top 200 commentsshow all 238

[–]1johnnight 91 points92 points  (10 children)

This is not a $20K bonus. It's not money that they can spend on anything. This is a bribe to make the career women continue making shit out of their life. Do you remember who is least satisfied with life? Woman, 42, single, childless, professional career.

If they need 20K to bribe women to stay on the career path, then that means that those women were slowly waking up to the question: "What the fuck am I doing with my life? I need to get out of here and get pregnant."

All this PROMISE does is making women sleep well and falsely worry less, even though this is not a guarantee of fertility. It's not like they are freezing their wombs. You still need money for in vitro.

Get off the treadmill, people. The modern economy wants you to adjust and crook your spine to its demands, not the other way around.

[–]2mbillion 15 points16 points  (1 child)

my thought exactly - 20k is a cheap bribe for the company to trick the women into working through their best years, their reproductive years - then they can still have a baby when they are all dried up.

Really this is about what is good for the company and women not taking maternity leave during their crucial working years is good for the company.

[–]2alisonstone 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And most of the women probably won't do it (or won't do it until they are nearing 30). Extracting eggs isn't an easy, pain free process. Men can just wank in a cup and be done in five minutes if they want to preserve their sperm. If sperm freezing is provided as a benefit for men, they'd just do it cause there is no reason not to.

Basically, it gives women false confidence that giving 100% to Apple or Facebook from 22-28 won't have consequences. When the wall is an inch from their face, they'll realize that freezing eggs isn't such a simple solution.

[–]thisjibberjabber 26 points27 points  (4 children)

Yes.

This strikes me as similar to companies providing free mountain dew and espresso to coders. It is not a benefit as much as a way to make the workers more productive which is cost-effective for the company.

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

Free pizza for the project team on Fridays...

[–]1cover20 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There's more to having a baby. There are several stages that all become impossible at menopause:

(1) release of fertile eggs (2) fertilization (3) implantation into womb and growing the baby (4) birth (5) nursing

You'll have to pay for someone else to do all that. (5) can be replaced somewhat by formula.

And how good are frozen eggs anyway? Do you really want a test tube baby rather than one you bonded with by sex, watching him/her grow inside, and nursing from mom? Maybe so but you're missing something. And women know it.

[–]imaRPman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, I just read that most women drop out of tech because of the crazy hours and once they have kids they realize child care options are crap and they would rather raise a family.

So i see this as an attempt to keep them around longer.

[–]kratol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. This is much cheaper than maternity leave for them. I've seen enough women just do the extended quitting vacation of maternity leave. Also acquiring a new worker cost more than $20k.

[–]2RedPillSafe 89 points90 points  (87 children)

You forget how Dark Triads (the CEO's) prefer to organize their companies.

The "workers" (males) exist on the bottom level carrying the bulk of the weight. In high tech (I was a Java Programmer) you can be well paid for your efforts, but your status will always be as the "worker".

The "middle layer" is given politically correct ideologies where women fit perfectly. This is the level of complete cluelessness and the more disconnected your womans hamstering and self delusion the more perfectly adapted she is for this layer.

The "top" guys are all Dark Triad types who laugh at the "middle layer" and hold a level of disgust for the "workers" who slave away for their benefit. The more insane the "middle layer" can be pushed the better because it's a:

BUFFER

...that separates the "top" from the "worker".

It makes sense for the CEO's to inflict their own Matrix on the organization.

[–]2alisonstone 16 points17 points  (15 children)

This is what I hate about the tech industry. If programmers and engineers collectively ask for more compensation, especially at more profitable firms like Google or Apple, they would get it. But the problem is, the labor force is overwhelmingly beta, especially when it comes to finances.

I switched from engineering to finance and got a huge raise immediately. People in finance have a Red Pill mentality about money. They don't pussyfoot around the money question. People know how much the firm makes, and if they feel that they are not getting their fair share, they will go to a competitor, often carrying some of the competitive advantages with them.

Individually, you can't do anything about it in the tech industry. If you are a programmer and you know how everything works, you can't simply ask for a 50% raise because there are a ton of other guys who are willing to work overtime for no extra compensation and replace you. I couldn't stand the fact that when I was an engineer, many of my co-workers would work their ass off, putting in 60 hours a week for no extra compensation. They get the promise of future promotion, which might come 3-5 years down the road (it is more likely that they will leave the company before hand). And even if they get the promotion, they only get a 5% raise. After tax, it's pretty much negligible. Even if you have the talent to be the best, it made more sense to be mediocre and only put in enough work so you are "average". You might make 5-10% less money, but you are doing 40 hour weeks instead of 60. Women in tech, including the smart ones that are competent, seem to understand this better than the men. You often hear guys say that all the top employees are men, or that when crunch time comes it is the men that everybody relies on to get the project done the night before the deadline. They say it like it is good thing! Can't they see that the women are the smart ones there? They work their 40 hours and they are done while the other guys put in 20 extra hours for no pay!

I couldn't stand being in an environment where I have an incentive to be operating at far less than 100%. The harder I work, the more people realize that I am good, and the more I am asked to work over the weekend to meet deadlines. I rather be the person that is "okay" that gets the job done correctly on time, but isn't the guru that has to fix everybody else's mistakes. After switching to finance, I found that incentives are aligned with the company, as a large portion of my compensation is in bonuses that are computed based on profitability measures. If profit doubles, my compensation doubles. That is how highly skilled workers should be paid. In tech, only the upper management level gets that type of compensation.

[–]2RedPillSafe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yeah I always found that the finance guys were more Red Pill.

The finance guys knew how to party too.

It's easier to become CEO coming from CFO than from CTO.

Very often the CTO ("Chief Technical Officer") only sees the CEO during meetings.

I was fortunate to have been in jobs where I got in on some of these meetings involving the top guys.

The CFO and the CEO often will associate with each other more personally, but not always. If the CFO came from Accounting and has a really tight ass attitude the CEO will not like him.

The CEO is normally the wisest and warmest in the company. He limits access to himself, but if you are given access he will be very friendly and often surprisingly open minded.

When you get a Big Five Personality Test score like:

Extroversion 4.5

Conscientiousness 3.0

Neuroticism 2.0

Agreeableness 4.0

Openess 4.5

...that's your "best buddy" type CEO.

The psychopath is the same, but their Agreeableness will be a 2.0.

A beta will have an Extroversion of 2.0. (and typically Neuroticism of 4.0)

[–]SpectralCrown 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Is this for engineering in general or just the tech industry? I'm currently studying for Nanotech and I'm wondering if this 'work hard, get paid less' thing applies for that too.

[–]2alisonstone 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Because everybody in the finance industry is trained in finance, they will always be more informed and more capable of extracting a higher wage. That is why investment bankers make mid-six figures after a few years. Virtually anybody at Google can learn how to do the banker's job in a few months, but most bankers cannot learn to program at the level of Google engineers. The engineers are on smarter on average. But the bankers get paid more.

Tech is not a bad industry. You work hard and you get paid well. It's pretty fair. In finance, people work hard and they get overpaid. There are many professions where you work hard and you get paid crap. If you want to be really red pill about money, you want a job that has a high compensation per unit of effort. Finance people try to max out the numerator (compensation). There are many jobs where people do almost nothing and get paid well. That is minimizing the denominator (effort). I've worked one before, it was a defense contractor and the government just threw obscene amounts of money at them for minimal work. There were months where I finished all my work in 2 days, but the government contract required that I continue "working" for the entire month. I did nothing for the remaining 28 days and got paid. I spent 2 hours a day at the gym and read a lot of textbooks in the remaining time. That was probably the best job I've ever had. Too bad funding ran out when the recession came.

[–]kratol 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So how do you switch from (software) tech to finance, and what are the articles about new grads going from finance to tech.

Don't you work 80hr weeks in finance too?

