Of course we should all have equal opportunity to express our feelings, just as we should have equal opportunities to become software engineers.
That said, I don't think it's true in general that men have a hard time stating (like this, pseudomously, in an interview) that they are hurt/offended.
And a brief look at comment-threads should illustrate that it's hardly easy for women to state such things in public. The power mild statements by women can have to bring out raging trolls with death and rape threats would be absurd if it wasn't such a sad indicator of how far we still have to go toward a free/equal society.
All that said, part of the structural repression of women tend to be repression of certain traits in men as well - limiting gender roles in society is in general not good for anyone.
I think Dar Williams puts it well in her song "When I was a boy":
Our university forces us to change the password every 150 days. It is such a pain in the s, because there are too many apps on too many devices need to update the password. I asked the IT department, can you guys consider to stop this and find an alternative security policy? The answer is no, because this security policy is in the state law.
If you're really hellbent on it, you can probably tell the IT department they are full of shit and ask for the citation to the state code number - I am no state code scholar, but I have never heard of anything like this. In the NW States I am familiar with I could not find a single code section that even remotely touched on passwords at state schools. It would be an odd thing to legislate. Some states are goofy though.
I work in the public sector in Denmark. Here three months is required by law.
It's caused our most common passwords to be things like Summer17 and half the employees that actually use what they think are hard random passwords end up writing them down.
If you look under the keyboard if 100 workstations you'll probably find 10 passwords on post-its.
It makes little sense too because if we're compromising for 3 months we're probably going to be just as fucked as if we were compromised for 4.
The best policy we have is locking people out after 3 wrong attempts.
Your denial of reality is noted. Systemic discrimination against women in hiring has been exhaustively documented and studied, including in the tech industry.
I don't have a pile of references at hand since this isn't my area of study, but here's what I was able to google up:
1. http://www.uh.edu/~adkugler/Bertrand&Mullainathan.pdf This study was primarily aimed at identifying the impact of race, but incidentally showed that resumes with females names received a lower number of callbacks, in addition to the race based effect.
3. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract "Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant."
5. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5903 Anonymization in orchestra additions (blind screening) led to women advancing out of preliminary rounds 50% more often.
#1: I don't see any support for your summary. It says instead "Interestingly, females in sales jobs appear to receive more callbacks than males; however, this (reverse) gender gap is statistically insignificant and economically much smaller than any of the racial gaps discussed above."
I can easily dig up studies showing opposite results:
"Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. " http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract
"We found that the public servants engaged in positive (not negative) discrimination towards female and minority
candidates:
• Participants were 2.9% more likely to shortlist female candidates and 3.2% less likely to shortlist male applicants
when they were identifiable, compared with when they were de-identified."
https://pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/beta-unc...
I would like to see a similar study done in IT, though I suspect the outcome will be similar.
I personally would like to have more women in tech, but it seems implausible that the current dearth is because of any systemic discrimination against women.
I wonder why people are claiming that this is a reason for the problem?
So you lack basic reading skills. I quote "not to get the opportunity at all due to systemic discrimination in hiring", you read "systemic discrimination in hiring". Apparently, you lost "not to get the opportunity at all" and "due to". Don't you see that?
That's not how probably works. GP is only implying it's potentially true, presumably because they aren't sure they've fully considered every angle of the question and there may be weird edge cases.
Let's not Purity Test people for showing some humbleness in their beliefs. We could probably use more of that these days.
It's funny, if you really believe yourself, how could you ask the final question? How can a minimum wage increase in one rich neighborhood be compared to a poor neighborhood? How about different industry? How about different businesses? The assumption of your question is a deep believe of central planning and numeric abstraction of the society, which is an ideology. So stop pretending you are free of ideology.
