Facebook Rejects Female Engineers’ Code More Often

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
when i say boiled bacon i gag.

then i googled it.

why? why is this a thing?!

Because people are shitty cooks and don't have taste buds. People are so used to eating garbage that they now like the taste of garbage. This is why companies get away with 50% of the processed garbage sold on store shelves.
 

percydaman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
294
I'm representing you perfectly, as the smug, logically challenged, emotionally motivated shallow thinker you are. You can save your demands about what I will and will not say, you won't find me compliant.

I'll keep it short and simple. Is there a difference, on average, in the relative strength in areas of aptitude between men and women, which would go a long way towards explaining the outcomes we see?

You will never accept that the results could very well be because of the males producing superior code. The possibility can not be there, you insist. This is quite common these days, and ironically those who preordain that drawing certain conclusions is forbidden, not because of evidence, but for other reasons, often crow about how open minded they are.

You may be right. But you may also be wrong. Don't forget the decades and decades of forced gender stereotyping that has gone on in this country. Had a boy? Here give him stuff to build. Had a girl? Here give them dolls and barbies and such. Let me just preface this by saying I'm not PC. Man I really hate that shit with a passion. But I'm objective enough to see that there is nature, and then there is nurture. And how much contributes to an individual can be really hard to quantify. You've thrown out alot of assumptions that I'd like to see some evidence of. My guess is if I'm being totally objective, that there is probably some of both going on. It's entirely possible that on 'average' males could very well be better at coding. And that equal opportunity hiring has gotten FB some good coders, but possibly not great coders. Who knows. But we also can't forget that it's absolutely true that alot of women who go into the field face actual discrimination and aren't always treated with respect. They frequently find themselves in a workplace dominated by males that might not always have the best social graces, for whatever reason. I'm not sure how you fix all these issues except to try and encourage girls and boys to get interested in these disciplines from an early age. And to treat each other with the respect they would themselves wish to be treated.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
Clipped from Facebook's response "Any meaningful discrepancy based on the complete data is clearly attributable not to gender but to seniority of the employee."

They go on to state that significantly more men are promoted to higher swe ranks than women compared to their hiring percentages.

Basically, women are either passed over for promotions or quit more frequently than men. That sounds like a problem to me.

Only a problem if you ignore everything else and make assumptions that anything negative must be from discrimination.

In the job market as a WHOLE, women leave the job field far more often then men do, and have huge turn over rates to men. The main impact of this is because of family, family effects women negatively in the job and earning area (that does not mean family is a negative, only speaking to job impact), when a women gets married and/or has kids, they tend to leave the job market as a whole or step down from demanding jobs and take positions lower down with more flexible hours. While for men, getting married or having kids has a positive effect on their job or earnings, they tend to work more hours and push harder for advancement. This is a social convention as well as a biological one, as men can't have kids, so the choice of a family to keep the male working is actually the logical one, as he can have more continuous work experience and take more demanding jobs, with longer hours or more responsibility.

As such, men and women have equal rights and opportunity, however they do NOT have equal outcome, which is what people are actually talking about. Opportunity and outcome are NOT the same, nor should they be.
 

Kalabalana

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,313
Because some people hate life and they are crying for attention and help? Or maybe they just want to watch the world burn and desecrate the remains of an animal while they are at it?
Boiling bacon is desecration I agree.
Yes, often when someone is presenting a negative viewpoint about others and not themselves it is representative of a desperate need for attention.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,684
That was kinda my point. Abused men are victims too, both of the actual violence, and a society which doesn't take them seriously. Sexism hurts almost everyone, often in different ways.



Did anyone here say this? People keep bringing up this strawman (straw-woman?) rather than debating the points raised in this discussion. Why are we talking about people who aren't here, and aren't even part of the OP report?



Citation required. (EDIT: it occurred to me that you might mean "men and women will never be the same" which is true. If you actually mean that, and not what you literally wrote ("never be equals"), let me know. There's more than a little difference in wording there.)

Also, and I don't know if this applies to you, but I've learned a lot of "soft skills" in the last couple of years that changed my perspective and it hasn't made me lust after dong. In fact, it's made me a lot better at getting clear requirements from clients, which means less time spent rebuilding projects.

Finally, gayMan != straightWoman. Like, not even close.


Men and women are built biologically different. This is how life is and always will be. Men are physically attracted to females, this is a biological fact and necessary for the human race to survive. There will always be a slight discrimination for whatever reason between men and women because of this. Men are suited for physical labor. Women are suited for hospitality and social services. It's why my HR department is run by 99% women and our security guards are 99% men. Most men will not find women threatening while most woman find men threatening. This is a fact of life that people just need to accept. Women and men will never be equals as long as they're interested in the opposite sex.
 

