Is there gender inequality in IT or cyber security?

[Syntaxvgm]

There's nothing stopping women, they'll just find it's an absolute pot of cocktail wieners. I find in general, computer science attracts less women for some reason, I'd say less than 10% are women, at least from my own subjective experience. 

We are, however, rich with incels of both genders. 

[kingkickolas]

OHh man I love this thread.

 

I saw this just today, I'm just gonna leave it here.

 

Also regarding STEM more generally, check out what's going on with Dr. Bouman.

 

e/

Omg what does this even mean lmao.

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

-snip-

We are, however, rich with incels of both genders. 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by kingkickolas

[Drak3]

33 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

I saw this just today, I'm just gonna leave it here.

Allow me to put it this way:

 

If employers could pay women less money for the same job, same quality of work, and same amount of work done, than they do for a man, women would make up most of the labor force.

[kingkickolas]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Allow me to put it this way:

 

If employers could pay women less money for the same job, same quality of work, and same amount of work done, than they do for a man, women would make up most of the labor force.

Lol no. That's not even remotely how it works.

 

If this is what you think, then you haven't understood why women are paid less in the first place.

 

You could try to listen to the experts who talk about it and experience it (like in the tweet I quoted).

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, kingkickolas said:

you haven't understood why women are paid less in the first place.

They're not paid less for doing the same work to the same capacity.

 

Women make less on average largely because of the fields they choose.

[kingkickolas]

7 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They're not paid less for doing the same work to the same capacity.

 

Women make less on average largely because of the fields they choose.

I wish I had your confidence, bro. I love that you can just like straight up assert the exact opposite of the professional quoted in the very post that you are responding to.

That's some next level posting. I give it 8 Well Actually's out of 10.

[Drak3]

11 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

I love that you can just like straight up assert the exact opposite of the professional quoted

Appeal to authority. That quote doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

The wage gap myth ignores profession, level of work done, experience, dedication to the job, etc.

 

And not many women want to go into some fields.

[kingkickolas]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Appeal to authority. That quote doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

The wage gap myth ignores profession, level of work done, experience, dedication to the job, etc.

 

And not many women want to go into some fields.

The wage gap explicitly compares similar situations, it doesn't ignore it. Where are you getting all of this from? Too many prageru vids probably lol. How is it possible to think women don't wanna go into STEM? 100% that this is gonna turn into some weird skull-measuring genetics discussion before long.

 

Also I love that this whole thread is basically "All these professionals keep saying that there's persistent gender discrimination in STEM, but my friend Jason who works at his dad's tech repair shop says there isn't so who Really knows is there is or isn't?" Lmao.

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

I wish I had your confidence, bro. I love that you can just like straight up assert the exact opposite of the professional quoted in the very post that you are responding to.

That's some next level posting. I give it 8 Well Actually's out of 10.

 

 

If you can make it to the end,  You'll see why it's mostly BS and fluff (especially in Australia).  No one wants to be truthful with the issue because the actual facts aren't nearly as telling as people want to make out.

 

 

[kingkickolas]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

 

If you can make it to the end,  You'll see why it's mostly BS and fluff (especially in Australia).  No one wants to be truthful with the issue because the actual facts aren't nearly as telling as people want to make out.

 

 

Genuinely don't know if this is trolling or not. Neither that senator, nor this sad sargon wannabe apparently know what annualized means lmao. And the video title I'm ****ing dying. Please tell me this is a parody account or something?

[mr moose]

Just now, kingkickolas said:

Genuinely don't know if this is trolling or not. Neither that senator, nor this sad sargon wannabe apparently know what annualized means lmao. And the video title I'm ****ing dying. Please tell me this is a parody account or something?

Nope, they are genuine.  The whole wage gap is based on assumptions.   The head of the committee even admitted they don't have the information needed to make an accurate comparison.  They literally have no way to show any evidence for a wage gap. 

 

I'm not sure why you have so much trouble accepting that? 

[kingkickolas]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Nope, they are genuine.  The whole wage gap is based on assumptions.   The head of the committee even admitted they don't have the information needed to make an accurate comparison.  They literally have no way to show any evidence for a wage gap. 

 

I'm not sure why you have so much trouble accepting that? 

I think you should go back and watch the video, or better yet read their report. Or even better still, read any report.

Do *you* know what the word annualized means? Because that seems to be what the senator and sadboi were missing. The data from that report does show a wage gap. That this is apparently genuine is just so sad. I feel for you man.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, kingkickolas said:

I think you should go back and watch the video, or better yet read their report. Or even better still, read any report.

Do *you* know what the word annualized means? Because that seems to be what the senator and sadboi were missing. The data from that report does show a wage gap. That this is apparently genuine is just so sad. I feel for you man.

