all 188 comments

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 180 points181 points  (52 children)

There's actually a much, MUCH simpler (and more straight-forward, "Occam's Razor") reason or explanation.

In the 1970's there were sub-field of "computer science" (***) known as "Data Entry" and "Word Processing"-- with attendant "degrees" etc.

The lion's share of women who were ostensibly in "computer science" were in fact "Data Entry Specialists" or "Word Processing Professionals", etc -- and as time went on, and especially with the obsolescence of punch-cards, and the advent of decentralized "Personal Computers" and more advanced (WYSIWYG) software made just about everyone into a data entry and/or word processing person... well those subfields (along with the courses* & degrees) petty much just "disappeared", and thus so did the women in "computer science".

The plain truth of the matter is that women were never present in large numbers in "programming" courses/degrees (nor the later "network administrators" or "database architecture" fields) -- those things simply require the kind of logical & mathematical reasoning that women generally avoid like the plague (and IMHO it is not that females COULDN'T learn those skills {albeit generally not with the ease or to the level that many males do}, but rather that they don't WANT to put in the mental effort & the kind of self-discipline that is required {those skills are really not "teachable" in the passive-learning fashion; they must be "learned" in an active, individual effort manner}... all too often among the few females who DO attempt such degrees/jobs many of them "cheat" in every way possible, either copying from or otherwise tricking/manipulating males into doing their work for them**).

*Yes, there are still some community colleges and technical schools that offer courses, and even a few that still issue degrees (associates) or certificates in "Data Entry" -- but such courses are nothing like the older ones (which were generally more about "how to operate punch card machines") -- and of course, other than certain (ridiculously bureaucratic and backwards institutions -- government & hospitals, etc -- which generally require other "certifications" {health care "coding", etc} that are no longer thought of or referred to as "computer science" {because really, duh, they aren't}) -- no one really gives a crap.

**I've worked with quite a number of women who (ostensibly) had degrees/certifications as "programmers" (or coding, technically "scripting") -- and invariably (with a tiny number of exceptions) they are WAY out of their depth -- the only way they "pass" certification tests is via massive amounts of cramming (or "cribbing") and short term rote memorization, essentially gaming the testing/certification process (not that many males don't do likewise, they do). Generally speaking whenever they encounter any problem that cannot be "solved" by copy-pasta coding/scripting, but which requires actual conceptual-abstract thinking (and algorithm development) they end up reduced to tears (literally) -- requiring one or more male colleague(s) to come along (and inevitably, one way or another) to "salvage" the project by taking over those difficult tasks, with the female switching to various other project aspects (presentation, Gantt chart updating and other assorted trivial, even "make work" aspects).

EDIT:

*** And beyond doubt the entire graph, and the "data" that it is based on is ridiculously contrived. It purports to be graphing "Computer Science Majors" -- but the plain truth is that there basically WEREN'T any such degrees (not called that) until the late 1970's, and then only at a handful of institutions "Comp Sci" departments & degrees didn't start becoming "common" until the mid to late 1980's -- prior to that all "computer science" degrees were generally "minors" attached to various other majors (Math, Business, Engineering, etc). So, how & where did the people who created the graph come up with this "bulge" that peaking in 1984? They could only do so by going back through and RELABELING a host of other major/minor course sets as "computer science" -- nothing else is possible. IOW the whole thing is a complete fraud.


EDIT: And now... here comes the SRS brigade. Probably flood my inbox with even more obscenities. So predictable.

[–]Dream4eva 45 points46 points  (7 children)

This is the kind of critical thinking I come here for.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R 32 points33 points  (5 children)

Seriously. I occasionally have my doubts about this subreddit, like when someone in their anger phase posts some bitter shit and it rises to the top. I've come to the consensus that this sub is about 90% the most rational place on the internet, and about 10% bitter noobs who are still in the anger phase. Hopefully that ratio won't get worse as more and more people see what the red pill is all about.

I mean come on, compare this thread to the DataIsBeautiful thread and anyone with some common sense can see that we're the rational ones. Don't buy into the shaming tactics, folks. Shaming is a tactic that people who are wrong use.

[–]widec 9 points10 points  (1 child)

If you ever have doubts, just look at what our opposition believes. I see a lot of them denouncing "biotruths", because fuck evolution and biological science, they don't want to look at humans the way they evolved to be. That's the point where I have to stop listening to their nonsense, you can't dispute that stuff without a good argument.

There will be a lot of idiots on this subreddit just like any other, it's up to you to filter out the noise and know what to listen to.

[–]robot-b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I saw this when watching those Brainwash docos in the sidebar, after he's presented so many strong pieces of evidence of the influence of biology the response is something like

'well, I don't find biology interesting. my theory is that this is all constructed and malleable'

[–]rainbowhotpocket 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well of course as all the new people get accustomed, the anger will fade so that percentage will normalize assuming a linear rather than exponential growth.

[–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It might be most accurate to assume exponential growth.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (3 children)

The fact that in the original OP in dataisbeautiful your message got deleted because posters associated you with the red pill without even giving you the chance to provide sources is astounding and verifies how easily "political correctness" will marginalize different opinions under the guise of "our bot malfunctioned"(like hell that was the reason, I'm laughing so hard) and the rest of the comments devolve into ad hominem attacks towards you "poor guy he's so bitter", "he says that only cause he got rejected", "he has an agenda!" (everyone who read 48 laws of power knows there's no such thing as "agenda-less people" and good luck proving the people who blame you for having an agenda that they're feminists or anything else) and yet those are valid to not warrant a deletion. Go fucking figure.

Anyway, to avoid future mishaps I would suggest you to post in other subs under another account, although you probably already know that and I'm sure you have your reasons not to do so.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

will marginalize different opinions under the guise of "our bot malfunctioned"(like hell that was the reason, I'm laughing so hard)

Yeah, pretty amazing how that happened... 4 hours AFTER I posted it (and a good 3+ hours after the "offensive" {ROTLFMAO} self-thread link was added).

the rest of the comments devolve into ad hominem attacks towards you "poor guy he's so bitter", "he says that only cause he got rejected" and shit and yet those are valid to not warrant a deletion. Go fucking figure.

Well, obviously... if I'm not willing to become the "life slave" to someone with a vagina...

Then (by definition, per feminist theory) I must be some "lozer" that women would never, ever want to sleep with.

ROTFLMAO... hamsters are pretty amazingly adaptable things.

I think that entire thread shows that.

Anyway, to avoid future mishaps I would suggest you to post in other subs under another account, although you probably already know that and I'm sure you have your reasons not to do so.

Actually... I really don't give a rats arse. If anything I was surprised that the comment was allowed to stay up as long as it did, and got so many upvotes (600+ before it was deleted).

It will be interesting to see how long the "corrected" repost is allowed to endure, or if that too will be deleted under some newly contrived "autobot" excuse.


And of course the other thing to note is that the post itself (the graph, sans any link to the underlying data) is actually in violation of the sidebar rules of the forum (i.e. no visualizations w/o data, and no "compilations" which this one obviously is).

[–]whyu64 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Mmm, his post was up quite a while. He had a chance to provide sources. People were really taking his post seriously, before someone clued them in to what MGTOW means.

Is it clear his post was deleted, or did he delete it?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He had a chance to provide sources.

Assuming that he was in front of a computer for the entire 4 hour span and assuming that he was aware of it, which their mods could tell "okay mister, we gave you time to provide sources and your post has 600 or so votes, time to delete"?

When did it became a bloody time attack?!? What if I were the one posting something before I go to pick up my friends for a beer and then return to sleep? Whooping 12 hours without me realizing that my post has issues and bam! deleted.

You cannot defend this.

[–]ekjohnson9 13 points14 points  (3 children)

The irony here is in some states medical coding is actually in demand. Some hospitals pay 65 grand a year, the only challenge to that job is keeping up with each ICD version.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Yes it is... but "medical billing & coding" isn't considered "computer science" -- it's typically shoveled under either business or accounting -- which is where it should be; and occasionally under the "medical" field (which is actually pretty ridiculous).

And not surprisingly -- the field is dominated by women.

As to the demand & pay -- yup, but that's really more a symptom of the increasingly "byzantine" nature of our government/economy.

[–]ekjohnson9 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I totally agree, I'm not trying to say Med Coding is equivalent to "computer science".

As per the job itself, you're right again. It's becoming so obtuse due to the over regulation and insurance changes that you don't need to know ICD 10, you need to know ICD 9 10 AND 11, even though 10 is supposed to be the current iteration and 11 doesn't come out for another year or so. I'ts data entry job with a high barrier to entry.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I totally agree, I'm not trying to say Med Coding is equivalent to "computer science".

Understood.

My point is that the purported "shift" of women OUT of "computer science" is really more about a change in how the jobs are categorized.

I think women are (and have been) basically entering the same kinds of jobs/fields (and at about the same rates) throughout the history of the graph -- what has changed is which field those jobs are labeled as being a part of.

