Women in tech

>ceo's refusing to promote women
But can you show that this actually happens? Not one case, but systemically, that men promote men more because they are men? Because the opposite happens, women promote women only because they're women. Some companies take pride in being female-only.
If you can prove that claim, that men refuse to promote women, then go ahead and add quotas. But you won't.

This should be unironically considered here. How many female managers are there in less successful companies?

>can you show this
Yeah, it's called statistics. Men and women are both 50 percent of population and a single digit percentile of women makes it to managerial positions.

Huh. Its almost like being successful means not forcing women in tech.
Really makes you think

newsroom.cisco.com/exec-bios

I think what she's saying is also dependent upon the size of the company. Sure, I've had to work from 7 AM to 12 PM on the rare occasion at my company because of integrations, but I sure as hell refuse to make it a regular habit. My company is far too large for me to want to do anything like that.

>most CEOs are already men
>Hindu men
It says a lot a bout women if they can't even compete with Poos

this is a Jow Forums thread

>these are the facts, so my wild interpretation of why they exist is obviously true
Water is wet user, this is an undeniable fact. Therefore you cannot argue that water is not wet entirely because the color purple hates sunflowers.

Why are axe wounds so retarded?

...thanks to biology. The more "progressive" a country is, the more you see women taking people oriented jobs and men taking object oriented jobs. Once you minimize societal pressure for job selection, you maximize biological pressures. Inequality of any form according to you is evidence of systematic bias, in your mind it could never be that there might be some other - biological or otherwise - reason. You will never be happy until everything is exactly 50/50 and everyone gets paid exactly the same. Scratch that, I bet you don't even care men have the majority of suicides, war deaths, high risk jobs, disgusting/gross jobs, overtime work, death in the workplace, so on and so forth. Last I checked women weren't protesting their lack of representation in waste disposal industries.

Absolutely based and redpilled.

No it's a truth thread. Pol is always right.

Women hate facts and logic.

>math exists
>numbers don't add up
>wild interpretations
Say when you finally get to the wizard who is going to get the brain you or your strawman?
Yeah, that's all cute and all but you just postulated it into existence from the preconceived notion of an user on the internet you pulled out of your ass. All I've states thus far is the math doesn't add up as an answer to the question "Can you demonstrate evidence of it happening." So the reality is you're larping and expect me to answer for the crimes of the caricature you made up when you read my statement.

I literally disproved that it's a societal issue. Women just don't want to get into tech, or any high-risk/technical jobs as much as men. The math isn't ever going to add up.

>"Can you demonstrate evidence of it happening."
>systemically, that men promote men more because they are men?
Strange how you seem to have completely ignored the part of the question that proves you have no numbers to support your wild interpretation of the real numbers. It's so cute when you people try to pretend like you can think, because you actually believe that you're fooling other people.

And how does this proves systematic oppression? Looks to me like the profit-oriented system is working as intended: getting the most profitable people into the positions. You have to be stupid to think that faceless and various investors care about anyone's gender and not just their monthly dividends.

LOBSTERS

not engineers women

Use statistic analysis. Bonus experience for you if you're a racist fuck.

>I literally disproved that it's a societal issue.
You've hypothesized a bunch of shit. Prove involves a couple of more steps including evidence.
What's cute is the fact that you're backtracking.
You've accepted it at face value and now that your point is decimated you want the stats? Why the fuck didn't you call for them earlier?
Our system of resources is set up to be distributed based on the shit men excel at, it's very fucking retarded to argue otherwise.

The only thing you are doing is stating a hypothesis why we have that disparity. You give zero arguments to why your hypothesis holds truth.

It's shit like this why I have no faith in social "science" only thing they are doing is throwing around with hypothesis that are inconsistent as fuck, offer no progressive predictions.

All I've done is answer a question of "Where do you see this" not "Why do you think it's happening" Stop postulating shit into existence.

Women can't even manage their own emotions yet want to manage an entire organization. It's a God damn joke.

Attached: 1561719714786.jpg (480x640, 49K)

Proof of women in STEM not being a societal issue rather a biological one:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617741719?journalCode=pssa&
Abstract states the more gender equality a country has the less women want to go into STEM.

Women are biologically and socially (social = bio for all I care) to not be CEOs. Long hours, stress, rewards which don't appeal to a vast majority of females. It will always be this way unless the position of CEO is forced to become the equivalent of human resources for "equality".

there shoulnt be female quotas, that acheives nothing. hiring competent women is the better idea, ones like mommy su who are actual engineers, not ones wholl burn yahoo to the ground

so does pol though

>thinks there's some global conspiracy against women
>can't even argue points, just screams at everyone that disagrees with his fantasies
I'm shocked, I really am.

