Outreachy Deadlines Are Due Next Week For Winter Open-Source Internships

[L_A_G]

Got a source on that? Seems pretty BS to me (both sides of it).

Here's a paper coming to that conclusion that was published as recently as 2010:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289610000346

It's unfortunately paywalled, but this part from the wikipedia entry on the subject uses it as it's main source:

Some studies have identified the degree of IQ variance as a difference between males and females. Males tend to show greater variability on many traits, for example having both highest and lowest scores on tests of cognitive abilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

[schmidtbag]

L_A_G
Those results don't surprise me, but unless I missed something, that article doesn't tell you the entire picture. What the article doesn't point out are the rest of the statistics: which regions are affected, the amount of women who applied, the amount of men who applied, etc. What the article implies is women have a very high chance of being hired for a STEM field, but it's kind of a sample error when maybe less than 10% of your applicants are women.
I went to a tech school. Regardless of what class I was in, there was probably 1 woman for every 15 men. The school was no stranger for minorities - I'm a white middle-class male and I was heavily outnumbered by blacks and Latinos.

[schmidtbag]

Bullshit. I've been in the IT field for nearly 20 years. In any of the places I've worked, the company has always bent over backwards to make sure employees are treated equally. If someone was discriminated against because of their gender, or any other personal attribute it would have been dealt with swiftly and severely. No company wants a lawsuit because of this sort of thing.

I'm aware... I said just about the same thing in the text you quoted. Not sure what is "bullshit" when we're agreeing...

Since actual honest-to-goodness discrimination is such a rare occurrence, the grievance mongers have had to come up with crackpot theories like "micro-aggressions" in order to push their agenda.

Again - your personal experience means absolutely nothing. Unless you've been traveling the world and held jobs varying from small towns to metropolises, you are in no position to make the claim that discrimination is rare. I live in the northeast US - racism is almost non-existent in my particular area. I have never had a hate crime or race-related violence or discrimination happen within 50 miles of me. But under no circumstance could I ever claim that racism doesn't exist in my state, or the US as a whole.

Sorry, I just don't buy it. I also don't buy the idea that women are somehow disadvantaged in the STEM fields in the western world. If anything they have an advantage over men, with all funding, scholarships, publicity etc that "women in tech" provide.

Biologically, women aren't at a disadvantage. But there are plenty of misogynistic people out there (including women, as pointed out earlier) who refuse to work with women. Go to websites like "notalwaysworking.com" or "notalwaysright.com", look for bigotry, and you'll find how wrong you really are.

[L_A_G]

L_A_G
Those results don't surprise me, but unless I missed something, that article doesn't tell you the entire picture. What the article doesn't point out are the rest of the statistics: which regions are affected, the amount of women who applied, the amount of men who applied, etc. What the article implies is women have a very high chance of being hired for a STEM field, but it's kind of a sample error when maybe less than 10% of your applicants are women.

The article clearly shows that when all factors are controlled for, women are actually an advantage because of their gender and not a disadvantage as conventional thought would suggest. Saying that women are discriminated in tech because of their gender when proper analysis of the situation tells the exact opposite story is completely disingenuous no matter how you try to crawl away from the undisputable facts.

I went to a tech school. Regardless of what class I was in, there was probably 1 woman for every 15 men. The school was no stranger for minorities - I'm a white middle-class male and I was heavily outnumbered by blacks and Latinos.

It's kind of funny how you miss the real cause of the low percentage of women in tech when it's pretty much staring you in the face. If you want more women in tech, simply get more women to become interested in it. This is something the outreachy project does absolutely nothing to solve. All the outreachy project does is provide exclusive opportunities for women who have already entered the tech sector and are in a privileged position compared to their male equivalents.

[schmidtbag]

The article clearly shows that when all factors are controlled for, women are actually an advantage because of their gender and not a disadvantage as conventional thought would suggest. Saying that women are discriminated in tech because of their gender when proper analysis of the situation tells the exact opposite story is completely disingenuous no matter how you try to crawl away from the undisputable facts.

I understand that, but again, it doesn't matter how often women get accepted if there aren't that many who apply to begin with. I'm not denying the facts of the article, but I'm saying the article doesn't supply enough facts. It's just one piece of the picture.

It's kind of funny how you miss the real cause of the low percentage of women in tech when it's pretty much staring you in the face. If you want more women in tech, simply get more women to become interested in it.

Right, and why do you think women aren't interested? This is what I'm talking about - everything is connected. You can't just look at one piece of it, you have to analyze the entire scenario. Yes, women are readily accepted into jobs. Yes, women perform fine in jobs and don't really need additional assistance in doing their jobs. But many are still mistreated or demeaned in workplaces, from either coworkers or clients (or both).

This is something the outreachy project does absolutely nothing to solve. All the outreachy project does is provide exclusive opportunities for women who have already entered the tech sector and are in a privileged position compared to their male equivalents.

Y'know what's a real good motivator? Money - that's what outreachy offers. Maybe women don't need help getting jobs in STEM fields, but it seems to me the main goal of outreachy is to encourage more women to get into software development. And seeing as this program has gone on for multiple years, it clearly seems to be encouraging some people.

[starshipeleven]

The thing is there is more male geniuses, but there is also more retarded males. Women are much more uniform.

I'd like to get a source for that, it's a pretty strong statement, I'm encountering exactly equal amount of retards, male and female.
Female retards are more chatty, while male retards are more smelly, but still retards they are.

Btw 50% of people using misogynistic slurs are women.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36380247

fixed.
If you don't misread the data badly, what they found is 100% normal, women use offensive words just as men to offend someone when they want to.

Hell I know many homosexuals that also use homophobic words to offend other homosexuals.

[starshipeleven]

Y'know what's a real good motivator? Money - that's what outreachy offers. Maybe women don't need help getting jobs in STEM fields, but it seems to me the main goal of outreachy is to encourage more women to get into software development. And seeing as this program has gone on for multiple years, it clearly seems to be encouraging some people.

His point is that females don't need encouragement to get into software development, so what is being done here is unfair.

Think about how much outrage would cause a white-men-outreachy to encourage more white men to get into software development. Oh zod, we'd need a truck of popcorn to watch that unfurl.

[schmidtbag]

His point is that females don't need encouragement to get into software development, so what is being done here is unfair.

The facts are females don't need help getting into software development. Facts also state that females are a very distinct minority in the software industry. Facts will also state the reasoning for this.

So all that being said, if people only see outreachy as a method to give women more job opportunities, then yes, it is explicitly an unfair, biased/prejudiced, and arguably sexist program. But it has to be more than that - people need to understand the reason and objective behind it, and the objective is not to reduce opportunities for [white] men.

[ParticleBoard]

I love "trendy" racism and bigotry and the apologists who defend them by arguing feelings and opinions instead of facts. All the usual players will be filling up this thread soon calling everyone X-phobic and X-ists and demanding this thread be closed. Oh and of course stating over and over how "disgusted" their little snowflake sensibilities are being offended.

[starshipeleven]

people need to understand the reason and objective behind it, and the objective is not to reduce opportunities for [white] men.

Their objective is irrelevant, the point is that it IS reducing opportunities for everyone else as it isn't increasing the amount of jobs available, just making sure that more women get these places.