 million years). We are probably rather talking about simple stone-age tools for hunting, cooking and cutting or building stuff, and perhaps ornaments. What makes you believe that these tools have predominantly been used by men and not by women? If, like you allege, women have been in charge of raising children, then they have probably been cooking, cutting and building stuff a lot. And being good in those traits would certainly have increased their chances of survival. Perhaps men would also have selected the women wearing the most interesting self-made ornaments for reproduction.
divergence: Of course, there are usually significant differences between males and females, in particular with regard to reproduction. But my understanding is that most evolutionary development is shared between males and females, because most genes affect males and females in similar ways. For example, I presume that the necks of both male and female giraffes have grown over time, due to the same genetic mutations. So if we allege that the traits of males and females diverged, then much greater evolutionary pressure would have been necessary. E.g. this could have been the case when skilled use of tools was very helpful for men, but actually harmful for women. Or when men had disadvantages from increased people skills. This all seems even more unlikely (again, please note that I am neither a neurologist nor evolutionary researcher – this is just my very basic understanding of evolution).
egalitarian societies: Perhaps also noteworthy, Wikipedia suggests that prehistoric people mostly lived in egalitarian communities for most of the past 2 million years (I understand mainly based on observing uncontacted tribes today). Of course, evidence is extremely thin, I would put this as informed speculation at most. But that would make neurological divergence even more unlikely.

My point is: There has been a long evolution with great neurological development. There is no doubt that men and women exhibit some neurological differences. But we have very little understanding of how neurology was evolutionarily influenced. Even if we assume that there were vastly different roles in hunting and gathering, which I think is in dispute, and even if we went furter and also assumed that that lead to men relying more on things and women interacting more with people, which is more far-fetchend, and even if we assumed that this lead to development of different character traits, which is now pure speculation, then there still is an enormous gap missing in order to argue that as a consequence men and women in todays world, which requires entirely different sets of skills, are genetically so different that men are predestined for most jobs with high wage, while women are naturally drawn to activities with low wage. To the best of my knowledge, the scientific community is also mostly unconvinced by such theories, and I presume for good reason. It is, of course, hard to entirely disprove that this could have been possible, like it is difficult to disprove most things where we don't have perfect knowledge.

This is why I was curious if you perhaps would knew about any way to substantiate such a link. I have to conclude, if your key evidence are YouTube videos full of opinion TV talking points but without any facts or solid reasoning, then you apparently do not have any meaningful indication for this either. Please, do not put forward potentially very discriminatory views if you do not have any evidence whatsoever to back that up. Because it can cause real harm.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 5 →

"I think we know very little about prehistoric task distribution and can mainly speculate" — we know little hard facts. Sure. But We can find stuff like old tools, fossils and we are the result of evolution so certain things are a pretty save guess.

"isn't gathering very much about things? To me, gathering actually appears to be a much more logic-driven activity" — first we don't know the distribution of gathering between men and women. We know by now that men did help with gathering and that women most likely did the most work. Also, you absolutely and completely overestimate "logic-driven". You are mostly talking about knowledge that will be passed down. Managing supplies at home is probably more an evening factor in evolution than anything else, because both genders helped.

"excellent analytical skills often come with motor deficits. they would certainly never have been good hunters" — You are talking about 1% of the people. Who cares? There are tribes still in africa. If a man cannot provide they do not recognize him as a man. This means having children is very unlikely. Evolution was a bloody hell, like, we know that in the 18th hundred a women had to birth around 7-8 children to have 2-3 of them survive healthy. 1% chance for bad motor skills? Try 60% chance of death within the first year of birth. Try infections for example.

"What makes you believe that these tools have predominantly been used by men and not by women"— cutting stones? Probably used by both genders and something that evened out evolution. Spears? Most likely only used and maintained by men.

Note: what were you talking about bows. I did mean sword either, I meant ALL weapons used in evolution. Which mainly was the stone, followed by clubs and spear.

"my understanding is that most evolutionary development is shared between males and females, because most genes affect males and females in similar ways" — yes, men and women are very similar. Our DNA is mostly the same as well. But if you want to see what makes men and women different you have to look at the differences. And yes, some if not most are hard to spot.

