OK, bear with me for a moment, but why would a CEO who is so openly and blatantly sexist have accepted a women interviewee in the first place? I am inclined to thing that either he was either testing her, or this is fiction.
-16 karma · joined March 3, 2014
I am confused. Is she calling herself her child's father? Is she in a Female-Female marriage?
What evidence is there to support this? There are biological differences (I am talking brain structure and chemistry here) that make men competitive, leaders, and providers. IT feels like you are ignoring nature here.
Your argument reminds me of "racial inequality". Blacks in America are not hired and paid as much as Asians. Is this because of racism, unequal opportunity? If we look at history, we see that Asians generally invented more and modernized their societies (writing, language, arts) far more than Africans living in similar conditions and with similar opportunity (natural resources, friendly weather ETC.). Who can explain this? Is there a biological reason these pattern repeats themselves in all races throughout known history? Is it because of some influence? or just differences in DNA? Clearly in America, despite all our efforts, racial inequality has done nothing but grow. Is it because of reasons beyond our understanding? People claim that it is this reason or that reason, but History does not agree with them.
>- Women miss more work due to illness and depression because they aren't treated fairly and are put under more pressure to get the rewards their male counterparts get easily.
This is your opinion (which should be stated). This is pretty subjective and I have never seen nor could I find any evidence to support it. It is true that women who do not work get sick less, bit the same is true for men. Workplace illnesses certainly account for some of this. Even if it were provable, what difference does it make. The problem is perpetuated by the problem that exists (cycle).
>- Women are less amenable to overtime because men are less amenable to doing housework.
This only partially accounts for the difference. Where comparing single men and women, there is still a difference. You may say that the difference still exists and that men just live like slobs, but I doubt you will find much evidence to support that.
>- Women can, and do, cope with "hormone fluctuation" very well. They're quite used to it.
Opinion again. You are probably correct with some women, and not so correct with others. This is probably an unknown variable at hire time, thus a risk. In any case, it is an extra thing that most women must deal with. Men with 4 or more kids at home are very rarely hired as CEO's. It is partly because they have a known distraction (such as a women's hormonal swings). I realize that this is an apples to oranges comparison, but any known detractor for any job translates to points against the applicant.
>- Attractive women in the workplace are only a distraction to unprofessional, easily distracted men.
It feels like you are arguing with me here. I am not disagreeing, I am just saying that many workplaces have very valuable and productive men who fall into this category. All boys/girls schools philosophy is to get rid of possible distractions. This segregation is age old in the workplace as well.
>- Men talking dirty in the workplace just shouldn't. Regardless of the (imaginary) sensibilities of women, what about the men who don't like that?
Shouldn't I agree, but if you don't think that this doesn't play a factor, I have to question your grounding in reality.
>- Men haven't been in charge since the beginning of time. History has had plenty of matriarchal societies.
I said that I was talking in generalities. I am not pointing out minority exceptions like you are. These societies represent such a small percentage of recorded humans existence that they are actually considered statistically insignificant.
>The simple fact is, any business that doesn't select the best possible candidate regardless of gender, is failing their duty to their shareholders/investors/employees to build a secure, stable, profitable and growing company. If I knew that a company I owned part of was recruiting men over women even when the woman is the better candidate I would call for the CEO to be fired.
It comes down to risk. The things that I have mentioned all play a factor in that risk. All non gender related things being equal, the higher risk would be the female. You can argue with this all day, but you are arguing with nature. Maybe this "inequality" is not "fair", but trying to force everything to be "fair" and everyone to be "equal" has never worked and never will. Standards are lowered, gags are placed on dissidents, people start hating each other and their government, things decline. Making everything "equal" and "fair" equates to oppression, unfairness in other places and theft. In the end it always ends up bad. See the history of known civilizations for reference.
>Women miss work more often than men because of personal illness and depression. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/sickness-absence-in-the-l...
>Women are far less amenable to overtime http://qz.com/149428/mens-overtime-hours-are-keeping-the-gen...
>don't perform well in crunch situations http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mangeluc/ChoiceUnderStress.pd...
>They do not cope with stress as well as men (specifically time constraint) http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.364...
>emotionally degrade with fatigue at a far faster rate than male http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090611-105...
More to come. I am going to bed for now.
This is not popular, but I believe people should know when they are being brainwashed.
You should know (since you are a veteran here) that you cannot post on a thread that was created before your account.
Guess not...
>The economist Larry Summers famously suggested once that so few women become scientists and engineers because of discrimination, preference and even differences in innate ability.
Ability? There are many teenage prodigies who become homeless and total failures in life. Who ever thought that ability alone guarantees anything? This is a flawed and narrow minded mentality.
Does anyone ever stop and think that there may be more logical reasons than ability that men are hired above women?
There are probably thousands of reasons that men get hired in front of women. Here are some (many of which are not politically correct) facts. As derived by science, statistics, and surveys. I am only echoing information based on research and experience (as a HR specialist for 15 years). These are generalities and certainly don't apply to all women and all men.
