Part 2 of 2.
Why are we talking about mating habits here, why does it always go back to mating habits? Is this going to get tied to computer science in any meaningful way?
Sexism exists, yes.
The problem isn't that women are failing interviews, it's that mysteriously in the 1980s, corresponding with the push for computers as "boy toys" and a domain for men, the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees dropped. The proportion of female engineers at Google is actually slightly greater than the proportion of women obtaining computer science degrees per year, suggesting that women perform up to standards.
The issue is that the toxic climate is pushing women out of the field. The ones who weather the toxicity and claims they are biologically more neurotic and predisposed to be unable to handle long work weeks are up to the standards. It's just that many others also up to the standards tire of putting up with such an unhealthy environment, or don't want to venture into it in the first place.
You know, if you actually talked about some of these ideas supposedly not talked about enough it would be infinitely more interesting than reading about how we're not talking about these ideas enough. It's been forty goddamn minutes, imagine if I actually sat through this!
It is true that unconscious bias seminars don't work very well, in a large part due to the fact that you have to be open minded about them and consciously attempt to combat the bias themselves - which people who aren't fond of minorities probably won't be motivated to do.
It would be more effective to more holistically affect the unintended consequences of schematic learning and how people can become mired in stereotypes they did not consciously assimilate. Shift the framing to address the concerns made so it doesn't have this negative connotation as punishment for racists.
Here's an article that mentions prospective solutions! it contains content!
"Yes this is the same thing". Advocating for more women to pursue careers in a subject is the same as chasing men out of the field, apparently.
No one is saying to chase anyone out of nursing and medicine - the field where people work long hours under often psychologically toiling circumstances. And as a matter fact, the deficit of male teachers is a huge problem in primary school education and something that should be fixed. We can even identify the social conditioning that has led to men not wanting to be primary school teachers, because they don't want to be labelled as pedophiles and a strong stereotype has been developed against male primary school teachers.
Fun fact: white people become more supportive of affirmative action when reminded that Asians on average outscore them on standardized tests.
This part is a bit difficult to parse, but it also doesn't appear to be relevant to the topic either.
Current state of the art = mostly focus on popular theory created during the 1970s. Notably, a time before the reversal in the trend of an increasing number of women earning computer science degrees.
We're nearing the end of the video.
The end.
Why was I told to watch this, again? There wasn't anything in here that I didn't already address previously in the thread. Was this an attempt to win the debate by default because no one would respond to a fifty minute video just rehashing the manifesto? (That's kind of uncharitable of me to say, sometimes I quote long posts because I feel they express the direction of what I'm trying to say well. But I've also seen the Gish Gallop happen plenty too.)
They never even said what the gender differences that would negatively impact women are outside of neuroticism and an inability to handle stress! The former of which is just rehashing the concept of hysteria and the latter is contradicted within the same talk by referring to more stressful fields that are female dominated!
You'd think in fifty minutes, fifty long minutes, they could actually present some information in the studies instead of talking circles around it.
