Some sort of thread about women in Gamedev (and an office party)

That's not what I said, they were marketed to anyone equally before, sometimes to men, sometimes to women, most of the time as a party or family product which show everyone. But after the crash retailer didn't want to bet on this type of product, so game dev pushed the game into the toy section, and since the toy section used to be heavily gendered they had to pick one and they pick boy. Nintendo famously use Rob the robot as a decoy to infiltrate the toy space and appease the retailer. The rest is history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.O.B.



But that's only one of the causes, evidence 4:

Before


After


As computer programming became prestigious and not the secretary type of work it was relegated, people with agenda start pushing women out of the field, maybe why you are not aware of the Eniacs girl, code rosies and many other ... but know about steve jobs who can't code for his life (unlike Wozniak). This type of (documented and recorded) behavior is the root of the sexism in the industry according to women who are in the field and are now at least over 40 (ie before the crash and knew the original state).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#Population_figures

 

It's one of many experiences I'll never have, and I'm quite glad in this case, because it seems to be a rather unpleasant one. When I heard of those cups the first time I wondered what this is and watched a few youtube videos of women talking about their experience with them. I even asked my girlfriend what she thought of it (she finds it too gross). I have to admit I don't get your point. There are many things we don't experience in life, but through the magical powers of empathy we can still relate and connect. Girls might not know how exactly it feels to get kicked in the balls*), but I'm sure that their keen oberservational skills and empathy allow them to form a concept of it early on in live. I find the attitude of "you haven't experienced it yourself, your opinion on it is worthless" kinda backwards because theoretically through communication and empathy imho large degrees of lack-of-knowledge should be able to compensate for and the real tragedy is that empathy is neither highly valued nor systemically encouraged in our society. If anything it's seen as a weakness holding you back or causing "irrational" behaviour.

*) a cursory search indicates a kick to the groin to be extremely painful for women too, I even found a whole thread about it, if you should be interested. I didn't read the whole thing:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...Women-and-Getting-Kicked-in-the-Crotch?page=1

I never cared enough to fact check it myself, but I've heard several statistics being cited that said countries with above average equality, freedom, and financial security, have slightly less women in STEM field jobs than countries that are less "progressive".

I found this line of reasoning in the first few minutes interesting:

They key statement for me is:
"Why aren't there more women in positions of power? Wrong question! The right question is: why are there any men at all who want those positions of power?"

I wouldn't want to have one of those jobs either. Sounds like a nightmare, I'd much rather have a more balanced life and less stressful job.



What I will acknowledge though, is that there are systemic factors for sure that somehow lead to some women not having a "can-do-attitude" (for lack of a better word) for things they are interested in, but don't yet feel qualified for. E.g. my girlfriend ended up in one of the typical 90+% female dominated fields of work to a large degree because she's "scared of math". I think she might have done really well as a photographer for example, and I do think she overestimates the mathematical skill requirements of a lot of jobs. On the other hand I've seen guys apply for jobs they know they are not fully qualified for, simply assuming that it'll work out and they'll figure it out once they get there. On the unity slack chat I've once seen a whole discussion on whether "fake it till you make it" is an acceptable philosophy in tech.

And to be honest I don't even understand where the women-and-math-meme exactly comes from, because in school no one really likes math, except for a few weird outliers, and I couldn't tell you why in my final year of school the advanced-level math course was down to less than 20% girls. Having male or female math teachers didn't seem to make a difference.

Is it maybe that we don't sufficiently stigmatize weaknesses in certain areas without gender bias? Like a few decades ago some skills were super gender-biased and no one expected a man to be able to cook and sew, or a woman to be able to wire-up a ceiling lamp and fix a broken car or computer. Maybe it must become socially unacceptable to not be a jack of all trades in all the basic skills for "equality in outcome" to arise from it? Must we raise our expectations of what an individual is capable of regardless of gender for change to emerge from that?

