Support NeoGAF

[Kuroi Gogeta]

Yep.

Someone like that has a job that pays probably near six figures, meanwhile so many of us have gone to university, have 10+ years of work experience/internships and speak multiple languages and cant get a full time job. There's something about that that just crushes a little piece of my soul. I just never cease to be amazed at how many unqualified people get hired on to significant positions, like what kind of shit does a person like that say in an interview that gets them hired over someone else?

 

[azyless]

I don’t know, I’m not smart enough

At least he got this right !

 

[takriel]

more like Ed Moron.

 

[Reptars Revenge]

For fucks sake. I am from Florida, went to Florida State AND live in Tallahassee.

This...person does not represent who we are...do not judge too harshly 😞

Very true, I will just continue to judge you on students eating other peoples faces and organizational indifference to sexual assault.

 

[FyreWulff]

ArsTechnica ran a report a couple months ago on negotiation for salaries across genders.

Whether it's social or genetic or personal circumstances or whatever (who knows), women were less prone to negotiating than men. Men often pushed for higher salaries whereas women were more likely take the offer as-is.

The representative botched it when he said it may have been genetic, but I generally support his message to improve negotiation skills.

Because women get punished for being more assertive.

There is no link between being a woman and being able to do less. What DOES happen is when men suddenly become interested in a career field, it gets gender role'd and women are pushed out.

See: women were just as interested in comp sci until the mid 80s. What happened in the 80s? Working with computers became a "boys thing" and the family computer became something you put in your son's bedroom instead of the living room. Women were then pushed out of the field. Even the girls computer camp switched over to "it's about meeting boys":

(ad is from '83)

Any other stance is willingly trying to ignore why the current state is caused by non-inherent reasons. The current state is because a bunch of men were and are still afraid that a woman getting a job or a raise means a job or money lost for a man. The status quo benefits those who win a penis in the genetic lottery and people will fall over each other trying to justify their status quo benefit for any other reason than pure chance of what they were born with between their legs.

Just imagine being bombarded with this shit just for having a vagina:

every day

every where

every moment

it becomes a mental and societal jail that becomes easier to survive by just playing along. It still fucking happens. People are still fighting against equal pay and want to destroy the Lily Ledbetter Act and any chance of an amendment to the constitution that simply states women are equal to men.

 

[Ri'Orius]

Yep, thats toooootallly the reason. Evolution decided that a Human made concept such as the economy, how many pieces of paper you carry in your back pocket and the art of negotiation helps your survivability and specifically selected those traits in a way that made men better than women.

Fucking idiots

This statement is far more ignorant than the one in the OP. Evolution does not work that way. Evolution didn't "decide" (well, anything, but to use your terminology) to make men better at an arbitrary game using an egg-shaped rubber ball. But through evolution, men in general can run faster and throw farther than women, and these traits lead to superior football performance among men.

Similarly, evolutionary forces might lead men to be more aggressive, seeking to take things by force if necessary, while women might be more predisposed to selflessness and generosity. And I would expect the former attitude to be more useful in negotiation (especially in a male-dominated society: if the person at the other end of the table is willing to play hardball, those who don't get screwed).

Of course, there's also certainly a social component as well, and their relative magnitudes are difficult to estimate without any data to go over. I'm not trying to say the guy in the OP is right about everything. Just this notion of "evolution cannot possibly create biological differences that would impact performance in modern society" is laughable.

 

[MeatGrinder]

I had to google chores to see what it really was... Am I part of the problem?

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I guess men are just genetically predisposed to being oppressive.

 

[ShiroAmakusa]

Of course there is a genetic reason for the discrimination women have to deal with, it's called the Y chromosome!

 

[FyreWulff]

Strange how industries that moved to blind auditions suddenly start hiring a workforce more reflective of the total populace as well

hmm

hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Famassu]

men have more testosterone, they are less afraid of taking risk, are more bold, no surprise they would try to negotiate more

"Trying to negotiate more" does not equate to "better negotiators", as has been pointed out it's much harder for women even when they are being more aggressive, bolder risk takers.

 

[CrunchyB]

Strange how industries that moved to blind auditions suddenly start hiring a workforce more reflective of the total populace as well

hmm

hmmmmmmmmm

Of course, people (not just men) are actually terribly subjective decision-makers. We are influenced by the ff-ing weather (and height, physical attractiveness, skin color, pitch of voice, etc), of course we would be influenced by gender, even though this is largely irrelevant.

There is no real solution other than taking humans out of the equation (hiring people by algorithm) but good luck with that. People are going to be people, we suck at cold, objective logic but pretend otherwise.

 

[snap0212]

What a shitty clickbait title.

He says that negotiation skills may be genetic and that he doesn't know. He also says he does know they can be improved (which is true). Nothing outraging about what he says...

 

[beato_angelico]

Because women get punished for being more assertive.