[–]2alisonstone 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Most people fail to switch into finance. You have to be good and you have to have contacts, or you have to be really good at networking.

There is no shortage of people applying for jobs in finance, and there likely never will be as long as compensation is so high. Less people went into finance after the financial crisis because there were less finance jobs available. But there are still multiple qualified people lined up for each job. In recent years, tech has been the opposite where there are more jobs than qualified candidates. Obviously, more people went into tech and less into finance, because tech has more job openings and finance had almost none in 2008-2010. The articles are just editorializing. There is the other factor where the media has been extremely anti-finance and is portraying all of them as evil. That has a very real effect on young people's decisions because they don't always maximize money (otherwise, nobody would major in un-marketable degrees). Depending on your values, you might not like working in finance because it doesn't seem to provide much net value to society as a whole. But it doesn't change the fact that finance pays more money.

Some people, primarily investment bankers, do work 80+ hours in finance (although a lot of the time, the "work" is just waiting). I am in the buyside and I only work 40. In my experience with finance, people exaggerate how difficult the job is. Sure, the grass is always greener on the other side, but having worked in multiple fields before, finance is not that hard. I think a lot of people in finance claim that it is hard, a wise thing to do, to rationalize their pay. I would never go around publicly telling people that I make a lot of money for doing very little work, because people react negatively to that and for whatever reason they feel like it gives them the right to violate me. On an anonymous forum like this, I would admit that my job is easy and it pays a lot. In real life, if someone asks me, I would say that it is really tough.

Tech is not a terrible industry though. It is still one of the best. If you do work in tech, you should have an understanding of how it works. People in tech who have a finance mindset tends to go into smaller companies or startups where they get equity-based compensation, so if the company becomes successful, they get a cut of the profits. That is how the early Facebook employees became multi-millionaires in a few years. If you work for a large Fortune 500 tech company, chances are you would get minimal to zero equity based compensation because the company is already established. If you work hard for a decade, you may get promoted to mid level management, but the salary won't even be significantly higher. If you find yourself in that situation, it may be better for you to minimize your effort, meaning you work hard enough to stay employed, but you are not putting in 60+ hour weeks. You are using your extra time to hit the gym, improve your skills, manage your investments, do side jobs, etc. The worst thing you can do is to become fat from sitting in front of the computer for too long and not get paid for it.

[–]kratol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I'm not so sure about start ups being necessarily better. You do get equity based compensation in large companies too with vesting schedules. For example, the typical Google employee makes $250-$350k in total compensation. That is a combination of salary, bonus and stock compensation. That stock compensation can be thought of as leverage, because you often get better terms than just getting cash and being forced to buy the stock at the same time.

Opportunities like Facebook only happen once or twice a decade. And the typical time from start to finish at these kinds of companies is typically 8 years. In the middle, you'll have a hard time liquidating the stock and there is a lot of tax brain damage involved with it that will eat away at your returns unless you put in a good chunk of your own money into the business by buying all of your stock when you get the grant. At best you'll get secondaries after several years, where you can only sell %10 of your vested stock, only if you are employed.

Lets say you are really lucky in start up land, and your company gets acquired / IPOed for $1 billion dollars. As a typical employee, unless you got in REALLY early before it had any sign of traction, will probably be %0.1 . That's $1million dollars you say. Yeah, but it probably took over 4 years to get there. And at that rate, you might of as well been working at Google! You would get a similar or better return just putting your savings into a S&P 500 ETF, have more free time and less stress.

Then you get the typical VC shadiness, such as participating preferred stock, liquidation preferences, dilution and so on that eat at returns even more.

Start ups are usually only a good deal for founders I've found, because the only time your going to get a good equity deal is before traction. If I'm wrong, I would be really happy to find out how :D

The benefits of start ups are more non-financial unless you negotiate a good deal before hand. Do more ambitious or interesting work. Get team lead roles before hand, etc. VCs say out loud in their offices that you should recruit young employees because they are naive and will work for less. I had a friend that worked at one who told me that.

[–]19 Endorsed Contributordrrrrrr 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The less competent occasionally / often get promoted upwards faster because they are the ones who are not happy to break their backs doing the good, but grunt level work. If you're not happy being a codemonkey paid extra in the form of pizza to get you to stay late and meet arbitrarily ridiculous deadlines, it's a sign of higher intelligence, meaning you should be promoted.

[–]cooledcannon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I dont know much about the industry, but it seems like you have a negative/scarcity mindset.

Theres still the high turnover cost, despite that you may be easily replaceable. Once you are in, it costs so much more than an additional 10-20k extra to pay you. You just need to negotiate the right way, or leave for a company thats open to raises. You just need to know how to ask for it.

When you work well and provide more value than expected, you really need to talk to someone to discuss additional compensation.

[–]2alisonstone 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It has nothing to do with mindset and everything to do with reality. I am not talking about an extra $10k, but an extra $100k. Tech companies are not going to double your compensation, even if you actually do double the work that their average employee does (anybody who has worked as an engineer/programmer knows the big difference between the top guy and the average guy). They just won't do it because they know that someone else will step up without extra pay.

Just look at the compensation at investment banks or hedge funds. It's often 2-3x what the tech guys make, and stuff like investment banking isn't even that difficult (filling out that Excel spreadsheet is far easier than coming up with an algo). And in tech, the employees can actually disrupt the industry. You hear about startups all the time. You hear about established players getting disrupted all the time. However, you cannot compete with Goldman Sachs out of your parents' garage. You don't have billions of dollars in capital, you don't have the political connections, you can't navigate the regulatory maze. So you would think that in finance, the workers have less power and in tech, the workers have more power. However, the finance employees are collectively red pill about money. They don't even have to ask for big raises, they are just given big money because the employers know that they will all leave simultaneously if they are not given fair compensation.

If everybody in Google simultaneously asked for a $100k raise, they would probably get it because the company would die if all the employees leave. Google has something like 15000 engineers, so it would cost them $1.5B/year to give everybody an extra $100k/year. Google made about $15B pretax last year. They can cover it. If everybody in the software engineering industry had the same mentality as the employees in the finance industry, things would be very different.

[–]cooledcannon 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I was planning to get into tech(programming). Does this mean I should get into finance instead? Is finance really easier than tech? Why would anyone do tech now then?

Also, why do they pay the average worker so much, when they can just hire top guys cheaply instead?

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

You would likely make more money if you go into finance. The difficulty is whether you can get in or not. There are very few positions in finance compared to programming. If you don't come from a target school (i.e. the top schools like Harvard), it is significantly more difficult. Image and branding is part of the product that financial firms sell, so they like to get most of their candidates from the top schools. Also, the top schools have people who are most likely to be well connected, which can bring business to the firm.

Why do people do tech instead of finance? Because most people don't make choices based on money. You can ask why someone would do medicine instead of tech, that is far harder than tech or finance and the pay is far lower (when adjusting for the time and cost of med school).

One of the things that you will learn is that hard work doesn't necessarily mean high pay. There are easy jobs that pay well. Doctors are chronically underpaid. It is just the way it works. Finance is weird in that if they don't pay so high, the people actually quit and work in other fields. The illusion of prestige is gone. And it probably results in lower profits for the firm. If Goldman Sachs starts paying second rate, they'll probably lose business to competitors when word gets around that they are no longer the most prestigious firm. It's kind of like why do luxury products have such exotic and expensive packaging. Why are their stores so nice and luxurious? It doesn't actually do anything for the product itself. The thing is, if they don't spend money doing that, the product won't be a luxury product and it won't sell. When investors put money into a hedge fund, they don't want poor people managing their money. They'll get paranoid. So the hedge fund makes sure that their employees are all well off.

[–]1Watermelon_Salesman 10 points11 points  (8 children)

This is straight out of Venkatesh Rao's blog, isn't it?