Kalabalana

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
1,313
LOL.

I've worked in tech for well over 30 years (you fucking newbs) as a developer.

I've seen women who could code their peers into the ground get nowhere and men who can't do shit without Stackoverflow make it to "partner." I've been on interview loops where women were passed over even though they were clearly more talented.

I've seen an entire Q/A department leadership cadre terminated because it was a fucking BYU/LDS frat-boy circle jerk club that only hired "hot chicks" then abused them constantly in email and in public. In addition to being assholes, they were shitty managers (unless you were Mormon (and a dude), then CA-CHING).

The dudebro techdouche thing is real.
Present in all facets of life, the socially despondent retreat to this mindset frequently.
This doesn't mean the abilities that lead to good code are evenly distributed across sexes.
Let's ask hard questions, not give easy fruitless answers.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Just put a woman voice in the AI software that's going to replace everyone at Facebook. Great success for feminism.
 

ruffbytes

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
447
While women engineer's code gets rejected more, it doesn't mean that there is a bias.

My sister is a manager in IT / data management / computer security for a health insurance company and is always very frustrated at articles like these because it portrays women as victims who need rescuing. She worked her way from the lowest ranked position in about five years and routinely out performed ALL of her peers.

A lot of the other women at her office hate her!
 

ZenDragon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
1,698
You win.

Code:
                    _.---._
                _.-~       ~-._
            _.-~               ~-._
        _.-~                       ~---._
    _.-~                                 ~\
.-~                                    _.;
:-._                               _.-~ ./
`-._~-._                   _..__.-~ _.-~
  /  ~-._~-._              / .__..--~----._
\_____(_;-._\.        _.-~_/       ~).. . \
    /(_____  \`--...--~_.-~______..-+_______)
  .(_________/`--...--~/    _/           /\
/-._     \_     (___./_..-~__.....__..-~./
`-._~-._   ~\--------~  .-~_..__.-~ _.-~
     ~-._~-._ ~---------'  / .__..--~
         ~-._\.        _.-~_/
             \`--...--~_.-~
              `--...--~
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,250
While women engineer's code gets rejected more, it doesn't mean that there is a bias.

My sister is a manager in IT / data management / computer security for a health insurance company and is always very frustrated at articles like these because it portrays women as victims who need rescuing. She worked her way from the lowest ranked position in about five years and routinely out performed ALL of her peers.

A lot of the other women at her office hate her!

An absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence either.

If a pattern is being noticed, it might be worth investigating if there is a problem or not, its unhealthy and just as wrong on both sides to immediately say there is or is not an underlying issue.

In my years ive seen all kinds of bias, very often you see it from the unmarried. Married men and women seem to not care about gender for any specific task, where as you take the single person and they feel the need to impress/pity someone. And gender bias will happen with the investigation of issues like this. Say you have a group of women saying they are being treated unfairly due to gender. Now their bosses are men and HR is men. They more often then not, will say there is no problem. Invert that and it swings the other way.

So since women shouldn't be in the same sports as men, or physical demanding jobs, or combat, and now apparently even software engineering. Where should they be? Are all these barriers of what they 'cant or shouldnt' do set by their own gender, or ours? Some countries don't let them show their faces in public or own property.


This is just my opinion, I have no data to back this up just my experiences.
 

cthulhuiscool

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 15, 2006
Messages
2,999
And this folks is why women claim discrimination. Let's be blunt. Nobody gets into facebook unless they're solid engineers. Most that bitch on [H] couldn't get a job at FB on their best day (regardless of their position or their sex). The fact that so many guys are so certain that the women just whining shows there's a problem. IME, there's not much difference between male and female s/w engineers. That doesn't mean that some women are inferior to their male counterparts, but the converse is also true. And I've worked with far more horrible male SWE that somehow get promoted than horrible female SWE, much less horrible ones that get promoted when they shouldn't.

What's going on at FB, I don't know, but anyone that doesn't think they can't get plenty of women is nuts. These companies have rigorous technical interviews. And as I've said before, I've got a friend that works in the valley who literally had a manager say in a meeting that he didn't think women should be engineers. This woman has been written up in various tech publications, worked on VR on military research projects long before their was Facebook, much less Occulus, some well known animation studios and one of the big game engine companies. There is discrimination against women. I've seen it more than once in my career. In every case, the typical response about kids/family doesn't apply.
U mad bro?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoffY
like this

dj_spanmaster

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
413
when i say boiled bacon i gag.

then i googled it.

why? why is this a thing?!

