~ archived since 2018 ~

Google being sexist.

Postor64

November 22, 2020

74 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

https://www.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/jyo89j/google_being_sexist_imagine_the_outrage_if_the

Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Google being sexist.
Author	Postor64
Upvotes	74
Comments	25
Date	November 22, 2020 2:06 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/jyw5ki/google_being_sexist/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/google-being-sexist.1062473 https://theredarchive.com/post/1062473

Comments

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] [score hidden] 5 years ago stickied comment (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Postor64left-wing male advocate[S] 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Strikester101 10 points11 points12 points 5 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Postor64left-wing male advocate[S] 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

Actual average skill difference between men and women is much more colossal than feminists think (modulo islamic countries). See for example: international olympiads. In my country (Poland), ~10% of national olympiad finalists (2019: maths, cs, physics) are women. I suspect other countries have similar "demographics". Poland even looks "decent" at "equality" maps . Meritocratic competitions (like codeforces) show the true skill difference.

<digression>I'm not saying that it comes from biology (common feministic strawman), because I highly doubt it. Even if it comes from society, you need extraordinary mental gymnastics to consider this skill difference the "oppresion of women"</digression>

Second, this is not just anecdote. Read codeforces post and comments. This is a situation, that happened. It's a fact, related to this contest showing how unfair it was. Something like this, just shouldn't happen at all. It's atrocious, unfair, anti-egalitarian and machiavellian.

How "systemic" this issue is? Companies admit (BOAST), that they use such practices. Feminists defend and motivate them. There are plenty of "diversity statements" (no, it's not "virtue signalling") to read. The point is, this discrimination, is made by deceitful douchebags who still manage to sustain an illusion that "everything is fair". They rarely mention the scale of these practices and hide behind gender(women)-studies """researchers""", who prove intrinsic value of a female in a team, how beneficial diversity is, how confidence issues (or lack of female acquaintances/rolemodels) and "casual sexism" affects women in STEM etc. etc. These """researchers""" know NOTHING about what makes someone good in algorithms and how GM is different from expert. The former typically has substantially larger knowledge from the latter.

Now, subjectivity. These people consider anti-egalitarian practices like quotas (formal/informal) legitimate solution, which is why, I don't care what results they came up with at all. They're anti-egalitarian and they consider egalitarianism an obstacle to equality of outcome. Feminism is status quo, and seeing things like this competition happen, I don't believe them and I reject any study about women in STEM. These people contributed to reducing the number of opportunities I have and injustice in """my world""", and I hold grudge against them. It's hard not to get emotional about it. I'm not a robot.

Another problem mentioned at codeforces: SIMPs (I don't know how to call them). Men, who know that situations like this happen, and they react: "yaay moah qweens in STEM!", "boyz drool, qweens rule!" or "wahmen have it really hard!". There is A LOT of them in STEM. They destroy opportunities for younger men (like codeforces blog OP said).

There are many female-only scholarships and internships. Women can get a job in a decent IT company, without previous experience. It's obvious for anyone "doing" STEM, who was remotely interested in it.

[–]Deckhead13-9 points 5 years ago [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

Second, this is not just anecdote. Read codeforces post and comments. This is a situation, that happened. It's a fact, related to this contest showing how unfair it was.

Is codeforces an event, a user, a subreddit?

How "systemic" this issue is? Companies admit (BOAST), that they use such practices.

Citation needed.

Feminists defend and motivate them.

Citation needed.

There are plenty of "diversity statements" (no, it's not "virtue signalling") to read.

Citation needed.

The point is, this discrimination, is made by deceitful douchebags who still manage to sustain an illusion that "everything is fair".

What discrimination? Citation needed.

They rarely mention the scale of these practices and hide behind gender(women)-studies """researchers""", who prove intrinsic value of a female in a team, how beneficial diversity is, how confidence issues (or lack of female acquaintances/rolemodels) and "casual sexism" affects women in STEM etc. etc.

What do you mean "hide behind"? These researches do "prove" the things they say, it's how science works. Unless you want to disprove a particular research result, in which case: Citation needed.

These """researchers""" know NOTHING about what makes someone good in algorithms and how GM is different from expert. The former typically has substantially larger knowledge from the latter.

Are you claiming expertise knowledge in a topic here, or do you know nothing about it? How would you know if an academic knows "nothing"?

Another problem mentioned at codeforces: SIMPs (I don't know how to call them). Men, who know that situations like this happen, and they react: "yaay moah qweens in STEM!", "boyz drool, qweens rule!" or "wahmen have it really hard!". There is A LOT of them in STEM. They destroy opportunities for younger men (like codeforces blog OP said).