Attached: 9760522.gif (220x157, 481K)

The abstract says women perform better that dudes in 2/3 countries and places with shit positions on gender promote more women in stem. What point were you making? Did you even read the thing?

yeah they should make their own companies

fucking retard

It's not about them performing better or worse - it's about them wanting to get into the job in the first place. I never claimed women are bad at STEM, I said they didn't want to enter in the first place. I thought you were above making straw men and were actually willing to take a look into an opposing perspective but apparently I've wasted my time.

statistics don't work that way

>screams
That's interesting, I've yet to deploy my shift key or Caps Lock. Why are you perceiving hysteria? Are you distraught, my dude?
Good job you solved everything.

Free people making free choices is now a bad thing? Why should you impose your will onto others if others aren't restricting people's freedoms?

>Except, again, most CEOs are already men.
Except, again, he already answered that complaint and you're wrong.

Exactly what method of statistical analysis should reveal systematic oppression? And what would be the control group demographic and condition?
That was the case 200 years ago before capitalism went into full swing, now we have jobs at which women excel, and we generally invite women to work because there's money to be made off their labor. Note the wage gap as a product of competitive job market - women undercut men in many occupations leaving then out of job and forcing to do something else; some jobs prioritize excellence so they'd rather pay more anyway.

>Why are you perceiving hysteria?
Overemotional investment in disregarding facts and perceiving your own perceptions as fact. It's all you have left so I don't really blame you. Well that and acting like a retard for (You)s while trying to convince everyone you're only pretending, but c'est la vie.

Yeah, I wipe my ass with your wounded intellectual taking a chance routine. You've made a claim of biology and to reinforce it you presented a case where women perform better than men (a biological factor). I am not a mind reader, state your thesis properly. Do you think it's possible that women don't want to get into STEM because the deck is stacked against them and we aren't even willing acknowledge the fact there is problem to begin with?
What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?
no u
When the fuck were any of us free? This is your decision, to spend ~40% of your life "earning" your keep in society? The system is already there you either fit into what they want or you fuck off and die on the side of the street. What fucking universe are you from?

Now how many engineer woman we have compared to men?

You know how you get all frustrated and hopeless when you see Chad swoop in and get all the puss? You're like, I'm just as good, I'm just as interesting and would make a better partner than he would. If only I hadn't been born with this assymetric face and so short, if only she would give me a chance!

You'd think the neckbeards and incels of Jow Forums would be able to relate to how women feel when trying to compete in the workforce. Guess Jow Forums, in the end, is not very self aware. Sad.

>women don't want to get into STEM because the deck is stacked against them
It's really lucky that there aren't millions of scholarships, programs, and special interest groups designed entirely to get women into STEM as well as workplaces that have quotas and policies in place entirely to get more women into STEM or else you'd look like a complete fucking idiot right about now.

>women are as broken and useless to the workforce as Jow Forums is in the dating game
Wow, how very misogynistic of you. I can't even.

>but c'est la vie.
No one was impressed by this.
>Overemotional investment
Once again, where is the overemotional? Also, what the fuck is overemotional?
>disregarding facts
Didn't you just say that it was "overemotional" to postulate your own reality? Shit you agree with is facts? What the fuck kind of metric is that?
> perceiving your own perceptions
I.. you're just not smart.
>t's all you have left so I don't really blame you.
Once again, stop postulating shit into existence. Literally an user who has never met you. Stop projecting bullshit.
>Well that and acting like a retard for (You)s
I love me some irony, well done.
>while trying to convince everyone you're only pretending,
I've stated one thing. The math doesn't add up. I didn't say why, I just said the numbers don't match. Stop projecting.

My quotes where I've stated my hypothesis:
>Once you minimize societal pressure for job selection, you maximize biological pressures.
>Women just don't want to get into tech, or any high-risk/technical jobs as much as men
I think it was stated clearly enough.

>What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?
Do you also call for the reduction of significantly over-represented homosexual men and MTF transgenders? They both far outstretch the

>That was the case 200 years ago
It's also the case right now.
>now we have jobs at which women excel,
Problem is the resource distriburtion is still shit because jobs women excel at aren't viewed as "important" or "dangerous" or "difficult" so the compensation is shit. The core values of our resource distribution have not changed.
Right, it's a whole new game after we graduate from college where everyone is equal. Are you intentionally pretending to be retarded?