It's got its uses, specifically when you want crispier bacon with less fat. But boiling is just *one step* - folks who only boil it, or any other meat, are doing it wrong.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
An absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence either.

If a pattern is being noticed, it might be worth investigating if there is a problem or not, its unhealthy and just as wrong on both sides to immediately say there is or is not an underlying issue.

In my years ive seen all kinds of bias, very often you see it from the unmarried. Married men and women seem to not care about gender for any specific task, where as you take the single person and they feel the need to impress/pity someone. And gender bias will happen with the investigation of issues like this. Say you have a group of women saying they are being treated unfairly due to gender. Now their bosses are men and HR is men. They more often then not, will say there is no problem. Invert that and it swings the other way.

So since women shouldn't be in the same sports as men, or physical demanding jobs, or combat, and now apparently even software engineering. Where should they be? Are all these barriers of what they 'cant or shouldnt' do set by their own gender, or ours? Some countries don't let them show their faces in public or own property.


This is just my opinion, I have no data to back this up just my experiences.

Except this was the opinion of a single person, who no longer worked there and never had access to the full data set. Biggest of which FB said had to do with the code being rejected was from lower ranked and new engineers.

Your story assumes a negative bias from the start with nothing to back it up. You assume that because the HR might be men, they will rule in favor of men and against women. I work in oil and gas, and that is rare even here and is called out pretty quickly. Matter of fact my department VP is a woman and she is the ONLY woman in the department, yet she has final say in hiring, once they make it past our manager. He has passed along a number of women, yet the VP has never passed any of them. There are many factors at play many people never see or understand, some, people don't even like talking about. Like your example of sports, they can be in the same sports, or physically demanding jobs, however these are all based on requirements and it is a biological fact that most women can not fill. If the job requires you to be able to lift a given weight and you can't, that is not being sexist. This has nothing to do with software engineering, they are already in the job after all, but if you were to read and understand they were newer lower ranked engineers you would understand. You also don't consider the negative effect affirmative action has on the quality of the work force, when you hire based on race or sex and NOT skill or ability, it is only logical that those will be of lower quality on average.
 

STR

Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
540
Men and women are built biologically different.

This is only mostly true. We are not "built" though. We are grown. And sometimes that growth results in people who aren't even clearly male or female. A genetically male person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) will develop female sexual characteristics and may not even know their condition until their teens.

Men are physically attracted to females,

This is not true. Most men are attracted to women. Some men are attracted to males. Some men are not sexually attracted to anyone.

There will always be a slight discrimination for whatever reason between men and women because of this.

This is also not true. . Reason below.

Men are suited for physical labor. Women are suited for hospitality and social services.

This is just lazy stereotyping. Some men are suited for physical labor. Many others are not. Some women can lift more and run farther than you could in the best day of your life. Many men are unfailingly polite, while many women are assholes. The former are far better suited for service industries than the latter.

That's why each individual has their own resume. Listing "I am a man/woman" doesn't make you qualified for jack. Gender is far too broad of a category to be of any kind of use here, other than to tell us that it has nothing to do with white collar work. There is no biological difference that automatically makes the female brain worse at math. Just like there isn't any difference that makes them worse doctors, lawyers, or any other professional. A pair of women invented the CRISPR CAS9 process that's revolutionized genetics. Grace Hopper is a titan of the CS field.

It's why my HR department is run by 99% women and our security guards are 99% men.

Or your company has shitty hiring policies.

Most men will not find women threatening while most woman find men threatening. This is a fact of life that people just need to accept.

Almost a quarter of women will be physically or sexually assaulted at some point in their life. 20% of all hate crimes are based on sexual orientation. 60% of those crimes are against gay men.

You don't find anyone personally threatening because nobody targets your demographic with violence. Women, and gays, *do* find men threatening because they have (or know someone that has) been assaulted by one. There is nothing inevitable about this. >99% of men do not assault anyone. There's no reason why we can't take care of that last fraction.

Maybe wait until you're even older and see if things change for you. Seniors are often victims of abuse as well.

Women and men will never be equals as long as they're interested in the opposite sex.

I get that this is supposed to be your concluding argument, but not only is it nonsequitor with the rest of what you wrote, but even out of context it makes no ####ing sense.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,684
This is only mostly true. We are not "built" though. We are grown. And sometimes that growth results in people who aren't even clearly male or female. A genetically male person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) will develop female sexual characteristics and may not even know their condition until their teens.



This is not true. Most men are attracted to women. Some men are attracted to males. Some men are not sexually attracted to anyone.



This is also not true. . Reason below.



