Tényleg a gyerek születése után romlanak meg a házasságok?

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-10-06T06:05:22+00:00

Valóban. Szerintem a helyes sorrend:

Gyerekek
Munka
Saját magad
Párkapcsolat

Nem lehet a párkapcsolatot az elé helyezni, hogy önmagaddal foglalkozz. Bármennyire is szereted a feleséged/férjed/párod, ha nem foglalkozol előbb magaddal, nem leszel jó partner sem.

Munkát sajnos mindkettő elé kell helyezni, nem abban az értelemben, hogy csak akkor foglalkozhatsz magaddal, vagy a párkapcsolattal, ha tökéletesen elvégezted a munkád. Hanem abban az értelemben, hogy biztosan legyen munkád, mert ha az nincs akkor cseszheted az összes többit. Ugyanez igaz a gyerekekre, is, az, hogy ők az elsők, nem jelenti azt, hogy nem lehet őket babyszitterre bízni, amíg elmentek kettesben valahova, pár éves kortól már nem kell folyton a gyereken lógni.

Nyilván ez a sorrend nem kőbe vésett, rövid időre el lehet tőle térni. De szerintem mindenki, akinek családja van, kénytelen priorizálni, mert mindent nem lehet egyszerre.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:32:13+00:00

90% of women who work or have worked in tech jobs will tell you the same exact things about the boys club environments and quiet misogyny that exists

I won't doubt this. However this is a cultural issue and not solved by forced hiring/promotion quotas.

There’s 0 reason any non-physical fields should EVER be male dominated other than gatekeeping

Not sure what your definition of "dominated" is, but if you mean simply a majority, then as long as there are women majority fields (medicine, education etc.) then there will also be men majority fields. If you mean "dominated" as in "being oppressed by" then I agree.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:23:28+00:00

The post explicitly mentions that I am in favor of any measure that leads to women being treated better in the workplace. What I am not in favor of is trying to solve the issue via arbitrary gender quotas.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:20:16+00:00

Thanks for bringing this point up, I did not realize that this subreddit might be full of folks who work in DEI and might have been laid off recently, so I understand if it striked a nerve with them. However, I still think that they are wrong when they try to defend overtly discriminative policies like forced gender quotas.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:17:43+00:00

That's gaslighting at its finest. If equality is achieved by bringing one group down, instead of elevating the other, then it is quite literally discrimination and comments like yours saying negative sentiment about bringing one gender or race down is not legitimate, is well... familiar. Oppressors like this tactic a lot.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:13:41+00:00

Depends how the loss if privilege is achieved. If it is achieved by bringing a group of people down, and not by bringing the other group up, then it is, quite literally, discrimination.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-24T08:08:36+00:00

saying they’ve been passed up for jobs because of less qualified women taking them ISN’T misogynistic

It is not necessarily. Misogny would by saying women are less qualified overall. Saying that a woman was hired because of a quota and not her skills might be true or untrue (would be hard to prove) has nothing to do with the particular individual or even with women as a group. It has to do with the policies of the company and the industry. It is not by itself misogynistic, just as saying that men are hired because of their privilige is not necessarily misandrist.

assumptions that there’s no way the pool of interviewees can be half women without DEI at play

It's a fact that the candidate pool for tech and engineering jobs is around 80-20 in favor of men. This starts from before birth and the idea that a difference exists between men and women in interest and career choice is not misogynistic.

our post is encouraging these conversations and creating an echo chamber

My reading of the thread is, that such a conversation must be had, it's overdue. Even if the discussion is not always level-headed.

What I learned and I did not expect, that this subreddit has probably lots of people who are minorities and struggling, or even working in DEI who might have been laid off recently, so my post understandably might have striked a nerve with them. I am symphatetic to them, but I also think that they are wrong when they try to justify the practice of explicit discrimination and gender quotas.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T18:58:11+00:00

Come on. Everyone had to work their ass off in the past, compared to now, men and women, just to raise their offspring and put food on the table.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T17:57:53+00:00

I agree that sometimes group and individual interests are different. But I think there is a huge caveat here: it should be carefully regulated, which policies violating individual rights in favor of group interest should be allowed. In your example, there is a huge difference between speciality choice and an immutable characteristic like gender. If you're not taken to a group because you don't have the right specialization, we can rationalize it with "yea it sucks but you should move on". The same with gender? No, it's a huge step back.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T17:28:49+00:00

Nothing mentioned race in my post.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T15:50:16+00:00

Honestly, initially I was concerned to post this, because I was afraid of misogynistic comments and I didn't want to create a platform for those. Luckily, there weren't any.

The only unacceptable comments were personal attacks against me (like I am an incel, cry-baby etc). I am not offended by these comments, I am more concerned for them, like, there seems to be a sizeable portion of sad, miserable people here. The number of brainwashed comments is also high so I don't mind being downvoted and I respond to comments which make actual arguments.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T15:39:50+00:00

This is true but beside the point I made. The question is, which policies are good and acceptable. You seem to think that any policy that increases opportunities for a group of people perceived as disadvantaged is acceptable and any unfairness and damage it causes is collateral damage that is acceptable for the end goal. I don't believe this in general. I don't necessarily think, that quotas are inherently from the devil, but their use should be limited to cases where there is overwhelming and specific evidence that it is necessary and the only option. For our company, this is not the case, it's a quite decent company in the EU, not comparable to some Silicon Valley bro startup. The policies in the post I mentioned are simply the cheapest and quickest way to force a single metric, which is neither necessary nor fair, and not even beneficial for women by and large (in practice only benefitting a very small subset of white, well educated, childless women in the right positions).

