Mike Johnson’s Wife Takes Down Website That Compared Being Gay To Bestiality, Incest
uphillbothways @ uphillbothways @kbin.social Posts 73Comments 539Joined 2 yr. ago
uphillbothways @ uphillbothways @kbin.social
Posts
73
Comments
539
Joined
2 yr. ago
If you think women in tech is just a pipeline problem, you haven’t been paying attention - 2015
According to the Harvard Business Review, 41% of women working in tech eventually end up leaving the field (compared to just 17% of men), and I can understand why…
...
Here is a sampling of just a few of the studies on unconscious gender bias:
- Investors preferred entrepreneurial ventures pitched by a man than an identical pitch from a woman by a rate of 68% to 32% in a study conducted jointly by HBS, Wharton, and MIT Sloan. “Male-narrated pitches were rated as more persuasive, logical and fact-based than were the same pitches narrated by a female voice.”
- In a randomized, double-blind study by Yale researchers, science faculty at 6 major institutions evaluated applications for a lab manager position. Applications randomly assigned a male name were rated as significantly more competent and hirable and offered a higher starting salary and more career mentoring, compared to identical applications assigned female names.
- When men and women negotiated a job offer by reading identical scripts for a Harvard and CMU study, women who asked for a higher salary were rated as being more difficult to work with and less nice, but men were not perceived negatively for negotiating.
- Psychology faculty were sent CVs for an applicant (randomly assigned male or female name), and both men and women were significantly more likely to hire a male applicant than a female applicant with an identical record.
- In 248 performance reviews of high-performers in tech, negative personality criticism (such as abrasive, strident, or irrational) showed up in 85% of reviews for women and just 2% of reviews for men. It is ridiculous to assume that 85% of women have personality problems and that only 2% of men do.
...
Discussion of the same issues and strategies to work around them.
Everything I cited was found pretty easily with this search, and this was all in just the first couple pages of results (there was much, much more):
You may feel that way strongly and want to reinforce your biases with anecdotes. Instead of argue with you in kind, allow me to provide resources going back to 2008 produced by very qualified women that come to similar conclusions. If this isn't enough there's sourced material in these and much more found elsewhere.
The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology - June 2008
Over time, fully 52% of highly qualified females working for SET companies quit their jobs, driven out by hostile work environments and extreme job pressures.
...
Hostile macho cultures. Women in SET are marginalized by lab coat, hard hat, and geek workplace cultures that are often exclusionary and predatory (fully 63% experienced sexual harassment).
...
The data show that, for
many SET women, attrition rates spike 10 years into a career. Across the climates of science,
engineering, and technology, women experience a perfect storm in their mid- to late 30s.
...
Athena Factor 2.0:Accelerating Female Talent in Science, Engineering & Technology - 2014
In this report, we revisit the SET landscape—expanded to include Brazil, China, and India as well as the U.S.—to determine what has changed for the better and to offer solutions for what has resisted change. The good news: the pipeline of global female talent in SET remains rich and deep, with women being the majority of SET college graduates in many key geographies. They’re ambitious, eager to be promoted, and dedicated to their professions: 80 percent of U.S., 87 percent of Brazilian, 90 percent of Chinese and 93 percent of Indian SET women say they love their work. However, a sizable proportion say they feel stalled and say they are likely to quit their jobs within a year.The fundamental reasons haven’t changed. While no longer subjected to overt bias, women continue to face powerful “antigens” in SET corporate environments. However, our new data identifies newly revealed nuances.
These include:
- Hostile macho cultures. Women in SET are marginalized by lab-coat, hard-hat, and geek workplace cultures that are often exclusionary and promulgate bias.
- Isolation. SET women no longer find themselves the sole female on a team or at a site. Yet they still feel excluded from “buddy networks” among their peers and lack female role models.
