OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Monday, August 17

#21197

OMG: The men who post stuff like this are complete losers. Become a more rounded person. Stop blaming other people and the system for your issues. Your are a white male with privilege. You statistically have a better chance of getting a tech job than a women just because you are a guy STFU. Seriously. The system is NOT conspiring against you. Your idiotic attitude is conspiring against you.

52 comments

  1. "Stop blaming other people and the system for your issues"

    Proceeds to blame white men for everything.

    Keep up the great logic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HAhaha oh wow.

      1. "The system is not conspiring against you"
      2. "White males privilege is a conspiracy!"
      3. 1+2= your stupid as fuck

      Men are on average, better with tech than women, sad, but true. If you can't deal with it, stick to basketweaving or knitting kiddo

      Delete
    2. 1a: "Men are on average, better with tech than women"

      White male with a background in Math and CS here. Generally, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with your observation here. In my experience, I've seen plenty of women who were just as skilled - if not more so - than their male counterparts, and on average I've found there's been no real difference in overall skill levels based on gender.

      Delete
    3. 1b. A nonwhite male with background in Math & CS here. My observation is that men in math & cs are less likely to switch out when they are doing badly than women, therefore creating a survivorship bias.

      Delete
    4. 1.c there might be a survivorship bias but there's also one hell of a selection bias upfront. Women seem far less likely to choose physics or engineering than men, though probably not because of ability. If anything, in terms of average ability women are better at math courses (due, most likely, to higher conscientiousness). Men do better on math skills tests (e.g. the math section of the SAT, the quantitative GRE and math-based special GREs, etc.), and men exhibit greater variance in a wide variety of traits, including math ability, which means men are substantially overrepresented at the extremes of such distributions.

      It's almost certainly true that social pressures contribute to the population difference--perhaps more women will join the more mathematically-oriented STEM fields with encouragement. But it's also true that men dominated every facet of the academy a century ago and women since have become dominant in a variety of prestigious traditional fields: law and medicine, and less prestigious though formerly male-dominated fields like literature and sociology.

      There's probably room for things to shift in terms of gender distributions in STEM and our attitudes towards women should change for reasons of decency alone. At the same time we should acknowledge that "glass ceiling" complaints ignore the existence of such barriers, with far more force at the time, in fields with higher financial stakes than computer science or mechanical engineering, again, law and medicine being major examples. So let's get encourage women in STEM and let's avoid social engineering at the same time--there is and should be no sense of an optimal distribution, a 50/50 split, for instance.

      Delete
    5. 1c here.

      > If anything, in terms of average ability women are better at math courses (due, most likely, to higher conscientiousness).

      > Men do better on math skills tests (e.g. the math section of the SAT, the quantitative GRE and math-based special GREs, etc.), and men exhibit greater variance in a wide variety of traits,

      > including math ability, which means men are substantially overrepresented at the extremes of such distributions.

      I believe you have contradicted yourself and your argument for men being overrepresented makes no sense.

      Delete
    6. 1e, I think the point being made (or one of the points, at any rate) was that those tests aren't a fair or adequate way to assess someone's aptitude or natural ability in a field. There have been a variety of studies over the years that have suggested our standardized tests are largely gender-biased, in that they favour males.

      Delete
    7. Are you saying a test is unbiased only if the mean and standard deviation are the same for men and women?

      Delete
    8. 1g, if that's what I meant, it's probably what I would've said.

      But I would argue a fair assessment of someone's abilities in an academic field shouldn't consistently yield different results based on no metric other than gender (or race, class, etc.), and if it is doing that then it's probably a good idea to at least ask 'why' that's the case.

      It may not be that the test itself is flawed! But jumping to a conclusion like "women are inherently worse at Math' is quite possibly a sillier leap to make than wondering if there's a problem with your testing system.

      Anyway, AFAIK people DID ask that question, and it IS the subject of research. And it's not one that particularly interests me either, so I'd rather not get into a debate about it - it bores me. I was just trying to say "this is probably what the other posters were getting at, rather than contradicting themselves." I said that, so... s'cool.

      Delete
    9. > But I would argue a fair assessment of someone's abilities in an academic field shouldn't consistently yield different results based on no metric other than gender (or race, class, etc.)