>the deck is stacked against them
Yeah 'cuz literally being offered top jobs for half the qualifications makes you such a fucking victim.

Attached: dabbin_on_dem_jannies.png (154x109, 40K)

Are you retarded? Do you have any idea how statistics work? Correlation does not imply causation you leftist moron.

Oh god he's started freaking out and doing the line by line thing.

>Once you minimize societal pressure for job selection, you maximize biological pressures.
Read this again, slowly. Then tell me what the fuck that means using other words.
>Women just don't want to get into tech, or any high-risk/technical jobs as much as men
Sure, the conditions are shit for them. Just like you don't want to get into any day-care positions, you'll be branded a pedophile the second you show up for the interview. Men are just as fucked in other professions, that was never a doubt. Your refusal to agree that there is an issue worth addressing is the problem.

You seem to think freedom includes entitlements. Aggression is not a freedom. No one owes you anything.

Would you fucks really want half your team to be women? Do you really want to feel like you can't be your masculine self at work or exert your normal bravado because you have to be sensitive to a bunch of social issues at work?

Oh wait, this is Jow Forums, home of emasculated onions boys

>"positive" discrimination stops at college
Yeah that's why HR keeps blabbering about it nonstop. Because it doesn't exist.

>Do you think it's possible that women don't want to get into STEM because the deck is stacked against them and we aren't even willing acknowledge the fact there is problem to begin with?

Healthcare is stacked against everyone who works there but that doesn't matter for women.

I will get the horse hair whip out. My sincere apologies.

That's because women are inferior at these choice jobs. Body strength, level head, ability to fucking take a bullet and tough it out - that's just not things women are capable of. They can get in par with average men through grueling training but there's no circumventing the biology.

>I didn't mean that women don't want to get into STEM, I meant that women don't want to get into STEM jobs only after college!
>HAH, you didn't cover that bit, did you!
As well as workplaces that have quotas and policies in place entirely to get more women into STEM. Next time you move the goalposts, try to move them past a point that's already been addressed (especially one that was addressed in the post you're replying to), or else you might end up looking like and even bigger idiot than you do right now.

I fully support this as long as we take it to the logical conclusion that there are too many Jews at the top.

Why would I split hairs between straight and gay dudes?
Show me where this happens.
Ah, your problem is with my application. You're right, correlation implies a correlation tho, no? Something worth a look-see perhaps?
Well at least you tried, thanks for playing.
Define freedom for me real quick.
I don't know what you mean by this. Care to expand?
One of us just had a stroke. Fucking what?
Like I said our resource distribution is completely geared to reward shit men excel at. Thanks for agreeing.

Minimize societal pressures (countries with higher gender equality), means maximizing biological ones (resulting in less women in STEM).
>Sure, the conditions are shit for them. Just like you don't want to get into any day-care positions, you'll be branded a pedophile the second you show up for the interview. Men are just as fucked in other professions, that was never a doubt. Your refusal to agree that there is an issue worth addressing is the problem.
Conjecture.

Cope.

Attached: 1556815319126.jpg (360x318, 21K)

So men simply excel at everything and women just suck? Well that's a feminist epiphany if I ever seen one.

And now the mass replying starts as he desperately tries to get more people to acknowledge him. At least have attempt to have some dignity, user.

You actually can behave that way without any issues in a country that is not taken over by grievance driven leftists. Just don't be a dick about it.

Freedom to enact your will, as long as it isn't aggression on other's.

cope

>Do you think it's possible that women don't want to get into STEM because the deck is stacked against them and we aren't even willing acknowledge the fact there is problem to begin with?
It's pretty much not and Scandinavia has proven it. There's not a single measure you can meme into the ether which hasn't been undertaken and not a single "problem" which hasn't been eradicated to satisfy Feminist theories in Scandinavia and there's still a big discrepancy between women and men because they have different choices.
So nothing in this day and age is stacked against women that doesn't also equally stack against men when the only requirement to go into and pass STEM is for you to take your dumb ass to a table, open up the book and notebook, and work that shit 3-6 hours a day at least excluding class attendance.

Basically your question is outdated and your mindset is already rendered obsolete through practical experience.