- Scarcity of effective sponsors. Although SET women have sponsors, they don’t reap the benefits to the degree that their male colleagues do. The “sponsor effect” (the differential in satisfaction with career progression for individuals with sponsors vs. those without) is 22 percent for U.S. SET women versus 32 percent for men, 19 percent for Brazilian SET women versus 42 percent for men, and 21 percent for Chinese SET women versus 58 percent for men.
- Difficulty with executive presence. SET women struggle to decipher and embody leadership attributes, and receive little useful feedback to correct this perception.
...
...
(cont'd - 5k character count limit)
usually? in the boot.
Men realized it was high paying with low barriers to entry and did shit like this (Men Overran a Job Fair for Women in Tech) repeatedly until women felt like it just wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
In order to keep barriers to entry for themselves low, they created barriers for others by being loud, forceful and unpleasant. It's very similar to how other minorities were and are kept out of various fields. It's not a new playbook. It's not that difficult to figure out.
Also, there has been a significant shift in the field since the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 00's when uber "nerdy" personality types were prevalent to the modern era of "tech bros" that is kind of the result of the same things and due to the same behavior.
cargo
Rattlesnakes can only strike half their body length, just fyi. For big ol' 6 foot monsters, that's 3 feet. And, the ones on the western side of North America just want to be left alone. From what I've seen, you'd have to be practically trying to get bit by them, like obliviously step on one with earbuds blasting. Seems like even a little awareness is plenty to keep you from ever having to fear.
Have heard Eastern rattlesnakes are more aggressive, but don't have any experience with them.
Pre-test and license makes sense but would turn out awful, because the biggest shitheads out there would just co-opt the process. Unfortunately, the best option is just not perpetuating the species on an individual level.
Her: "So, hear me out: We'll give them every one of our issues and then take away all of the safety nets we enjoyed."
Him: "I'm so down. This is gonna be great!"
"These men are all talk. What we need is action – action!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JohnBrown(abolitionist)
This is so fucking disgusting. We ought to be tarring and feathering these execs and their largest investors, then taking their wealth for the public benefit.
You're right. Those were far worse than this had any chance of being. My point was more that it's a lot easier to know the scope and everything else about what's happened when action is taken immediately and that containment protocols are there for a reason.
It's a good thing that these folks were attended to promptly and are under watch for now.
As others have noted, those exposed are safe and the exposure was fairly minimal. But, these precautions are always important, both to monitor the direct effects on those involved and to allow for proper decontamination and limit any possibility of further spread of radioactive material.
By quantifying, monitoring and containing you can maintain safety around the whole incident. If you don't, there's the chance you're left trying to investigate, trace and mitigate after the fact, similar to accidents in 1987 Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil or 1984 Cuidad, Juarez, Mexico. You really don't want that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2niaaccident
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiudadJu%C3%A1rezcobalt-60contaminationincident
Not sure this is going to help much when the ruble is tanking internationally, state reserves are frozen, sanctions are still taking effect, and property is being seized from oligarchs, all while a misguided war is being waged at full tilt. Pretty sure it's just putting more pressure on the wrong parts of the economy that are already about to break. But, I'm no economist and Russia's gonna Russia, so whatever.
Oh right. Doesn't this usually mean they'll make like 3 units "affordable" for a few years, then renovate those into a single unit they can charge market for as soon as possible? Basically the minimum they can get away with to close the grift.
Cuz people and corporations that own land in metropolitan areas desperately need government handouts. Let them take a loss or a mortgage, like anyone else.
Ah, Friday. The week's about over but existence just keeps hanging on.
That headline is trash and the conclusion is dubitable, but the writing is at least somewhat balanced. I don't agree with Mother Jones all the time, but for a media outlet they're damn well head and shoulders above the majority of the competition.
If they are going to believe in a god but then deny, abuse and destroy nature, which could only be thought of as their god's expression in physical form, doesn't that make these people blasphemous heretics by their own definition? Unfortunately, these "religious" fucks are just liars who in reality think they know better than whatever god they act like they believe in. They'll abuse and destroy anything in their path because to them noone and nothing has actual value. The only important thing to them is their own imagined version of the divine.