interviewing.io is a platform where people can practice technical interviewing anonymously. Its described as a collaborative coding environment with voice, text chat, and a whiteboard
Over time they noticed a "disparity in interview performance on the platform between men and women."
We had amassed over a thousand interviews with enough data to do some comparisons and were surprised to discover that women really were doing worse. Specifically, men were getting advanced to the next round 1.4 times more often than women. Interviewee technical score wasn't faring that well either — men on the platform had an average technical score of 3 out of 4, as compared to a 2.5 out of 4 for women.
They decided to run an experiment to investigate bias against women in technical interviews. They did this by making men sound like women and women sound like men and then looked at how that affected interview performance.
Result?
Contrary to what we expected, masking gender had no effect on interview performance with respect to any of the scoring criteria (would advance to next round, technical ability, problem solving ability).
So whats going on?
Women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview. And the numbers for two bad interviews aren't much better.
However...
Once you factor out interview data from both men and women who quit after one or two bad interviews, the disparity goes away entirely. So while the attrition numbers aren't great, I'm massively encouraged by the fact that at least in these findings, it's not about systemic bias against women or women being bad at computers or whatever. Rather, it's about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.
The article is worth reading in full as there's a bunch of details.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:25PM
But my preconceived notions! My social justice!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:51PM
Obviously the act of interviewing is sexist. A better method must be devised in which women outperform men.
Rather, it's about women being bad at dusting themselves off after failing, which, despite everything, is probably a lot easier to fix.
Given how much time and effort is invested in the rampant sexism narrative, that would be asking some people to admit they are wrong and have a moment of reflection on how to improve.
In short, never going to happen when it is so much easier to exclaim "patriarchy" at every personal shortcoming.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:36PM
I have it on good authority [wikipedia.org] that women just need to trust to karma.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:47PM
I am sure someone will say this test was somehow sexist and invalid.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:57PM
Found two for you on TFA. Here's V Y's comment. tl;dr “The method used is sexist because women are discouraged from STEM careers beforehand.” (Emphasis mine.)
Thank you for posting this. It was an interesting read, and I look forward to seeing any future results as you continue to look at this.
I wanted to suggest that if we divide people into the (false but useful for these purposes) binary of women and men and look at average starting points on your theoretical attrition curve, we shouldn’t expect them to be in the same place. That is, by the time women are at the stage of being interviewed for jobs, they have, on average, encountered quite a number more potential attrition events. I am a PhD candidate in a STEM field and I have always had a great love of mathematics. I started getting discouraging feedback even as a child, but there was plenty more to come in university. There are more formal results that suggest this is not an atypical experience for women, and that women encounter this type of negative feedback more often than men do in STEM. So one possibility is that women and men have the same attrition curve, but women are generally much further along it by the time they are at the interview stage. But even if it is not the case that the curve is the same, I would still expect women to be further along their curve. (Assuming, of course, that it even works to have such a curve. I recognise that in that part of the article you were more just musing on the topic and not presenting it as solid data, and I am similarly participating in this type of thinking out loud. It’s quite possible that a single curve like this lacks the right parameters to really model it.) I mean, hell, even just reading these comments there are far more people insisting that women just aren’t as good at tech than there are suggesting that men aren’t as good at tech. The worst position men seem to be put in is of being merely the same as women. What is the cumulative effect of seeing this in the comments of every piece on this topic? Does that push any women further along their attrition curve?
Another alternative is this:
If the disparity disappears once you weed out people who quit after one or two interviews, then perhaps it isn’t really about which gender dusts themselves off better but some other parameter that happens to have been correlated with gender for non-direct reasons. It’s possible you happen to have more women than men who are near that “final straw” point when entering the interviews, and that people already considering giving up don’t perform as well in interviews. Especially since for those remaining people the performance seems even across gender.
*snip*
Here's jupitaur:
Maybe women are less likely to go through a bunch of work-based rejections because their experience is that rejections are going to just be followed by more rejections and never an acceptance. Maybe women give up because it’s the rational thing to do after doing well in interviews and never getting called or always coming in second place.