IOW, it's a fallacious conclusion being drawn from a woefully abysmal (if not entirely disingenuous confirmation biased) manipulation of the underlying data.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I've been a software engineer for 20 years. I have worked with thousands of software engineers. I don't care what gender or race you are, when we are doing a job it's all about the engineering and getting the job done and I judge people solely on their technical ability, often having never met them face to face or having any idea what race or gender they are. I have worked with 2 female software engineers I felt were good, and hundreds of males who were good. This does not count the 10-15 female engineers who started there lives as males and were transgendered, as they tended to be pretty good engineers. On the other hand, I have worked with MANY female technical project managers who were excellent at what they did.

[–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I've been a software engineer for 20 years. I have worked with thousands of software engineers. I don't care what gender or race you are, when we are doing a job it's all about the engineering and getting the job done and I judge people solely on their technical ability

Ironically enough, I can without doubt say "the same here."

I've worked with a significant number of people in not only programming, but engineering, cost accounting, manufacturing, etc -- and I really don't give a crap about gender, race (or quite frankly anything else either -- I couldn't give a shit what "degrees" or certs you have, because all too often they prove to be useless as an indicator of the quality of mind and/or work).

There have been a number of women who I have truly enjoyed working either WITH or even UNDER -- alas though, more's the pity, they have been the exception rather than the rule. (And what's more they are aware that they are the exceptions, and they too suffer from the incompetence of others).

I mean I can also so that I've had to work with a substantial number of complete ID10T's who were male/white/etc -- but the ratio of competence in terms of quality work in the logical and/or engineering fields is doubtless "tilted" towards males -- and that is simply reality.

IMO, the attempts to push more women (many, indeed IME the majority of whom are in no way qualified or capable) into the field actually greatly damages the way that the women are perceived in the professions.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Same with IT. I've only met one woman who I could say was competent, out of all the people I've worked with or interviewed. In this field it's all about your skills and problem solving creativity. Women avoid it like the plague.

I've seen women work effectively in managerial roles though. Few technical skills, mostly interpersonal.

[–]CSMastermind 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So posted in the original thread about this but basically the drop off in women graduating with Computer Science degrees can be attributed almost entirely to Computer Science programs becoming part of Engineering Colleges.

http://i.imgur.com/M9vuNPg.png

It's not really a mystery, the difficulty significantly increased and subsequently few women graduated.

Yeah it didn't go over well in the original thread.

[–]Mattpilf 1 point2 points  (16 children)

I agree that the graph is probably not accurate. To explain the general gap you stated

. those things simply require the kind of logical & mathematical reasoning that women generally avoid like the plague (and IMHO it is not that females COULDN'T learn those skills {albeit generally not with the ease or to the level that many males do}, but rather that they don't WANT to put in the mental effort & the kind of self-discipline that is required

The physical sciences do not show as much as a gap, as the graph shows, and these field certainly involve a good bit of logic and mathematical reasoning similar to computer science.

Percentage of women in Mathematics

I dont think there's any field that requires more logic and mathematical reasoing than mathematics itself.

Women make up around 30% PhDs earned in Mathematics, with undergraduate degrees being even higher proportion. If computer science lags behind math in the gender gap, then I dont think its fair to brush it off as 'women dont like doing mathematical reasoning as much in general.' There still seems to be a significant gap. There might be some natural gap due, not from society, but women seem to shy away from computer science in general compared to other STEM fields. Women in general already get pushed into non-STEM fields in general. This might not be to sexism of the field now(something which has drastically decreased in the decades) , but still could be due to sexist attitudes in our society. Mostly caused by an asymmetric encouragement of STEM fields for boys and not for girls, or at least less support.

I dont think we need 50/50 to have a field effects from the effects gender discrimination. We can see it should be at least 30/70 by comparing other sciences, and possibly higher when other factors are taken into account. I think the ratio should probably be more like 40/60, with a ratio far from that indicating perhaps some societal dichotomy that discourages some female workers. I think the current ratio is indicative of this.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Mattpilf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I feel like you didn't read my post. I never claimed they were.

    [–]bh3244 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    most women studying mathematics do it to become teachers

    [–]Mattpilf 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That's why I gave PhD numbers. Teachers dont get PhDs.

    [–]bh3244 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    then i take back what i said.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 0 points1 point  (10 children)

    To explain the general gap you stated

    Actually the main point I was trying to explain was the so called "something DRAMATIC" that ostensibly happened in/around circa 1984.

    And, ironic as it may seem, I do think -- and have said as much in other posts -- that so called "sociological" factors probably DID play a role.

    But I think it is far less the stuff that they posited in the NPR piece that the graph was drawn from -- and far more likely that it was the "elephant in the room" that is the obfuscated/hidden (in the linked graph) fact that around that point in time -- the 1980's -- a large number of college/university programs began changing the names of their courses, degrees and even departments from things like "Data Processing" or "Information Processing" to "Computer Science".

    And given the context of the era, a lot of young women (the kind who probably WOULD head into say "accounting", but who would NOT necessarily head into "mathematics") very well MIGHT have taken the same courses and headed for a degree in "Data Processing".

    Yet they might ALSO have shied away from a course in the subsequently retitled/recharacterized "Computer(!) Science(!)" field -- and that the converse would likely be true of young men.

    And the point relative to those other fields is that they DIDN'T change their names.

    The physical sciences do nor show as much as a gap, as the graph shows, and these field certainly involve a good bit of logic and mathematical reasoning similar to computer science.

    Ah, but that's a rather selective bias there. Other fields -- especially engineering & machinery-related -- DO have as much of a gap.

    Women make up around 30% PhD in Mathematics, with underfraduate degree being even higher proportion. If computer science lags behind math in the gender gap, then I dont think its fair to brush it off as 'women dont like doing mathematical reasoning as much in general.'

    I dunno, I would say that a 70/30 mix, a 2.33:1 ratio pretty much supports my point.

    I am GENERALIZING here.

    Rather obviously LOTS of males (boys/men) avoid mathematics as well. And one can argue rather endlessly over the reasons for their avoidance of it -- especially among people who actually DO end up working with things that are math/geometry related (even though the people in them often don't think of those things in terms of capital-M "Mathematics").


    I dont think we need 50/50 to have a field effects from the effects gender discrimination. We can see it should be at least 30/70 by comparing other sciences, and possibly higher when other factors are taken into account. I think the ratio should probably be more like 40/60, with a ratio far from that indicating perhaps some societal dichotomy that discourages some female workers.

    I think attributing EVERYTHING that isn't a perfect 50/50 mix to "gender discrimination" rather than being inherent "leanings/choices/preferences" of people -- is little more than the exact kind of "dogmatic blindness" that it attempts to accuse others of suffering from.

    [–]Mattpilf 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    The 30% should be higher as there are some factore that affect women stronger when going for advanced degrees. The thing is even at 30%, computer science still has a bigger gap than mathematics, so it can't be because women are afraid of math. This would only explain things up to a 2:1 ratio at most, not a 3:1 as is in computer science.

    Also my last point explicitly stated I wasn't expecting 50/50 in every field. I stated that 40/60 would be reasonable, but women dont even come close to that.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    Also my last point explicitly stated I wasn't expecting 50/50 in every field. I stated that 40/60 would be reasonable, but women dont even come close to that.

    Other than being a slightly different arbitrary mixture, why would 40/60 be more "reasonable"?

    To wit, there are lots of different mixtures to different disciplines:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2011/02/04/gender-divides-in-philosophy-and-other-disciplines/

    [–]Mattpilf 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    The 40/60 went both ways. Its just a heuristic, but it because it goes both ways, it provides a wide range of possible ratio. Heck, id be happy with even 33/67 split. There's significant overlap between genders, though averages vary. When any field differs far from that, in any direction, sexist based social stigma is probably a major cause. So it's technically arbitrary, the range provides a ratio that should fit most academic disciplines. The ones that dont should be examined, and I say in each case the ones outside that range have huge gender bias societal pressures reinforcing the ratio to an inneficient level.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    The 40/60 went both ways. Its just a heuristic, but it because it goes both ways, it provides a wide range of possible ratio.

    Except you're not just using it as a "hueristic" -- you are assuming/implying that there is an inherent "problem" that needs to be altered (ultimately via some type of regulatory control and/or quota system).

    Heck, id be happy with even 33/67 split.

    Again, justify your rationale for WHY you believe the "split" needs to be changed.

    And I rather highly doubt that you would be "happy" with a 33/67 split, any more than you are "happy" with a 30/70 split.

    There's significant overlap between genders, though averages vary. When any field differs far from that, in any direction, sexist based social stigma is probably a major cause.

    I see... so obviously, rather than focus your efforts on making this trivial change (from a ~30/70 split to a ~33/67 split in CS degrees), you will be making significant efforts to alter the disparities in these other fields: http://www.randalolson.com/2014/06/15/the-double-edged-sword-of-gender-equality/

    So it's technically arbitrary, the range provides a ratio that should fit most academic disciplines.

    Again, this post: http://crookedtimber.org/2011/02/04/gender-divides-in-philosophy-and-other-disciplines/

    That's a pretty frigging WIDE range.

    Which "split" is going to be determined to be "ideal"? And then on what -- non-arbitrary -- basis is it so determined.

