Move over, James Damore. You have a new ally. And, she’s a woman.

Microsoft engineer complains that company is biased against white men
Internal memo suggests that women don't think the right way to be engineers.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...

So first it was like, women can't do shit. Then it was like, women can do everything better including growing a beard.

Sorta confirms that the opposite of a stupid idea is usually another stupid idea.

Maybe we can finally arrive at a point where those women who are willing AND able to be in tech just are there?!

I can't remember who said it, but as closely as I remember... "The easiest way to not discriminate, is to not discriminate".

Giving equal chances is nice. Forcing quotas is not.

1) Racism and discrimination grows on segregation, and quotas are segregation imho. They specify a percentage of genders, races and beliefs. And as long as you keep listing all the minorities all the time, they will be seen rather as minorities and not human beings...

2) What matters most: is the candidate fit for the position or not.

If there's an issue with biased opinions, then make an interview in a prayer booth with voice distortion.

3) Quotas encourage reverse discrimination.

4) Quotas lever out the laws of the free market.

If there is no minority candidate **physically available because Noone applies**, why should you reject non-minority applicants?

No lie, I've been trying to figure out who this woman is, so I can befriend her. Gonna be in Seattle next week, would love to catch up with her.

If anyone knows who she is, please help me link up with her :)

@CoffeeNcode There are more men than women to choose from, so the probability of any position being given to a male is higher.

@CoffeeNcode (and taking into account the response above mine). Equality of opportunity results in long term favorable results. We have seen a very large shift in recent years in colleges. There are a lot more females in cs related majors now and in the past few years than before. That will translate into higher percentages of female candidates over time. "Over time" is the key. Equality of opportunity allows for the stats to reflect the choices of the different demographic groups. Ideally, that means that if females truly do not prefer cs type jobs as much as males, then the stats will reflect that. In that case, a 60/40, 70/30, whatever split does not indicate inequity, it represents natural and voluntary choices. Equality of outcome (quotas, hiring preferences, etc.) is just plain discrimination, does not address any inequalities in opportunity, and is bad for everyone. The key again is time, but there are those that would say 2 wrongs make a right just because they are impatient.

@CoffeeNcode They have the same opportunities (more even, let's get real). Women just have different interests. There will always be a discrepancy in tech just like there will be in medicine. It's just biology. Why even this attitude that we "need equal representation"? Sure, if women want to program that's cool but equal representation is only somthing a marxist could come up with and goes directly against the idea of equal opportunity

@CoffeeNcode Preferential hiring for example.

The stereotype of programming being a male thing is because it mostly is. There aren't many woman interested in it compared to men. Not trying to defend stereotypes but I guess they sometimes exist for a reason

@CoffeeNcode Most women can't program. Most men can't either. But it's much fewer women who even want to program than men, that's why it's perceived as predominantly male profession. Freedom of choice.

That wasn't really a problem until recently because where a woman was in tech, it was because she was willing and able. There was no problem to be solved.

But now with women quotas, the first question is whether she's qualified or a useless diversity hire, so NOW she has to prove her worth before being accepted as peer.

And after #metoo and lots of bogus harassment accusations, a young woman won't find a male mentor anymore because he has nothing to gain and everything to lose. NOW there are glass walls.

It's specifically 3rd wave feminism that has created issues for women in tech. It's up to them to clean up that mess because nobody else will. The MS engineer from the OP seems to have realised that.

Btw., I remember my first female co-worker. Not as PM or PO, but as direct peer. She didn't have acceptance issues although she hadn't studied some job related tech stuff like EE or CS or even physics as most others.

Instead, she had a math degree, but everyone figured that if she had been smart enough to pull off a math degree, she automatically had to be smart enough to do our job. Pure nerd logic. ^^

@CoffeeNcode It wasn't fine in the 50s for sure. But that changed during the 60s, finalised in the 70s, and by the 80s, it was fine - at least in developed countries. That even included the Eastern bloc where human rights in general didn't count too much, but they didn't have that specific issue.

The current 3rd wave feminism mess was not brought on by "women in tech", and they didn't even ask for that "help" because they didn't need it.

Quite the opposite, it came from leeches who tried to suck the money from tech without being qualified. Just look at how suspiciously little those CoC/SJW "activists" actually contribute in terms of tech.

Since any man who opposes that gets immediately burned, see Damore, it's only women who actually can change things. And since the unqualified diversity leeches obviously have no interest in change, that leaves the qualified women in tech as only possible stakeholders.

That's why the MS engineer might have better cards than Damore.