This is just lazy stereotyping. Some men are suited for physical labor. Many others are not. Some women can lift more and run farther than you could in the best day of your life. Many men are unfailingly polite, while many women are assholes. The former are far better suited for service industries than the latter.

That's why each individual has their own resume. Listing "I am a man/woman" doesn't make you qualified for jack. Gender is far too broad of a category to be of any kind of use here, other than to tell us that it has nothing to do with white collar work. There is no biological difference that automatically makes the female brain worse at math. Just like there isn't any difference that makes them worse doctors, lawyers, or any other professional. A pair of women invented the CRISPR CAS9 process that's revolutionized genetics. Grace Hopper is a titan of the CS field.



Or your company has shitty hiring policies.



Almost a quarter of women will be physically or sexually assaulted at some point in their life. 20% of all hate crimes are based on sexual orientation. 60% of those crimes are against gay men.

You don't find anyone personally threatening because nobody targets your demographic with violence. Women, and gays, *do* find men threatening because they have (or know someone that has) been assaulted by one. There is nothing inevitable about this. >99% of men do not assault anyone. There's no reason why we can't take care of that last fraction.

Maybe wait until you're even older and see if things change for you. Seniors are often victims of abuse as well.



I get that this is supposed to be your concluding argument, but not only is it nonsequitor with the rest of what you wrote, but even out of context it makes no ####ing sense.

Sorry but it's all true, it's science. Genetics and social evolution has soften women to be the stay at home child rearing mother. Men were built to do manual labor and work physically more than women and be the protector. This is all biological fact. You can argue the small percentage that sways in other directions but every species can have genetic abnormalities. The vast majority of the species functions this way and that's why there will ALWAYS be discrimination, it will never go away. Most men at my job will see a stunning female and immediately bend over backwards for them because their brain tells them "Holy fuck she's hot, if I help her maybe she'll bang me." this is not true but the brain sends out chemical impulses that are interpreted that way. Women forever have used this to their advantage.
 
Last edited:

STR

Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
540
Sorry but it's all true, it's science. Genetics and social evolution has soften women to be the stay at home child rearing mother. Men were built to do manual labor and work physically more than women and be the protector. This is all biological fact. You can argue the small percentage that sways in other directions but every species can have genetic abnormalities. The vast majority of the species functions this way and that's why there will ALWAYS be discrimination, it will never go away.

Citation required.

Lazy Old Man Logic is not an acceptable source.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,250
Sorry but it's all true, it's science. Genetics and social evolution has soften women to be the stay at home child rearing mother. Men were built to do manual labor and work physically more than women and be the protector. This is all biological fact. You can argue the small percentage that sways in other directions but every species can have genetic abnormalities. The vast majority of the species functions this way and that's why there will ALWAYS be discrimination, it will never go away.

Wow....

This literally is why there is a problem still. You really feel all women can do better is hold a baby and mop floors?

I would like some sources that make this all factual, please no websites that are sponsored by axe body spray or bud light.
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,684
Wow....

This literally is why there is a problem still. You really feel all women can do better is hold a baby and mop floors?

I would like some sources that make this all factual, please no websites that are sponsored by axe body spray or bud light.

I never said that's all they can do. We have office jobs for a reason. But there's a reason a majority of nurses are female and a majority of construction workers are male. To say gender is not a factor is just ignorant. This is not a question of intelligence just physical traits.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
...........................................
So since women shouldn't be in the same sports as men, or physical demanding jobs, or combat, and now apparently even software engineering. Where should they be? Are all these barriers of what they 'cant or shouldnt' do set by their own gender, or ours? Some countries don't let them show their faces in public or own property.........

You bring up good points, but then you loose me here;

Perhaps the specifics weren't as important as the message, but although women can't be in Men's sports, the same is true in reverse. Women can have physically demanding jobs, be in combat, and I don't see a bar from engineering work sooo. Like I say, maybe it's just that your point isn't dependent on appropriate examples....... ummm, ok now I lost myself and don't know where I am going with this :sick:
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,250
You bring up good points, but then you loose me here;

Perhaps the specifics weren't as important as the message, but although women can't be in Men's sports, the same is true in reverse. Women can have physically demanding jobs, be in combat, and I don't see a bar from engineering work sooo. Like I say, maybe it's just that your point isn't dependent on appropriate examples....... ummm, ok now I lost myself and don't know where I am going with this :sick:

Yea, I think people are getting tripped up by my word 'shouldn't' which roughly would mean in a common opinion that women as a group are not supposed to be in such jobs even if they meet the 'requirements'.

I may have lost my point as you said, crazy busy week and currently wedding planning for next month so, anything I say should be taken with a whole spoon of salt.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Wow....