You can’t assume all other conditions being equal for these women because they’re not.
So here you have it! Until you learn how to mind control womyn-born-womyn, you are a misogynist shitlord who's preventing womyn-born-womyn from being programmers!
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Friday July 01 2016, @06:08AM
“The method used is sexist because women are discouraged from STEM careers beforehand.”
In my opinion, that doesn't make the methods used in this study, sexist. If anything is "sexist" here it is the way in which our society socializes girls and women not to pursue STEM and to not "dust themselves off after failing".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @08:32AM
Surprisingly though we still have artists of all types even though society generally frowns on such pursuits in favor of more stable careers.
How can it be the messages directed at women affect them so deeply compared to others who go into the arts?
At some point, you have to shit or get off the pot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @01:28PM
It's more likely women grow up facing less rejection than men, and are unable to deal with it.
Think back on all the women that asked you out for a date and paid for your meal. Now how often did the reverse of that occur? How many turned you down? How many did youbturn down?
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 01 2016, @02:10PM
Exactly. Everything I've been saying since the Misogynerd Narrative got started. It doesn't matter how many assigned males get flogged over the issue, women programmers will continue to fail to materialize out of the æther. If you try to mentor a woman programmer, you will be on the hook for every last thing she doesn't want to spend the effort to understand.
The only thing to do is just collectively say we're through with it. If women want to be programmers, they're on their fucking own.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:16AM
What's funny is that women are 200% preferred over men on STEM [cornell.edu].
The attached video has been deleted since this article was posted. I am sure the bossy mam [banbossy.com] didn't like it :P
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:05PM
In a deep voice: "Oh mi God, ponies! he he he..."
(Score: 1) by letssee on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:44PM
gender => nerd
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @05:04AM
Is there a Nerd-to-Normal converter? I'll take 3.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:07PM
That was my thought. The change would probably muddy the waters significantly between feminine women and feminine men as well as masculine women and masculine men, but people would still have a sense of who they are based upon word choices and the ideas they express.
That being said, I think this could be a useful tool in reducing discrimination by making it easier for employers to ignore things that aren't relevant to the actual job and could somewhat reduce the need for current style affirmative action programs.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:09PM
The part of the article not in the summary mentions that women's self-perception is part of the issue. They're similarly critical of themselves as men, but don't handle the rejection as well.
Maybe men's testosterone and societal norms insulate them from this relative to women?
We see this as far back as middle school where "math isn't for girls" causes even excellent female math students to let up on their mastery of the subject.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:20PM
There was a bit on a show where women couldn't rely on their looks and had to try and score free drinks from men.
Needless to say it didn't go very well.
Given the expectations for men, it seems obvious to me that regardless of the victimhood status, women are heavily coddled in western society to where even normal rejection is a severe crisis.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:36PM
The study they quoted does say normal sexual rejection is felt more painfully by women, as women are not used to being turned down for sex with a new partner when they are willing and it generally causes negative introspection. [researchgate.net]
So there may be some truth in your broader assertion that women find other rejections more painful as well, especially in areas they do not expect it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:24PM
This fits with a notion of mine that biology dictates the behavior of the sexes, specifically that men ask women for their favor far more often than the reverse, and consequently suffer far more rejection. There's the old saw "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." And that is rooted in the simple fact of biology that having a child is far more burdensome to the woman.
Still, should be cautious about the obvious conclusions. Do men learn to handle rejection better through more conditioning, or is it innate, that is have men evolved to deal with rejection? Or is the whole idea nonsense? There are many cases where men handle sexual rejection very badly. And surely everyone, women and men, has had to deal with all kinds of rejection outside of sex life. Didn't get accepted at some school, didn't make the team, whether that be sports related or not, denied membership in some group, or, heck, simply parental denial of some privilege, in punishment for being naughty.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:07PM
Still, should be cautious about the obvious conclusions. Do men learn to handle rejection better through more conditioning, or is it innate, that is have men evolved to deal with rejection?