I have sent you a video before which explains this. Men and Women are exceptionally equal before puberty. But remember we, as humans, are very very driven by hormones. And puberty changes our hormones. It is hormones that makes women more likely to be depressed and men more likely to get addicted by drugs. Why? Because our brains develop differently. Why? Because evolution decided that certain hormones have to be treated differently. Why? To ensure men and women can be different. Hormones are not the only thing that will cause differences, but it will cause a lot of difference to emerge.

Examples for differences not caused by hormones. Look at how men and women select their partner. You can even look at modern studies. For example why do women care more about money than men? Pretty awful right? Or maybe necessary, because in the past, a women had to find a partner that can provide else they may die? Why do women care about the height of a men? Same reason. Why do men care more about the beauty of the women? Awful again, right? Nope, its necessary to ensure she is healthy so the chance for healthy offsprings is higher.

"Perhaps also noteworthy, Wikipedia suggests that prehistoric people mostly lived in egalitarian communities" — yep, exactly what I knew. Makes sense, work together and make certain you survive together. Not all animals go that route, but its the most common route. Also note that contacted tribes still have VERY different gender roles.

"But that would make neurological divergence even more unlikely." — no. It makes the divergence less distinct. Differences will still emerge though. Rule of evolution.

"But we have very little understanding of how neurology was evolutionarily influenced" — you have no clue and I have a basic understanding at best. I have maybe watched 200 hours of psychology lectures so far. There are people spending their whole lives on that though. Jordan Peterson and Andrew Huberman is what I watch. And especially Andrew Huberman goes into the most extreme details. For example, he released a video today going into "The Biology of Taste Perception & Sugar Craving".

"Even if we assume that there were vastly different roles in hunting and gathering, which I think is in dispute" — Sorry to be blunt but do you really think there are not differences. Like really? Have you ever tried to build a spear? As a kid it took hours with a metal knife, with stone tools? That's days of work for something that may break a weak later. Also stop trying to get me wrong, I am not saying men and women are living complete different lives. But they have their respective roles for certain, they had to specialize for certain but they also had to help each other out if needed.

"then there still is an enormous gap missing in order to argue that as a consequence men and women in todays world" — You absolutely and completely underestimate how much knowledge we can have about certain things. Sure, it is hard to say stuff for certain when it was 100k years ago. But we also know about the Big Bang, that the universe is expanding and we have small pictures about Black Holes. Seeing the results can lead to knowledge of the process.

"men are predestined for most jobs with high wage, while women are naturally drawn to activities with low wage" — again, watch the video I have sent. Women tend to be more agreeable than men. Agreeableness negatively predicts wages because it is easier to take advantage about agreeable humans. The fact that jobs that women chose pay less is partly because these are the jobs where you can take advantage of your employers more. Women do not care as much about that as men either. They care, just not as much.

"the scientific community is also mostly unconvinced by such theories" — that women want a low paying job and men a high paying job? Yes, this sounds beyond stupid. Both want a good job, but "good" means different things to different humans. Some want to work less, some more, some want to work with humans, some don't. Some want something easy, some want to lead. Some prefer a bad job if the payment is better, some would never go for such a job.

"if your key evidence are YouTube videos full of opinion TV talking points but without any facts or solid reasoning" — aha, so you have a problem with opinions? I have sent you 2 videos. In the first you only see Jordan Peterson, a Professor in psychology: https://www.psych.utoronto.ca/people/directories/all-faculty/jordan-peterson

And in the second video you see mostly Jordan Peterson talking but also Ben Shapiro who acts as a host. But to be fair, I told you only the first 5 minutes are relevant where mostly Peterson talks. Ben Shapiro is a political commentator, media host, attorney, and columnist.

Simplifying a professor holding a lecture to "opinion TV talking" is pretty stupid you know?

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

While trying to argue that job differences today depend on genetics and not on society, you constantly keep reiterating stuff that is obviously driven by societal expectations ("For example why do women care more about money than men?", "Women tend to be more agreeable than men.").

I don't see any new convincing facts or arguments in your text, so I think this discussion is not particularly fruitful anymore.

This guy Jordan Peterson that you keep mentioning is Professor Emeritus, i.e. not an active professor anymore. I have watched his videos and could not find any sound arguments. He also does not appear to have a background or much expertise in evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology. And he is a climate change skeptic, so I would assume that he has abandoned scientific principles a long time ago.

For comparison, since you seem to be from Germany, you can also look for "Dr. Axel Stoll", who held a doctorate in geology and gave great lectures about why the earth is actually hollow and how "Nazi UFOs" work (among many other ridiculous topics). There are also people with scientific degrees arguing that vaccines cause autism or covid does not exist. Not everything that appears on the Internet is actually true or trustworthy.