 

Indeed, I get the impression that many professions are skewed one way or the other and that it's not often seen as an issue.

Do we care about the gender ratio in plumbing?

I wonder if that assumption comes from the term "gender equality". Maybe sometimes people assume that mathematical equality can be a measure of equal social and professional treatment?

Or maybe it's just that skewed numbers are often given as evidence of the problem. They may indeed be valid evidence that a problem exists (see my previous post), but they aren't the problem itself. If not many ladies want to make games then that's totally cool. What matters is how they're treated when they do.

 

That's kind of stretching it a bit too far, the idea is that if you don't have an opinion it cannot supersede the many opinion of those who have it. I mean you were able to empathize but you asked your girl friend for her own perception first. Your behavior is actually the best!
But that's not how it generally happen, people try to talk over experience they don't have and take their assumption for law. After all, I'm not a woman and I kind of speak on their behalf using my "empathy", I know they generally these kind of thread like a plague because they know they will be talked over by men who police their experiences, Teila made some reference of this on another thread.

Spoiler: rant

But if empathy was the absolute answer, I wouldn't have to go through the discomfort of seeing people like me always represented as some threatening gangsta to kill (when they are not joking sidekick), with dysfunctional family, in all games I played (The last of us is the biggest offender). The paradox is that Japan, who has literally no exposition to black people except the same caricature exported by the western world, is still able to come out occasionally with very cool relatable black character type trope you NEVER see in a world where we are supposed to have overcome racism and where all people are supposedly equal. And for some reason, saying to make better character is controversial identity politics for some reason. It's 2017 and even a company like Ubi soft, who is taking a stance against the horrible racism they witness growing around, find it okay to pair a ghetto black girl with a monkey, like it's not been done for 400 years at our expenses. I mean what kind of empathic imagination keep us in insulting situation, in fictional word where everything can happe?. I wish there was empathy, it require listening and caring.

I also use menstruation just in case I have the opportunity to drop an interesting fact: people have discovered it's not suppose to hurt and some women don't have any pain anyway, hurtful period is an illness that was left untreated because men where in charge of medicine for so long (in fact you can now exactly who, all the uterus part are named after men) they just didn't bother because they didn't have it (I mean the history of woman's health is quite horrible), they just assume it was part of being a woman and advise women to deal with it and wouldn't fund such "frivolous research", it's only recently women could research it, having finally access to the mean to take care of it in their own hand. And I casually found many many problem like that, people just assume thing and don't ask nor don't want to listen, that's how you have absurd thing like the tampon tax. For some reason, women complaining about stuff that affect their well being is ignored, is controversial. That's the problem, not that your opinion is worthless.


The other problem with representation is also a problem of gender roles and tucking the non conforming one away to entertain the bias. If some assume there is people pushing agenda for diversity, they should also assume that there is sexist and racist people pushing agenda too, and they rarely ever criticized those as often, which is weird and scary when you are on the receiving end.

Since it's mostly women who care about that, and they have presented reason as to why they care, I think it's totally fair and not an oddity, it's like people trying to proselytize bitcoin or any other hobby, I don't see why this should be controversial, it's actually a very common things to do in many other domain.

One big problem that women tend to report, more than men, is the imposter syndrom, while men, like you showed about unqualified application to some jobs, have more Dunning Kruger (can do attitude?). Because they have extra vulnerabilities financially, women want to maximize their chance of getting a job, so they play more safe by following social pressure that prescribe "reasonable" role. Sexism further enhance the "unreasonable" choices as faulty.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/more-female-plumbers-they-suffer-worst-pay-gap
yup!

I would say the problem of the access to labor market is more nuance when speaking of women and minority, it's not just about equality, it's about sustainability. Minority and women face specifics monetary pressure to their group that makes them more vulnerable, the push for equality is also a way to solve this problem, the old pay rant and basic need.

 

Heh....

 

...

Drat!