The later is quite unlikely. It might be plausible if humans had the nervous system of an insect. But human brain capacity and plasticity is the one trait that puts way ahead of all other animals. The fact that people can learn new neural pathways to compensate for massive brain damage shows just how flexible our brains are. For example, the man who lost ~80% of his brain beginning at about 13 years of age [realclearscience.com] and grew up to be almost completely normal, so normal that he held a white-collar job and no one realized his brain was gone until he was 44 years old and went in for a brain scan because of a temporary weakness in one leg.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:20AM
(Emphasis mine)
We assume because we are sexist but are only trained to care about women and children. Once you have a kid and you aren't indoctrinated into raising them as per societal norms, you will see that real discrimination is only between two genders - "can give birth" and "can't give birth".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @11:11AM
men ask women for their favor far more often than the reverse
While that may be true in modern "western" society I'm not so sure whether this has been true for much of human history. Did Genghis Khan and his kin bother asking the women they bred with for their favor?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/08/1-in-200-men-direct-descendants-of-genghis-khan/ [discovermagazine.com]
Do men learn to handle rejection better through more conditioning, or is it innate, that is have men evolved to deal with rejection?
I suspect it's mostly innate. More boys and men don't give as much fuck about what other people think (the saner ones do still give some fuck since others esp guys might kill us of course). Same reason why more men are pioneers, CEOs, dictators, inventors, nutjobs, batshit insane...
And youtube has plenty of evidence that far more young men are stupid enough to not give a fuck about what the laws of physics, chemistry etc say. Many know how stuff works and yet they still go do the crazy things they do AND do it on video. If they succeed they go in the "Humans are Awesome" videos, if they fail spectacularly they go in the "Greatest Fails" videos ;).
You put a fence around a boy and a boy is more likely to try to get over/under it or break it or knock it down and a girl is more likely to cry/ask for help. There are plenty of exceptions of course but the curves are different. Just have to look at a playground and compare how the little boys play vs the little girls. More boys will be wrestling/punching each other than the girls do. The girls tend to talk to each other more. Yeah there will be tomboy girls, but they'll be the first to tell you they aren't like the other girls.
And when the time comes to turn off the emotions and to try to make optimal decision whether for ourselves or for some greater good, us guys can more easily do it (our brains are literally not so well connected). More women who would go "I'd never pass the ball to her" in some sport/activity because that teammate wronged her in some way. Their emotions get the better of them.
More of us guys know that sometimes you just have to do it for the good of the team/tribe, you still have to support the bastard even if you hate his guts. Maybe you can backstab the guy or frag him once you're sure the main enemy has been defeated (and make it look like the enemy did it), but meanwhile you fight as a team or everyone loses...
See also:
http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030918/full/news030915-8.html [nature.com]
Only female monkeys show this pique, the researchers found. Males were much less sensitive to inequality. Their minds may have been on other things, says Janson: "Males care about sex, and females care about food. The males might not consider the food differences worth worrying about."
Yeah or maybe the males don't give as much fuck about petty stuff like cucumbers and grapes when they're trapped in frigging cages? The big picture is you're trapped and the enemy can do whatever they like to you, so what do you do that means you get tortured or toyed with less? ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:12PM
There was a bit on a show where women couldn't rely on their looks and had to try and score free drinks from men.
Needless to say it didn't go very well.
You mean it went just as well as it normally goes for plain looking women.
Society coddles the attractive regardless of gender. Beauty is scarce and that scarcity commands a price.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:04PM
Uh, no.
Even plain looking women don't have to put themselves out there and can rationalize no one taking an interest in them after the fact.
Far different than, since it was a competition, having to ask men and women for free drinks and being rejected out of hand time and time again, and welling into a bundle of tears having to face that rejection, and then having some revelation as to what it must be like for guys.
Nevermind the sexism of buying drinks for women being the social norm.
Part of the feminist argument is that coddling women is a manifestation of patriarchy.