Citation needed for anyone to have said anything remotely like that. It shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of A LOT of them destroying opportunities for young men.

There are many female-only scholarships and internships. Women can get a job in a decent IT company, without previous experience. It's obvious for anyone "doing" STEM, who was remotely interested in it.

Yes, female only scholarships to assist women in getting recognised for their expertise, and getting placements they otherwise wouldn't get.

I work in STEM, I trained in STEM, if you really think it's not full of a bunch of mouth-breathing unapologetic misogynists, I'm afraid you've not actually got much experience in the field.

Situation like this, just shouldn't happen at all. It's atrocious, unfair, anti-egalitarian and machiavellian

What situation? Giving women who enjoy STEM a leg up in a hostile environment does not take it away from you. There are still countless more men hired than women, and at the end of the day, businesses are far more interested in making money than hiring based on quotas. If a woman who scored lower on a test got the job, maybe it's because the people hiring thought she would be a better asset to the team?

[–]Postor64left-wing male advocate[S] 7 points8 points9 points 5 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Is codeforces an event, a user, a subreddit?

If you do not know what codeforces is, you have no idea what competitive programming is.

I work in STEM, I trained in STEM, if you really think it's not full of a bunch of mouth-breathing unapologetic misogynists, I'm afraid you've not actually got much experience in the field.

Gaslighting.

Yes, female only scholarships to assist women in getting recognised for their expertise, and getting placements they otherwise wouldn't get.

"wahmen have it really hard"

Giving women who enjoy STEM a leg up in a hostile environment does not take it away from you

Sorry, number of places at work/winners of scholarships/internships are finite. It's a zero-sum game. Loaded sentence. Environment is not hostile.

What do you mean "hide behind"? These researches do "prove" the things they say, it's how science works.

I consider egalitarianism a fundamental value. They are not only "scientists" they're also lobbying feminists. Because they are anti-egalitarian, from my pov, I consider them harmful. None of the things they "prove" is important enough. "Confidence"? How can you measure that? All of these retarded "science papers" proving feminism, sound like uber-manipulation. In STEM, gender, race, eye color SHOULD NOT matter, regardless of these bullshit disparities.

[–]Deckhead13-5 points 5 years ago [recovered] (17 children) | Copy Link

You don't need to get hostile, I'm attacking your opinion, not your personality or worth as a man.

I didn't claim to know what competitive coding is. Who's gaslighting there?

You can claim I was gaslighting in a single paragraph if you want. Truth of the matter is that there is a tonne of research to back my claim, no, I won't provide citations because you've already acknowledged they exist, from researchers, but that because you disagree with their findings on a personal, not scientific level, you won't accept them. But you haven't actually addressed anything I called you out on.

[+]Postor644 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are the ones who pushed "pay gap" myth, the same way they are pushing confidence gap or "misogynistic environment". Facts don't matter nowadays.

This is my point. It does not matter whether stuff gender studies graduates say is true or not.

Also, science, especially "social science" does not work like religion, dude.

[+]Deckhead13-7 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

The pay gap is real though. There is plenty of evidence to support it.

Most actual academic feminists, i.e not idiots on social media, are at pains to point out that the gap is real, and it's for a whole slew of reasons. For example, they agree that women take time off work to raise children. The result of that is less overall income, and in Australia at least, less money in superannuation. That is a pay gap.

EDIT: Nice stealth edit. The confidence gap is real. Misogynistic environments are real. These are facts, and they do matter.

This is my point. It does not matter whether stuff gender studies graduates say is true or not.

You haven't shown this to be the case. You just keep repeating baseless accusations.

Also, science, especially "social science" does not work like religion, dude.

Where is this coming from? Who said anything about religion. This is the worse case of a straw man argument I've ever seen.

[+]Postor644 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Who said anything about religion.

Religious leaders say X, therefore X is true. Even physics (less strict than mathematics and computer science) does not work this way. If it did, we wouldn't have special theory of relativity. "Science" usually tries to convince you. When they say stuff like "confidence" and say, that it was "measured", I'm not convinced. I call bullshit. I don't even bother reading the rest. When you learn algebra, and for example: don't understand how matrix multiplication works, you don't just "move on" (e.g. to a chapter about quadratic forms).

Social science is nowhere as convincing as "hard science" and lobbyists want power to perform social engineering (a la religion, they want to decide what's "good"). This is why it's really different. I kinda messed up that sentence.

pay gap

It's a useful buzzword. Not many people know what it means, what it measures, yet it shows up onto your facebook feed every month (thanks to university). Fuck that populistic crap.

they agree that women take time off work to raise children

You probably know, that I'm talking about "unadjusted pay gap", i.e. FOR EVERY $ A MAN MAKES, WOMEN MAKES $0.77.