      So what kind of evidence would convince you that men are better at math? If all the tests supporting men are better at math are considered biased towards men, then there is no way to disprove your hypothesis that men and women are equally good at math. Your theory would be irrefutable therefore not scientific.

      Delete
    10. 1i, it's irrelevant. "Better" is a subjective term anyway. I think there's no good reason women couldn't have just as much potential to make meaningful contributions to the field of Mathematics as they do for any other field.

      Delete
    11. one time in band camp we saw a couple of squirrels getting it on. so we went down to the dock and had a swim for a bit. it was okay. in the end i played my tuba and my friend their violin. saw some vintage erotica and ate some tuna sandwiches.

      Delete
  2. I don't get it. The posts were actually quite civil compared to what I've seen on here. How does a post like this end up on here when I've submitted better? Stop trying to push the "feminist victim culture" crap thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You must be in Women's Studies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely op is stupid, but that doesnt mean he/she is in WS.

      Delete
  4. Apparently it's only sexism when women are at a disadvantage. If the hackathon did accept this person due to their sex rather than ability then it certainly would be grounds for sexism. But of course sexism can't happen to women and if you think otherwise you're shouted down as a "complete loser with an idiotic attitude with white male privilege."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Privilege means not having to think about it. It means getting a social advantage. I have a friend transition from female to male. I did ask him about the changes he noticed in how others treated him. And he said now that he has finished his transition, the advantages he gets are sadly noticeable.

    It's just one thing. You'll be successful everywhere else you go .

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You statistically have a better chance of getting a tech job than a women just because you are a guy"
    Either you got the wrong statistics or you have no idea about statistics.
    The fact that there are more men in tech doesn't mean men have a higher chance to work in tech. Actually the real statistics say that if you are a woman you're twice as likely to be hired than a man ... because tech companies want more women so that they look diverse but women don't choose to go into tech as much as men do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. IMO, the majority of the time people blame 'the system' for things not going their way, it's not actually the system's fault. And the majority of the times that it is, the failings of the system aren't, themselves, systematic.

    That said, systematic issues DO exist, and members of majority demographics are more-or-less NEVER the victims of them.

    Reading the post in OPs link, this DOES sound like a failure of the system, but it DOESN'T sound like some kind of systematic conspiracy. But that's just my opinion (obviously).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Due to atrocities, such as "afirmative action" and all that SJW BS, companies are extremely willing to hire women. I've known many companies at Waterloo who would exclusively hire only female as co-op students. Even some of the professors here will only hire female co-op students for their research. Not to mention in real-life, where you get discrimination on your gender, such as club entry fees as well as insurance, yet nobody gives a shit about them either way.

    I think that OP should get over themself. There is clearly a demonstrable trend in reverse sexism, where males are being discriminated for job opportunities, among many other things. It is an undeniable fact that females had significantly lower requirements for entering the hackathon comparing to males entering it.

    I really think that you're the loser and you're blinded by your own silly little fantasies, since you do not use the emprical facts given to you. You really need to learn what you're talking about and how to use evidence to support your theory. I've heard of better arguments from preschoolers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I call BS. Name one.

      Delete
    2. 8a. Intel gives larger referral bonuses for women by policy.

      Delete
    3. 8b, I mean name one company that "exclusively hire only female as co-op students."

      Delete
    4. 8c, I don't want to disclose specific details, but in my particular program we know damn well which companies discriminate in terms of sex and we (males) would have to purposefully not apply to those companies in order to use our 50 application limit more meaningfully.

      Here's a screenshot from a friend with censored company details and censored names: http://i.imgur.com/obQp4pU.jpg. I mean...what were the chances of that?

      Delete
  9. 1.OP clearly has no understanding of the difference between causation and association, or statistics in general.
    2. If OP has ever worked in the tech industry, he/she will actually find out that it is much easier for women to get a job in this field.

    ReplyDelete
  10. All cis scum should be locked away forever
    I mean srs it's 2015 just lock up these bigots

    ReplyDelete
  11. God some of my CS colleagues make me fucking sick. We're already in the best possible field with outrageously many high paying positions open to us. The only explanation I can find for these people whining about a "female CS privilege" is that either they're bottom of the barrel and can't find a job in a field where it's incredibly easy to do so, or actually hate women. Go fuck yourself either way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God 11 makes me sick. Women are already in the best possible field with outrageously better opportunities of high paying positions open to them. The only explanation I can find for these people whining about a "male CS privilege" is that either they're bottom of the barrel and can't find a job in a field where it's incredibly easy to do so, or actually hate EQUALITY. So please do not post stupid comment like that.