This literally is why there is a problem still. You really feel all women can do better is hold a baby and mop floors?

I would like some sources that make this all factual, please no websites that are sponsored by axe body spray or bud light.


Actually, as ugly as it may sound, he has a point if you can make the stretch to see it.

Take a scale from 1 to 100 and call it the full range of physicality 1 being the softest touch and 100 being equivalent to a Rhino charge. Then take all the men and all the women and draw their full range within the scale. Me, being an old man now, maybe I am good for 22 to 75, but yea, the top 10 is only for short durations, "I'm a sprinter by nature". And my wife might be like 9 to 45 cause she can still see better than I can.

Now if the greatest majority of jobs is in the 20 to 50 range when it comes to physicality, then there isn't much point to discriminating against anyone. But what about those jobs that require 80+ on the scale?

The Army has bowed to pressure allowing women into Combat Arms jobs, something they did not want to do. On the surface it sounds ok, fair, they still have to pass training right. In some jobs, less physical jobs, women have to meet a different set of physical standards to remain on duty. Where a man has to do say 65 pushups in 2 minutes, a woman only has to do 30.

Now if the job is Clerk/Typist or Signal Equipment repair tech, no biggie right? But what about Tank Crewman where the crew must be able to put the tracks back on their tanks if they come off, or lift the main gun ammunition up from the ground and hand it to a guy on the engine deck, who then hands it to a guy on the turret, who passes that 60 lb projectile down through the hatch to the loader, without allowing that electrically fired projectile to touch any metal surface of the tank cause it will go boom. Today, the law says woman can apply to be a tank crewman, so the Army has to let them try, correction .... our taxes pay for the Army to let them try. But how many are going to make it? How much money and training time do we waste allowing women to train for a job that they have little physical chance of passing and even if they do pass, by what margin of performance are they capable.

A job like this is not about being fair to the individual, it's about being fair to our nation and the soldiers who must serve at their side. We took our tank to the desert every year for a month at the NTC, Ft Irwin CA. It's pretty damn hot in August. No showers while you are "in the box", barely enough water to drink. Baby wipes are decent for hygiene, but your clothes ... my tank commander would bring a couple of packs of cheap tighty whities for the trip, the tank is rolling acrossed the sand and he ducks down into the turret, switches into a clean pair, and pitches the dirty drawers up through the hatch to land in the sand behind us. And life on a tank rolls on. If you have to piss, you piss off the side of the tank. If you have to shit, you hold it until the tank stops, then you find whatever seclusion you can to squat, do your business, cover it like a cat does .... and life in a tank rolls on. Usually, although they are not supposed to, the crew sleeps in or on the tank.

Is it fair to tell women they can't be tankers?

Is it fair to tell them they can?

And who are you asking?

Why should the Federal Government be required to spend our tax money so that 100 women a year can attempt training that only 5 will pass, and if we decide that more must pass that training, you have to change the standards for the women to make it possible which costs us something else entirely different? That's what they do now for women in the Army for PT tests, different standards. But most jobs are not that physical, but most combat jobs are an exception. Anyone know, did they change the standards for women just so we can let women into combat jobs? Or are we paying to train 8 in order to find 2 who can hack it?
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,250
Actually, as ugly as it may sound, he has a point if you can make the stretch to see it.

Take a scale from 1 to 100 and call it the full range of physicality 1 being the softest touch and 100 being equivalent to a Rhino charge. Then take all the men and all the women and draw their full range within the scale. Me, being an old man now, maybe I am good for 22 to 75, but yea, the top 10 is only for short durations, "I'm a sprinter by nature". And my wife might be like 9 to 45 cause she can still see better than I can.

Now if the greatest majority of jobs is in the 20 to 50 range when it comes to physicality, then there isn't much point to discriminating against anyone. But what about those jobs that require 80+ on the scale?

The Army has bowed to pressure allowing women into Combat Arms jobs, something they did not want to do. On the surface it sounds ok, fair, they still have to pass training right. In some jobs, less physical jobs, women have to meet a different set of physical standards to remain on duty. Where a man has to do say 65 pushups in 2 minutes, a woman only has to do 30.

Now if the job is Clerk/Typist or Signal Equipment repair tech, no biggie right? But what about Tank Crewman where the crew must be able to put the tracks back on their tanks if they come off, or lift the main gun ammunition up from the ground and hand it to a guy on the engine deck, who then hands it to a guy on the turret, who passes that 60 lb projectile down through the hatch to the loader, without allowing that electrically fired projectile to touch any metal surface of the tank cause it will go boom. Today, the law says woman can apply to be a tank crewman, so the Army has to let them try, correction .... our taxes pay for the Army to let them try. But how many are going to make it? How much money and training time do we waste allowing women to train for a job that they have little physical chance of passing and even if they do pass, by what margin of performance are they capable.