[–]2RedPillSafe 12 points13 points  (7 children)

I went through the dot.coms so I lived this, but I also read the blog about "The Office".

The movie "Office Space" was excellent too.

Middle management is filled with Blue Pill Feminist types because that frustrates honest hard workers. You can't let the simple minded (skilled) worker rise to the top.

[–]the99percent1 17 points18 points  (5 children)

as a skilled worker. this is so fucking true..

Initiating a reimbursement claim is like launching Apollo 13 to the moon.. the hoops I have to jump through just to get back a couple of dollars..

its rediculous and has made me realize I'm worthless to the company because I don't belong inner group of Dark Triad men. I consider myself a renegade.. and slowly building my own wealth externally. Sooner or later, I will walk and stop being a slave to these DT men.. The best thing I can do atm is milk my job for what it is worth and by not committing myself fully to the company.

[–]ZEROthePHRO 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm milking right alongside you!

[–]trpalternate 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Captain Capitalism has a good article for you that explains why this is the case.

You're doing the smart thing, milk your company for everything you can get then bail when you have the capital together. You're not there to get recognized, you're there to get paid. Or to quote my favorite line from the article:

"You are going in there, day in, day out, to fuck that company out of as much money for as little work as possible before you throw it away like the slut you picked up at the bar last Friday. You will pump and dump your employer."

[–]the99percent1 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That was a good read.

I think I learnt early on, if you aren't in the top tier, you'll never be. It is an exclusive group and they intend to keep it that way.. rarely do they invite plebs to join their ranks. I consider myself a corporate pleb.

The good thing is, making money is easy and not necessarily tied to your job. Savings and Investment is absolutely critical! My investment strategy is to first, invest in index funds. Then when you've saved up enough for a deposit, go and buy a property or invest into a business. Then remortgage that property to buy another one. Rent out your properties so that they are partially paying for themselves. Wait a few years for the price to increase and sell at a profit. Rinse repeat until you slowly, but surely accrue enough wealth to Retire or start a business. Follow property trends like a hawk, if you analyze closely, trends can be found especially the 15 year high-low trend cycle.

It is crucial that you learn how to 'slave' away at work and that article explains why (ie: all jobs are the same shitty job and there is a backlog of people waiting to be promoted. So join the queue of losers.) and what I did instead (ie; milk your fucking company like the cash cow it is.). I did this to the tee.

I've worked myself into a really secure position whereby, i'm earning significantly more money than my peers, yet, have zero extra commitments and responsibilities. In-fact, I'm a non-executive worker but I have 3 sub-ordinates working for me. I make them do all the leg work and I sign off on it. I also make sure to claim all the credit for it. I'm shaking legs doing less work and being stress free. My email box is bare empty as an old ladys pussy.

Whereas, most of my peers are sweating it out trying to keep afloat of their workload and getting paid significantly less than I do.

How is this possible? Why am I different? The difference is, I have significantly more qualifications, skills and credentials than my peers. This was all funded by the company of-course. The next best thing other than a pay rise is a company willing to pay for your education, move you around to give you different exposure to the business.

The truth is, experience and vastly more paper qualifications makes you invaluable to the eyes of the company. And boy, do I rake it in. Every-time my bosses ask me to complete a job, I damn make sure I get the full support or I walk away from it.

When redundancy comes around, upper managements first criteria is 'how valuable is this person to my company?' the next criteria is 'how likable is this person?'. I take comfort and refuge in fulfilling both.

Important: Make sure you don't rub your boss up in the wrong way. In-fact, always have honest face-to-face chats with him regarding how pleased is him of your performance and how much you believe in him. Boost his ego and you will have an important place in his team. Become likable to not just your directives, but others that do not directly control you and you will be safe from any redundancy plans.

[–]trpalternate 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That article really brought things into focus for me. Your post also contains a lot of the things I wish I had learned early on. Years ago, a friend of mine tried to show me how to invest in the property market, but I was still in the blue pill way of thinking and thought that the path to success was going to university and building a career. I was sorely mistaken.

I have had some success with investing, and I'm fortunate to be in a much better financial position than a lot of people my age. However, I'm not at the point where I can cash it all in and start my own business. But I'm working on it, and I view my career as a means to an end. I'm there for no other reason than to take my money and get whatever else I can before I bail.

When redundancy comes around, upper managements first criteria is 'how valuable is this person to my company?' the next criteria is 'how likable is this person?'. I take comfort and refuge in fulfilling both.

One thing I did learn almost immediately is to be friendly to everyone and avoid office politics like the plague. Reputation is everything, guard it with your life.

[–]watersign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

dude..im milking it too as well. executives/sales types do not care how smart or elaborate you are. fuck IT. im not even a coder but i do some coding at my job (light scripting, im a data analyst) and its a bullshit job.

[–]Dick-Tracy 19 points20 points  (5 children)

You've nailed it here. That middle layer is composed primarily of Compliant People who will do and say what it is necessary for them to in order to keep their jobs and advance. They do not care so much about quality of work, or results, or a sane and happy workplace. This is perfect for the top layer because they provide the ultimate buffer and blame absorption mechanism.

Women fit well into that role because compliance and consensus are their preferred mechanisms for reaching decisions, rather than technical merit or objective evidence. The middle layer prefers to hide all that stuff behind meaningless statistics and metrics that are disconnected from reality and misleading but provide the picture the top layer wants to see.

I'm mostly a worker but I have popped my head up into this middle layer and have seen how a lot of it works, and it's pretty fucking disappointing. I have to assume that a large number of problems in the world are because of this kind of organizational horseshit. I also have to assume that I will always be a worker, because in the end I will always actually care about what is being done and how, which sometimes means stepping on toes and not going for consensus.

Was your matrix reference a joke, or were you talking about the evil and stupid management scheme known as Matrix Management? Either way....

[–]the99percent1 9 points10 points  (2 children)

This, one million times over! I work in a warehouse factory supplying contracting works to customers.. The level of disconnect is mind boggling..

My manager complains everyday to middle management regarding not enough workers, not enough materials, not enough lead time and etc..

I sit through the monthly meetings with the owners of the company. And not one single real life changing issue was raised. all that was reported was how good and smooth everything was running. Absolutely BS. I kept quite though, don't want to step on the wrong toes and get done for it.. these are not my problems..

It absolutely fascinates me this stuff. DT runs the world and the sooner you adopt frame, the faster you move up the chain.

[–]PlanB_pedofile 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Being the drone sucks. Dark triads have to sell their soul and be hated by a lot of people.

It's quite a sacrifice to make that transition. Become the villain and be on top of the ladder or keep your values, honor, and find yourself on the chopping block.

Ned Stark vs Little finger.

[–]2RedPillSafe 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The guys at the "top" use the "middle layer" to create the politically correct atmosphere so that the guys at the "top" are NOT seen as villains.

That was the whole point.

There was a quote from my banking days:

"Pull the background into the foreground and drive the facts underground."

We literally used to make jokes like this. Guys at the upper level are not naive, they all know games of deception and Powertalk, so everyone plays the same game at the upper levels.

[–]jorgander 1 point2 points  (0 children)

... I will always actually care about what is being done and how, ...

I feel the same way. I know it's easier and more lucrative, but I would be less happy than I am now, especially since I know what it's like in the bottom layer. From a comment on slashdot:

That is my main reason for sticking to Engineering.

Sales guys, stock brokers, marketing people... Those positions are not rewarding, and you have to leave your soul at the door. Science, Engineering, Construction, Mechanics are the jobs for me. Always will be. I couldn't live with myself knowing that my livelihood came on the backs of others, earned by shiesting a percentage out of something I didn't build because I shuffled some paperwork and talked on the phone. Those people live empty soulless lives. They cheat on their partners. And they drive like assholes on the freeway.

[–]2RedPillSafe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just remember to get those TPS reports filed on time. (Office Space)

[–]Endevour 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Another shining example of how ideally men should run their own small businesses.