 

I think it's a huge mistake to try to create a society that is balanced on a foundation of 'empathy', or worse, some kind of set of politicised pseudo-empathetic rituals.

There's nothing wrong with empathy, in fact it's quite a key ingredient to a society that functions efficiently, but the point is precisely that society should function well enough without it in the course of maintaining everyone's freedom to pursue whatever it is that they are interested in in life. I should not have to know what a 'female point of view' is, nor should any woman have to have any interest in knowing mine as a man, in order for us to be able to function alongside eachother smoothly in work or some other social setting. I find it ridiculous, pathetic and somewhat disgusting to entertain these notions of some kind of collective experience of the suffering (which is usually a gross exaggeration) of a particular group. I think that there is very little in the experience of a particular individual or group that is universally relevant - man or woman, the human mind is mostly a collection of quite worthless, self-centered fantasies and victimhood justifications that it is well that we cannot perceive outside of the lens of our own egoistic perspectives.

There should simply be rules of conduct that we all have to abide by, regardless of whether we like or care about one another or not. Given how much of a human being's worldview is constructed after-the-fact as a way to rationalize what we have already done, I find it hard to understand why this is not more universally accepted as a remedy (and in fact seems to be sabotaged as much as possible by those who would most benefit from it) - unless the point is precisely to create as much suffering and intrusion as possible in the course of bringing someone onto a correct course of behaviour, which is a revolting and disfunctional concept, though not surprising given the lack of foresight human beings seem to be cursed with as a species.

Finally, there is no such thing as perfect equality, and the sooner everyone got comfortable with that fact, the sooner they could figure out how to live a rich and happy life instead of infecting everybody else with guilt and trying to micro-manage everyone's private lives and minds. There are many people who I cannot hope to compete with, and there are many who cannot hope to compete with me, and it's enough that I am able to enjoy the process of extracting the best from myself without trying to shoot others in the foot to make myself feel better. That's a phsilosophy I expect not just from myself, but from anyone I would call a friend, or any woman I would want to spend my life with.

 

Well for this, i'm sure there are laws in any civilized society where such thing could go under discrimination, (or here in Europe, it would definitely go against work environment requirements laws).
But, to me, and from my experience that looks like isolated incident, and it should be treated as such.

Or, if not, i will ask you a question. What do you propose should be done, if you truly believe situations like what you describe are rule, not exception? What is solution?

 

20% of males have always had relations with 80% of the females. That is alot of dudes who are genetic dead ends. Women are hypergamous. That is nature.

 

Everybody gets a portapotty and a trophy at their cubicle. It is only fair. And what about the children???

 

That is quite an hallucination to suffer under. How does one navigate 3D reality if one cannot conjecture. How does Shakespeare write a bloody thing if having been there and done that is a qualification for story telling. Makes absolutely no common sense given the nature of our conscious faculties..

 

That has its truth, thing is humans have the ability to empathize, though it will always either underestimate or overestimate someone’s experience. Never know exactly how it feels, but not necessarily out of range of our imagination.
It’s a ballpark thing. So it is possible to take someone else’s problem way too deeply and think it’s more terrible than it is “you’ll never know because you never been there” it’s a terrible tool for sociopaths to manipulate someone else to no end.

 

In a deterministic universe we have no choice to do what we do. If you were 100% in my shoes you would be me, and do exactly what I do. So no one is truly responsible for their actions, therey no guilt nor merit. Your life is a movie and you didn’t choose it, that you know of.

So going down that road isn’t very useful, it’s an universal excuse out of responsibility of your actions. At best it’s useful not to crucify or hate someone for their mistakes, no one can help doing what they do.

Inb4 quantum physics and multiverse, that’s still a deterministic model of reality. Only instead of a single deterministic branch, it’s a deterministic tree, and each branch has no choice but to be that branch.

 

...and if you asked any given individual to describe in detail so others could understand the components and interaction of said components of their "me" it would be yards of BS like fingers pointing all over the sky at the moon but never actually describe what the moon is. In such an ontological situation it is simple to throw a spanner wrench in the works and cause utter confusion where natural sensibilities would suffice.