A job like this is not about being fair to the individual, it's about being fair to our nation and the soldiers who must serve at their side. We took our tank to the desert every year for a month at the NTC, Ft Irwin CA. It's pretty damn hot in August. No showers while you are "in the box", barely enough water to drink. Baby wipes are decent for hygiene, but your clothes ... my tank commander would bring a couple of packs of cheap tighty whities for the trip, the tank is rolling acrossed the sand and he ducks down into the turret, switches into a clean pair, and pitches the dirty drawers up through the hatch to land in the sand behind us. And life on a tank rolls on. If you have to piss, you piss off the side of the tank. If you have to shit, you hold it until the tank stops, then you find whatever seclusion you can to squat, do your business, cover it like a cat does .... and life in a tank rolls on. Usually, although they are not supposed to, the crew sleeps in or on the tank.

Is it fair to tell women they can't be tankers?

Is it fair to tell them they can?

And who are you asking?

Why should the Federal Government be required to spend our tax money so that 100 women a year can attempt training that only 5 will pass, and if we decide that more must pass that training, you have to change the standards for the women to make it possible which costs us something else entirely different? That's what they do now for women in the Army for PT tests, different standards. But most jobs are not that physical, but most combat jobs are an exception. Anyone know, did they change the standards for women just so we can let women into combat jobs? Or are we paying to train 8 in order to find 2 who can hack it?

A good point.

Lets step back and play the what-if game. Are many of these standards existing because it is proven that underperforming at that metric means you will struggle or fail at your job or are some of them arbitrary and abused?

My sister was navy, she had to keep her run times low to stay in, they had to make sure she could run that distance so she could be fit enough to analyze jet fuel samples?

My previous job many years ago I was told that I would not be able to do electrical SMD assembly work because mens hands cannot solder with the precision as womens, oddly enough told to me by the gentleman that ran the department.

As long as we do create standards for men or women we keep the problem going. If there are metrics being used to filter people for a job, then they should be appropriate for the job.

Or to swing over onto another thread, if we can just start with the replacing of workers with robots this might soon be all behind us!

Probably if we all stopped trying to paint everything with the same brush, we could play this game of life better! :D
 

NickJames

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
6,684
A good point.

Lets step back and play the what-if game. Are many of these standards existing because it is proven that underperforming at that metric means you will struggle or fail at your job or are some of them arbitrary and abused?

My sister was navy, she had to keep her run times low to stay in, they had to make sure she could run that distance so she could be fit enough to analyze jet fuel samples?

My previous job many years ago I was told that I would not be able to do electrical SMD assembly work because mens hands cannot solder with the precision as womens, oddly enough told to me by the gentleman that ran the department.

As long as we do create standards for men or women we keep the problem going. If there are metrics being used to filter people for a job, then they should be appropriate for the job.

Or to swing over onto another thread, if we can just start with the replacing of workers with robots this might soon be all behind us!

Probably if we all stopped trying to paint everything with the same brush, we could play this game of life better! :D

There may be some truth to that, my mom holds a steady solder, also coincidentally was in the Navy herself. When it comes to precision my hands are about as reliable as a Parkinsons patient. I can get the job done but I struggle with it.
 
D

Deleted member 184142

Guest
A good point.

Lets step back and play the what-if game. Are many of these standards existing because it is proven that underperforming at that metric means you will struggle or fail at your job or are some of them arbitrary and abused?

My sister was navy, she had to keep her run times low to stay in, they had to make sure she could run that distance so she could be fit enough to analyze jet fuel samples?

My previous job many years ago I was told that I would not be able to do electrical SMD assembly work because mens hands cannot solder with the precision as womens, oddly enough told to me by the gentleman that ran the department.

As long as we do create standards for men or women we keep the problem going. If there are metrics being used to filter people for a job, then they should be appropriate for the job.

Or to swing over onto another thread, if we can just start with the replacing of workers with robots this might soon be all behind us!

Probably if we all stopped trying to paint everything with the same brush, we could play this game of life better! :D

The Navy is warfare, because you do one thing does not mean that is all you will ever do or need to do, that is not an office job and if they have requirements that you don't agree with, to damn bad. The other problem is the females already have a lower standard for training and physical ability than men do, for the Navy in many cases the requirements are HALF that of men just for something as simple as PRT. There was a big up roar about the Marines when they started allowing women into combat positions, then even more so when they made women meet the same standards as men, as 50% of the women could not even complete the number of pullups the men are required to do! So complain about your sister having to do a fraction of the requirements that men in the EXACT same position have to do. If anything, this example shows how favorable women are treated over men.