[–]2RedPillSafe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Always better to be an independent businessman.

Middle management is just a buffer so that the CEO's that started (or dominated) the company can relax while the "workers" serve their ambitions.

"Shark Tank" is an interesting show about startups seeking the quick jump to the big time. Things get weird making the jump.

To start a company you need drive, drive, drive...

[–]Soultrane9 2 points3 points  (28 children)

Can you give me any tips moving up? I'm a young Java Developer (will turn 25 soon) and i want to stop coding in ~ 3 years (have been coding since 21). Which areas should i focus on?

[–]upparoom 15 points16 points  (1 child)

Bout to drop some truth bombs on you. If youre a really good programmer, youre not moving up without some luck and some serious connections. If youre an excellent producer, it would hurt the company to move you somewhere else. This is the reason you sometimes see complete coding morons move to middle management.

[–]2RedPillSafe 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Programmers are "workers".

OP is too logical for the "middle layer" so he can't go there.

And unless OP can be as Dark Triad as the CEO's he can't go there.

OP's best bet is a startup.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If you want to move up you'll need connections. Is one of the higher-ups golfing this weekend? Well now you are too!

Be assertive, be manipulative, build a social circle around the men who can help you move up and most important of all, be willing to bend your co-workers and fuck them raw if you need to (this is ofc figuratively speaking).

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (16 children)

Do not stop coding. There are so many reasons but the biggest is you still haven't mastered it. Mastery over that domain will provide you job security to last by our entire career

[–]2RedPillSafe 5 points6 points  (15 children)

Very few programmers have the extroversion and Dark Triad character to be anything other than a programmer.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (11 children)

2 things: 1) Having mastery over a computer and programming it is an incredibly rewarding and financially rewarding career. 2) You should back up your 'very few' comment with data or not make the statement.

[–]_JustKnight_ 2 points3 points  (4 children)

As a software developer I have to agree with that. Out of the HUNDREDS of programmers I have worked with, I wouldn't classify more than a handful of them as extroverted. And those were generally piss poor developers.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I've been working as a developer for over 2 decades and really don't see what you're seeing. My experience has been witness to a wide array of personalities that change over time. I get my back up when anyone declares what developers are like. They're people and like all people, they're all different.

[–]_JustKnight_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

There certainly are trends in personality however that attract them to the field in the first place. For there to be no correlation with certain personality traits and programmers be a perfectly random sample of people in general would be a statistically significant miracle.

I lose respect for people when they refuse to the rule because of the exceptions.

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

That's one way to look at it. Another might be that personality traits aren't as easily measured as we'd like to think. Given certain situations, introverted people are comfortable coming out of their shadow and are quite engaging. The opposite is also true.

I suppose what I'm really getting at is this sub seems to be overrun with folks slapping labels on whatever they can see..."that's Beta" "you do this so therefore you can't be that" and I'm starting to realize it's actually a lot less mature a place than I was hoping it might be.

[–]elevul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which makes sense, since they are spending the time honing their social skills, rather than honing their technical skills.

[–]2RedPillSafe -1 points0 points  (5 children)

How about a story about the topic?

http://m.fastcolabs.com/3022008/yes-coders-can-be-ceos-if-they-learn-this-one-skill

"One thing every CEO must learn to do is tell a good story. It’s essential for everything from getting investment to hiring. “If you are not prepared to learn to tell a story, then don't attempt to be the CEO,” says Halstead who taught himself how to present the hard way. “I found an event in London called MiniBar. It was free drinks for the first hour and five companies got to pitch. To get a crowd of drunk people to listen to you, you were going have to make the story compelling, simple and maybe even entertaining.”

After that Halstead took every opportunity, big and small, to present. “If you can't as CEO talk passionately about your product and your market segment for at least an hour without stopping then you shouldn't be doing it. To achieve that is practice. Anyone can do it.”


You have to be able to put yourself out there... extrovert... sell.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

What in that article supports your belief that very few programmers posses this trait? The cited article actually supports what I'm saying:

To achieve that is practice. Anyone can do it.

I think you're speaking out of your depth on this topic.

[–]2RedPillSafe -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

I have known Dark Triad programmers, they are a minority, but do exist.

But just like Red Pill you might start as a beta and turn Alpha, so we can improve.

Bill Gates actually programmed some of the first versions of BASIC and went on to be the wealthiest man on the planet so it can happen. Bill Gates is an excellent Poker player apparently.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Again, I'd ask you to refrain from making statements like

they are a minority, but do exist.

unless you provide some form of data to support your claim, it's baseless. Perpetuating a myth like programmers aren't assertive, extroverted people is not helping anyone.

[–]2RedPillSafe -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Red Pill is not about being politically correct. It's our habit here to make generalizations and having been a programmer myself I'd say the number of betas to Alphas is about 10 to 1.

You CAN break out of the programmer "mold" but you need to demonstrate that outside of your normal routine at work.

The article describes being an extrovert and orator at a bar giving passionate product pitches... I think that's great.

Sitting at your cubicle all day programming is BAD training for becoming a CEO.

Agreed?

[–]curiousthis 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Very few programmers have the extroversion and Dark Triad character to be anything other than a programmer.

True, but they have the determination, drive and ability to gain knowledge in order to fake those skills.

[–]2RedPillSafe 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I remember an event called "ObjectWorld" which was about OOP and back then Steve Jobs was between Apple and NeXt and somewhat lost. He was a speaker in a small lecture where maybe 50 of us programmers were attending. This Greek female programmer I worked with wanted to meet Steve Jobs and she goes and shakes his hand and Steve Jobs looked at her with disgust (she was really ugly). I remember laughing at Steve Jobs with my eyes and him turning towards me with the animal stare of an enraged beast. I would not submit to him and he hated that. (true story)

The CEO's have an animal energy to them... we call it the "Alpha Core".

Steve Jobs was extremely driven and wasn't content to retire even though he was already rich.

It's doubtful you can fake it at this level.

[–]kratol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those types of ragers are so easy to bait although.

[–]squishles 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Project Management. Or if you want to make stupid money and keep coding, incorporate yourself and become a consultant. A contract is just a guaranteed raise in x months when it's renegotieted :P

[–]2RedPillSafe 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I started out as a consultant for about five years, then did the dot.coms.

What's fun about consulting is you are always selling yourself. You never get too comfortable in a single spot.

[–]Glurpies 0 points1 point  (3 children)

You need to read the gervais principle. It's online for free and in the kindle store. It shows how to truly get ahead.

[–]Soultrane9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I fucking love you this is awesome.

[–]2RedPillSafe 1 point2 points  (1 child)

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/05/16/the-gervais-principle-vi-children-of-an-absent-god/

"The key, when betraying the Clueless, is to get them to blame themselves. With Losers, the key is to get them to blame each other. Each pattern of blame redirection gives us a particular theater of religiosity, and specific role for the Sociopath within it. Each also rewards the Sociopath with a specific kind of agency."

Actually I've read the Gervais Principle before. Many good insights. Loved it.

The top CEO (sociopath) creates the "Clueless" (middle layer) to further suppress the "Losers". (workers)

In Banking (1990) this was so completely formalized within management they they simply would NEVER promote people from within the company into the top most positions. You literally had to go to another company and get hired by jumping to get to the next level. The thinking was that those who were "Clueless" should never cross into the "Top" level where the Dark Triad sociopaths rule simply because you were loyal.

Referring back to the "Egg Freezing" OP the CEO has good reason to encourage the "Clueless" women to postpone childbirth and at the same time piss off the "Losers" who do most of the work.

Never hesitate to discourage the "Losers" and give flattery to the "Clueless" if you are the CEO.

[–]djvita 0 points1 point  (0 children)

holy shit his reading list is a gold farm, i have more reading to do now!