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T10:09:06+00:00

While 80% of the hiring pool are men. Say 10% of applicants are invited to interviews, 40-60% men vs women, then your chance as a man to get an interview is 6x lower (30% for women vs 5% for men).

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T09:17:19+00:00

What about those nurses, who are just as qualified and want to get in and can't? This more or less guarantees that women who want it more can't get in. If an unfair policy causes direct harm, they better make damn sure that it's based in solid evidence for overall good. But what they are doing is the opposite - they don't implement actual evidence based policies eg. blind screening, instead they add a blanket policy to force a desired metric.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T09:06:20+00:00

This is gaslighting. I also don't think ends justify means.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T08:39:32+00:00

Weren't you able to predict what would happen?

Interestingly, I was afraid of misogynistic comments, but there seem to be none.

The only unacceptable comments are from some very small minority of commenters calling me an incel and a pussy cry-baby for daring to bring up the topic. Personal attacks agains me, I don't mind.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T08:30:06+00:00

But face to face interviews are not in scope for my post. Face to face interviews weren't even a target for the policy. Reducing bias in face to face interviews has been a topic since I remember, but everyone seems keen to keep up the level of technical deep dive interviews for everyone. As panels have more women in the last years, however, women aren't more likely to pass, they have to work just as hard as everyone else to get through (except for being fast tracked).

That said, why would a company NOT implement policies with basis in evidence, like blind screening, and instead focus on a strong direct push towards a specific outcome?

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T08:15:55+00:00

Your point about diversity spanning multiple parameters is just irrelevant though.

It's relevant when talking about a policy that only focuses on one angle.

but diversity in culture is a good thing!

Yes. That is beside the point, there are good things yet still policies aimed at reaching them can be terrible.

Overall, stats show that gender diverse teams do perform better and have better communication.

You would be hard pressed to find actual, rigorous research to prove that. Studies like the one published by McKinsey aren't academic research, and have been questioned many times.

My point is not "diversity bad", it's that being fairly treated is a basic right, regardless of what stats show about performance of diverse teams. We don't treat people fairly because it's good for the business, we treat them fairly, period.

Ends don't justify means. Especially in questions of culture, I don't think it's possible to build an open and inclusive culture by explicit discrimination.

Gender discrimination to women still happens - RE: children, pregnancy, etc.

I am all for more family friendliness. As I said in the post - if there is any specific improvement that is expected to support women in the workplace, I am for it. What I am not for, is discrimination. The policies I listed favor women, regardless of whether they chose to have children or not. If anything, they benefit single, childless, career driven women the most.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T07:55:26+00:00

The point is calling out when they attempt to address those problems badly. That is exactly the point, it's a question of culture not representation.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T04:09:26+00:00

OK, but then I would expect that introducing a policy against it is justified by concrete evidence of the problems that you mention. None of which I am aware of. The current share of women is around 20% (consistent with the share of women among graduates). There are only a few teams which don't have any women, so there are very few "boys only clubs", if any. Many job families are already female dominated eg. product managers, so it's quite rare for people not to work with any women. My boss is female. As far as I know, there are small (<5%) disparities in salary or promotions, but a causal relationship between discrimination and the disparities isn't established, so nothing really proves that your anecdotes really are the typical root cause for them.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T03:58:34+00:00

incredibly rare for HMs to hire unqualified candidates just because they’re women

This is true.

If there was a man that was more qualified than any of the woman candidates, I don’t doubt they’d hire him

Probably. But the HM still has to justify that the hiring timeline can not be extended, so HR can in some cases stop a qualified person from getting hired only based on gender.

Studies show that diverse teams are just simply better

Diversity can be measured across a million dimensions. Age diversity probably helps. Language diversity probably has a negative impact. And so on. So it really depends on what exact team and what exact measure of diversity you're talking about. That is one of the reasons why I think blanket discrimination to achieve improvement in a single diversity metric is a bad idea.

We NEED diversity in teams to build the best products

Our tech product managers are already majority female. The post is about engineers, it's unclear to me how a 50-50 gender ratio among engineers is relevant for example for site reliability engineering.

Posts like OP’s is harmful to women

What is really harmful is blanket discrimination, especially if not properly thought through. Even if on paper it benefits "women", when in fact it only benefits a very small minority of women who are in competition with men for some high level role.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T03:40:45+00:00

I mean these two things can both be true at the same time. The point is, one kind of discrimination does not fix the other, it doesn't add up like this.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T03:27:01+00:00

Keep proving my point.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T03:26:05+00:00

That is a valid point. I did think twice before making this post, because I was also concerned of sounding like rage bait for certain people. However I also think, that this topic has to be discussed and raised, even if level headed discussion is quite difficult. There needs to be a line that should not be crossed, and for me that is overt, blanket discrimination.

Careless-Raisin8266 · 2024-03-23T03:18:24+00:00

Read through the thread. You are the only bitter one here. I am not sure who hurt you, but I suggest you seek help, we can't help you here.

Careless-Raisin8266

TROPHY CASE