Another thing: The situation at Google India "contest" gave me yet another example, where people with XY chromosomes needed much more "points" to qualify. So it seems to prove my "delusions". I don't know about ANY COMPETITION, where people with XX chromosomes needed more "points". This is the very definition of discrimination. If you know, feel free to post it here.

[+]Deckhead13-2 points 5 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

Religious leaders say X, therefore X is true. Even physics (less strict than mathematics and computer science) does not work this way. If it did, we wouldn't have special theory of relativity. "Science" usually tries to convince you. When they say stuff like "confidence" and say, that you "measured" it, I'm not convinced. I call bullshit. I don't even bother reading the rest. When you learn algebra, and for example: if you don't understand how matrix multiplication works, you don't just "move on" (e.g. to a chapter about quadratic forms).

When you say you're not convinced they measured confidence in their study, did you even read the study? I know you didn't. Because if you did you would be able to point to an actual issue with their science instead of using baseless claims that they are a religion.

Social science is nowhere as convincing as "hard science" and lobbyists want power to perform social engineering (a la religion). This is why it's really different.

"Convincing" yet you don't read the studies? What lobbyists? How can you believe in social engineering but claim all the science that created it is not real?

It's a useful lie buzzword. Not many people know what it means, what it measures, yet it shows up onto your facebook feed every month (thanks to university). Fuck that populistic crap.

It's not a lie. It might be used as a buzzword on your social media, but so what? When governments use it to implement services, they do so in a way that's backed by science.

As an aside, if you want to avoid "populistic crap", you'd want to turn off Facebook.

Then it's not-an-issue. You probably know, that I'm talking about "unadjusted pay gap", i.e. FOR EVERY $ A MAN MAKES, WOMEN MAKES $0.77.

No one claims anything about it being not-adjusted. Everyone is in agreement that women do things like raise children and are financially worse off because of it.

Wanting women to not be financially worse off and dependent on a spouse due to life decisions that benefit everyone isn't a bad thing? I'm not sure what your actual issue with it is? Do you just not want women to be financially secure? Honest question, why do you not want them to receive financial support for raising the kids?

[+]Postor644 points 5 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Wanting women to not be financially worse off and dependent on a spouse due to life decisions that benefit everyone isn't a bad thing? I'm not sure what your actual issue with it is? Do you just not want women to be financially secure? Honest question, why do you not want them to receive financial support for raising the kids?

I want them to receive financial support. I do not want them, to have systemic/institutional advantage at admissions and hiring because of the fact, that they CAN raise children.

PAY GAP is commonly used as (badly defined) argument for quotas. This is where I disagree. I consider (formal/informal) quotas EVIL. The only thing they boost, are opportunism and oppression olympics. No arguments will convince me to change my mind here.

"not-an-issue" was a bad word.

It's not a lie

This is why I edited this word out. Some "pay gap" is true, other, like "unadjusted-" is false. I really hate buzzwords.

As an aside, if you want to avoid "populistic crap", you'd want to turn off Facebook.

Yep, but feminism is particularly annoying. I see it nearly every day and it managed to mix up horribly with the stuff I learn (and STEM).

I strongly dislike proprietary software/services, but I need some contact with friends.

When you say you're not convinced they measured confidence in their study, did you even read the study? I know you didn't. Because if you did you would be able to point to an actual issue with their science instead of using baseless claims that they are a religion.

I did, a few. I worded it badly. If I was interested in differences of confidence between women and men in STEM, I would probably treat it as rough approximation. But I'm not.

I know, that no results will convince me, that women need a "leg up" at admissions/tests/competitions/hiring etc. because I believe these should be meritocratic. If they say "wahmen have it harder" due to vague factors like, "confidence", "misogyny" (that some people see, some do not) AND quotas should help them, I disagree.

What lobbyists? How can you believe in social engineering but claim all the science that created it is not real?

I do not understand what "the science that created it" means. It's loaded sentence. I rather disagree with social engineering at STEM, that gender-studies "scientists" indirectly propose. Strawman, but I wrote weird sentences, so maybe not.

You and I lose time arguing. I feel like I made a full circle.

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deckhead13 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deckhead13 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Our culture, especially in academia, is obsessed with this idea that any luxurious field underrepresented with women must be due to sexism.

It's not particularly hard to ask loaded, vague questions and interpret them in a way to show this result. "Has a man ever approached you romantically at work in an unwanted way" "Have you been treated differently because of your gender".

Of course I have not the means to do this so I guess I just have to accept the feminists studies at face value and I can never believe otherwise. Fuck me, right?