[–]watersign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

find a job where you can use programming as a skill, but not the main role of the job.

[–]19 Endorsed Contributordrrrrrr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say be willing to switch jobs and aggressively change locations, etc, whatever you have to do to keep upping your bargaining power. Senior programmers in hot fields can start to pull around 150k, which is not exceptional, but you can also get there by 30, get the point where you are managing a team, etc.

Then I would say after you have reached that level where you and the team you managed have taken some projects to market or to completion in some meaningful way, say by 30-35, then you take your skills and your safety net to starting up a new company. You do not have to be the founder / CEO if you're not that guy. The first ten hires, if solid guys, will generally stick around and establish themselves pretty damn well if the company is a success. Get in on a good early stage startup that needs a CTO type of guy.

[–]watersign 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow dude..so true! so true!!

[–]GadflyIII -3 points-2 points  (22 children)

As an executive myself, I seriously laughed at this.

This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

[–]2RedPillSafe 2 points3 points  (21 children)

Okay...

So you are aware of what we call the Dark Triad traits right?

These traits are overwhelmingly seen at the top. Do you disagree?

Middle level executives tend to lack the Dark Triad traits and these days we see a large number of women in these positions where their hamster brains seem perfectly matched. Do you disagree here?

...I'm trying to see whether you have an insight of your own.

Red Pill as a community tends to attract a lot of Dark Triads (based on the Big Five Personality Traits tests taken) so there are plenty of folks here that are of this type.

[–]DurkaDerper 13 points14 points  (2 children)

We can't win that fight, this will be called every ism in the book by tomorrow but it'll still go ahead. I equate it to the concept of people and how they feel about taxing the rich, they don't want to raise it (Or throw up a shit storm about it) just in case (however unlikely in both cases) it'll affect them adversely. 20k is 20k even when you have a 6 figure salary.

In relation to that final piece, yup, I agree, maybe that idea will be fucked over by more and more regulation on diversity quotas is something I wouldn't discount it. They have their claws in too deep to allow such a thing to happen.

[–]MagnanimousGenius 9 points10 points  (0 children)

We can't win that fight, this will be called every ism in the book by tomorrow but it'll still go ahead.

The sentiment is understandable, and it is very dangerous to speak up. However I noticed that at school, gently opening the dialogue with your male friends at appropriate time, a lot of them start to see your point and resist the bs. Example: Last year got into hot water with a teacher for poking holes in a domestic violence "lesson" we had to participate in. Didn't do anything outrageous at all, calmly used logic with restraint. The teacher and the volunteer were quick to try and brush me off, and some of the other boys told me to 'shut up,' but more often than note there were nods of approval from the others and "yeah"s of agreeance. Got taken aside after class typical shit from the teacher yadda yadda

There's a subject called "Health" which is pretty much the launching pad for the ambitionless indoctrinated girls at my school to take before gender studies at Uni. A lot of their assignments require the use of surveys that they send out to all the students school emails. Shit about 'rape culture' and 'patriarchy' and 'body image' etc. As the surveys are anonymous, they can never call out with certainty the people replying, much to their chagrin, but when their surveys are destroyed with logic in the written parts of their questions, they always take to Facebook and have a huge shitstorm of a hamster rant about it.

Point is, subtly and slowly, we need to take dialogue with other men to stamp this shit out, because I see now in my year the majority of other guys hate feminism, see it for the hypocritical bitchy nonsense it is, and the power shifts

Edit: The DV "lesson" I talked about prompted me to get in contact with someone over at A Voice For Men and it led to this article http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/shaming-male-high-school-students-aussie-style/ I don't agree 100% with everything over there, but it's better than a lot of other options

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

It'd be a bit more than 20k, since you'd have to pay taxes on your salary first, then whatever other taxes come along with surgery + egg saving.

[–][deleted] 182 points183 points  (42 children)

After seeing a woman work out every day while pregnant and only take a few days off after giving birth I'm convinced that every other woman is just milking it.

[–]melodesign 78 points79 points  (23 children)

"Why don't you try having a kid! You don't know how this feels!" - Every woman who gave child birth

[–]ModernSinatra 35 points36 points  (21 children)

I love when women say this to me. I had kidney stones that led to kidney surgery when I was 18, and every woman I've talked that's had kidney stones and given birth say stones are worse. They get no sympathy from me because I was working again a week after I got out of the hospital.

[–]dawg826 18 points19 points  (7 children)

Kidney stones are worse for men too from what I've heard.

[–]anonlymouse 3 points4 points  (6 children)

There wouldn't be a way to verify that. But I'd lean towards it being the other way around as women have lower pain tolerance.

[–]dawg826 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Not sure where I heard it from. The thought goes something along the lines of men have a longer urethra than women (quick wiki search shows that they are about 8 inches in men and only about 2 inches in women) so it takes longer to pass through. I can see how just taking longer would make the overall experience much worse.

[–]anonlymouse 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That actually does sound like a reasonable explanation.

[–]RP_on_TV 2 points3 points  (3 children)

A vagina is made to have a kid go through it.

A penis was not made to have a rock go through it.

[–]Shadoscuro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but to be fair a woman's urethra is separate from her vagina while ours happens to be one with the penis.

[–]anonlymouse 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I was talking about kidney stones for both men and women.

[–]RP_on_TV 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I thought you were comparing childbirth with male kidney stones.

[–]Mrswhiskers 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They get no sympathy from me because I was working again a week after I got out of the hospital.

Well it's good to know that you bottle fed your kidny stone and that it slept through the night every night since the day you birthed it.

[–]ModernSinatra 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Yes because comparing child birth to kidney stones is the same as comparing kidney stones to raising a child. My response to a woman who wants to take time off to raise a child would be very different than to a woman who wants time off to recover. Which unless I'm mistaken is what the post I replied to was talking about.

"Why don't you try having a kid! You don't know how this feels!" - Every woman who gave child birth

[–]ThePantsThief 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, apples and oranges right there. Good call, man.

[–]KaleGreens 29 points30 points  (4 children)

Well that woman is just a bad ass. My wife is pregnant round 2 and the woman needs some time to be home. Luckily I make enough for her to not work.

[–]Median2 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Agreed, a friend of mine had a very, very, rough pregnancy and had to be hospitalized a few times because food simply would not stay down. Not everyone is physically capable of working while pregnant.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]AngraMainyuu 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Whose worse than that, are the women who attempt to shame men for not being pregnant too. Such an impossible standard: "You're not pregnant, so you'll never know what I'm going through, so get back to the grocery store and buy me more ice cream."

    [–]BubbleGumPop87 13 points14 points  (0 children)

    Some women are capable of working while pregnant, some aren't. Seeing one woman have an easy pregnancy does not mean all pregnancies are easy.

    [–]Nicolay77 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    I bet she eats paleo as well.

    [–]19 Endorsed Contributordrrrrrr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Idk if you're busting on paleo, but if all chicks ate paleo in the US, we'd be like 76% more attractive

    [–]Nicolay77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    If everyone ate paleo, my food would be like 3x more expensive. Remember the scandinavian butter shortage.

    And, if all girls had great bodies, then we would place a lot more importance on their pretty faces. Human nature.

    [–]holzy444 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I'm sure milking it is a big part of it, but I think there's something to be said for staying home with your children.

    [–]GoodGuyAnusDestroyer 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    Are you serious? You're basing your opinion from one woman that you saw? Do you even know what goes into giving birth? How about the mother wanting to stay home to care for the newborn? Would you prefer she just go to work immediately afterwards, and what would the benefits be? I really want to know your answers to these questions.

    [–]darksoldierk 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    In the best interest of the company that was pretty much forced to hire her, and her co-workers who are pretty much forced to work with her, yes, I would prefer she comes back to work immediately. Personally, I think women who want to have a baby or get pregnant should either quit their jobs, fit their personal needs within their allowed vacation time, or accept unpaid time off and the consequences being absent from work too long.