    I say in each case the ones outside that range have huge gender bias societal pressures

    I see... so it's ALL (and ONLY) about "societal pressures" is it? No room is left in your view for any "biological preferences or leanings".

    Pretty interesting little dogma you've got going there.

    reinforcing the ratio to an inneficient level.

    I see... so now this is suddenly about "efficiency" and not some dogmatic-egalitarian view.

    Got any data to show that the current levels are "inefficient" ?

    And what exactly is your basis for determining what constitutes "efficient"?

    I think you are basically just throwing together a hodge-podge of pseudo-rationales which you think support your inherently dogmatic view -- but that you will jump from one rationale to another whenever any particular one doesn't support (or indeed contradicts) your predetermined (and apparently entirely arbitrary, even ever-changing) "ratios"... depending on what (on any given day) might make you "happy" (or of course "unhappy").

    That poor hamster is gonna go into fibrillation.

    [–]Mattpilf -1 points0 points  (5 children)

    "Gender equality is a double-edged sword. If we want to work toward gender equality for women, we need to work toward gender equality for men too."

    Yes, we should. That's why we should care about discrimination and/or societal pressures in fields dominated by women. Do we set up quotas? No, we need to change society's attitude towards genders and occupation.

    ALso there were some issues with your post.

    1) Computer science is closer to 20/80 split than 30/70. Your own numbers proved that.

    2) When people wonder why fields like CS are dominated so much by men, the say it's because women are afraid and shy away from math. I know for a fact that even with societal pressures, this should only account for a 30/70 at the most.

    3) We know women make up 30% of new PhDs. This ratio is in our society. I know women face some discrimination societal pressures that artificially force good female mathematicians away. (This is my field) Man young women feel this, even the ones in the field. Without this effect we would expect the real percent to be 30 +x% of women in mathematics. How big is x? IDK for sure, I can guess, but it's very reasonable to assume 0 < x <= 30. With a guess of around 10 for me.

    4) Since CS isn't even close to that area(20/80) there is clearly more going on then, "they don't like math".

    5) IF we can get the numbers above above (33/76) the ratio of gendered profession will start to ware off. It would be a 1.something:1 ratio, generally this wouldn't be super biased toward one gender, and pressure the other away.

    6) It should be obvious why arbitrarily pressuring strong people away from a profession is inefficient. If blond people felt they were unwelcome or told not to become any profession, there would be inefficiencies, same with racism and sexism. It's inefficient, any economist can explain that.

    7) I feel you believe I'm of the "pick an ideal ratio and get that occupation to that ratio" camp. I'm not. It's not 100% clear what that ratio is. What I want to do is get that ratio to somewhat close, and we should be united in trying to alter societal extreme gender preference in all occupations that fall very far from the norm. I believe Computer Science is significantly below the ideal ratio, because from you argument, we would expect the numbers to be almost double the amount of women in that field as we do now. 20 % to 30 + x %, that's 150 + x %. The problem is your own arguments at most explain about half the gap, that's a huge problem on your end, that you have not once addressed. Why?

    (from a ~30/70 split to a ~33/67 split in CS degrees)

    Partially because you keep lying to yourself that computer science is at 30/70. I don't know why else you would, but I think it's because you know there aren't good arguments, because we both know women are being artificially pressured out of Computer Sciences, and we both know that this is bad. Just like it's bad that men are pressured out of education. We don't need a 50/50 split every where, but the current ratios are extreme, and enforced by irrational views by society. That's what we need to change, and NOT by silly quotas.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    Yes, we should. That's why we should care about discrimination and/or societal pressures in fields dominated by women. Do we set up quotas? No, we need to change society's attitude towards genders and occupation.

    See... the problem is your stance simple ISN'T believable.

    Why? Because you are belly-aching over trivial percentage points... and moreover, you are ONLY doing it in a one-sided manner.

    In short... you're playing "white knight".


    As to your wall of text around your 7 points... lots of blather, but still no actual "sound" rationale or justification for your RIDICULOUSLY INANE little arbitrary "I'd happy with" quota/ratios (and as you have now demonstrated, the claim of being "happy" with is an entirely false "ruse"... it's playing a petty little incremental game).

    Basically you want to "manage/control" the world according to your own personal ideological views... and you don't have the honesty to admit that that is ALL you are engaged in (though the full reality is perhaps even worse, you don't even understand that they really aren't your personal views, that it is something that was indoctrinated into you -- the very thing you accuse others of).

    [–]Mattpilf 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    So you think that when 15-30% of a field being shoed away is trivial? I dont want to enforce I golden ratio. I think the current ratios are mostly cause arbitrarily and causes inneficient actions.

    I told you why I'd be happy with 33/67. Its point 5.

    Once you get the ratios below 2:1 the atmosphere will start to change, and it will in turn change society. From there it will start working itself out.

    [–]Gimprome 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Isn't posting TRP to SRS cheating? We already know that nobody likes us. We don't care either.

    [–]SweetiePieJonas 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    You gotta chill out on the parentheticals, bro.

    [–]kinkydiver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Dude no, those are the best part!

    Perl forever
    

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

    and IMHO it is not that females COULDN'T learn those skills {albeit generally not with the ease or to the level that many males do}, but rather that they don't WANT to put in the mental effort & the kind of self-discipline that is required

    So how do you explain the giant coincidence that almost the entire female half of the population just so happen to all separately make the exact same choice to be lazy?

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 13 points14 points  (3 children)

    So how do you explain the giant coincidence that almost the entire female half of the population just so happen to all separately make the exact same choice to be lazy?

    It's not that they make the choice to be "lazy" rather they simply follow the path of least resistance; and in this case their gender (by it's very biological nature relative to it's opposite) simply opens a lot of other doors -- doors that are in fact CLOSED to (most) males.

    [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    I see, and this might be true. But it is a theory, it's not a fact- not everything that sounds plausible is actually the true explanation. Similarly, you claimed that the majority of female programmers rely on rote memorization, copying and manipulating their male colleagues, but didn't mention any sources that confirm your anecdotal observation. Yet you sound certain that you are stating facts. This is not rational.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Similarly, you claimed that the majority of female programmers rely on rote memorization, copying and manipulating their male colleagues, but didn't mention any sources that confirm your anecdotal observation.

    No, I did not claim that as proof of the "majority of female programmers", merely that it was the (overwhelming) majority of those I had worked with and/or observed first hand.

    I watched as they engaged in various "rote" learning tricks and aspects in order to obtain certifications -- lots of "cramming" and study/prep books for certification, relying on {invariably male} colleagues to help them "figure out" their homework for classes (even for fairly rudimentary concepts and techniques or language things, stuff that should have been learned/known given their daily work, yet which they did not possess on their way to some "masters" degree or other certification, etc).

    but didn't mention any sources that confirm your anecdotal observation. Yet you sound certain that you are stating facts. This is not rational.

    It most certainly IS "rational" (as well as logical). It would be "irrational" if I were to fail to draw conclusions from first-hand observations, but instead substituted some dogmatic belief.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I meant that first-hand observations of women you worked with aren't enough to be certain that this is something universally true. But you're right, you didn't actually say that. Off-topic and out of curiosity, what do you dislike about /r/TheRedPill ?

    [–]super-nsfw 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    I would speculate it would be similar to why most serial killers are male, genders are fundamentally different in some ways.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I don't think it's laziness. Go look at World of Warcraft players. The people minmaxing their characters and hitting the highest levels as quickly as possible tend to be exclusively male even though there are a large number of female players. The females players enjoy crafting, socializing, etc. but have a tendency not to "geek out" and go all out towards a particular end goal.

    [–]Grimmov 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    How do you explain the existence of thousands of other patterns which exist in nature and society that fall almost exclusively along gender lines? Or do your deny such basic aspects of reality as well?

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I deny that the gender difference can be blamed on free will. Apparently not what OP meant.

    [–]elevul 26 points27 points  (2 children)

    As Karen Straughan said in a Honey Badger Radio episode, the more freedom women are given to chose their studies, the less they go into STEM. Which is why China has very high % of women in STEM, while Norway/Sweden/ecc has low and ever decreasing amounts of them.

    [–]fartknocking 9 points10 points  (0 children)

    When I was in university for computer science there were around three white women who made it all the way through with me. There were no black women, and all the other women (of which there were quite a lot) were Chinese or Indian.

    The Chinese and Indian women were the ugliest collection of (not fat) women I have ever come across, so I would guess they were very much nerds in their home countries.

    [–]UnusualOx 42 points43 points  (10 children)

    The reality is the opposite of conventional feminist wisdom. Not only is there NOT a patriarchy that is keeping women out of computer science, but there is actually a strong and extreme desperation among many beta males and social losers in the computing fields to go out of their way to hire women so they actually have some small amount of interaction with women every day.

    If anything, they are tripping over each other trying to hire the handful of women in the computing fields.