Do you know what annualized means?  guess what?  It doesn't matter, they claimed outright they do not have the hours worked for woman.  The admitted they can't do the comparison or answer the questions because they do NOT have the data,  they can annualize anything they want, but if they don't have the actual data then the end result will be what ever they determine it to be. 

 

And for the record, yes I know what it means, I am not a gullible twit trying to defend an ideal.   I'm only interested in facts.

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

The saddest thing about that video is that they are my tax dollars going to waste on ideals when there are real issues that need to be addressed.  Watching public servants squirm to justify their ideals is not my idea of tax dollars well spent.

[kingkickolas]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Do you know what annualized means?  guess what?  It doesn't matter, they claimed outright they do not have the hours worked for woman.  The admitted they can't do the comparison or answer the questions because they do NOT have the data,  they can annualize anything they want, but if they don't have the actual data then the end result will be what ever they determine it to be. 

 

And for the record, yes I know what it means, I am not a gullible twit trying to defend an ideal.   I'm only interested in facts.

Aight lemme help you out my bruh.

Woman works 1000 hours in year X, makes $30k. This is annualized (by the employer) to 60k.

Man works 2000 hours in year X, makes $65k. This is annualized to $65k.

This is what their data is. The fact that neither you, nor the senator, nor that hamburger talking into the mic can figure that out is why you are misinformed about the fAcTs.

I wish you all the best my beloved homeslice.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

Aight lemme help you out my bruh.

Woman works 1000 hours in year X, makes $30k. This is annualized (by the employer) to 60k.

Man works 2000 hours in year X, makes $65k. This is annualized to $65k.

This is what their data is. The fact that neither you, nor the senator, nor that hamburger talking into the mic can figure that out is why you are misinformed about the fAcTs.

I wish you all the best my beloved homeslice.

Except they don't know the hours worked by woman.  It is taken from workplace agreements not actual hours.  They do not have the foundational data to accurately conclude anything.

 

Doesn't take into account variation in average hours worked:

Quote

As a weekly measure reliant on full-time status, this measure does not take into account the variation in the average number of hours worked between women and men employed full-time (36 hours for women compared to 40 hours for men; see Table 1.10, available from the Downloads tab of this publication).

and:

 

Quote

Given the much larger proportion of the female workforce working part-time (44% of females compared to 16% of males; see Table 1.9, available from the Downloads tab of this publication), the pay gap is increased by the inclusion of both full and part-time employees, when calculated as a weekly rate (rather than hourly)

and

Can't determine the differences let alone explain the causes:

Quote

While GPG measures can describe an overall position of women in the workforce, they cannot determine or explain causes of the differences in earnings between women and men.

and:

 

Is all based one workplace agreements not actual hours worked:

Quote

 

which are gross earnings based on the employee’s workplace agreement (footnote 4).

 

 

 

So as I said before, you cannot conclude a factual condition when you don't have the facts to begin with. 

 

But let me help you understand mu Bruh.

 

Edit: just to add, that is why the whole committee was squirming to answer the question.  Because they can't and they knew it.  Either they are pedaling an ideal they are invested in or they are pushing the gender pay gap to legitimize their jobs and the need for funding next year.

 

 

[mr moose]

And I have to say,  the pay gap they are referring to in that video cannot exist legally. There are very strict laws on employment in Australia.  So for it to exist the way they are claiming, it means what they are saying is they can prove the gap exists but they can't prove where or who.   How can you have the data that proves someone is being under payed without know who?  

[8uhbbhu8]

Here's my 2 cents on this gender inequality problem. 

Generally there's a split because women and men have different interests. If you like something that another gender is going for, sure go ahead and try for it. HOWEVER.

 

Many of these jobs are gender unequal not because of less opportunity but because men and women are just not capable most of the time in certain position. Take construction and heavy industry. It's dominated by men because a lot of the time you are required to lift heavy materials lots of the day, manhandle equipment and machinery around, etc. Not many women are physically capable of that. Sure some are and they are completely happy in what they do and can keep up no problem. Just one example but there are lots of other jobs that are the exact opposite. Men just most of the time aren't suited for them.

 

Now about that pay gap issue. Yes there are tons of stats reported all the time. The problem here is that's all that's reported. Just the pay difference vs hours worked. Nothing is ever said about part time vs full time. Experience in the field. Knowledge of said field in certain capacities, Overall hours, etc. Why should a women get paid the same as a man in the same one when he's been there several years and she is just starting out. FACT. She shouldn't. Same goes the other way around. YET we don't ever hear of that. All we ever hear are of the "Pay gap". No actual facts that are crucial to the stats are shown. You know why? Cause they are trying to spin a story and make a big deal about something. 

 

Thoughts here aren't quite finished but i think you get the idea

[kingkickolas]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except they don't know the hours worked by woman.  It is taken from workplace agreements not actual hours.  They do not have the foundational data to accurately conclude anything.