However snapping out of the "women are oppressed" mindset it becomes clear what's actually going on is more complicated than discrimination.

Men are more interested in things, women are more interested in people.. STEM falls neatly into "things", it's not surprising men favor it. It always strikes me as odd that in our search for discrimination we look at jobs with more men (even though there's plenty of jobs with more women), we narrow it down even further to jobs with more men that are luxurious (I don't see any push to have more female bricklayers), then we decide the reason women aren't in this field we've narrowly selected must be due to discrimination. All we need to do then is ask "Do you ever feel uncomfortable surrounded by so many men", "do men treat you differently", and hey there's our discrimination.
What's also strange is the more progressive a country is the less women are in STEM. And while I have no "citation" for this I'm sure we both agree Finland, Norway and Sweden are less misogynistic cultures than Tunisia, UAE and Algeria.
I absolutely disagree with your "men in STEM are unapologetic misogynistic mouth breathers". Admittedly I only have a masters in STEM as opposed to working in it, but it's just never what I saw. At most, guys in there can be nerdy and socially awkward, sometimes autistic, but these kind of guys don't have the confidence to be rude to anyone anyway, much less girls. And I distinctly remember, whenever a girl had a problem in our maths or computing lessons, it wouldn't be long before a small crowd of guys had formed around her rushing to help her out.

https://medium.com/@kjmorenz/is-it-really-just-sexism-an-alternative-argument-for-why-women-leave-stem-cccdf066d8b1

Here's an article which goes in detail why it's not as simple as sexism or misogyny.

[+][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

again I think your desire to "help" women comes from an assumption that if women aren't in a luxurious industry there must be some injustice going on?

what if its just their free choice? how close do the percentages need to be before we decide theres no injustice?

because what we see now is:

a shit job with more men is fine, that's free choice
a good job with more women is fine, thats free choice
a good job with more men is wrong, that's due to discrimination

I just firmly reject that STEM is filled with misogynists. I guess if you want to see it you will, like the people who claim girls aren't in esports because of misogyny.

Women outperform men in education, work less dirty dangerous and demeaning jobs, and even outearn men before they have a child. no-one bats an eye at this. instead we scuttle around finding some area in which they arent better off and try to fix it. I'm not against "helping" people but that's not all what's going on here. It all an attempt to fix this world where we view men as having it good and women as having it bad.

To me as ridiculous as finding some metric by which people with blue eyes are worse off than people with green eyes, then "helping" blue eyed people in this area. Then when people question why you're helping that you hold up your hands and say "woah I'm just helping people, whats your problem?".

the problem with this kind of "help" is its done at the hiring process, to fix a percieved injustive that may not even be there. so people from group get shafted for absolutely no reason.its not like there's infinite places in these things. to help one specific group must necessarily come at the expense of the group not being helped

[–]Deckhead130 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

again I think your desire to "help" women comes from an assumption that if women aren't in a luxurious industry there must be some injustice going on?

No. You're attributing motives to me that I don't know where you've gotten them from.

what if its just their free choice? how close do the percentages need to be before we decide theres no injustice?

What if it is their free choice?

There's male dominated industries and female dominated industries. Obviously, that domination is going to result in bias. We all have read stories about women in STEM and we've all read stories about male daycare providers or male nurses.

I have only suggested that there's no problem in helping the few that want to be in those industries from getting there.

I've said nothing about percentages. If businesses want to achieve 50% female tech employees that's their business. It's how they want to operate.

Results from these businesses have proven that it increases revenue/profit BTW.

because what we see now is:

a shit job with more men is fine, that's free choice

a good job with more women is fine, thats free choice

a good job with more men is wrong, that's due to discrimination

That's because no one wants to be in a shit job. The only problem I see here is that there's two good jobs that one gender will have difficulty getting into if they choose, through personal choice, to go down that route.

Women outperform men in education, work less dirty dangerous and demeaning jobs, and even outearn men before they have a child. no-one bats an eye at this. instead we scuttle around finding some area in which they arent better off and try to fix it. I'm not against "helping" people but that's not all what's going on here. It all an attempt to fix this world where we view men as having it good and women as having it bad.

I'm all for helping men. Look at my comment history. But that doesn't need to mean "stop helping women". There will be no traction to our cause by arguing like that. I'm sure you can see why.

To me as ridiculous as finding some metric by which people with blue eyes are worse off than people with green eyes, then "helping" blue eyed people in this area. Then when people question why you're helping that you hold up your hands and say "woah I'm just helping people, whats your problem?".

If people with blue eyes were discriminated then this would make sense. But they're not. This is a pretty broad false equivalency argument.

[–]Postor64left-wing male advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Deckhead13 -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link