So fine, let them stand on their own two feet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:29PM
> Even plain looking women don't have to put themselves out there and can rationalize no one taking an interest in them after the fact.
Maybe you buy drinks for ugly girls, but most men do not.
> Nevermind the sexism of buying drinks for women being the social norm.
That is absolutely true. And it is rooted in the long history of women not having as much money to spend on dating due to limited job prospects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:53PM
Beauty is relative to what it is compared to. Even a not so physically attractive girl will garner much attention (both good and bad) in something like an RPG group of mostly males.
Not mention you forget some of the girls had to win the competition. Those were the ones who kept on and seemingly had more to offer than looks (although none of them were particularly hideous).
And just looking at every. single. tech. initiative directed exclusively at women, it's hard not to view women as coddled, and unwillingness to try harder instead of expecting a job to be given to them being the latest episode.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:48PM
> Not mention you forget some of the girls had to win the competition.
I forget nothing. As far as anyone here knows you made it up and keep going back to the well as your biases as revealed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @01:35PM
It was on a damn reality show, beauty and the nerd.
Go watch it first, before you start spouting your mouth off and proving how much of a little SJW twat you are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:02PM
Maybe men are just better at delusions.
(Score: 2) by jmoschner on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:37PM
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls [psychologytoday.com]
It has been shown that girls give up before boys do, even when they are smarter. Studying 5th grade girls, who are usually out performing boys at that age, it was found that girls give up when presented with new challenges and that the smarter the girl, the more likely she is to quit. This was not so with the boys. Researcher found "more often than not, bright girls believe that their abilities are innate and unchangeable, while bright boys believe that they can develop ability through effort and practice."
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:24AM
Any smart person will realize that being a ungreased cog in corporate machinery adds zero value to life. Men do it because they want to have a family, or buy the next console, or Barcelona Tees, while women know they can get easy money by sticking around a man. It is only because of male chauvinism inherent in society that teaches men to live a compromised life to provide and protect women and children and "be a man", plus I suppose men seek a certain kind of satisfaction in 'finally taming' a woman. It is only smart to live a woman's life.
(Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday July 01 2016, @11:50AM
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:15PM
Women quit, guys get pissed...its as simple as that. I have noticed this playing MMOs with my wife, if she doesn't do reasonably well in the game right off the bat? She just quits and moves on, whereas I get pissed and say to myself "Oh HELL no, you aren't gonna beat ME!" and git gud at the game.
It sounds like this attitude is carried in other arenas and I have to wonder...is it because women have more options? The SJWs can scream "sexist!" all the want but most women don't HAVE to take that job, its really not hard for a women to find a man that is willing to throw money at them, hell one of my wife's friends weighs over 300 pounds and has a guy that throws hundreds of dollars at her every month and she doesn't even sleep with the guy. Its really not hard for a woman to be a little flirty with a guy and have him just throw money at her, lots of desperate lonely guys out there so I have to wonder if its because most women always have other options whereas a guy its either work or starve so we have to fight for it and keep getting back in the ring.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday July 01 2016, @12:08AM
That isn't it at all.
It's because women were taught that the way to get ahead was to to *not* advocate for themselves, that being too determined would turn her into a "bitch", and that it was better to back off in order to keep the men around them happy. A lot of women learned that lesson from their mother, who learned that as a survival strategy from the generation before her, and so on.
All those times you were told to "buck up", "fight back", and "tough it out", your sisters were being taught the exact opposite strategy for dealing with adversity: "ask for help", "let your friends know, and support her in her time of need", "stay polite no matter what". All those times you were encouraged to try something and fail completely, girls were being taught to ask for expert advice instead.
So why should it be any surprise when people act exactly the way they've been trained to act?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @01:43AM
So which is it?
On the one hand you have a dearth of women's contributions to civilization which is rationalized by women being told not to meddle in such things, yet on the other you have women being told the way to get ahead is to not assert themselves.