 

 Doesn't take into account variation in average hours worked:

and:

 

and

Can't determine the differences let alone explain the causes:

and:

 

Is all based one workplace agreements not actual hours worked:

 

 

So as I said before, you cannot conclude a factual condition when you don't have the facts to begin with. 

 

But let me help you understand mu Bruh.

Dude you still haven't figured out what annualized means. Nor can you apparently interpret english in good faith. (You may be an ESL learner in which case, I apologize.)

Okay one by one now, but really put your thinking cap on this time:

 

1.

First of all, you are mixing quotes from different sections of the document, that is, different GPG measures. As the article explains, different measures can be used to asses the GPG, with different strengths and weaknesses. Why you mix quotes from different measures is beyond me--unless of course you didn't actually read it because you just wanted to cherry pick quotes and you don't actually are about the "fAaAaAcTsS".

 

2.

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Doesn't take into account variation in average hours worked:

Quote

As a weekly measure reliant on full-time status, this measure does not take into account the variation in the average number of hours worked between women and men employed full-time (36 hours for women compared to 40 hours for men; see Table 1.10, available from the Downloads tab of this publication).

Again, different measures take different stats into account. A limitation of the "Full-time adult weekly ordinary time earnings" measure is, as you so handsomely point out, that it does not take into account this variation. This is why there are other measures. Additionally, if you whip out your handy-dandy pocket calculator, you will see that a ratio of 36/40 times the pay gap still implies an overall GPG for this measure. Also, see 5., below.

 

3.

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

and:

 

Quote

Given the much larger proportion of the female workforce working part-time (44% of females compared to 16% of males; see Table 1.9, available from the Downloads tab of this publication), the pay gap is increased by the inclusion of both full and part-time employees, when calculated as a weekly rate (rather than hourly)

Was this supposed to help your case? (???? Worried about you, mate.)

 

4.

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Can't determine the differences let alone explain the causes:

Quote

While GPG measures can describe an overall position of women in the workforce, they cannot determine or explain causes of the differences in earnings between women and men.

Now this is just bad faith misrepresentation of text 101. The sentence reads: "cannot determine or explain causes of the differences..." [emphasis mine]. If you still can't parse that Shakespearean grammar, they mean that they are only looking at the data (read: facts) that the GPG exists, not trying to determine what causes it.

 

5.

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Is all based one workplace agreements not actual hours worked:

Quote

 

which are gross earnings based on the employee’s workplace agreement (footnote 4).

 

(For the third time now), that single measure is based on gross earnings. The GPG is larger according to measures with more accurate accounting (this is easily verifiable by... reading the document). Again, this quote says the opposite of what you intend to prove.

 

 

Hope this helps... Concerned 4 u.

[mr moose]

Just now, kingkickolas said:

Dude you still haven't figured out what annualized means.

Dude dued dudueududueududeded.

 

If you annualise incomplete data all you get is recalculated incomplete data.  It doesn;t magically make incomplete data complete.

 

 

There is nothing to figure out.

[kingkickolas]

19 minutes ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Here's my 2 cents on this gender inequality problem. 

-some weird long rant-

Thoughts here aren't quite finished but i think you get the idea

Uhhh you realize that there are stats that discuss exactly what you say doesn't exist. We're talking about them in the thread right now. Have you actually ever looked at the reported stats?

 

Are y'all okay over here on the Linus Tech Tips forums? I'm worried about you guys.

[kingkickolas]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Dude dued dudueududueududeded.

 

If you annualise incomplete data all you get is recalculated incomplete data.  It doesn;t magically make incomplete data complete.

 

 

There is nothing to figure out.

(The employer annualizes the data. It's not incomplete. The employer does it. See below for reference, beware grad level math incoming.)

 

52 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

Woman works 1000 hours in year X, makes $30k. This is annualized (by the employer) to 60k.

Man works 2000 hours in year X, makes $65k. This is annualized to $65k.

 

 

[Uttamattamakin]

6 hours ago, imreloadin said:

Can we please finally get off this stupid bandwagon of "inequality" in the gender diversity of people who are in a specific job sector? Can't we all just finally acknowledge that the people who are in said job are those who want to be there?

Because that is not true.  That is not how the world works.  Some people have advantages and disadvantages.  That will always be so.  HOWEVER some of those advantages are not earned, or disadvantages not deserved.  

i.e. being black  and stereotyped as a good dancer who is physically adept but then your intro geometry students want to see the teachers edition when you tell them they are wrong. (As if I would have the answer and lie to say they are wrong.) 

 

Maybe not the best example. .... but suffice it to say you need to have equality before you can stop talking about equality.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, kingkickolas said:

(The employer annualizes the data. It's not incomplete. The employer does it. See below for reference, beware grad level math incoming.)

 

 

Already explained that, but it seems you are too busy trying to be right. 

 

 

[kingkickolas]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Already explained that, but it seems you are too busy trying to be right. 

Ugh finally thAnk you! Pound it my man