    I've been in this position time and time again. A woman gets pregnant and takes her maternity leave, the company doesn't want to hire a temporary worker to replace her because they don't want to spend all that money on training, so they pass the woman's workload to someone else. I've been that "someone else" a few times too many. If she quits, the company can hire someone to replace her. If she leaves temporarily, all she is doing is hurting her coworkers and her company. It isn't everyone else's job to pay for a woman's maternity leave.

    [–]GoodGuyAnusDestroyer 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Have you ever heard of paternity leave? My company pays a male PTO if his wife has a kid, and they pay him for 6 months. Should he quit and/or leave his job too to take care of his child?

    What would your ideal solution be? For both of the parents to quit their jobs once they have a baby? Should society not have a responsibility to care for educated parents to want to care for their young or should we just tell them to fuck off because they're not contributing to our work force?

    I want to know how you would handle this situation better for all of the people contributing towards society.

    [–]darksoldierk 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Should he quit and/or leave his job too to take care of his child?

    What he does is up to him. He should figure out his priorities, and if he decides that his priorities are his children, and he is unable to balance both work and family without putting a strain on his company and co-workers, than the company should replace him.

    And yes, I have heard of paternity leave. From what I've know though, Mothers get more time and more pay, which is justified within the parental leave system. However, the fact remains, when a person takes a year off of work, and the company is unable to fire them, they put a significant amount of strain on the company and/or their co-workers. So again, my question to you is, what is the company or the employees getting from the co-worker who is taking the leave to make up for the strain that that co-worker introduces? Why should a company and it's co-workers be forced to pay for a mother having a baby? If they want to put that in there as a benefit, that's all good and fine, since the corporation would get the benefit of attracting and retaining employees. However, that benefit is completely removed when the government forces it through legal or social pressure.

    It may not be a popular opinion, but I think society should open up the way for corporations to make the decisions that are best for the company. As I said, I could care less that one of my co-workers is having a baby, it doesn't provide me with anything positive, what it does though, is it forces me to do her job for 6 months to a year. And if I don't like it, I'm the one who is told "you are welcome to quit". And if I stay and do her job, it isn't just the 6 months to the year because when she is hired back, she needs a few months to be updated and to get the hang of things again. So why should I have accept a higher workload just because of the personal decisions of another person?

    My solution would be to give corporations the ability to choose. If they value a person enough to keep them, corporations should have the choice to hire them back after maternity or paternity leave. However, a corporation should also have the ability to replace those people. I also believe that a corporation should have the ability to hire based on gender. Why only gender and not ethnicity? Because a person's ethnicity, unlike gender, does not have a guaranteed cost to the company such as the maternity leave costs. So my way to fix it is, give corporations the choice to hire the people that will have the highest productivity and the lowest cost. That is the basic rule of business, and it shouldn't be overturned because women want children.

    People need to stop expecting to be compensated for doing nothing. It's ridiculous. Is the company making any revenue off of you while you are off having a baby? No, so why should the company pay you for that time? At least with vacation time, you can say that a break for the employees helps to improve productivity. The company you work for isn't your friend, they aren't made to be the ones giving you money when you want/need it. They are HIRING you. That means that they are expecting you to provide them with revenue using your experience, time and knowledge, and in return, they give you money. If there is a time where you are not providing them with revenue, than why the hell should they pay you?

    [–]duodan -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

    I've known a few, too. Makes me that much more disgusted at the women who eat and eat and eat (and balloon) because excuses.

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

    If I ever get to that point I am going to feed her. She won't be allowed to eat like mad pregnant women I.e. chips + ice cream and a half pig at once.

    [–]AllMenDrip 32 points33 points  (13 children)

    The women who complain are the lazy ones. Women at my jobs usually take day offs for a head ache and once they're knocked up their productivity won't be the same even after the birth of their child.

    I don't understand why the women who have succeeded don't tell the truth about their success to the lazy feminazis : they sacrificed their family life, relationships to get where they are. They didn't take day offs for any bullshit reason. They even worked till late afterhours.

    [–]alclarkey 19 points20 points  (1 child)

    I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this. I have seen plenty of guys call of for headaches and other stupid shit. In fact my best friend used up every last attendance point he had available to him for stupid shit. It isn't just a woman only thing.

    Despite all that, women getting special treatment for being women is for the birds. You wanted to be part of the work force, you follow the same rules as the rest of us, or else don't get paid as much.

    [–]Kubomi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    It isnt a woman-only thing and i dont think many here claim it to be, however the fact is that women take far more time off on average than men do.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 9 points10 points  (4 children)

    A lot of women join the military and then avoid deployment bby getting pregnant. The government is effectively training them to perform jobs they will never do.

    [–]markasstrick123 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Women shouldn't be aloud in the military. It's not a sexist thing, it's just a dominant job to have. It's like a man being a stay at home father. When you look at it like that it's just pathetic.

    [–]Jar_of_apples 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Women shouldn't be aloud in the military.

    Exactly

    Maybe paperwork, or office secretary in an intro to the intro military, but a woman has no place on the frontlines.

    [–]markasstrick123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It's not even sexist, it's like how a man has no place being a stay at home daddy. It's just the way it is.

    [–][deleted] 30 points31 points  (4 children)

    male employees could demand the same and raise a stench and win if they were RP enough.

    [–]2asd1100 27 points28 points  (1 child)

    you can't be fired for being a cunt, but you can be fired by mocking cunts.

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

    We could.

    But why destroy or degrade something men helped build with a thing like that?

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

    vastly depends on the context and level of loyalty

    [–]brotherjustincrowe 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    Women will never be happy. They don't have the power to make themselves happy. Even if the world were a one-government Feminazi dictatorship right out of 1984, the women in charge would still be unhaaaappy. No matter how much control they're given over others, they'll never be in control of themselves.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]neveragoodtime 4 points5 points  (2 children)

      Women are just a little more equal. So, after Apple pays to freeze their worker bee eggs, what's to stop her from getting knocked up at a bar the next night? If she gets pregnant by her own poor choices, does she have to pay Apple back for the procedure? Lose her maternity leave? Somehow I doubt that.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [deleted]

        [–]ChristopherBurr 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        I don't see why this is such a big deal. This helps couples, not just women. It's a small benefit for a medical procedure. It's not like they are taking the money and vacationing on an island with it.

        I see a lot of anger about maturity leave here also. Again, this helps the couple. It's not like staying home with the baby is a vacation. It gives time to get into a routine, shop for items you need, and figure out a day care strategy.

        I was lucky enough to have paternity leave from my company last year when we had our first. There's a lot to do and parenting can be exhausting.

        [–]dicklord_airplane 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I feel sorry for any woman who depends on this because freezing eggs for later insemination and implantation has a low success rate. I can see people suing google and apple after their egg freezing plans fail and they end up childless, barren, and with plenty of money to spare.

        [–]Bringyourfugshiz 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Apple just changed their maternity leave policy, men get 6 weeks, women get 14. duh fuck?

        [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Someone (an employee) ought to sue them under Title 9.

        But an employee doesn't want to sue his employer. And nobody else has standing to sue.

        Cute.

        [–]ztsmart 10 points11 points  (0 children)

        There are plenty of childfree women out there who are just as valuable and committed to their work as men. As per FMLA, men also are able to take off work after the birth of a child.

        [–]2mbillion 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        I think you are angry about something that does not matter.

        Women are not getting some pass here. What is really going on is that these companies are tired of losing female employees to pregnancy and see this as a cheap trick to keep them chugging on the career treadmill during their unencumbered youth.

        Its the same thing they do to many men. Just keep working just keep working, it will get better, get promoted, keep chugging - go go go.

        In reality this is a lose for women. Egg freezing first off has a pretty low success rate and instead of finding a good mate this just allows then to delay the inevitable even longer

        [–]pha111 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Exactly. Unless you work in fast food 20k is a fraction of what you make for the company.