    [–]satisfyinghump 18 points19 points  (2 children)

    extreme desperation among many beta males and social losers in the computing fields to go out of their way to hire women so they actually have some small amount of interaction with women every day.

    these types of 'men' are the worst. the white knighters, that make it much worst for everyone else. they hire the women, for jobs that they are not qualified for, and the women do stupid busy work, which isn't actual real CS/programming work.

    then the women wants to get a pay raise, which the current white knight can't afford to give them. they bitch its because they're a woman and try to find a job in another company. when they go to a real company, who doesn't give a fuck if you got a package between your legs or not, only care about the package in your skull, they can't pass the simplest of technical interviews. and ofcourse, this is the patriarchy's fault, not their own.

    [–]deaduponaviral 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    sigh* If only the real world operated similar to the internet. Tits or GTFO, quotas are made for profit not for public relations, results are honored over process... This sub truly helps those willing enough, to navigate through the quagmire of pc business politics. This perspective has made my fortitude and relational commitment between other real men that much more precious than anything else at work.

    [–]satisfyinghump 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    between other real men

    you said it right, 'real men'. what has happened to the men of this world?

    i have nothing wrong with a man that values a womens oppinion or treats them in a special way as a way to get into their pants, whatever many men do that. but don't make that your personality, throwing other men under the bus, to possibily score with a girl. augh

    and the womens movement as a whole would do better to steer clear of men like this, the ones that are so easy to spot.

    example: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gH734Q8jv9c/UoG5-AicI8I/AAAAAAAADZA/mvGvDVuRv0o/s400/gender+bias+guy.png

    Perfect example of what types of men are helping the womens movement. augh

    Maybe women are not in engineering because they have no interest in it, simple as that. And if the reason they are not interested in it, is because when they were younger, their parents or teachers were forcing women roles on to them, with toys and movies, then don't try to make up for it later in life, by stuffing all this pressure on them and giving them easy rides through school and the work place, just so in the end your company can make the quota of having the most women programmers. how many of them are producing quality code / products, on their own? how many of them are social pariah's / outcasts since grade school, because they chose to play on their computers instead of go out and party?

    come on now. /rant over

    [–]Endorsed ContributortrpSenator 12 points13 points  (2 children)

    They have to go through mental loops like creationists, to justify the glaring reality of the situation. No matter how true the reality of the situation being, "Women choose less demanding jobs because they can", they have to figure out a way to make it look like women are the oppressed rather than the privileged.

    [–]MelodyMyst -4 points-3 points  (1 child)

    Up vote for "mental loops like creationists"

    [–]MelodyMyst -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    Fuck off with your negative votes, red pill assholes....

    [–]ProjectShamrock 25 points26 points  (0 children)

    They just hired an attractive woman in my office who sits near me. The number of beta orbiters she picked up is astounding, and I knew them all before this and frankly I've lost respect for them now.

    Oh, and although I have no intention with this girl, I have applied some techniques from here just to see and she seems to try to get my attention frequently while all those beta guys have to seek hers.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    If anything, they are tripping over each other trying to hire the handful of women in the computing fields.

    And even more ironically, often promoting them (over and above far more qualified males) despite their relative incompetence or mediocrity at the more daunting aspects.

    This is then (in a further irony) justified by the fact that "managing" projects is seen as more of a clerical thing (Gantt charts, meetings with clients, "social" skills) so that the mediocrity/incompetence of women relative to technology actually serves to enhance their position & salary within the overall field.

    [–]ibuprofiend 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    I'd even say that reverse discrimination explains the number of women in the other fields--medicine, law, and physics. Every med and law school publishes its percent female students, and you constantly hear about "women in STEM" initiatives that give unqualified women scientific positions. At the moment, comp sci remains more meritocratic, so women aren't confident that merely showing up will get them high paying jobs.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    At the moment, comp sci remains more meritocratic

    And I think -- with the exception of various "people management" roles -- it will invariably remain that way.

    For one simple reason: computers are IMPLACABLE "logic" machines. They don't give a shit how you "feel", what emotions you display, how you attempt to engage in "conversation" about something, etc. -- they simply do not "work well" with the female-tilted skillset, but match up far better with the male-tilted skillset.

    It's the same reason that people with things like Aspergers tend to excel at such things (even over other males), yet struggle with more ambiguous "social" tasks.

    [–]incraved 36 points37 points  (13 children)

    In the comments there is the following a great video:

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news

    Here is what happens:

    • Feminists arguing that it is only society that affects our interests.

    • The reporter goes to actual scientists at different places and they show him their studies proving that there is an innate difference between the sexes:

      • Letting a child choose their toys proves it. Time 18:00
      • One day old little babies showing differences. Time 22:20
      • Refuting the stupid argument of "genitalia doesn't decide your interests" and I'm quoting "It seems to me quite extraordinary that evolution has operated on the reproductive system and has had absolutely no effect at all on our brain, the single most expensive organ that we have" at time 32:00
    • The reporter confronts the feminists with his findings after visiting the scientists:

      • PLEASE WATCH HER TRYING TO ARGUE AGAINST IT at time 33:58 It's fucking priceless... I rarely see such a magnificent hamster, it's unbelievable, she fucking knows she is a moron.
      • Watch the other male feminist trying to come up with a funny argument at 35:40 saying how they still haven't proven completely that the difference is innate, while simultaneously claiming that the opposite is true without any kind of scientific basis. That's the definition of hypocrisy, he is literally refuting their scientific findings claiming they are weak and they are not enough while at the same time claiming the opposite is true (biology has 0 effect) without any kind of proof whatsoever.

    These so called social "scientists" are in no way, shape or fucking form "scientists". The female feminist was literally saying "I feel that" blah blah when the reporter challenged her with the scientific findings and asked what's her scientific basis.

    Anyone with average intelligence can see through this bullshit.

    [–]through_a_ways 11 points12 points  (2 children)

    I would also like to add:

    Human male/female toy preferences are observed in both wild Chimpanzees, and wild Rhesus monkeys.

    Girls with abnormally higher androgen levels have "masculine" toy preferences.

    Toy preference correlates well, on a continuous scale, to the androgen level of a healthy child without any inborn medical conditions, regardless of the child's sex.

    These so called social "scientists" are in no way, shape or fucking form "scientists".

    Do you know why social science (and to a lesser extent life science) has become saturated with females in the last several decades, while the physical sciences haven't? It's because you can't BS physical science.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]through_a_ways -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      I think greater issue lies with the "infallibility" people profess to science, over that of social science.

      Ultimately, anyone with half a brain can figure out that the sexes/races/different sexualities have important differences.

      However, "politically correct" medicine is far more insidious, and is a far more addressable problem in an individual person's life, whereas changing feminism/racial diversity is not. It's politically incorrect to recognize the dangers of estrogen, the near-universal anti-life effects of polyunsaturated "essential" fats, as well as the health benefits of saturated fats, red spectrum radiation, (real) vitamin E, etc.

      I also have a problem with the "unrecognizable" laissez-faire attitude science has toward increasingly chemically/genetically involved agriculture and food processing (I'm not as well read about this, but I do know that genetically modified bacteria have caused an outbreak of deaths in the 80s/90s), and the infallibility and outright hypocrisy of global warming (we need to ban light bulbs and high water usage toilets, but god forbid we do anything about increasingly powerful and unnecessary personal electronic devices).

      When I say these biases are "unrecognizable", what I mean is that anyone who dares publicly recognize them is labelled a luddite or a "conspiracy theorist" ("conspiracy theorist" is actually a rather neutral label which has attracted derision over the last several decades).

      Like I said, the physical sciences (physics, chemistry, and astronomy, you can include math and CS in there as well) are less "fudgeable".

      If you want an example of sheer scientific hypocrisy, contrast the scientific community's attitude toward global warming with our current attitude toward human health:

      The former is said to be a new development directly caused by humans. It is backed up with correlation, theoretical reasoning, and heuristic evidence, gleaned through "looking at the big picture". Lots of alarmism.

      The latter is said to be an "old" development, in that it is only due to reasons which can be traced to our ancestral environment (lack of exercise and overeating). Correlative studies suggesting otherwise are completely dismissed, theoretical reasoning, no matter how sound, that supports politically incorrect conclusions is dismissed as well, and only algorithmic evidence, not heuristic models, is permitted. Reductionism takes precedence over holism. Rather than a lack of alarmism, there is a concerted effort toward "anti" alarmism, where people should never be concerned about the "common sense" issues of pesticide use, food processing, genetic modification, as well as demonstrably important issues like polyunsaturated fat consumption, water fluoridation, novel vaccinations, etc.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (5 children)

      I rarely see such a magnificent hamster, it's unbelievable, she fucking knows she is a moron.

      Hamster is a result of evolution as well. Women are as a sex biologically conditioned to hamster. They are incapable of making conclusions that are at odds with their biological imperatives.

      [–]through_a_ways 4 points5 points  (4 children)

      Hamster is a result of evolution as well. Women are as a sex biologically conditioned to hamster.

      Personally I don't think this is true. I think lots of people hamster. I've seen waaaaay too many men hamster.

      However, I think that there is an analytical, logical, more impartial type of mindset which can override the hamster.

      You'd expect such a thing to be related to IQ, and since men greatly outnumber women at high IQs (due to both a higher average IQ and a higher standard deviation, typically beginning at somewhere between 120 - 130), you see far more men with it than women.