Attached: 1561579219709.png (554x439, 132K)

>The only way to get promoted as a woman is if a man promotes you
This is a non-point. Of course a man would be promoting you if a man was your boss. Are you implying that they wouldnt?

women dont get into STEM because STEM is for nerds ie males
isnt that fucking obvious

I misunderstood that one is my bad. Your point is because something was already done we don't need to revisit it because we put a band-aid on this gunshot wound so we're good. Sick strategy, can't say that I agree with this approach.
We need way more. Jon Stewart 2020.
>Minimize societal pressures (countries with higher gender equality), means maximizing biological ones (resulting in less women in STEM).
Ah, I see what you mean now. Yeah, that's fair. I don't think it's anywhere near the full picture. But if that's how you wish to address the numbers I'd love to read your research paper.
>Conjecture.
We're in a court room, my dude. Everything in this thread is conjecture. The implication that anyone here is anywhere near an absolute truth or the full picture is borderline retarded. That's why we come here to these boards to challenge our world view and see if it can stand up to scrutiny.

He's implying that men in leadership roles are conspiring against women.

based

>putting words into an opponents mouth while simultaneously changing the entirety of your argument and implying the things that make you wrong are irrelevant
Now that's how you shift some goalposts, good job user.
>That's why we come here to these boards to challenge our world view and see if it can stand up to scrutiny.
Icing on the cake right there.

Finally the cuck says it. If you tap out you can' jump back in or I am telling mom.
Our society is structured to reward the shit men excel at, yes. Interpret that how you will, I guess.
>user
>dignity
You vastly misread the situation. Do you post in hopes people accept you? If that's the case I have a great website suggestion for you with upvotes and everything.
I will is to fly up in the air like superman ... why isn't it working? Oh, there is a system in place that I don't control, wow so free.
Cool, any recommendations on readings you've done? I'd love to catch up.

Yeah, it's about winning or losing to you that means it's the same for me. You figured it out.
I see what I think is retarded shit I call it out if you can lead me to your way of thinking with reason I'll concede, learn, and adapt. If all you want to do is appear victorious in your own eyes through mental gymnastics, I have no interest in that, that's all you.

user if you believed a single word of what you just typed you would at least attempt to have an honest discussion. You're not fooling anyone else here into believing that you're actually trying to challenge your beliefs and learn, but I'm honestly concerned that you're fooling yourself.

>Cool, any recommendations on readings you've done? I'd love to catch up.
Readings?
Here's your reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Sweden
Feminists have been in government dictating everything for the last decade at least, with free reign to practice whatever theories they had in the education system.
The results:
thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/

Wanna know why? Because you can't force your interest in STEM upon others like a rapist, and you can't make excuses for why everyone else is wrong for not choosing STEM like a god damn incel does for why women are wrong for not giving them sex. STEM is boring to most women when it comes to the gritty parts as opposed to the flashy and impressive images and videos of products you show to them. It's precisely trying to portray STEM as something cool and great which backfires madly.

You haven't shown me shit that would pass the standard of what was taught to me in 1st year philosophy or logic class. I am sorry you feel this way. If you wish to address the threshold of what I accept we can do that.

>Women in Sweden are 45% of the political representatives in the Swedish Parliament. Women make up 43% of representatives in local legislatures as of 2014
>Feminists have been in government dictating everything for the last decade at least,
You can't expect me to treat you seriously when your view is based on a hyperbole. That's just not how that works.

>superman
Well I thought it would have been obvious for it to note be necessary to include the limitations of the world we live in. Do I need to spell out every law of physics for you as well?

I was drawing a parallel. I am sorry it flew over your head. Just like physics there is also a system in place in our society, freedom is an illusion and any argument stemming from the notion is a fantasy.

>doesn't know how government works
>talks about hyperbole
Full retard. Facts and stats don't change, equality index has risen and so has discrepancy.
If reality doesn't suit your narrative then by all means continue drowning in deluded fiction. I've already seen enough of what had to be seen to conclude what has been proven through practical means, it's barriers which increase female attendance in all irony.

If person x is more competent than person y , any manager (f/m) should and will choose x. If not , it will backfire on that manger ESPECIALLY if the candidate is a women.
Women do get a lot of more priviliges these days.
It has almost become something religous: its heresy to even objectively ask about the competence of a female candidate.
This culture of quota will do no good to females (and males) in the long run. They will always be looked as the priviliged that are in the position because of quota, not of skill.

>45% of government
>dictate
>doesn't know how the government
Please, enlighten me.

They could start a successful business

We have been progressively getting more and more advanced as human beings (tech, society, philosophy, arts, etc.), why is a society with non-coercion laws that respects your freedoms somehow impossible? No one is saying that a perfect utopia can occur where everyone is free and merry and all that sort... I don't understand where you'd even get that argument from? Certainly not from me.

>Our society is structured to reward the shit men excel at, yes. Interpret that how you will, I guess.

Well that interesting because women are the primary consumers in society, I guess men excel at making things women like