After a few millennia even with the best of social conditioning, women would be able to take inventory of the situation and chart a different course. Not to mention you'd have to explain why this sudden change in consciousness with women in the past few hundred years as compare to several thousand, not to mention any changes in the social conditioning since then.
And none of this changes the fact women do have different options than men.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:42AM
We as a society are sensitized to look at women's problem. For conservatives it is a matter of honor, for liberals it is about dismantling whatever the fuck they have found a label for.
The reality is that while women were being taught to complain and be a victim, men were being taught to 'shrug it off' and 'be a man'. Rape threats, death threats - the reality is that geeks have faced it all and much before women have. There is ample study to prove that social shaming and 'bitching' and being a victim can be seen in groups of girl children from age of 6 months and above (so no, social conditioning is not at work here). Then there is the little fact of women [ncjrs.gov] are the safest demographic [fbi.gov] since ever [fbi.gov].
The true reality is that we have always lived in a world where all women were under attack by all men except us. We have always lived in a world where women were being protected and provided for. Its just that it was historically very over sexism and everyone accepted that women are to be protected because of their ability to give birth. But since WW2 women have stepped outside of household and and expect to be treated with same niceties and hence you can't overtly state this anymore. Sexist against men is still just fine.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday July 01 2016, @05:05PM
For being murdered, yes. For being assaulted and/or raped, definitely not.
The true reality is that we live in a world right now where a significant minority of men will commit rape if they think they can get away with it, and a non-negligible number of men will commit murder against women that are either their intimate partner or refused to be their intimate partner. And those minorities are large enough that the safest thing for women to do is assume that all men are potentially a threat until they see evidence to the contrary.
In some societies, the way that threat was handled was for women to be effectively under the protection of a male relative or her husband. In modern Western society, that doesn't work, because women (rightfully in my view) have claimed the right to go where they please without having a guy around to protect her. Indeed, modern Westerners often make fun of Saudis and Iranians and such for enforcing the "male relative or husband" rules.
And I agree men should not be murdered at the rate they are. That's wrong too, but that doesn't make what happens to women OK. And if you don't believe me, get to know some women who have been on the receiving end of that violence - they aren't hard to find.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @06:07PM
For being murdered, yes. For being assaulted and/or raped, definitely not.
Actually, per the BJS men have the highest rates of victimization for all violent crime except rape (debatable since PREA only came into effect recently), domestic violence (best statistics suggest this is more or less equal between the sexes), and kidnapping. And the total numbers far exceed those three. To highlight specific incidences is disingenuous: males bear the brunt of violence.
And those minorities are large enough that the safest thing for women to do is assume that all men are potentially a threat until they see evidence to the contrary.
Ah, Schrodinger's Rapist.
And if you apply the same logic to blacks (responsible for the largest portion of crime, statistically speaking), you are a racist. Apply it to men, you are just being safe.
Or paranoid. Take your pick.
https://nplusonemag.com/issue-13/politics/raise-the-crime-rate/ [nplusonemag.com]
http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm [csulb.edu]
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 [aphapublications.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @07:27PM
Ah, the rape statistics. Where rape of women is happens because of unconsensual sexual act, but rape of men doesn't happen because of lack of penetration, or because penetration happens when penis is erect and he is enjoying it.
Domestic violence is initiated by women more often than men. Such is the data.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @02:49AM
What mastery of the subject? Schools almost never teach math, but instead teach people to memorize a lot of facts about math. Math isn't just about solving arbitrary math problems stated in the simplest ways possible by recalling facts, but having a deep understanding of how and why it all works. Memorizing proofs isn't enough to understand it, either.
I laugh whenever someone acts as if getting an A in math class at some school necessarily means the student truly understands the subject. It shows that we as a society do not truly value education.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:11PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbp6oRXFAd4 [youtube.com]
Mamas, don't let your daughters grow up to be sissies . . . .