 

Sounds like me on the street and someone asks me for direction, always caught me off guard.

 

Well this thread has veered off at a strange tangent. Which is good because the original question was kind of lame if I do say so myself!

As for the graph about computer science. Is computer science really a good degree to do game development? I would say no. A better degree would be something like maths, physics or art or I even hear they now have degrees in game development. Computer science might be a good degree if you want to go into making lisp compilers or something.

People mistake game development as a kind of computer science. When really its closer to actual physical game development. In effect we are modern day Gepetto's making virtual Pinochio's. ©

I think men go into computer science because in general we have this weird compulsion to find out everything about a system. Such as when a man buys a car, he wants to look under the hood straight away and tinker about. That doesn't really explain the why more women go into physics than computer science though. Perhaps its because without this weird compulsion to tinker then the women don't get hooked on the computer in the first place. Maybe we should instead be asking why are so many men doing computer science, which IMO is not a particularly useful degree.

 

I don't recall the composition of my final Calc classes. I do know that in my Chemistry master's degree program, there was a pretty even distribution. In one group, it was two females before I joined. In another, when I joined it was like 5 males and 2 females...now it's like 5 females and 2 guys.

I was going to bring up "why aren't people arguing for 50/50 ratios in construction?" but I felt it'd come off a little disingenuous given the position I've taken. But I agree.

Who defines these rules of conduct? What is the methodology for defining them?​

 

Highly debatable. My background is stochastic cellular automata and complexity, so I don't feel the same.

Edit: and about quantum physics, what part of "probability distribution" is deterministic? That's only an aside though.

 

Aiming for 50/50 diversity hire or structure is just a special kind of insanity that is impossible to work with. It's an ideal problem for quantum computing however because you would (just to start) need to weigh all these factors:

• gender
• sex
• colour
• disability
• feelings
• age
• politics
• race
• religion
• sexuality
• travel

There's a lot of things to be truly equal, plus the last one I tacked on is of course relevant as it controls who can be hired. Not everyone will relocate and being on site is still required for a lot of things, even if it's just security. That's why when I brought this up, I thought it would be an impossible goal. Should just aim to get the best person for the job, and let diversity be the tie breaker where both employees under final consideration are basically equal.

Nobody wants to be the diversity hire, it's insulting intelligence and feelings. Every woman I know is essentially a leader in her own right, they would never want to be insulted by being a diversity hire.

And that's why I think it's OK if there aren't balanced numbers in any industry.

 

Despite the political aspects, I think the move to be more gender inclusive in game dev actually has more to do with money.

Fact is, games with crossover gender appeal can have huge sales numbers because women are a largely untapped market for games.

What's more, games targeted at women tend to be done so in a very clumsy manner. I do tend to agree that men don't know how to design for women as well as other women would. The life experiences of women is so different from men, how we tend to see the 'other side' is probably more of a caricature than anything else.

Probably the most successful non casual game for both genders was "The Sims" and although the game play there was essentially "sim dollhouse" it was really gender agnostic and tons of guys played it as well. I knew many girls who never played games who loved The Sims.

The casual game market is another one that taps into the female market, and this is part of the reason of the phenomenal success of casual games.

There's other stuff also, but I really think that it's such a big deal in the gaming industry because without women on board, companies have a much harder time designing and marketing for both genders. The industry really wants women, because it helps their bottom line.

The culture war stuff is just ridiculous.

 

Absolutely 100% correct

 

Don’t forget height. There’s a strong correlation between salary and height, taller people make more money.

Same goes for attractiveness.

What about introvert vs extrovert?