Some keywords to differentiate between facts and opinions: peer review, journalistic integrity, scientific consensus. Please try to make such differentiation. And please stop spreading this totally unfounded and contradictory pseudoscience of male superiority. Because once again: it causes real harm.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

"While trying to argue that job differences today depend on genetics and not on society" — I did not say that and I don't believe in that either. As stated above, stop interpreting stuff into what I say. Job differences are both caused by society and genetics. You won't find many small NBA players and you won't find many women in armies.

Alright lets stop. learn to read what others write. And maybe learn to differentiate that just because a person says something stupid about something, it does not mean their work is less valuable. Sorry that I called him a professor, I did not know he resigned in the fall of 2021.

And about Axel Stoll, yes it is as you said. Some people, despite their knowledge, cannot be trusted. But that's up to each of us to decide who to trust. When it comes to psychology, I definitely trust peterson.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

-16

I'll state my opinion and I don't agree with you. Just because that women was born in Afghanistan doesn't make her more eligible than you. But I do agree with the fact that everyone including that women should get equal opportunity which means both of you should be asked the same exact problem and be given same exact time. The hiring process should be only based on merit. By doing this we are respecting her hard work as well as the hard work done by you. Also the reason because there are less women in tech and in Indian parliament is because they are simply not interested in these fields. Most women choose low paying jobs and degrees, which is true and are confirmed by many studies. You can check on google.

No matter how powerful you are, equality of outcome will never happen. Many business men and thinkers like Jordan peterson have said this. There is a video by Project Veritas where Elon Musk talks about the importance of meritocracy.

Also this diversity and inclusion bill was signed in google by Sundar Pichai in 2017 and between the time 2017 — 2020, China surpassed the US in the field of AI and quantum computing. How did that happen all of a sudden. As far as I know China is mostly a meritocracy in the field of tech and AI. This could be the reason.

When this diversity and inclusion programs were started the startups that competed against these big tech companies became companies. How did that happen all of a sudden?

Just ask yourself this question, if there where more women in tech would there be programs to hire men like this? Ask yourself this question.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

But I do agree with the fact that everyone including that women should get equal opportunity which means both of you should be asked the same exact problem and be given same exact time.

What you're describing is an equal test, not an equal opportunity. If all students of some lecture write some identical test at the end of term, but only half of the students are allowed or able to visit the lecture in preparation, students don't get equal opportunity to succeed in the test. Meritocracy means valuing "talent, effort, and achievement, rather than wealth or social class". If, like you describe, you disregard starting conditions and just consider the state that people have reached, then you mainly value the wealth and social class that people are born in instead of their talent, effort and achievement. It leads at best to mediocracy, not meritocracy.

Most women choose low paying jobs and degrees

What options do women get to choose from? You don't choose a career at the moment you apply for a job, but rather your parents make much of this choice when they provide you with education, and society decides how much hardship this choice would entail. For example (extreme scenario for illustrative purposes), if you're a woman in an Islamic country like Afghanistan, you could choose to run for parliament. And some women have done so. But most women never have access to school (no matter how much they would choose to go there) and even those few women who succeed to run for parliament unfortunately often got murdered by a society deeply hostile towards independent women. So please don't pretend like women would simply be too stupid to choose promising career options – in most cases, women never get such a choice.

Also this diversity and inclusion bill was signed in google by Sundar Pichai in 2017 and between the time 2017 — 2020, China surpassed the US in the field of AI and quantum computing. How did that happen all of a sudden. As far as I know China is mostly a meritocracy in the field of tech and AI. This could be the reason.

Correlation and causation. Between 2017 and 2020, the frequency of YouTube ads also increased considerably. <irony> Could Google's policy on diversity and inclusion be responsible here? </irony>

Just ask yourself this question, if there where more women in tech would there be programs to hire men like this? Ask yourself this question.

In a world where men were commonly treated as inferior beings, I would definitely fight for equal rights and opportunities for men.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

-24

Between 2017 and 2020, the frequency of YouTube ads also increased considerably. Could Google's policy on diversity and inclusion be responsible here?

You just proved my point!.