Some of you may be more amused by this version - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7OR7qJjE4c [youtube.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:19PM
And yet when women like me DO fight, DO show ourselves to be the equal of our male colleagues in a given field, we get everything from social rejection to death threats. I will never forget the tiny, alcoholic Geek Squad guy I used to work with back when I was still stuck in retail. This asshole threatened to "rape me straight and show me my place." My crime was finishing off one of the machines assigned to him for data recovery because it was overdue and he left early. It's...not a smart to threaten to rape someone who's half a foot taller and at least 20 pounds heavier than you...
We can never make people like you happy though, can we? You'll just say we don't "know our place." Me, I stopped caring a long fucking time ago and do good work because it's the right thing to do. But it still makes me twitch when someone goes "honey can I speak to the technican" at the new place; I *am* the technician, and it took an hour with some rather arcane tools to undelete your precious hentai collection from that dusty old drive...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:11PM
Look, losers are losers. Any time they can feel superior to someone else, they will, even if its just being nasty. You made a tiny, depressed alcoholic feel worse and he retaliated. Maybe he would have said something about "beating you up" if you had been a guy, maybe he's using sexism as a reason to really feel superior as opposed to a way of tuning his asshole-ness..
But then, you generalize to the GP feeling the same way (with "you people") i. Which was wrong of you. He made a fairly valid point - all too often women are conditioned from a young age to avoid confrontation. They should be taught to stand up for what they want.
I don't know why you would think he wasn't being truthful. Heck, he could have been a she. (Unless you are unaware of the famous "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys" song, and didn't follow links to same.)
Lastly, on a personal note, if you are taking the time to comment on SoylentNews in the way you did, I doubt "[you] stopped caring a long fucking time ago."
(Score: 2, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:13PM
Did you not read what had provoked the threat?
My crime was finishing off one of the machines assigned to him for data recovery because it was overdue and he left early.
Given that it was overdue and he left early, he'd better damned well feed bad.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Friday July 01 2016, @05:48AM
Oh, of course what provoked the threat was something like that. Before that he felt inferior - you said you were young, had potential and probably other reasons. From that state, you made him feel worse.
If you had failed at something, he would have felt better about himself, and not lashed out.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:46AM
Sometimes it is about competition. Sexism got involved because we live in a culture of fear mongering, thanks to feminists. Workplace harassment of men is close to 99%, while rape threats and death threats are given to a boy if he wears his spectacles to school.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 01 2016, @05:18PM
What the fuck are talking about? Who bullies someone for wearing glasses these days? And I'd like to see both your definition of "workplace harassment" and some reliable sources for your 99% claim...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @07:31PM
When you live in a society where men who cry are called "whiny", "baby" and men's rights activists are silenced as misogynists instead of hearing them out, you tend to find truth unbelievable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 01 2016, @08:16PM
And white people are being discriminated against and Christians are being persecuted too, right? Source or shut the hell up.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:19PM
Me, I stopped caring a long fucking time ago
so that's why you constantly bring it up huh
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:58PM
From the replies you've gotten,i can see why the anger... guys can be dicks (but so can ladies, too)
We ARE the most intelligent species on earth, sigh. Dog help us all.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:12PM
So given how men have been demonized in the tech field, and every effort to tip the scales towards women, what does this say about female entitlement?
Next will be guidelines on how to make interviews more approachable to women, as if the study wasn't sexist to begin with.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:14PM
People are continually on the hunt for some excuse why women don't excel in every single field (apart of course those fields where they do).
Sounds like a lack of perseverance in this case. Programming is one of those fields where tenacity is a basic requirement. Don't have it, you won't do well on the job.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by rondon on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:32PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that this hasn't turned into a "Haha, women really do suck!!!" echo chamber, although there is definitely a flavor of AC that is going whole hog on that right now.
My take, which I'm sure nobody has asked for, is that there is definitely a societal issue (reinforced more by women than by men, in my anecdotal evidence) that women who are good at something should excel; if they don't excel, they are expected to look for something else to do. In my experiences, I was also guided to only focus on what I would excel at in school, but in sports and other pursuits I was highly encouraged to participate even if I wasn't very good.
