X.Org Is Looking For Some Female Help

[caligula]

It's not equal pay if one works for 4 years full time, the other works for 2 years full + 2 years taking care of babies. And you need to hire some other guy to do the work (and if you're unlucky, this other guy is also a woman who decides to have babies => you also need to pay a third one to do the job). Also, statistically women work less (in work hours). If you have a fixed monthly salary, it's discriminating against those who work more hours.

There are examples in Europe where an entrepeneur can't afford hiring new people cause if they're women and get babies, the whole company is finito. They don't have enough capital to pay wages beforehand.

[daniels]

Also those open source projects you mention will stay the same, cause you can't change how 30+ sexist guy feels about women.

No, but you can tell them to get out. No matter how good their code is, it's never worth keeping one contributor who alienates many more. Especially not if it's 50% of the human population being alienated.

Luckily though, no-one espousing this omg-men-are-being-oppressed crap in this thread actually contributes to any open source project.

[TheBlackCat]

which every self-respecting women should be offended by

Mansplaining at its greatest. You are in no position to be lecturing women on what should and should not be offending them, or what should and should not make them feel more welcome in a project.

[smitty3268]

Also, statistically women work less (in work hours). If you have a fixed monthly salary, it's discriminating against those who work more hours.

Why would anyone work more than the minimum if they have a fixed monthly salary? Surely there is some kind of side benefits, right, like faster career advancement or larger end-of-year bonuses? If not, it sounds like the men are just stupid idiots who deserve to be taken advantage of.

FWIW, I work with a woman (who has a child) that regularly works 60 hour weeks. She's easily the hardest working person at our entire 550 employee company.

Yes, that's only 1 person, but it's almost enough to make you think you should evaluate each person individually rather than using sweeping generalizations and stereotypes when dealing with large groups of people, isn't it?

[MuPuF]

It's not equal pay if one works for 4 years full time, the other works for 2 years full + 2 years taking care of babies. And you need to hire some other guy to do the work (and if you're unlucky, this other guy is also a woman who decides to have babies => you also need to pay a third one to do the job). Also, statistically women work less (in work hours). If you have a fixed monthly salary, it's discriminating against those who work more hours.

Seriously caligula, you either need to bring proof or STFU. And even if you do bring proof, you would still be entirely irrelevant!
Go and educate yourself on the Valladolid debate and tell me how your discourse is different than it was for native Americans and Africans more than 450 years ago?

What do you do for the open source community (if anything) that a woman couldn't do?

We do not tolerate this kind of discourse in the X.org community!

[caligula]

I dispute the significance of that "fact". Startups are insignificant players in the economy. Most of them fail anyways. Making any reasonable conclusions on the question of parental leave on the fact that startups are tight with money is irrational. For what is worse, in a number of countries, the father also gets the same time as the mother. Does that mean that we should completely avoid hiring young couples with plans for children?

Not hiring women just because they might get pregnant and have babies is by far worse than having a failed startup.

Startups and small companies are very significant in some european countries. 90% of their whole software industry are small companies, so small that they can't really spend money on unproductive workers. They might only have few bigger companies in the top3 biggest cities, and only small companies in smaller towns. Once you go past some margin and start earning enough profits, you can and may also need to hire women. Otherwise the diversity of the organisation won't scale. But before you get to that point, you need to grow. And then you need to decide, whether to pay some people less, to avoid hiring people that pose a risk (pregnancy or dads who decide to stay home) or risk the whole business by paying too much. I'm very familiar with these smaller companies and they might even avoid hiring men if they aim to have babies cause it's time off from work and you have to pay it. The competition is tough these days.

[caligula]

Seriously caligula, you either need to bring proof or STFU. And even if you do bring proof, you would still be entirely irrelevant!
Go and educate yourself on the Valladolid debate and tell me how your discourse is different than it was for native Americans and Africans more than 450 years ago?

What do you do for the open source community (if anything) that a woman couldn't do?

We do not tolerate this kind of discourse in the X.org community!

What kind of proof you want? It's a fact that in some european countries the employer pays the bills when a woman takes maternity leave or dad takes paternity leave. It just so often happens that statistically the mothers spend more time at home and they willfully do it. If I was an entrepreneur, I would only care about profits and avoid hiring people who have babies. More profit => more moneys for me.

[caligula]

Why would anyone work more than the minimum if they have a fixed monthly salary? Surely there is some kind of side benefits, right, like faster career advancement or larger end-of-year bonuses? If not, it sounds like the men are just stupid idiots who deserve to be taken advantage of.

FWIW, I work with a woman (who has a child) that regularly works 60 hour weeks. She's easily the hardest working person at our entire 550 employee company.

Yes, that's only 1 person, but it's almost enough to make you think you should evaluate each person individually rather than using sweeping generalizations and stereotypes when dealing with large groups of people, isn't it?

I'm not talking about generalizations and stereotypes. It's about statistics. I agree that the woman you describe would be a very valuable worker for any company. Also the men who are ambitious and work overtime. They benefit your company and you more than average guys. Just google for "women work less hours". It's easy to find proof. They often say here that women's euro is only 70 eurocents. But guess what, their working hours are also 70-80% that of mens hours, statistically. So.. yes they earn a bit less, but not 30% less.

[kaprikawn]

What kind of proof you want? It's a fact that in some european countries the employer pays the bills when a woman takes maternity leave or dad takes paternity leave. It just so often happens that statistically the mothers spend more time at home and they willfully do it. If I was an entrepreneur, I would only care about profits and avoid hiring people who have babies. More profit => more moneys for me.

God forbid we'd want to be socially responsible and give new mothers time with their newborns. Those poor companies!

Do you have a mother, and do you hate her too? Or is it just women in the workforce who have children? Or maybe you were grown in a test tube...

[caligula]

I'm not talking about generalizations and stereotypes. It's about statistics. I agree that the woman you describe would be a very valuable worker for any company. Also the men who are ambitious and work overtime. They benefit your company and you more than average guys. Just google for "women work less hours". It's easy to find proof. They often say here that women's euro is only 70 eurocents. But guess what, their working hours are also 70-80% that of mens hours, statistically. So.. yes they earn a bit less, but not 30% less.

It's also difficult if you hire a wrong person, you can't fire him/her immediately. If you fire someone cause she's pregnant and will cost too much, that is bring down the whole company, she will sue you and in no time the shit will hit the fan. In general if you have long time employees, you have to pay them wages for 6 months after firing them. These laws make it really hard to take risks hiring new employees. You just need to know they're good enough if you have a small company, otherwise the whole business is over sooner than you can imagine.