It is funny that both examples you give here are disadvantage to men....So I will say again, people speaking about equal opportunity/rights are not really talking about opportunity/rights, but rather are talking about outcome, which is not the same and is NOT fair, nor should it be.
 

Darunion

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
4,250
The Navy is warfare, because you do one thing does not mean that is all you will ever do or need to do, that is not an office job and if they have requirements that you don't agree with, to damn bad. The other problem is the females already have a lower standard for training and physical ability than men do, for the Navy in many cases the requirements are HALF that of men just for something as simple as PRT. There was a big up roar about the Marines when they started allowing women into combat positions, then even more so when they made women meet the same standards as men, as 50% of the women could not even complete the number of pullups the men are required to do! So complain about your sister having to do a fraction of the requirements that men in the EXACT same position have to do. If anything, this example shows how favorable women are treated over men.

It is funny that both examples you give here are disadvantage to men....So I will say again, people speaking about equal opportunity/rights are not really talking about opportunity/rights, but rather are talking about outcome, which is not the same and is NOT fair, nor should it be.

You missed my words I think. Half of what you said we were in agreement with. At least with what you quoted, unless you were referring to something earlier.

Ah I think i see it, my stance was there shouldn't be separate metrics for men and women and it should just be a test based on what is needed from said person.
 

ruffbytes

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
447
An absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence either.
[...]
In my years ive seen all kinds of bias, very often you see it from the unmarried. Married men and women seem to not care about gender for any specific task, where as you take the single person and they feel the need to impress/pity someone. And gender bias will happen with the investigation of issues like this. Say you have a group of women saying they are being treated unfairly due to gender. Now their bosses are men and HR is men. They more often then not, will say there is no problem. Invert that and it swings the other way.

So since women shouldn't be in the same sports as men, or physical demanding jobs, or combat, and now apparently even software engineering. Where should they be? Are all these barriers of what they 'cant or shouldnt' do set by their own gender, or ours? Some countries don't let them show their faces in public or own property.

[...]

I see what you are saying here and agree with you.

It is interesting that you notice a difference between the married and the unmarried . You have a bit of bias against the unmarried! Ha! That is something that could deserve some study though. I am a married man and both my wife and I don't care about gender for tasks in the rest of the world, but we definitely have made roles for ourselves in the relationship where some tasks are "man jobs" and others are "woman jobs." We don't think that these generalizations should apply to the world at large, it is just what works for us.

I also feel that women should be able to play all the same sports and do all the physical demanding jobs, including combat, so long as they fulfill the same requirements for those jobs as their male counterparts. The Peshmerga have female combat units and they seem to be able to do a great job. I also am a fan of MMA and enjoy watching the female fights more than most male fights. Male fights tend to rely more on strength than technical ability while the female fights are the opposite, which makes it more in interesting for me.

BUT, all this being said, I have seen under performing people cry foul when the truth is that they aren't competing well and want to blame someone/something else instead of taking responsibility for themselves and their performance. In the place of trying to achieve more at greater levels, they give themselves an out. It is really hard to discern what is happening from any news article because some people behave this way.
 

HoffY

Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
940
Citation required.
Here's a citation for you. Go outside and use those two optic devices in your head and the grey matter that is allegedly in your skull. You like to spout a lot of big words but say very little and express even less of a grasp on.... wait for it... reality.

You ARE the very reason there is a push back about this kind of thing. Its cancer. And normal people are sick of it taking over our laws, funding, policies, workplaces, etc.

You keep yelling "ad hom" and "fallacy" every 5 seconds yet i dont think you really know what aa ad hom is. Insults are not adhoms. I have not seen any adhoms.
 

RaxusCraxurFace

Weaksauce
Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
95
Wow....

This literally is why there is a problem still. You really feel all women can do better is hold a baby and mop floors?

I would like some sources that make this all factual, please no websites that are sponsored by axe body spray or bud light.

Literally get me a sammich......

I doubt there are very few men that really think that way anymore, but with as much as we get screamed at about muh misogyny I don't take any of this crap seriously anymore, and make jokes about it that I would never make otherwise.

You want respect in your job do a better job. You want your code to not be rejected write better code. You don't want to be treated like a whiny baby don't be a whiny baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoffY
like this

STR

Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
540
Animal Planet and Discovery Channel.

So, no, you don't actually have any sources or statistics. Understood.

You're aware appeals to nature are fallacious arguments too, yes?