Example - our highschool football team did not cut anybody, and the kids who could not play for medical reasons were encouraged to be managers or water-boys, etc. However, the cheerleaders who cheered for that team cut over half of the applicants from the team and actively dissuaded girls who weren't "good enough" from even trying out.
Perhaps we should be engendering a "try hard" mentality in all of our youth instead of some proportion between half and 100%?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:49PM
Given that women who kill their children are given every sympathy, and even PMS has been used as a self-defense for murder, it seems there is absolutely no action by women that isn't looked at through rose-tinted lens. It is equally as valid to say "suck it up, buttercup" as a response to women's inability to perform. That's not echo camber, that's criticism.
My highschool football team required underperformers to wear a barely padded football helmet during practice, emblazoned with words like 'wimp" and "weak".
Do you suppose women would respond well to that type of try hard mentality? Do you think they've ever been exposed to anything like that at all?
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:06PM
While I disagree whole-heartedly with children being forced to wear a "dunce's cap" in a contact sport with NO FREAKING PADDING, I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that we should be more egalitarian in the way we motivate boys and girls.
If you would say "suck it up, buttercup" to a boy in a certain seeting, I would expect that you would and should also say that to a girl in the same setting.
I honestly think many on both sides of the gender issue are arguing for egalitarian treatment of people, but in very different and very lopsided ways.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:49AM
We have a tendency to call everything related to women as 'societal pressure'. Relaxing is not societal pressure, it is privilege. This kind of thinking is why so many women make false accusations - "it was societal pressure, not me". They aren't children you know? If you want someone to react like a grown-up, treat them like a grown-up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DutchUncle on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:40PM
>> Women leave interviewing.io roughly 7 times as often as men after they do badly in an interview.
Men hear "You're gonna run that play again until you get it right!"
Women hear "I guess that's not your game, why don't you try something else?"
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Friday July 01 2016, @09:51AM
Men here, "You are a loser and a nobody. You need to leave this house by the end of this month and your girlfriend was right to dump your lazy bum.".
Women hear "I guess that's not your game, why don't you try something else?"
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:48PM
I've read similar issues related to asking for raises and promotions. The inherently "robust" ego of men results in them pushing ahead despite a possible lack of ability. After a while management may expect people to toot their own horns for raises and promotions such that they don't have to initiate it. After being conditioned that way, a manager may be inclined to not actively evaluate all of their staff.
(Score: 1, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:54PM
Aline Lerner is a traitor to her own gender! Revoke her bathroom privileges!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:19PM
At least she's a fish, ya fruit.
(Score: -1, Troll) by zugedneb on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:25PM
imagine all those men who just wanted to escape the social shit and work with tech...
including me...
but let me say this: the way women fight for what they think is theirs is like pissing against the wind.
eventually, it will be so troublesome to deal with women for companies and organisations, that it will become the norm to reject women...
my limited experience is that with woman things get emotional and personal rather fast; opposition becomes ad hominem... it takes "special" skillz to deal with women...
since they are the mothers of the human race, i do not say that they should die in starvation cuz of unemployment...
they should take what the husband they choose has to give them, or welfare, and just fuck off into oblivion until we can get a technological solution for future of hummanity without the need of making woman pregnant.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:51PM
There was a patriarchal solution to this, gender-specific occupations like nursing and teaching. It goes against humanity's inherent free will to force it, however.
Some people are ill-adjusted to not getting what they want, and how men and women handle that is different. A man will often be an outright asshole and demand his wishes be granted, but a woman is more likely to subtly undermine and obstruct; destruction versus decay. Those people take special handling to deal with, usually scotch and management's backing.
Women's different processing of information makes them invaluable to my teams, in my experience, because they're wired to see things differently and will come up with solutions that groups of men won't conjure. But saying that you "just wanted to escape the social shit and work in tech" and need "special skillz" to deal with all women might indicate the problem is you.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:03PM
But saying that you "just wanted to escape the social shit and work in tech" and need "special skillz" to deal with all women might indicate the problem is you.
as much was implied...
also, i did not start the war, and have no reason to enjoy it, thus, i try to escape...