      Delete
    2. I know your post is supposed to be a witty reflection of my own, but being a male who isn't whining about a "male CS privilege" it really doesn't work. Try again, and this time remember that the barriers to entry into CS aren't equal to begin with.

      Delete
    3. @11.b proof to back up claim or are you just white knighting?

      Delete
    4. Wouldn't I be a white knight either way? You know, since either way I'm expressing my opinion about the fucked up mentality of CS men on the internet.

      Delete
    5. Because you can't back it up you're a victim?

      Delete
    6. 11.d is the one who has a fucked up mentality. And like all the idiots in womyn's studies, he/she doesnt even know how to make an argument.

      Delete
    7. @11.e When did I make myself a victim? The fuck do I care if you call me a white knight?

      @11.f Dude, why would I seriously argue on the internet? I'm venting about shit that pisses me off. Trying to actually change someone's mind on the internet is pointless, I just want to rage.

      Delete
    8. You care enough to respond. Prob seeking some sort of validation in addition to your poor attempt at deflection.

      Delete
  12. You really have no idea what you are talking about. You remind me of people in the US who keep on complaining how good African Americans have it with affirmative action.... Until they spend a few hours in black costume and realized his many other things do not go blsckd people way

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. like slacking off and only get a b average and 1800 sat scores to get into ivy leagues? lol, nice one, joker.

      Delete
    2. Like been detained and carded just for walking down the street

      Delete
    3. 12b, You mean innocent "kid" such as michael brown?

      Delete
    4. 12c, I mean the 400,000 black people who were carded in Toronto and never charged with any crime.

      Delete
    5. 12d. the number you quoted has exceed the black population in Toronto (almost doubled). The fact that leftists always use lies to support their hypocritical arguments disgusts me.
      source: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=dbe867b42d853410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=57a12cc817453410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

      Delete
    6. "Fine, fine, you are not a whore. But you ARE wearing a whore's uniform" - Dave Chappelle

      Don't want to get treated like a thug y police? Don't wear a thug's uniform.

      Delete
    7. Sorry 12e, racism isn't a 'right vs left' thing. I'm a hard conservative by pretty much any definition, but I still think racist shit is racist shit. People are all the same, and disadvantaged minorities deserve some advantages to try and even the playing field... it's the humanist thing to do.

      Delete
    8. 12g, using lies to support affirmative action (aka reverse-discrimination) is the real 'racist shit' and has nothing to do with humanism. stop hijacking humanism.

      Delete
    9. There sure are a lot of people in this thread with anger problems. Try a little compassion for a change, show some empathy for people who didn't get a chance to live the same life you did. It might not make you agree with affirmative action, or any other forms of equalization, but maybe it'll make you a little bit nicer? That'd probably be a plus.

      Delete
    10. 12e. The number I gave is unique incidents per year over 6 years, from 2008 and 2013. More importantly, you haven't addressed the point that this happens. You went on a tangent about left/right, which as 12g says it has nothing to do with this, unless you think the right is pro-racism.

      Delete
    11. 12j. I dont see how pointing out the falsehood of your number has anything to do with the right being racist or not. In your original post you said "400,000 black people who were carded", not "black people are carded 400000 times." Do you still think I need to address the number you made up?

      Delete
    12. 12k you are the one who brought up the left when no one was taking about it. Moreover you keep on accusing of lies and making up numbers, when in reality is a backed up number from the Toronto police which I just failed to fully qualify as an oversight. There is no need to make anything up. It is equally disgusting that 65 thousand innocent black people per year are carded, something that never seems to bother you.

      Delete
    13. Ok. My bad. I shouldt have brought up the political spectrum in the 1st place.

      But suppose I told you there were twice as many white people (or replace with any race here) as the total white population, would you be bothered?

      Delete
  13. Politically correctness at its best. As long as the minority are heard that's all that counts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Affirmative action simply cheapens those whom they are trying to help.

    ReplyDelete
  15. white people are actually the minority in waterloo CS

    ReplyDelete