There is no link between being a woman and being able to do less. What DOES happen is when men suddenly become interested in a career field, it gets gender role'd and women are pushed out.

See: women were just as interested in comp sci until the mid 80s. What happened in the 80s? Working with computers became a "boys thing" and the family computer became something you put in your son's bedroom instead of the living room. Women were then pushed out of the field. Even the girls computer camp switched over to "it's about meeting boys":

(ad is from '83)

why did you comment the 80s decline and not the steeper mid-2000s decline?

 

[Famassu]

Of course, people (not just men) are actually terribly subjective decision-makers. We are influenced by the ff-ing weather (and height, physical attractiveness, skin color, pitch of voice, etc), of course we would be influenced by gender, even though this is largely irrelevant.

There is no real solution other than taking humans out of the equation (hiring people by algorithm) but good luck with that. People are going to be people, we suck at cold, objective logic but pretend otherwise.

Gender & looks could probably be taken out of the picture without relying on machines, at least in some workplaces. Just do it blind like hiring.

 

[vordhosbn]

Because women get punished for being more assertive.

There is no link between being a woman and being able to do less. What DOES happen is when men suddenly become interested in a career field, it gets gender role'd and women are pushed out.

See: women were just as interested in comp sci until the mid 80s. What happened in the 80s? Working with computers became a "boys thing" and the family computer became something you put in your son's bedroom instead of the living room. Women were then pushed out of the field. Even the girls computer camp switched over to "it's about meeting boys":

(ad is from '83)

Any other stance is willingly trying to ignore why the current state is caused by non-inherent reasons. The current state is because a bunch of men were and are still afraid that a woman getting a job or a raise means a job or money lost for a man. The status quo benefits those who win a penis in the genetic lottery and people will fall over each other trying to justify their status quo benefit for any other reason than pure chance of what they were born with between their legs.

Just imagine being bombarded with this shit just for having a vagina:

every day

every where

every moment

it becomes a mental and societal jail that becomes easier to survive by just playing along. It still fucking happens. People are still fighting against equal pay and want to destroy the Lily Ledbetter Act and any chance of an amendment to the constitution that simply states women are equal to men.

Why do people who think the computer programming is the now as it was in the 1960s. At least do basic research, it didn't get "gender roled" unless maths, chemistry and physics also have been.

 

[mclem]

TAMPA — A state higher education official said colleges should teach women how to negotiate better salaries, saying there may be a ”genetic" explanation for why female graduates of the state's public universities make less money than their male peers.

Well, er, yes. Possession of a Y chromosome leads to greater salaries.

No-one knows why. Must be magic.

 

[vordhosbn]

why did you comment the 80s decline and not the steeper mid-2000s decline?

Its definitely a cultural reason and many girls feel they can't do it (and that should change along with other hard science subjects).

but there's no active conspiracy in the computer science field to keep women out, nor do men feel threatened. thats utter bullshit.

 

[FyreWulff]

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

https://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

it didn't get "gender roled"

https://qz.com/911737/silicon-valle...sult-of-computer-game-marketing-20-years-ago/

it didn't get "gender roled"

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

it didn't get "gender roled"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i08CVkBxvBM

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

it didn't get "gender roled"

 

[FyreWulff]

or we could spend six pages debunking bullshit evopsych about how women can't math as well even though the only reason we got to the moon was due to a woman's programming skills, say hello to Margaret Hamilton

But go ahead, I'll give you a two page head start to show your ass

 

[Platy]

Here is a good tumblr post that I like about the pay gap

http://prokopetz.tumblr.com/post/142012107447/athelind-prokopetz-yknow-ive-seen-all

Y'know, I've seen all these complicated psychological analyses of why women are statistically less likely to ask for raises and promotions than men, yet the most widely cited ones never even touch on something really, really basic.

As a dude, if I go to my boss and ask for a raise, I can be 99.9% certain he's not going to respond:

”Sure, I'll give you a raise if you give me a blowjob."

Ladies don't have that assurance - and there's no good response to that proposition. Agree? Now every tiny concession is going to be contingent on further sexual favours. Refuse? In his mind, you've sexually humiliated him, and he's going to make it his personal mission to destroy you. Report it? It's your word against his, and he's automatically the more credible party.

And this ain't a rare scenario. I've worked corporate on both sides of the employee/management divide, and currently own a business myself, and from what I've seen, it happens all the time.

It is not difficult to discern why a person might be reluctant to do a thing when there's a non-trivial probability that some prick in a suit will respond by ruining her life, is what I'm saying.

-----------------

Solution:

Keep your phone on RECORD when you ask for a raise.

---------------------

That's certainly a good idea, but it sort of underscores the issue: if you need to play Mission Fucking Impossible in order to do a thing (relatively) safely, that's a pretty strong disincentive against doing it at all.