I never said that's all they can do. We have office jobs for a reason. But there's a reason a majority of nurses are female and a majority of construction workers are male. To say gender is not a factor is just ignorant. This is not a question of intelligence just physical traits.

Most women are nurses because people like you think it's a girly profession and would never consider it as a career for yourself. (SOURCE)

Here's a citation for you. Go outside and use those two optic devices in your head and the grey matter that is allegedly in your skull. You like to spout a lot of big words but say very little and express even less of a grasp on.... wait for it... reality.

You ARE the very reason there is a push back about this kind of thing. Its cancer. And normal people are sick of it taking over our laws, funding, policies, workplaces, etc.

You keep yelling "ad hom" and "fallacy" every 5 seconds yet i dont think you really know what aa ad hom is. Insults are not adhoms. I have not seen any adhoms.

So you're saying you have no sources to back your argument either.

Also, since you couldn't be bothered to look it up before commenting, ad hominem is an attack on a person making the argument instead of the argument being made. Insult = attack on the person. Attack on the person = ad hominem. QED.
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
A good point.

Lets step back and play the what-if game. Are many of these standards existing because it is proven that underperforming at that metric means you will struggle or fail .................................Probably if we all stopped trying to paint everything with the same brush, we could play this game of life better! :D


I can only speak from experience in the distant past :sleep:

In other words, I can't say this is the same today.

When I went through the Combat Engineer Vehicle Crewman's course, MOS 12F, (which no longer exists BTW). Other than the normal run of the mill PT test, we had to do a strength test where we had to lift a 60 lb Track Block above our heads and hold it for 30 seconds or maybe a minute, I forget exactly. Now if one question the practicality of this test you might question why anyone would need to lift a track block above their heads for any length of time. I have posted a pic of a track block for your viewing pleasure;

afv35005_0.jpg


Now the weight of the main gun round for the M728 CEV's M135 165mm Demolition Gun, High Explosive Plastique (HEP). This gun is actually a Britsh gun called the L9;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L9

The British Gun fired a 64lb HESH projectile which contained 40 lbs of plastic explosive. The US Army developed a 65lb HEP round which contained 50lbs of plastic explosive and when fired, the entire round was propelled from the gun leaving nothing but a small Quarter-sized white plastic disk behind. When loading the next round the loader had to "sweep" the disk out of the gun or the next round would get stuck on it's way into the breach.

165mm-TP-M623.jpg


So the track block test was designed to simulate lifting the main gun rounds up and handing them to each crew member for loading into the Vehicle's ammo rack storage. This is certainly not the most strenuous activity that a crew member might need to perform, but it's the one most likely to cause death if someone drops a round. They are electrically fired and static electricity can set them off. The hull of a tank can build up a static charge so it's safe to say that this is a very practical test.

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/eng/M728.html

That being said, the PT test you spoke of has it's counterpart in the Army, I can't speak for the other services, but the Army sees every soldier as an Infantryman first, with a job skill second. Any soldier can be called upon to perform more strenuous duties then what they were trained for in the MOS school. Do you remember that clerk / translator from Saving Private Ryan?
 
Last edited:

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Most women are nurses because people like you think it's a girly profession and would never consider it as a career for yourself...............

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'm not a nurse cause needles make me faint. I passed out when a doctor gave me a TB Tine test.

th


Military-postcard-WWII-566-Soldiers-Inoculation-Fort-Dix.jpg


Besides, if more men were nurses, I'd have fewer nurses to flirt with. I like the ratio just fine as it is.

;)
 

HoffY

Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
940
So you're saying you have no sources to back your argument either.

nice assumptions. No, that i snot what i said. But of course you like to read words that do not exist.

Also, since you couldn't be bothered to look it up before commenting, ad hominem is an attack on a person making the argument instead of the argument being made. Insult = attack on the person. Attack on the person = ad hominem. QED.

No. you are still wrong. I dont need to "look it up". I already know the meaning of the fallacy. Which is why i told you that you do not because you keep confusing an insult with an adhom. Try again. You really like to make yourself look smarter then what you are. i'm not interested in making myself look smart (because i know i'm not). But i do know you are incorrect and trying to convince others you are right because you are smart and not that you are right because you speak truths. Multiple indicators prove this, one of which being you think insults are adhoms, another being, you can't use common sense objective observations of reality and acknowledge them like a reasonable human being could.

But hey, you go do that think retards love to do instead of seeing the point, learning from it and becoming more informed, double down.
 

HoffY

Gawd
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
940
Most women are nurses because people like you think it's a girly profession and would never consider it as a career for yourself.

lol - deff a lost cause. The reality is women are nurses more because men are mechanics more. Choices and preferences. But that cant possibly be the case because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
 
Top