        [–]squirtmasterd 3 points4 points  (7 children)

        Women have truly fucked themselves out of the job market at nearly all levels. We aren't supposed to discriminate but it's impossible to get caught. I've personally dodged a bullet recently, had a girl in on a temp basis, didn't feel she was fully committed so didn't counter offer one of my direct competitors and 6 months later she's with them and due to be on maternity.... Gutted for them.

        The only way I think you could reverse it now is have mandatary maternity leave of the same amount of for both mother and father, but good luck enforcing that level of equality.

        [–]TattedGuyser 6 points7 points  (2 children)

        The only way I think you could reverse it now is have mandatary maternity leave of the same amount of for both mother and father, but good luck enforcing that level of equality.

        We have this somewhat in Canada. The woman gets 3 months mat leave to recuperate (it does take time to bounce back after pushing a kid out) then the other 9 months can go to either parent, even split up. The only thing is it has to be one or the other, and good luck convincing most women to work while daddy stays home... ha.

        [–]1cover20 3 points4 points  (1 child)

        Well also, in the best case mom is nursing, and breast pumps (to "express" the milk out so the baby can have it while mom's at work) aren't very good. They are supposed to simulate a baby's sucking, but they could never fool my wife's breasts enough to get milk to come out. She had to nurse in person, that worked just fine.

        [–]4TomorrowWeDie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Sister with a newborn was explaining this to me just today actually. It has something to do with most breast pumps only utilizing suction but not compression, like babies do... I guess. I feel like there's a million-dollar product idea here somewhere.

        [–]neveragoodtime 5 points6 points  (0 children)

        But Feminism is all about equality. Leave it to them and they'll make sure we get our equal paternity leave. /s

        [–]ChristopherBurr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I get it from the Bank I work at. I just had 12 weeks off at full pay last year +plus my regular 4 weeks vacation. Whoot!

        [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I thought Title 9 would enforce that kind of equality. It's supposed to protect men too, I think.

        [–]ImprovementOnly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Once again the double-standards become apparent. I'm yet to see any scholarships for men to get into nursing or teaching, yet male-dominated fields are constantly forced to pander to feminists or be branded as misogynists.

        We can trust feminists to continue to distort standards to their favour, but they will likely never promote the opposite.

        MRA's are at this point in time somewhat of a laughing stock, partially because they are largely comprised of beta's who reside on the lowest depths of the social hierarchy.

        Basically the turning point will come when the everyday person gives thought to these issues and comes to the conclusion that in fact men and women are different and will inherently have different likes and dislikes and hence different career choices.

        Maybe that red pill could best be given with a message about equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. It's a difficult problem because the misogynist card is constructed with a hair-trigger.

        [–]Seoul_Surfer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        " I have personally witnessed multi year, multi million dollar projects go to complete shit because the project manager / critical person got knocked up and left for 6 months, came back part time then worked long enough to be able to claim for kid #2 then fuck off all together." Best part by far. White Men Most Oppressed 2014

        [–]garlicextract 1 point2 points  (1 child)

        If I get the role I am currently going for, I will not be hiring women for anything critical, and luckily the company I am going to work for feels much the same way.

        How did you get confirmation on this point, without straight up vocalizing the issue (and getting yourself liable to being fired)

        [–]1cover20 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Well he doesn't have to. He just has to produce interview paperwork documenting that women were not the best for positions he was hiring for, and that he did a nondiscriminatory interview process.

        He believes that this would be culturally acceptable in the organization according to his post. One often has to "read the wind" regarding such matters, where people do not want to be on the record.

        [–]Kellermann 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        This will quickly turn against women. They will be pressured into freezing eggs and working because employers paid for it

        [–]666Evo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I work at a hospital in Australia. Women (I'm specifically thinking about nurses here) can have 2 years off per child. 2 years. Granted it's not entirely paid, but regardless, it's 2 god damn years.
        Every month we get a case where she's not even back from the first lot of maternity leave and she's applying for it for the second child.

        How much is changing in nursing over 4 years? A shit load. But it's cool that she's now 4 years behind in her training... because she had a couple of kids.

        And how much leave can the father take?? 2 weeks. 1 of which is unpaid.

        [–]watersign 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        this is why im trying to get out of IT and just trade for myself or move into the business side of things, the gross incompetence ive watched from women co-workers is pretty fucking hilarious. i hate corporate jobs

        [–]thenarrrowpath 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        Maternity leave or a vacation, employers need to stop demoting or firing people. We said it ourselves, men and women are not equal. If you're a woman and you work hard then I don't see what the big deal is to leave for a birth. Men can get maternity leave these days too, does that mean they should be demoted or fired upon returning? Only if they're a shitty worker.

        [–]1cover20 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        If you freeze your eggs and go thru menopause, then you still need to hire a surrogate to provide a womb for any embryos resulting from your frozen eggs.

        And then you won't be able to nurse them when they are born either. You won't have milk.

        It's a sad sad situation. Really kids should pair off, marry and have their kids really young. Then give them to the grandparents to raise while those kids complete school and do the early part of their careers. It's not quite "nuclear family" but it's the only way these days.

        I am exhausted from raising my kids and not done yet, but I would pitch in on a deal like that for their kids.

        [–]kinkydiver 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Really kids should pair off, marry and have their kids really young. Then give them to the grandparents to raise

        Interesting idea! This would also be better for the kids, genetically speaking. Depends on the grandparents though; many would rather take off to Hawaii.

        [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Also depends on the parents -- will the wife frivorce the husband, etc. But that's the point of the sexual revolution, to leave no possible way for a traditional family structure to persist. Because they tend to raise large numbers of healthy children.

        If the extended family can stay together and do this, a family can survive these times and grow into the future. These are hard times. They require vast amounts of skill and spiritual strength.

        I think a lot of grandparents would buy into such a deal. The grandkids are the next stage in their hope for immortality after all. And all those years of childraising do help with some skills for doing it again. If the grandparents want to go to Hawaii, why not -- just bring the grandkids along. We may have a lot of kids raised in places like Miami Beach (by NY retirees.)

        [–]EmbeddedAssets 3 points4 points  (4 children)

        You beat me right to posting this. Keep in mind that corporations are there to maximize profits, not to keep men (or women) happy. Nobody in their right logical minds would ever marry women in tech because they HAVE to be feminists to even get their positions in the first place. Think about it. Do you think a non-feminist feminine woman would ever "fight" through the hordes of men to get her position instead of enjoying the luxuries at staying at home? No!

        I study in a top of the top comp sci university and I witness the go-getting firsthand with the girls here. They're generally oblivious to guys and are only there to be your competition (If you want to be a software developer, that is). I always do my best to keep my head down, put up, and just study even if I know all of these horrible things are going on here in America since of course that's the Red Pill thing to do.

        In regards to this, we can speculate that more companies in the future will provide this benefit provided that the cost of egg freezing will go down. This will have profound economic impacts and how can we as men best adjust to this? I'll have to think this one out once I'm finished with my massive loads of engineering homework.

        [–]neveragoodtime 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        We will have profound societal impacts as well, as we have more 50 year old moms married to 60 year old dads. These parents won't be able to keep up with their kids. The entire idea of a traditional nuclear family is almost gone.

        [–]Niess 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        i highly doubt this will affect anybody at all, the egg freezing is always a last resort for a woman, if she can go on maternity and have it while shes young why wait till she is older?

        This really is just a extra here you go this will cost us almost nothing but will give us a lot of good PR with woman.

        [–]back_in_towns 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Egg freezing is gonna be huge, just wait. It has more significance than just the maternity leave / career aspects, since the youngest eggs typically produce the healthiest offspring. It's biologically sound in a way, until you consider the fact that nature takes its course regardless of our tinkering--cue 42-year-old spinsters and AF/BB.

