Tuesday, May 9, 2017

Loser Speak

So I came across this article the other day about women in technology. The article really highlights to me the problem the article is talking around. Observe.

The article begins by noting that there aren't nearly as many female engineers as there are male engineers at the tech companies. This is true. And this will be the question the article attempts to solve. Unfortunately, things go downhill from here.

First, the article points out that a former Facebook engineer did an analysis last year which found that the code of female engineers was rejected much more often than that of male engineers. So is this possibly evidence of sexism and therefore the reason why there aren't more women? Well, no. According to Facebook, the analysis was "incomplete and inaccurate" and if you take into account the rank of the engineers in question, then the rejection rates become equal. In other words, the only reason there was a difference is they were comparing low-level newbie female engineers against the most experienced male engineers at the company. Remove that difference and the supposed gender difference vanishes.

So why even mention this discredited study?

Well, because the author has little else to offer. Indeed, she suddenly jumps to this statement after mentioning the study and that it's probably meaningless:
While we have seen some positive change in more recent years, the reality is that there still aren’t enough female engineers at the top. The more women who progress to these leadership roles, however, the more likely other women will recognize their own ability to do the same.
This is bait and switch. The author begins by mentioning a supposed problem and a discredited study which proves nothing and then jumps into advocacy based on this opening. Moreover, her statement is completely unsupported. Where is the proof that having more women at the top will somehow inspire other women?

And let me make this point, because I think it is the key point: this is loser thinking. I have never met a man in my entire life who needed to see someone else succeed before they decided they could do something. It is not part of our genetic makeup to need someone else to follow to help us "recognize our own ability to do the same." To the contrary, every man I've ever met has simply decided what he wanted to do and he went about doing it... whether anyone had done it before not. Moreover, the most successful ones did the things they did despite everyone telling them it couldn't be done.

If women want to succeed, they need to learn this. You will never be a success waiting for others to show you the way. You have to pick your own goal and make your own way.

The article then continues:
Perhaps there will never be a definitive answer as to why the proportion of men in technical positions, and subsequently leadership roles, far outpaces women.
This is really ironic as the article has done nothing to look into this or advance our understanding of the issue... nothing. Yet, this author now speculates that we may never know. Gee, quit easily, do you? Seriously, she examined zero possible causes and now decides that, gosh, maybe we'll never know. Worthless.

Moreover, she then proceeds to tell tech firms: "don't just check the box. Take diversity seriously." But where is the evidence that they aren't taking it seriously? She just admitted she has no idea what is really causing this issue, so why jump to this conclusion. Where is the evidence that the lack of women in tech firms is in any way the result of anything tech firms are or aren't doing? In fact, doesn't the discrediting of the study above suggest that the idea she once again casually treats as true that tech firms are sexist isn't true? Could articles like this be the problem?

Here's the thing. Articles like this push a false belief that hinders many women. That belief is that somehow they shouldn't do something until their betters show them the way. Either they need to follow in the footsteps of female trailblazers once the path is well-worn and easily trod (read: exhausted), or they need the boys to pat them on the head and let them into the winners' club. That's bullship. No one ever won that way except the retarded children of alumni.

The real problem, as I have observed by watching the herd of young girls my youngest travels in (and other women throughout the years), is the very idea of this sisterhood. The sisterhood is like a union for women broken into competing cliques, and liberal society tells girls to join it. Television shows push the idea of the sisterhood. "Girl power" is all about joining the girl herd. So many moms I've seen warn their daughters to get in with the right herd. Feminists push the idea of one sisterherd all united in their victimhood by phallus creatures. Even articles like this push the idea by lumping all women into one helpless mentality.

The problem is, to stay in the sisterhood, you basically need to follow union rules: never work harder or try harder or be more successful than the least of you. Don't make anyone feel bad. That is exactly the recipe for failure. Boy don't do this with the exception of ghetto/trash cliques, where education is seen as some sort of trick. They have no problem competing or letting their friends excel - no one gets upset, no one feels betrayed by another's success.

So my advice would be this. If you want more women to succeed in science or any other field, then stop them from sabotaging each other throughout their lives, drop this sisterhood nonsense, and stop telling them they aren't expected to succeed until someone else makes them a success. If you want to be a success... chart your own course.


AndrewPrice said...

BTW, The Democrats are calling for a special prosecutor to investigate the Comey firing. This is the same people who were demanding his firing for months. Total hypocrites.

They really have become nothing more than white noise at this point.

AndrewPrice said...

Oh, and the Democrats can now add the Omaha Mayor's race to their impressive list of post-Trump loses. Not sure why they ever thought this might be proof of their renewed strength. But either way, it isn't. They lost... again.

tryanmax said...

The most difficult thing about addressing feminism is that their basic worldview seems to reject the way things work. You don't set yourself apart by copying others. You don't pull ahead by only going as far as everyone else. You simply don't achieve more unless you do more. But they reject all of these seemingly obvious facts.

tryanmax said...

On the Omaha Mayor's race, Jean Stothert was a reasonably popular incumbent who has put a lot of focus on improving roads. That's all anybody really wants. Her only negative is that she failed to repeal her predecessor's restaurant tax.

Heath Mello failed to set himself apart, effectively copying Stothert's policies and adding a coat of identity politics. I think the Democrats mistakenly assumed that bringing their biggest celebrity to town would swing things, but I don't think it budged the needle one tick.

Critch said...

I come from a family of strong women...my great-grandmother started her own business in Memphis in the 1880s selling dresses and sewing notions...my grandmother made the store even larger and added dressmaking and a dry cleaner, that was in early 20s....my mother was running a very large cafeteria in Memphis in the early 60s..my sister bought a drive in theater when she was only 28 years old. Women, if you want to get ahead, then work at it. My wife and I work side by side in our business....

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I've found that with feminism too. They seem to be at war with reality and they somehow think that simply pretending that everything is different will somehow change everything. It's almost a mental condition.

AndrewPrice said...

On the Omaha thing, they have been in panic mode since it came out the Democrat was once pro-life. That seems to have imploded the whole game and scattered his supporters for the cover of denying they were ever involved.

And then for the last few weeks, they've been trying to downplay that they ever mentioned that this race might mean anything nationally. Total implosion.

AndrewPrice said...

Critch, I've met a lot of genuinely strong women and they don't fall for any of this garbage. They don't believe that their gender defines their fate. They don't believe that other people control them. They aren't waiting for anyone to give them anything. And most importantly, they don't center their lives around what other people think of them.

There's no mystery here... except to the feminists.

tryanmax said...

There's an interesting graphic in today's paper showing how Stothert won the Omaha mayoral race. LINK

As you can see, Stothert turned out big numbers in West Omaha. East Omaha, while going for Mello, was severely depressed. This is especially apparent because districts were re-balanced this year. Mello barely won Dist. 4, which is his home turf. Being a swing district, I'd wager that higher turnout would've resulted in a loss for Mello in the district that knows him best. Mello was expected to win in Dist's 2 and 4, homes to Ernie Chambers and Warren Buffet, respectively. But, again, Mello couldn't drive voters to the polls. Surprisingly, Mello picked up Dist. 1, which Stothert won with similar margins in the last general election. Still, the overall picture points to Mello being yet another flawed Democrat candidate.

Post a Comment