-zug
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:52PM
Socialites have invaded and taken over tech. It's all about advertising and social media now. For nerdy losers who were born around the time of the personal computer revolution, and who never socialized because their technical development seemed more important, there is no future left in tech. Old timey nerds are one layoff away from being eliminated from society entirely. Better vote for basic income, they're going to need it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:50PM
the way women fight for what they think is theirs is like pissing against the wind.
eventually, it will be so troublesome to deal with women for companies and organisations, that it will become the norm to reject women...
Hello, McFly?
It was the norm to reject women.
It is only because women started being "troublesome" that men started to improve.
The percentage of female doctors didn't go from less than 10% in 1970 to just under a third by 2010 [thinkprogress.org] because men decided to hand out medical degrees to women who asked nicely.
If you don't fight for your rights, you won't get them.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:47PM
How does that make any sense?
If women are more put off by personal failure, and more likely to give up, Would that not skew the site in favour of them? If the failures leave, then that just leaves the more talented women...
Think of it this way. Assume we have a population where the average IQ for men was 100 and for women was 100. We have them take IQ tests every week. Now, we find that the ones who score low are far more likely to give up and stop taking the IQ tests, leaving the system. Overall this would skew the average IQ upwards (in the same way as how the average IQ in college is no longer 100, it has skewed upwards). But we also find that women are more affected by this, it is only common sense that this population would skew for women having high IQs.
(Score: 1) by letssee on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:55PM
As I understood it. Males had more success per interview. Where males failed at first, they stayed at the site and got better at interviewing, thus pulling up the male average. While most women dropped after the first (or second) failure, so they never got past the point of enough practice to succeed.
If they ignored all persons who dropped out after 2 failed interviews (and so kept only the people who stuck to it even after failing a few times) they difference between males and females disappeared.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:43PM
So, you're assuming (1) a static population with only attrition and (2) measuring does not change results. I believe both of those are false.
First, we assume that, like all skills, interviewing is a skill that increases with time. So, other factors being equal, a 6-interview veteran is better than a 0-interview veteran. That means that if men have a population of 50% 6+ veterans and 50% 0 interview veterans, you would expect them to score higher than women, with 10% 6+ veterans and 90% 0 interview veterans.
Second, there are more factors than just attrition. People are also constantly joining the site. Assuming that the ratios of genders among joiners remain constant over time, that means that recent joiners are going to be a higher percentage of women. And hence, 0-interview veterans, which we discussed above.
But, as you point out, what about skill. Attrition could be totally random other than gender (30% of interviews are total jerks that make you want to quit, 70% are supernice, women are more likely to quit after they hit a jerk), or totally nonrandom (good candidates stay, bad candidates leave). My analysis holds in the first, yours in the second. In reality, it's a mix of the two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @07:59PM
Based on the other study someone linked to above, about more intelligent girls being quicker to give up on difficult problems, it seems to imply that, if you had a comparable distribution of talent between men and women before the first interview, that those who drop out early are also more likely to be the theoretical 'best'. Thus, when the overall ratings are calculated, the women's score is going to be lower because the best of them won't be in the sample population anymore.
Your assumption is that the worst of them drop out early because they didn't do well, which would imply skewing the overall results upwards. Instead, it seems likely that the best of them drop out early because they didn't do as well as they thought they should have, which skews the overall results downwards.
(Score: 2) by SDRefugee on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:50PM
I'm a retired sysadmin, not a developer, I wonder if they'll sysadmin interviews.. Been trying to keep up with changes in the industry since I retired, and it would be fun to see how I'd do with a *real* interview....
America should be proud of Edward Snowden, the hero, whether they know it or not..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @09:01PM
"Do you Docker bro?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @08:36AM
I WAS BORN WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO MODULATE THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE. [youtube.com]