        [–]Niess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        I wonder which future will actually happen... I have linked to this in my google calendar to revisit it in 20 years :) hahaha Message you then :P

        [–]Frozen_Tundra 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Men should ask for 20k to freeze their sperm and get vasectomies. Save them from knocking up randoms and being dragged into court for months on end to fight over child support payments.

        /sarcasm

        [–]neveragoodtime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I actually think that's a great idea. Except a vasectomy is free with corporate health plan, and men don't need to freeze sperm, so I'll just take the $20k in cash, thank you.

        [–]markasstrick123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        But that's misogynistic you pig

        [–]markasstrick123 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Women can fuck their boss to move up in the workforce. Women can get into porn to pay off student loans. If someone attacks a woman, that person gets attacked by 30 white knights. When world war 3 comes around, men will be drafted while women sit back, read vogue magazines and ride Chad from the sigma chi fraternity. Must be hard being a woman.

        [–]Bottled_Void 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        If you're running a project where if one person leaving completely fucks you over, you're running the project wrong.

        Nobody is irreplaceable. Or at least they shouldn't be. Beyond getting pregnant, there is cancer and double decker buses going around.

        Also, if I was a woman, I wouldn't jepordise the health of my kids just for a company. Your health is more important than your job. If you've got to 30 and you want kids, you should be having them. Not freezing your eggs so you can get pregnant when you're 40 (all for the good of the company).

        Sure, have the program if you want. I'm not really suprised there isn't much uptake of it.

        And you do realise, they're not getting a $20k bonus. They're getting $20k worth of medical treatment. It's a big difference.

        [–]Elodrian 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        How does maternity leave work in the American private sector? Is it paid for through unimployment insurance or by the company or what?

        [–]ChristopherBurr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It could work either way. My wife received a portion of her paycheck from FMLA. I however work at a bank which pays full parental leave through our insurance policy. It really depends on the company

        [–]aa223 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        The best part is that they can't use discrimination against you because you are hiring the best for the job.

        [–]sciencegod 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Neo-classical economics cares about inventing a world that should be according to a select few at the top and the dumb schmucks those few can convince. Classical economics deals with the world as it is, with no regard for feelings or sensitivities. Whenever the two come into conflict, classical economics always wins.

        [–]1cover20 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        As long as the "neos" aren't allowed to kill off the "classicals". They are trying now by making it too risky for a man even to have kids. But some men will take the risk anyway.

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

        We hired a outside consulting firm to help with a project once. We had this stupid female "project manager" who's only utility seemed to be she knew how to schedule meetings on an Outlook calendar when myself and the techs needed to have a teleconference or something.

        Halfway through the project a server crashed hard. Hardware fault. So began the process of trying to get replacement hardware from Dell, and trying to get the project back on track.

        At the first sign of this trouble, she was gone and never heard from again. A male project manager assumed the case and got everything back on track.

        [–]ollivierre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Is this something that can be discussed on the /r/birthcontrol ?

        [–]_DiscoNinja_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Why not offer maternity leave and on-site day care instead?

        This is some Brave-New-World-type creepy shit.

        [–]elevul 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        In B4 law that forces you to hire 50% women.

        [–]19 Endorsed Contributordrrrrrr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Of course. The point though is that Apple / Facebook believe that being perceived as "cool and progressive" will bring them in more $ than hiring the actual top talent and bringing about additional deadweight loss employees. That cost, 20k here, 200k lost revenue when they have to pay for a woman to abruptly leave during a critical time when they decide they are having a baby on the company's dime, etc, it doesn't mean SHIT for these companies. They need to focus on the bottom line - popularity. Apple wins if Apple is seen as more cool than its competitors. Facebook wins if it avoids any public fuckups that drop its stock price.

        They know. They know it's a waste of fucking money. They also know that long term these companies creating a circlejerk of "who can cater to women more" will bite them in the butt as the expected levels continue to rise. They just don't care because popularity is everything - people are trying to lynch tech companies these days for having the gall to be wildly successful while the rest of America is in a recession. These guys, both betas and alphas alike, know that they have to just follow the money. Who buys Apple products and iPhones? Liberal college kids, a small group of devs / techies who would buy them regardless, and WOMEN. Who uses social media predominantly and clicks the most ads and fills out the most personal information / enters the most data / likes the most things? WOMEN.

        Apple and FB, hell, businesses at large, are chiefly competing for two things - women's money and men's money that their woman will spend. That is 70-80% of purchasing decisions in the US. They want the $ at all costs, as in theory they should, it just sucks that they have to do it this way.

        [–]miss_sogony 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        It's bullshit. I don't know where it comes from. Women in tech, that will generate a billion results on google, as for Men in Nursing, the hits dwindle into obscurity on the first page. It is honestly lowering the qualifications and the workplace. All because women can't handle the fact that men are getting those nice starting salaries.

        I don't know one female in my department who doesn't have a go to beta orbiter who walks her through most of the work. Some are actually pretty decent at the material, but as an employee, they are instantly ruled out by the word "innovative".

        [–]belwas_polecon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Here's a solution: give paternal paid time off equal to women's benefits. Easy.

        [–]PublicallyViewable -1 points0 points  (3 children)

        I understand the point that you're trying to make, but it's also worth noting that you're comparing "Tech Companies" to the individual choices of two specific tech companies. They're not representative of the whole, and their choice to support female workers doesn't affect other tech companies.

        [–]Claude_Reborn[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

        well it kind of does if they can point to those tech companies and say "we want that too"

        Plus it's isn't just any companies, it's Apple and Facebook and every other tech wanna by company is trying to be like them.

        The smart companies will hold their ground and just employ more men, the betas will acquiesce and be pulled down by it.

        Just because she has her eggs frozen is no guarantee she won't get knocked up anyway, then sell the eggs at a profit to other childless women.

        It's a stupid idea, and it frustrates me that the big tech companies are pandering to the SJW feminist bullshit.

        Mind you from my new office I'll be able to watch them burn quite nicely.

        [–]lm_Brian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        The smart companies will hold their ground and just employ more men, the betas will acquiesce and be pulled down by it. It's a stupid idea, and it frustrates me that the big tech companies are pandering to the SJW feminist bullshit.

        In my experience, when a large corporation makes a decision like this, it is well thought out, and entirely in rational self-interest. The most obvious reason would be to look like they are doing the right thing, to take the moral high ground, to make more customers; I don't have whatever data they would, but I honestly doubt the cost of a scheme like this would be worth it, considering apple and facebook both have large and loyal market shares anyway.

        My best bet is that they are doing this for government incentives, given to try and get tech companies to employ more women. They see the potential tax breaks they could get by having more women on staff, they see the costs involved to encourage enough women to join to get those incentives, including the costs to productivity of less skilled less dedicated workers, and make a rational evidence-based decision. If they decide against, the feminists in Washington raise incentives till they change their mind.

        I get that this decisions looks pants on head retarded from a third party seat, but don't attribute the stupidity to the corporation, they are more profit oriented and rational than any human; the stupidity is firmly in the actions of the government.

        [–]PublicallyViewable 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        well it kind of does if they can point to those tech companies and say "we want that too"

        Yeah, it influences public opinion, and the public can want that stuff, but the companies are well within their right to simply refuse that service, and continue about business as usual.

        It's a stupid idea, and it frustrates me that the big tech companies are pandering to the SJW feminist bullshit.

        I wouldn't say it's a stupid idea. It just accomplishes different goals than what you think would be right for these companies. Their purpose for doing it is likely PR. In a way that's pandering to the SJW feminist bullshit, but that kind of pandering is what will make people think more highly of their company and buy more of their shit.

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

        Yeah, this is total bullshit. Men should be given a 20K bonus for freezing their sperm, fertility treatments, abortion costs, condoms, even . . . child support?