      Hamster is the default, rational analytical thinking is exceptional (less so in certain spheres of discussion).

      [–]Overkillengine 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      Even a base high IQ isn't a guaranteed defense against hamstering.

      It can just mean a more agile hamster.

      [–]mynnyn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      There's actually evidence that smarter people are better at hamstering than dumb people:

      http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-taboo/the-dangers-of-being-smart

      I am reminded of Michael Shermer’s view, when he’s asked why smart people believe weird things, like creationism, ghosts and (as with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) fairies: “Smart people are very good at rationalizing things they came to believe for non-smart reasons.” If you’ve ever argued with a smart person about an obviously flawed belief, like ghosts or astrology, you’ll recognise this: their justifications often involve obfuscation, deep conjecture into areas you probably haven’t considered (and that probably aren’t) relevant, and are all tied together neatly and eloquently because she’s a smart person.

      By the argument made by the parent comment that men out number women in high IQ, you'd expect more men to hamster than women.

      [–]Overkillengine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's where "Nurture" comes in. More enabling means more hamstering, and more pronounced hamstering.

      [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      I would also like to point out the case of Dr Money. Essentially, he tried to get David Reimer's parents to raise David as a female after a failed circumcision which resulted in David losing his genital. However, that did not work out as David failed to identify with being a female. If I recall correctly, he apparently displayed a strong preference for male-related activities (e.g. football) instead of female-related activities (e.g. Barbie dolls) as a child, despite being raised as a female from day one. Eventually, he started to live as a male when he was 15. Given this, I would argue that there really is some innate differences between gender.

      Here's a link to a documentary about him.

      [–]Derzu_Uzala 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thank you for this information.

      [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      while simultaneously claiming that the opposite is true without any kind of scientific basis.

      Indeed, demonstrative of the very definition of a non-scientific "dogmatic" worldview.

      These so called social "scientists" are in no way, shape or fucking form "scientists".

      That's the inherent problem with the "social" qualifier/caveat there.

      Anyone with average intelligence can see through this bullshit.

      I don't know that THAT is true -- the problem with biases like that is that people will tend to agree/disagree based on what they -- ironically enough -- have been "indoctrinated" to believe.

      The woman at the 33:58 mark for example (the dogmatic-egalitarian) is ironically just demonstrating that -- he is entirely UNMOVABLE (and quite literally willfully blind) -- to anything other than what she has been "socialized" (via her "socialistic" indoctrination) to believe. She will go to her grave INSISTING that her view must be correct (and she will simply dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary).

      [–]Nettom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I recognised the vid immediately. It has allready been posted on here before by /u/theVet in RP.

      (I have the link to the threat but I am not sure if I am allowed to post it)(just see top posted threats in here and look for title: The documentary that made Scandinavians cut all funds to its gender studies institute)

      The video itself is really good, it takes the the approach head on with litlle to no room for other theory's.

      [–]sureshot8 38 points39 points  (6 children)

      You will notice a theme in the modern left today that any of their so-called protected groups are incapable of making their own choices.

      [–]miss_sogony 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      If women don't want to get into tech they fucking shouldn't, it's a horrid degree topic to study day in day out when the only reason she is going to college in the first place is for the abundance of suitors and the fact that she is briefly in her prime.

      If my department didn't have a £27,000+ typical starting salary nobody would give a fuck what the gender ratio was.

      Oh yea, and all the western women have their go to orbiters that basically give them free tutoring when things get a little too hard for their brains to handle.

      [–]1FrogTrainer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Can confirm. Was a monitor for a University Comp Sci lab when I was in college.

      Rules were we were supposed to keep the printer full of paper, computers running, make sure no one stole shit, and nothing else. NO HELPING STUDENTS WITH HOMEWORK. Was a nice rule most of the time. I sat there half asleep, and if anyone asked for help, basically told them to F off. Of course this rule flew out the window if a hot girl asked for help.

      Ironically my comp sci program was actually 50% female. But... 99.9% of the females were not American. All international students from China and India. I found that odd, why are so many foreign girls going for comp sci degree but american girls just don't give a fuck?

      [–]1trplurker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Access to successful eligible bachelors. They are hoping to work for tech firms in their own countries and thus get access to successful men vs working sh!t jobs and only associating with poor men. For them it's a path to a higher standard of living.

      [–]5 Endorsed Contributorgekkozorz 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      That's what they say out of one side of their mouth. Then they say out of the other, "women are strong and independent and can do anything men can just as well or better."

      Their words claim agency, but with their actions they're saying they're inferior.

      [–]Overkillengine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Hypoagency/abdication of responsibility. They do it as an emotional blackmail tactic against the target and the audience to drum up support/sympathy regardless of the actual truth of their situation.

      [–]RPDBF -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Na man clearly 100% revenge of the Nerds fault. /s

      [–]TankVet 12 points13 points  (2 children)

      My profession is 80% female. Nobody cares.

      [–]cuntbh 10 points11 points  (4 children)

      Patriachy- Because I'm sure no comp sci undergrads want more females on their course.

      /s

      I can guarantee you that from the top down, at all levels, computer scientist would love more women to study- so how can feminazis claim that there is pressure against them studying computer science!

      I can see that there is some pressure against physics- a friend on my course was genuinely asked by an OFSTED (UK schools grading system) inspector "Why are you in physics, you're a girl?".

      [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      I can guarantee you that from the top down, at all levels, computer scientist would love more women to study- so how can feminazis claim that there is pressure against them studying computer science!

      No doubt someone will say: "See that just proves how PATRONIZING the field is."

      By bending over backwards to help women, they are actually disabling them. (And ironically enough, there is probably some truth to that -- but in the end it doesn't/won't change the ratio.)

      [–]Hoodwink 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      We should start doing the exact opposite. To penalize women for going into engineering, it would probably get more women to join than trying to offer (cash) rewards. Women already get enough cash rewards coming from everywhere else - so it's a heavily diluted reward for young women. We have to actually get them to rage and tell them that women are idiots to go into engineering and comp sci.

      That would probably would actually work if the Seinfeld "do the opposite" of what we've been doing with women works out like this.

      [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      There is literally no blockade for women to get into CS and tech. A lot of colleges will offer grants and bursaries exclusively to women to entice them getting into the course. Once they graduate, they are further given hiring incentives and preferentially picked to meet hiring quotas. And lastly, once in, women are treated like princesses because of all the thirsty betas the field attracts.

      At no point is there any "patriarchy" preventing them from getting into the field or succeeding. I really don't understand the oppression argument, excepting that it's likely a way for women to hamster their feelings of inadequacy about it.

      [–]cuntbh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      But it's a male dominated field because men don't want women around them. Nothing to do with it being nerdy and full of sweaty neckbeards.

      [–]batfish55 7 points8 points  (2 children)

      I was recently curious about gender statistics in college majors. In this case, I was pondering how often women ACTUALLY think about stuff. You know, logically (I'm being serious, stop laughing).

      If you google: "gender divides in philosophy", and take the first hit, you get a nice graph of percentages of PhD's awarded to women, by major. Not surprisingly, the least-awarded majors by women, all at about 20%, are Physics ('cause, seriously, anyone who's taken advanced physics classes can tell you, that math makes your head fucking hurt), computer science (there's a reason my coding skills suck - it's tough for a lot of people), and engineering (the studied application of those mind-fucking physics equations).

      Also, not surprisingly, at the top of the graph, the most oft-awarded majors by women, at around 70%, are literature and psychology (because, feelz?).

      The part that I was looking for was down at the bottom. It turns out that women only get about 30% of the PhDs in philosophy. So, the take-away is....women don't like having to think? Especially logically?

      [–]1independentmale 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      It has nothing to do with what they like and everything to do with what they're capable of.

      Emotion and logic do not coexist well. Women are much more emotional creatures, whereas men are much more logical. Ergo, women dominate fields such as nursing and teaching while men dominate fields such as science and engineering. It's just how we're wired. There's nothing wrong with this.

      I have some 20 years of professional IT experience. I've worked with at least a hundred men. Maybe three women and only two I remember clearly. Both were very good at their jobs. There is no "patriarchy" keeping women out of computer science. The guys in the field are uber nerds who don't get a lot of female contact. They would give their collective left nuts to have more women around so long as those women could hold their own and do the job.

      [–]kratol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I don't really care if women are in my office or not. You shouldn't do relationships or dating in the office for many career reasons, so you can just be friends. If your just going to be work friends, the gender of the person doesn't really matter.

      [–]DSPR 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      I'm more concerned about that powerful Matriarchy that's keeping so many men out of fulfilling careers at Great Clips and the like, tragically.

      [–]super-nsfw 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Somewhat relevant, watch this documentary on Netflix:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kings_of_Pastry

      Pastry chefs.....does this seem like a field that would tend to be discriminatory towards women? Do a large percentage of boys tend to start cooking at a young age?

      Take a wild guess as to the gender mix of the 16 finalists in the video. That's right 100% men.

      If women are claiming certain fields discriminate, I'd be curious to hear an explanation why the upper tiers of almost any endeavor is overwhelmingly male, and also why certain "shitty" or extremely difficult jobs are overwhelmingly male.