Women are generally less ambitious (even if they had better grades). Less creative problem solvers, and less logical (more emotional) with their decisions. Most of them lack the strong drive that men have for career advancement and success. Many men relentlessly work toward advancement and achievement despite having to make sacrifices such as family time, and other obstacles. Much of this is because of the role of testosterone and the design of the male brain (for competition and dominance). I am not saying that there are no women who are ambitions. I am just saying that the ratio is highly in favor of men here. I mentioned the testosterone part because many of you will respond that it is only that women have not been given the proper chance and thus the difference. This has been dis-proven by science and statistical studies.
Most women at some point get pregnant and have kids. This (moderately to severely depending on the person) affects their productivity and mood while pregnant (9 months). Afterward they are off work for 4-6 months (or potentially much longer if the newborn has health problems). The women cannot be legally replaced during this time. Her job has to be waiting there for her when (and if) she eventually comes back. When she does come back, women miss far more work than men to take care of sick kids. This all puts a company in a difficult position (financially and otherwise) that does not exist for men.
Women miss work more often than men because of personal illness and depression.
Women are far less amenable to overtime and don't perform well in crunch situations. They do not cope with stress as well as men, and emotionally degrade with fatigue at a far faster rate than males. When distressed, they become irritable, combative and irrational more often than men when in high stress situations (their emotions escalate more quickly).
Women's hormones fluctuate at a far higher rate and frequency, often affecting their moods, concentration, and productivity. Estrogen causes emotional instability and fluctuation. Men have little estrogen and don't experience the peaks and valleys that women do. Women are more likely to form clicks and ostracize, other women among other social problems. Women just don't get along with women quite often. It causes a real distraction for everyone and hurts workplace morale.
Women (attractive ones) are a distraction to many men. I am generally not blaming women for this, but it is a fact. Men will spend time talking to a pretty female employee just because. Workplace relationship that may form are often disastrous. When the relationship ends, a real mess ensues.
Men can and do occasionally (some men more than occasionally) talk dirty when women aren't around. You have a women around and men have to watch everything they say. They can't say t__s or b__bs out loud. That could land them in the unemployment line because of a sexual harassment complaint.
Men have been in charge since the beginning of time. They have leadership built into their DNA. They see women as trying to encroach on that and being the competitors that they are - don't want extra competition. This is natural.
Political correctness and "equality". Wither you are are for or against them, are not natural, logical or intuitive. Men thinking that men should be selected above women in tech/science because as a whole, they posses more natural skills and posses less natural challenges is logically the best bet. There are instances where a women will outperform a man, but statistically the odds are against this happening by a large scale.
Edit: here are a couple more statistics: Women are more likely to quit a job. Women are more likely to exit the workforce altogether.
There are a number of books rationalizing gender based wage and hiring inequality that point out far more statistics and logical (cause and effect) reasoning than I have mentioned here. I will try to dig up a couple.
This is an interesting reason. I have always noticed that the British and Australian accented voices sounded better. I though that perhaps it was easier to emulate their pronunciations.
Would the inverse hold true for British/Australian people as well? Does US English sound the best to them in TTS applications?
"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress." (From a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274)
"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint". (Hesiod, 8th century BC)
"I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid." (G.K. Chesterton)
Socrates 'The children now love luxury; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are tyrants, not servants of the households. They no longer rise when their elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their teachers.' (Commonly attributed to SOCRATES by Plato)
http://proto-knowledge.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-is-wrong-wi...
The poor billionaire is used to getting his way and now he is pouting and ranting... Sniff.
I know two accountants that used to work for Ebay. By what they told me it is not poorly run at all. Not in any capacity. What single shred of evidence is there that EBay is the "worst-run" company he has ever seen? or even that they are tun badly at all?
If it were the worst run company he had ever seen... how are they still in business? They should be hemorrhaging money and laying off employees. You'd think that corruption, scandal and theft would be rampant for such a poorly run company. Their servers would be down all the time, they would get hacked constantly and erase their data by accident without having backups. Their web IU would be unusable, their site would be full of bugs, they would be constantly being audited by the IRS, They would be in the business news daily for their constant blunders.
This reeks of pouting and sour grapes.
Because the media has been doing it for 20+ years. The news is more "interesting" when big numbers like that are thrown around.
"a goodwill gesture as it hopes to complete a $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable."
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2104461/comcast-extends-inter...
There IS a gender gap, but with it a matching skills/abilities gap.
I have experienced this first hand with dozens of women. A rare couple of them were top notch developers. They were ambitions and had a real passion for development and technology. So did about 20-25% of the men I worked with (vs less than 10% of the women). The other woman and men had base skills, but rarely showed ambition or passion to learn new thing and improve their skills, habits, tools, ETC. They were kind of just grinders. They never excelled or impressed. They weren't the kind who would tinker on the weekends with OSS or read development or tech blogs or books when they had free time.
The top notch women were promoted and made similar salaries as the top notch men. Overall though, the women lagged behind the men percentage wise because of the reasons mentioned.
I would be curious to know if others have seen this pattern. This is based on my 15 years in the software industry.