So what you are basically saying is inorder to bring more women in tech we need to discriminate talented men??? There are more women in the field nursing and as cabin crew but I've never heard programmes to hire or promote men in this field. Also there are more men in septic tank cleaning, mining, brick laying I've never heard of a campaign to bring more to women here?? __ In a world where men were commonly treated as inferior beings, I would definitely fight for equal rights and opportunities for men.

Men have been treated as inferior beings since 2012!, so when are you going to start fighting for equal rights.

There is a above comment which links some youtube videos of jordan peterson and I'll suggest you to learn more about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity.

Just look at the current state of western countries now and back when there were no diversity, inclusion and equity(DIE).

Please watch this video, this shows how men are treated as inferior beings.

→ Reply

2 years ago, # ^ |

+13

show_karthi I've been living in Germany for almost my entire life and I'm afraid you have a terribly wrong impression of what reality in Germany and many other western countries is like. It feels like you're living in a parallel reality, and it's genuinely hard to understand or respond to your incoherent list of video links. Please try to distinguish between facts and opinions. "There is some guy on the internet sharing my opinion" is not a compelling or constructive way to present your point. Mere repetition of prior statements without providing new facts, arguments or thought also isn't helpful.

Please be aware that stuff presented in questionable YouTube channels often is not factual or true. People with extremist opinions may sometimes have an appearance of popularity on the Internet, even though their ideas have been disproven many times and have little relevance in real life. I hope you will find your way out of this bubble.

→ Reply

death_bringer

2 years ago, # ^ |

← Rev. 2 →

I'm wasting my time in an internet argument instead of doing CP but F it.

I mostly agree with what you said but that doesn't give companies the right to be partial to women or men. Let's flip the coin here and I'll give you a somewhat real example (changed enough that actual people don't recognize themselves). I'm from a middle-class family in a metropolitan city and had it kinda easy because I had enough to get a good education and coaching to be in a good university. I have a childhood female friend who had the more or less same life as me but her parents didn't allow late-night coaching classes.

Now In our friend circle, we have a girl who is filthy rich and a guy whose from a far village where he had to move away from his home even for coaching.

Now a company visits our campus to their eyes both the girl are same and should have more priority them, boys. But by your logic, I think my guy friend deserves more chances than any of us. Between me and my childhood friend, it will be a hard discussion but between me and the rich girl, I think I deserve a better chance.

Just as you said everyone is different and companies should take that into account but these types of hiring practices don't do that. According to them, all women had it worse than men. Which in my opinion is wrong. and only perpetuates the hatred in people's heads against the other gender.

Now over to the condition of women in India (including it as a case study which might be happening in other countries also). It's bad, to say the least, but why? Does it because we don't have laws to prevent it? NO. It's because they are not implemented properly. (It is related please just get through it.) Laws against dowry and domestic violence are so one-sided to women that they consider men to be second-class citizens but it's still not ending these problems. Why? Because governments don't put effort to implement them but just keep adding laws. So, This problem just somehow ends magically.

And this is exactly what these companies are doing. (I highly doubt they actually wanna do any good and all this is for PR and physiological effects of a good sex ratio in the office). If they really wanted this then they would start programs for less fortunate men and women to upskill them to be on the same level as others. And make hiring practices such that your experiences in overcoming the problem could be taken into account.

Lastly Just a small opinion-based reply: I think that you and the afghan girl deserve the same chance. If it can't be proven under same circumstances she can overcome better than you. Just because you grew up in a good condition you shouldn't be punished for that because it might be possible you would have done better than an afghan girl if you were born in those circumstances.

I think I gave a fairly open-minded reply but If you think I'm wrong please tell me. I'm open to changing my stance.

→ Reply

Stormersyle

2 years ago, # |

based asf

→ Reply

Pawan402

2 years ago, # |

I think its their choice to hire anyone they want

→ Reply

Another_Alt_123

2 years ago, # ^ |

+30

Let's say a company changed their policy to "we don't hire girls" So it's their choice right. There should not be any problem.

→ Reply

matryoshka03

18 months ago, # ^ |

simp

→ Reply

Eclecticity

2 years ago, # |

+13

I think that if companies are preferring candidates belonging to certain groups over others, then it is because at present addition of members of these groups is adding more value to these companies.
This could be because of something as simple as good PR, or because of the different perspectives and experiences that these members bring with them.
I don't think these companies owe us anything other than a transparent hiring process; they are supposed to do what is best for their stakeholders, and if hiring people belonging to underrepresented groups is somehow better for them, why shouldn't they do this?

→ Reply