      [–]joe_bruised_ego 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      Jesus, but this graph is misleading. Women have always been less interested in CS, but when data entry with punch-cards was discontinued and CS was split off from various engineering courses there was a dip across the board. This graph paints a much clearer picture. But then again, it doesn't help anyone gain oppression points, so I can see why it's less popular.

      [–]gabilromariz 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      My engineering school recently got a new director who mentioned some neat statistics in his start-out speech, namely that now nearly half of students are female.

      However, of these female students, half of them are in non-engineering courses available in the school, namely nutrition and communication networks. I was pleasantly surprised with the candor used when explaining these statistics:

      • Girls tend to go to majors they'll "naturally" be better at. This means stuff like communication, education and other social-science-type stuff
      • Most girls entering engineering courses will drop out withut finishing their degree (70%-ish). Of these, nearly 100% went to another university to get a different degree, not just dropped out for other reasons (work, family, etc)
      • Of the few that stay, most are in engineerings that value girly skills like industrial management or chemistry, where being extremely organized and neat is very important
      • Other engineering fields value skills most girls lack (and that are hard to learn for them) like spacial reasoning and quick mental math, which makes them prefer other things they'll be better at
      • In other "male dominated engineering" field there are still some women here and there. I asked some about this "issue" and the answers are almost unanimous: " I love what I'm doing. There are few girls in this field but it's not like we're oppressed, they flat out don't like it! "

      I haven't personally experienced this "encouraging girls to go to stem", but the girls I have met in engineering school meet one of those points above. In a mix of amazed and shocked at the honest viewing of my school's stats I only have one question: when can we as a society stop nitpicking at this kind of stuff and just encourage people to go to professions they'll be good at?

      [–]Rienuaa 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Hi, I'm a girl in a Computer Science related degree program. No, not Game Design or something similarly fluffy, I'm going to be a network engineer and am majoring in Network and Systems Administration. That requires extensive knowledge and a ton of experience to be good, and is a great in-demand job for people like me who enjoy mucking about and running casual traces.

      What I've noticed, being so entrenched in the computing college of my university, is that I feel very pressured to do well to represent my gender. I end up giving a good impression - I'm very good at what I do - but it still makes me feel like if I mess up I am letting the other girls down. (I guess there really is a relevant xkcd for everything: http://xkcd.com/385/ )

      But you know what? I'm the only fucking girl left in my major. There were a ton here during the beginning, but once we started BASH suddenly now they rethink it all. And every single fucking girl friend of mine complains about how they were treated. "Oh, they were so sexist," "oh, they judged me for being a girl."

      This graph and discussion doesn't surprise me. I'm not being treated worse in my classes, I am being treated better. I get more chances. On the off chance I screw up and a server goes down, you can't blame me. The girl. That's sexist. Girls are leaving the jobs like that because they are difficult.

      I'm really pissed at my friends for giving up, but if they couldn't handle the classes we are taking now they certainly won't be able to handle actual routing and switching. God forbid they try to become Cisco certified.

      [–]anihilistlol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      is that I feel very pressured to do well to represent my gender

      You know who's judging you on that, right? Those are other women. Most men, frankly, don't care as long you're good at what you do.

      The feeling of letting other people down isn't uncommon among men who are high achievers too.

      [–]through_a_ways 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      I want to see some real intra-leftist wars.

      Whenever someone talks about women being discriminated against because of low representation, just be a pretend-leftist:

      Say that assuming the situation is entirely or mostly due to sexism is a denial of women's agency to choose whatever careers they deem most satisfying.

      [–]USmellFunny 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      These are your average highschool girls, ready to finish highschool next year and go to college. I'm sure math is all they think about.

      [–]netarangi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Doing compsci at uni in NZ. There's probably 15% females, if that. Which 10% of them are Asian descent and rest kiwi. (Only reason I point out the Asian descent is cause I've found they are very technically gifted and hard working, wasn't meaning any racism). It's their fault they don't do it. Oh, the kiwi girls are failing hard too, they'll leach onto any of the 95% beta bucks in the class for help/do all my work.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (2 children)

        They don't really earn value from hard work.

        [–]thrway1312 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        This is what otherwise-potentially-attractive fat girls tell themselves.

        [–]1H42 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        The primary reason why women fail/drop-out/never begin hard-core computer science is because they know that sometime in the future they will press the "easy mode" button on their life and will use their pussy to snag a BetaBux for their free ride.

        Why persevere with something as difficult to master as coding when they are in college to major in Mrs.?

        [–]ThanksRoissy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I disagree with the comment you quoted, well most of it:

        That mindset needs to change at home. From the parents. Specifically mothers - women who are a role model to their daughters and coin the perception of gender and gender roles for their children. Your daughter won't ever be an engineer if all you do is cook and clean the house and are in charge of sorting files at work.

        Parent's career field has little to nothing to do with children's career field. Especially in first world countries where there is a wide choice in education. You would know this if you read the side-bar and watched the videos. IQ and similar interests match up with parents, but only on a nature side, not so on the nurture side.

        [–]mega_beta 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        To be a good programmer requires a strong capacity to make logical decisions. Women might be good programmers if you put 10 of them in front of the same computer screen.

        [–]Christian_Kong 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        I went to 2 (large state)colleges in my time. Of all the (many)computer classes 2 females were in any of them. A few years later working in field service I saw one of them at one of my jobs. She was programming COBALT(or some other archaic prog language) with them for a while now. Its a state job so you can pretty much tell what she was making, and she was making very good money even assuming she didnt get any pay raises over base.

        As far as school descrimination is concerned. High school has computer classes as mandatory. Most of my College classes are full of what you guys consider "betas." Most of the guys are reserved, keep to themselves, nerdy/geeky types. Certainly not many individuals that would make a female uncomfortable.

        Maybe there is job discrimination, I dont know, I dont do HR stuff. Most of the guys I have known that would be in charge of hiring are good men, family men and I havent often came into a position where it seemed like is was a "old boys club."

        It's easier to complain about these things and get a quick scapegoat then look for the real problem.

        [–]EvrythingISayIsRight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        People don't complain about the fact that women don't work in coal mines or on construction sites, either. Why should technical jobs be any different?

        Women only want men's high-status & high paying jobs. Men can keep all the other bad shit. Where are all the women protesting about the lack of male nurses? Oh wait, if you ask any woman that they will say, in one way or another, that men have it easy enough already and they should work harder to be nurses if they want it so bad. Why can't it be the same for women? Leave the coding to the people who want it, don't start handing out/sponsoring CS degrees just so the numbers match up.

        [–]SariaLystra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        They will do anything to obtain value... Except they'll never lift a finger. They'll get some bitch to do it for them and take all the credit

        [–]flubberskin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Why no outcry for having more men working in rape crisis centers for women? Why aren't we encouraging and making it easier for more men to get grants and lowering the acceptance bar to allow more men into this field?

        That hurt your head to read I hope! Just showing how ridiculous this shit is for modifying jobs just so more women sign up.

        [–]Acx3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        The female imperative has the ability to restructure and redefine our approach to metaphysical reality itself. when you think about that- its incredibly bizarre and fascinating. Gender politics is telling us that interpretation of absolute reality is whatever females want it to be. Perhaphs this is the consequence of our anti intellectualism. Somethings gotta fill the vacuum doesnt matter what it is.

        [–]ALargeBicep 8 points9 points  (23 children)

        I was originally a computer science major, and in my intro to C/C++ class there were 11 girls during the first week. After week 2, there were 3. By add/drop there were 0 females in the class other than the professor.

        They just don't have the capacity to grasp the logical thinking that comes with coding.

        Edit: to those saying women do grasp the logic but don't want to do it, that's fine. In this instance, all the girls didn't have the critical thinking skills required to do a basic programming problem, hence why >they just don't have the capacity

        [–]gstvtrp 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        When there actually are women in my engineering classes, they tend to be foreign.

        [–]jmottram08 13 points14 points  (9 children)

        They just don't have the capacity to grasp the logical thinking that comes with coding.

        I think this is a bit far.

        Most women can think logically, they just don't like to.

        Men enjoy logical problems / work.

        Women enjoy other things.

        Men can go shopping for 5 hours and try on 20 different pairs of jeans and determine which one is best for them, but they don't enjoy it, so they don't do it.

        Women can sit down and work to solve a computer problem with formal logic by coding a solution, but they don't enjoy it, so they don't do it.

        Its just that men and women are different.

        [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 9 points10 points  (0 children)

        Women can sit down and work to solve a computer problem with formal logic by coding a solution, but they don't enjoy it, so they don't do it.

        And because they don't "enjoy" it (for it's own sake) -- they tend to NOT become proficient at it.

        The same is true of many "skilled" things -- as Paul Graham noted in one of his essays, when we say someone has a "natural talent" (for say "drawing") what we are often being oblivious to is the fact that said "natural talent" is really a result of a massive amount of time & effort that was put into (often from a very young age) developing the proficiency.

        You cannot simply take a "drawing class" and expect to crank out the equivalent of an Albrect Durer illustration -- meanwhile some "daydreaming-stoner" who has spent his entire life "doodling" with pens/pencils can often do so despite having never had ANY "formal" instruction.

