If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Conservatives finally have a reason to like Google Doodles: They are part of the war on women too   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 9
    More: Misc, Google logo, school curricula, Winter Olympics in Sochi  
•       •       •

3614 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Mar 2014 at 10:44 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-02 07:54:06 AM
4 votes:
Women have been underrepresented in history in almost all fields: science, school curricula, business, politics -- and, sadly, doodles -- despite incredible contributions both directly and behind the scenes,"

There you go, if you randomly pick from famous historical figures, chances are you are going to get a dude, because they wrote history.
2014-03-02 01:06:56 PM
2 votes:
This is why social justice warriors are insufferable douchebags.
2014-03-02 12:12:08 PM
2 votes:

Elegy: way south: A politics thread in the geek tab?

/more likely than you'd think.

Ewww.

Waiter, there's some social justice in my geek tab.

I'd like to send this back and speak with your manager, please.


Uh, anything involving 'the patriarchy' and 'men are bad!' and 'women are under represented!' isn't, by default, social justice.

It's usually, at best, pointing out the glaringly farking obvious, and at worst, it's 'encouraging' people into fields they're not interested in to force-change gender stereotypes, and/or shaming people for conforming to those stereotypes.

And usually anyone calling themselves a 'social justice' monger has a very convenient click-based advertising machine on their website, and/or just really is a racist, sexist, person looking for justification.

No, I'm not saying that's true for all social justice advocates.  I'm thinking of the 'men's rights' advocates here, for example, who are really just sexist woman haters looking for a reason to spew venom.
2014-03-02 04:43:16 PM
1 votes:

farkeruk: I was involved in some interviewing recently. Of a dozen people we saw, two were women. One was really good, we offered her a job, based on our original ad (and at the top value), but she turned as down as not enough, so, you know, thanks for wasting our farking time. The other was quite good, but we saw better candidates at the time.


I can't blame people who do the listed-salary rejection thing. Oftentimes after the interview the role didn't turn out to be what they were looking for; or it was inadequately described; or they already have other, better offers on the table but are still considering you because they thought you might have something they were more interested in doing (and you don't). Don't forget, they're interviewing you just as much as you're interviewing them.

I'll do anything for money, but the more it diverges from where I want to go in my career right now, the more money it's going to take.


Of course, there are also people who ignore the listed salary requirements range and just expect more than the position is even worth because they read about Google's pay and benefits.
2014-03-02 01:21:59 PM
1 votes:
*sigh* "Brogamming".

Listen, princess. I'd LOVE to hire female programmers. It's the right thing to do, it leads to a less stinky work environment, brings another diverse viewpoint that'll save our ass one day, and it makes the feminists in HR calm their tits. Thing is, there just aren't enough to go around. Maybe they aren't interested and don't go into the field. Maybe they're intimidated by the gender split. Maybe they're being steered away from it by a patriarchal society. I have no clue (but I do have suspicions). Go figure it out and fix THAT problem, because I can't go conscript women - I have to hire people who apply.


Here are some anecdotal datapoints:
We have two female programmers. One is absolutely awesome and destined for management as soon as we can talk her into it, one is rather limited and mediocre and admits that the only reason she has a job is so she doesn't  have to ask her husband for money to buy shoes. Her words, not mine. Neither of them came up through the traditional Programmer feed-pipe. The good one came from a business-oriented track, the crappy one came from a document-design track, and both tagged along as the group retooled into automation and then into the full-up development organization it is today.

I have a close friend who was in school to become a programmer. She had a sexuality crisis under the pressure of the gender split - too many awkward teenaged boys who had never touched a boobie. She dropped out, went to community college for awhile, discovered she liked women, and then eventually got a business degree. Now she works for us as an application support specialist, and is picking up the skills in her spare time.


Outside my workplace, I know two female programmers.
One of them has a man's name and enjoys the attentions of many men.
The other wasn't educated as a programmer, but came up through self-taught hobby projects.

In short, I'm pretty sure the filter keeping women out of tech in quantity is at the university admissions level or earlier - with a minor dose of 'intimidating gender split' forcing them out once they already get there. If I were to point a specific finger, actually, it would be at high school guidance counselors and teachers.  We had girls in my comp sci classes in high school. It was about 50/50. NONE of them went on to do it at the university level, whereas most of the guys did.
   
TLDR: Business is not the problem. They aren't there for us to hire, so we can't hire them. The problem is upstream.
2014-03-02 01:11:21 PM
1 votes:

EngineerAU: Ladies and Gentlemen, exhibit #242453 why third wave feminism continues to be a terrible self parody.  Inequality has been a constant through most of history, Google Doodles are merely a reflection of this, not a cause. Since honoring the living comes with all kinds of potential downsides, Google's only real choice here to satisfy the revisionists is to stop honoring historical figures. More embedded games (but not Pac-Man, that'd be sexist), less humans.


I think the answer is Cis Pac-Person?

No, that offends the non cis-gendered. Simply just Pac-Person?

Is "Person" offensive yet? The word doesn't seem to have an gender connotations, going back to it's original Latin.

Wait. it's original meaning was "actor's mask, character in a play," and since in those days nearly all actors were male, the word is sexist since it refers to an activity women were once excluded from a couple thousand years ago, so we should be offended by it now.

That's how it works, right?
2014-03-02 12:03:58 PM
1 votes:

EvilEgg: There you go, if you randomly pick from famous historical figures, chances are you are going to get a dude, because they wrote history.


This is true, and they also make sure to include important women. Grace Hopper was one of the most important early computer scientists (if you've ever said "debug" it's because of her), and she got a doodle. It's not like they're going out of their way to exclude women.
2014-03-02 11:46:21 AM
1 votes:
Ladies and Gentlemen, exhibit #242453 why third wave feminism continues to be a terrible self parody.  Inequality has been a constant through most of history, Google Doodles are merely a reflection of this, not a cause. Since honoring the living comes with all kinds of potential downsides, Google's only real choice here to satisfy the revisionists is to stop honoring historical figures. More embedded games (but not Pac-Man, that'd be sexist), less humans.
2014-03-02 08:59:01 AM
1 votes:
i.huffpost.como

So they got a woman to revenge-troll all us color-blind men with charts?
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report