        And that is generally the case with computer programming and the kind of "mechanical/mathematical logic" that underlies it -- it simply isn't something that you are likely to become proficient at without putting in the (countless) hours of "active" thought & effort outside of the relatively "passive" environment of some formal class.

        [–]ALargeBicep 3 points4 points  (5 children)

        They couldn't even do a simple pointer problem because they didn't understand it. That's incompetency, not enjoyment.

        Granted programming logic is difficult for a lot of men to understand too.

        [–]jmottram08 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        As you said... pointers are notoriously hard for people.

        I tutored intro CS courses... and the amount of males that failed to grasp the concept was alarmingly large.

        [–]ALargeBicep -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

        Past a certain part, pointers are difficult. But the basic "write a pointer that gets the sum of x and y" was so difficult for these women.

        [–]thro_way 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        But the basic "write a pointer that gets the sum of x and y"

        I don't think you know what pointers are.

        [–]ALargeBicep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It's been over a year since I've even touched visual studio, so I'm not surprised if my example of a problem is off. I've switched majors now.

        [–]SuperPhiSwag -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Hahah all you guys are fucking idiots..

        [–]1independentmale 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I disagree. You're trying to make men and women look equally capable because that's the politically correct thing to do. In some areas, women are naturally better than men. In others, they just aren't.

        You can't just choose to make your mind comprehend this stuff. Either it's in your blood and you love it and get it or you don't. Most women can't do this. To say, oh, they can, they just don't want to, I find that quite disingenuous. It's a pretty cover for an ugly truth.

        My girlfriend is an educator, virtually all of her work centers around personal interactions and communications. There's a whole science behind it, it's impressive stuff and I'm not ashamed to say it baffles the hell out of me. Her field is dominated by women, why? Our minds work differently.

        [–]jmottram08 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I disagree. You're trying to make men and women look equally capable because that's the politically correct thing to do.

        I am not.

        I am saying that in this particular case, the differences aren't "gurls can't do math, hurp durp".

        In some areas, women are naturally better than men. In others, they just aren't.

        Which is a statement that I agree with. I even said as much.

        You can't just choose to make your mind comprehend this stuff.

        Anyone can learn computer science 101.

        I mean that literally.

        I tutored the class.... I can get anyone to pass. This isn't super complex math, this isn't scaling a fortress.... this is really really basic level shit.

        To say, oh, they can, they just don't want to, I find that quite disingenuous. It's a pretty cover for an ugly truth.

        Its true though.

        Saying that girls physically can't do computer science 101 is pretty absurd.

        [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        They just don't have the capacity to grasp the logical thinking that comes with coding.

        I disagree.

        I think they choose an EASIER path. It is not that they are incapable, just that (generally speaking) they would rather not put in the additional effort that would be required.

        [–]DarkSayed 4 points5 points  (9 children)

        They just don't have the capacity to grasp the logical thinking that comes with coding.

        I don't think that's true, they just bale out more quickly for some reason.

        In mathematics, the gender ratios are much more balanced.

        [–]ALargeBicep -4 points-3 points  (7 children)

        That's mathematics. This is programming. Have you ever coded anything outside of Python before?

        [–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R 2 points3 points  (6 children)

        How do you write code while riding your high horse?

        Come on now, just recently a woman won the Fields Medal. You can't claim that women don't have the ability to think logically. Yes, it is obvious that they have less of a desire for it on average, but they can become skilled at it if they put in the effort.

        Problem is, why would any woman put in the effort? I wouldn't be in a STEM field if I had people tripping over themselves to get my attention and give me nice things; I would just do whatever it is that keeps people doing that (focusing on my appearance more than my skillset). This is why so many women are boring aside from their looks.

        [–]MelodyMyst 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        There are outliers in every group. That does not make it the norm.

        [–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        There is a non-negligible percentage of women in the STEM fields who are doing just fine. Yes, most of them were driven into the field due to being fat/ugly/crazy and not having better options, but once they end up in the field, many of them do okay. They are not outliers, but they are minorities.

        To say that women are incapable of learning to program is some elitist bullshit.

        [–]ALargeBicep 0 points1 point  (3 children)

        Did you read the edit? I said in this instance.

        And I don't code anymore. I was extremely good at it. But I hated it and changed majors.

        [–]3 Endorsed ContributorF9R -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

        I was extremely good at it. But I hated it and changed majors.

        You're coming across as a prick, mate.

        [–]ALargeBicep 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        I'd be a prick if I said I was better at it than other people. Which, obviously, I'm not. I have strengths and weaknesses just like everybody else.

        Just because I was good at it doesn't make me a prick. Unless of course you feel threatened by me being good at programming.

        [–]thrway1312 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        Arnold didn't go around telling people he was extremely good at lifting, he showed people; maybe prick was less apt than braggart but the two are often synonymous.

        [–]thrway1312 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I would argue this discrepancy can be explained by a very similar % of women being capable of learning a STEM framework with a significantly lower % of women with the work ethic to push themselves to completion.

        [–]2RedPillSafe 0 points1 point  (15 children)

        Being a former Java Programmer and having a 145 IQ my observation is that when you get into the profession and you begin to "test" your competition (other programmers) they tend to think very much as you do. Everyone I worked with had IQ's well above 100 and typically up very high near 150. (one guy was 165)

        It's known that testosterone alters the brain and produces:

        • Increased Impulsivity

        • Increased Logical Reasoning

        ...but these seem incompatible.

        How can testosterone increase both impulsivity and logical reasoning?

        Not sure, but it does.

        If the logical reasoning is less "actualized" in a high testosterone male you may get an emotional brute who cannot think straight. But this guy will be really Alpha emotionally and the chicks will love to ride him.

        If the logical reasoning dominates and the animal side is repressed you will get the beta computer dork with very low extroversion and probably an addiction to porn. This is the guy who benefits a great deal by learning of Red Pill because his IQ is high enough to actually be able to comprehend his "addiction" to his own brain and be able to improve himself. (find your animal)

        The ideal is to have your animal impulsivity and logical reasoning blended together. The great minds tend to be "risk taking" philosophers who use their animal intuition to propose new ways of seeing things. Great minds can also be gregarious extroverts who love to party.


        How does this effect women?

        Women have none of the traits that make for logical reasoning, so they will never be at the level of the top IQ men.

        Sorry... you can't change biology.

        [–]watersign 8 points9 points  (0 children)

        good post, all my engineering friends are brilliant and i know for fact they have very high IQs. As someone with an average IQ who works in a quasi-STEM role, it is incredibly hard to keep up.

        [–]C_D_O 5 points6 points  (1 child)

        Impulsiveness and logical reasoning go hand in hand I think, its just that our societal models of "learning" are inherently female based. Thats why women outperform men in academia (children, high school and universities) yet men outperform women where work is judged on its own merit.

        Men detest learning by rote, reciting information off a whiteboard. Conversely, men are more likely to experiment with information personally, more likely to look outside the box. This is where the impulsiveness comes into play.

        Women are great at rote learning, but unlikely to pursue/try to understand the subject matter for the sake of simply understanding.

        [–]1Krackor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Novel learning - creating new ideas, as opposed to rote learning, which is incorporating existing ideas - is an ongoing process of trial and error, and eventually success. Algorithms like simulated annealing and genetic algorithms wouldn't work without sufficient temperature or mutation probability. Impulsiveness is the human brain's analog.

        [–]caliboo -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

        IQ? Seriously RPSafe? :p

        You believe in astrology and blood type dating too?

        EDIT: My impression of IQ is while it may be real, 99% of people overestimate, lie, or whatever about theirs. My IQ was measured "high" when I was younger, but I knew enough dumbasses who would brag about theirs to think it's a garbage metric generally.

        Regardless I agree with the rest of RPSafe's post particularly the testosterone part. . . But even if IQ is a "real" thing it's got a bad reputation in my eyes.

        [–]1 Endorsed Contributorjsl2837 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        In this link, the author theorizes that creativity is comprised of three components:

        • IQ

        • Associative Horizon

        • Conscientiousness

        People often underestimate the importance of IQ when they compare high-IQ dullards against witty/creative types, or against people of average IQ who punch above their weight through sheer hard work (high conscientiousness).

        Furthermore, different fields of endeavor place different weights on each trait.

        IQ is, nevertheless, quite real.

        [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (7 children)

        Are you saying IQ is nonsense? You have to be kidding me...

        [–]1whatsazipper 6 points7 points  (1 child)

        I'm not who you're replying to, however: It isn't entirely nonsense but it certainly only measures a confined component of human brain aptitudes. I don't think IQ is synonymous with human intelligence at all, but it may identify and measure some group of human brain capabilities.

        Edit: I'm not saying that IQ is a useless measure. People who perform well on it often have very conscious-dominant, fast-thinking brains. No doubt, people who excel in this fashion correlate with good life outcomes.

        However, I disagree heavily with the notion that it captures 'intelligence', all inclusive.

        People possess and excel in brain aptitudes that are not measured by IQ tests. One that immediately jumps to mind is mechanical reasoning. I've met plenty of men of traditionally low or average intelligence who have tremendous capabilities in terms of figuring out how the world around them can be modified. They can reason about the mechanical and walk circles around traditionally intelligent engineers.

        There's far more variety in human intelligence, especially MALE intelligence, than an IQ test lets us realize. As someone who has worked in science, medicine, and software engineering, I'm always impressed with the variety of minds I encounter and there's simply no way IQ is capturing all of them.

        [–]caliboo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I think what you've said captures the essence of what I was trying to counterpoint with.

        [–]Dick-Tracy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

        Not that IQ is nonsense, so much as most people have not actually had real, legitimate, professionally administered IQ tests - the shit you find online does not count and drastically overinflates scores.

        165 IQ my ass, you'd be working on the LHC or as a Quant or something, not fucking posting here

        [–]ibuprofiend 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        In any case, it's a douchebag move to tell people what your IQ is.

        [–]1Krackor 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        It adds context to /u/RedPillSafe's comment. If you feel offended by it, don't read his comment.

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        But how would he know he was gonna be offended before reading it? :P

        [–]Jar_of_apples -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        No it's just a move that makes you uncomfortable because you're insecure with yourself. You're acting like a woman being "offended" by something relevant to the story.

        [–]2RedPillSafe 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201206/brainiacs-and-billionaires

        "The top 1 percent to .01 percent includes people with IQs that range from 137 to 160. Those in this range are in the upper echelons of the STEM professions, such as elite engineers, programmers, or computer science professors, and top lawyers, politicians, journalists and academics who have a more verbal bent. Those who score above 160 are primarily the very smartest mathematicians and physicists, whose success depends to a great deal on their raw mental processing power."


        I assure you from first hand experience that men with IQ's closer to 100 cannot exist in the upper levels of the STEM fields.

        Ordinary IQ is acceptable in many lower level tasks, but at the research level and for men who manage complex systems you need the big guns.

        Obamacare nearly collapsed when it was first released because there was a woman assigned to the head of the project. This is no surprise.

        [–]watersign 4 points5 points  (0 children)

        IQ is a big factor in success in life, IMO.

        [–]pha111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Theory: People do poorly when they are patronized. And computer programming departments are full of the kinds of omega males who put all women on a pedestal. As the ratio gets worse, the omega males try harder, which just makes things worse. There are tons of female-only conputer clubs and training classes out there now, but I haven't seen an increase in female programmers due to it.

        [–]_Shakespeares_Sister 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I think that one of the (many) problems with feminism is that it tries to get men and women to compete as equals, when the truth is that each sex has it's own unique set of skills. We complement each other.

        It took YEARS for my husband to convince me to quit my shitty office job and go work in engineering. He told me that I could make twice as much money while doing less work.

        He was right.

        Women have a lot of advantages in engineering, and a lot of our advantages are due to the fact that men and women are different.

        In other words, I wouldn't make a good Java programmer, and I don't want to be a Java programmer, but I have skills that I bring to the table that many of my coworkers don't.

        [–]systemshock869 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The hivemind thinks that everything in life should be changed to accommodate any minority group, not just women. (Unless it's men - see male nurses)

        Not enough black people on the National Polka Committee? Something must be wrong with the system!!

        [–]watersign -2 points-1 points  (16 children)

        Coding is a shit job anyways

        [–]1whatsazipper 4 points5 points  (8 children)

        There are plenty of interesting jobs in software development and related fields. As well as a lot of money. I switched from science and medicine to software and I'm still surprised at the freedom I have. The former grind your soul away for abysmal wages, or the promise of a better outcome after years of service and indebtedness.

        Additionally, you can take technology skills to other fields, leading to new areas of interesting problems to solve.

        [–]watersign -1 points0 points  (7 children)

        Obviously....coding is a good skill to have, I don't think it's a good career, in fact I don't think STEM professions are careers at all, they're just high paying jobs.

        I just think it's a shit job because you're just seen as a worker and a cost, not an asset. Obviously, at tech companies like Google it's not like this but most companies aren't Google or Amazon.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 3 points4 points  (2 children)

        I'm not sure why you're saying you're only a worker and not an asset.

        I've found a great deal of interest in me as I've become a proficient coder. It's a very solid path to a pretty decent salary, and you can create your own tools to make your job easier.

        [–]watersign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        you'll always be a 'worker' as a coder

        [–]mobileagnes 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Probably means you won't be making the top decisions on what to make/do that leads onto what your day to day work looks like.

        [–]1whatsazipper 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        What is a good career to you?

        [–]watersign -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        Something that isnt volatile and pays well. Accounting, Medicine, being Actuary, plumbing, etc...these are careers, not "jobs".

        [–]1trplurker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Yeah ... no.

        The best coders aren't "workers", they are self employed contractors and work from home. Companies will hire them for specific projects and pay a negotiated rate, usually by the amount of hours required. They then send their work to the contractor who writes / debugs / whatever they part they want along with the required standardized documentation.

        You set your own hours, manage your own retirement, work from home and are responsible for your own retirement / ect. You work for yourself in a way similar to owning your own business. To do this requires you establish a reputation for being extremely good and self-sufficient.

        [–]ibuprofiend -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

        As a former CS major, I agree. It's not even that hard to be a competent programmer, it's just intensely boring. Plus you'll never see more omega neckbeards in one place than in a CS lecture hall, and those are not the kind of people I want to work with for the rest of my life.

        It's hilarious that tech companies still can't find workers despite the enormous incentives they give.

        And of course coding is a perfect job for outsourcing. As soon as China and India get their shit together, no one is going to hire Chad from Stanford for $150,000 when they can get Raj to do the same work for $10,000.

        [–]watersign 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        CRUD applications can be outsourced but the real 'engineering' that goes on in big companies like Google and Amazon requires smart people and these guys get paid well and if it could be outsourced, it would be already. I'm a data analyst and use programming for scripting so I get to do some CS stuff but interact with 'business' so im not some code monkey. My advice to any CS or Engineering major is to get a grasp of business and use your STEM degree to be a better business man- learn analytics and take an interest in the business side of things, you'll get respect and alot more money than being solely technical.

        [–]ibuprofiend 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        I agree... tech will always have a place for tech-literate businessmen and high level engineers, but the armies of code monkeys that exist today aren't going to survive. In the near future those entry-level jobs will be outsourced or automated.

        [–]1trplurker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Yes and no. The problem with outsourcing something like coding is that the place your outsource too needs to be capable of producing competent coders which is against the low wage society paradigm. This isn't like manufacturing where you can identify a defective line and factor in the cost of replacement as a percentage of costs. If there is a defect in your code then all your product is defective. It's why good code documentation and managed code is so essential, it allows easier / cheaper debuging.

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Raj doesn't work for $10,000 anymore. I wish he did.

        [–]17 Endorsed ContributorHumanSockPuppet -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        you'll never see more omega neckbeards in one place than in a CS lecture hall, and those are not the kind of people I want to work with for the rest of my life.

        Don't be silly.

        If you're lifting and they're not, then you can easily overpower them and make them do your bidding. Then you are a god among mortal men.

        [–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Quite.

        My knowledge of game is near mythical to many tech omegas.

        And note, I'd only consider myself halfway decent.

        [–]dominant_driver -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

        Why would anyone want a CS degree now anyway? Most IT jobs don't pay so well anymore.

        [–]chairmobile 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        If you think cs = it or even cs = coding then you don't understand what cs is.

        [–]dominant_driver -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

        Perhaps not. Please explain for us.

        [–]chairmobile 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Well, it's definitely forgivable to equate CS to coding; that's the public perception of it.

        What CS really is is just that: Computer science. It combines coding with understanding how computers work at the machine structure level, the OS level, and exposes the abstraction barriers we're used to.

        Then comes the other side: abstract mathematics, number/graph theory, algorithm analysis, and discrete math. These combined studies comprise the science of computers.

        [–]polysyllabist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        Not to say that there is no truth to that position. But what annoys me is that it's the only allowed position to have.

        When computer science was small, it attracted a niche of both sexes. As it expanded, there continued to be an abundant amount of men interested in the field. Not to say that there were not subtle gender exclusionary practices that may have hindered equivalent penetration with women, but the notion that maybe women as a larger whole were not as interested in the field as other such fields to a comparable equivalent with men is somehow unacceptable.

        [–]Edabite -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

        If you had listened to the Planet Money episode, you would know that the blame was put on the lack of access to personal computers to girls. CS is a field where you have to have already been using a computer for years to do well. Advertisers never thought to advertise computers as things for girls, and so boys had most of the personal computers. It is a great episode of the podcast.

        [–]chairmobile 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        The fuck? How do apple and Microsoft advertise to boys specifically? Most ads I see focus on features. Most don't even have a person in them

        [–]Edabite -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

        It wasn't Apple and Microsoft at the time as much as Radio Shack and Commodore. There were some ads specifically targeted at kids, except those kids happened to boys, leading to an idea that computers were for boys.

        [–]SuperPhiSwag 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Right on. Without experience before coming into the University.. you either have to be a fast learner or you're just a fish out of water. I'm not 100% sure on the advertising theory.