Who’s going to defend the rights of shy people? By definition they’re too shy to gather and protest D-:

 

Dunno about the games industry, but software dev or IT in general:

Hey ladies. Do you want to work in an industry where you will be paid a wage that doesn't match the massive doses of stress that you will be forced to endure, and work with high numbers of geeky male virgin types and awkward social outcasts, where about 50% of the people in that industry want to leave that industry, because it's so great, and you're just pumped full of pessimism by your colleagues every day, most of it justified, to the point where you regularly lose hope in everything?

No? Weird.

 

It's not men who have put women in that position...

You make it sound like all straight white male are the same.

Wow you sound just like James Damore, that bigot!

It's just a trick to guilt men into supporting affirmative action policies in favor of women in desirable industries. Never take the word of cultural marxists at face value.

 

That is absolutely not correct at all.. I would love to be a diversity hire.. then just give me my safe space ... I'll even help out where S*** needs improving in the product.

It should be the goal of all shirtlords to fore-fill any companies diversity quota and then some... I'll even throw in Uganda voice for free.

 

@OCASM so far people have managed to have different opinions without insults, please keep it that way as I sense maybe an angry tone here?

 

James Damore.. the Goolag is still reaming from the gaping holes he put through them and exposed to the outside world. They are ape S*** crazy, I always knew there do evil mantra was a load of S*** they wouldn't know what evil was because they literately enable it and push for it in there medal-ling of information and power abuse... no one wonder most their products are online data collecting garbage... its hard to believe anyone could get any work done in a place run by the insane asylum and their parrot hires.

 

The same? No. There are often close similarities, but the main point is diversity often brings new ideas.

 

And discrimination ensures you don't put 10W-40 on your salad in lieu of olive oil. I am a white male. I lived in the Bronx with black folks for 40 to 100 blocks in every direction..the literal ghetto. I had no money and the man who owned the building gave me free room and board. I guarantee you your experiences have no relations or similarity to my life arc. Collectivists ...smh...

 

I more or less agree, but I think you missed the point of diversity hires.

Let's say there is an industry where it's dominated by males (and I think analysing the reasons why is a big and complicated subject matter, but I think we can at the very least we can agree that sexism in the past has played a role).

That turns into a cycle of ->

A young female wonders if she should study/aim to enter that industry. ->
Oh, there are not too many women working in that area/not enough jobs/not a lot of successful women in that field. ->
Oh, I guess I will aim for something different. ->
There are not many women with the necessary skills. ->
Industry remains dominated by males.

And the status quo remains.

So, the point of diversity hires is to make sure that the demand rises, so more women are encouraged to enter a field, so that eventually, each field can feel viable for everyone, so the pool of skilled people is organically more diverse, so the industry also becomes more diverse without the need for special measures.

I agree that arbitrary diversity hires are demeaning and annoying and a bad solution to a problem, but I do think companies should make an effort (what that means exactly is up for debate, I like the tie breaker idea, but I think something slightly more drastic might be needed).

I also do agree that perfect balance is not something we should aim for, but I think a lot of industries are way too tilted in certain ways, because of our racist/sexist/whatever past that some course correction is needed.

 

This. There will always be dumb, loud people on either end of an argument who make both sides look bad. But in the end, everything so-called conservatives hold dear is thanks to bold progression enacted by people who don't fear change.

And to the closet racist or sexist, nurturing your evil little thoughts until you feel like you can say them aloud without retribution -- don't be stupid. Google "biology." Banana's teeter on the brink of extinction because they've been bred down to a single variety. And do I need to bring up "pure bred" dog varieties? It's just sad and cruel.

Then, Google "pre-history". Your precious "race's" which you stupidly describe by amount of skin pigmentation, and your good ol fashioned gender roles are nothing in the face of time.

I'm confident that if every person were forced to take human prehistory and biology 101 -- and demonstrate that they paid attention -- 90% of racism and sexism would dissappear ina week.

And for all the dummies who happen to be on the right side, but think making a crusade and drawing a line in the sand with good on one side and evil on the other side -- you're making a war out of nothing. Education is the answer, not marching and shouting. Want an example? Google correlation between female access to education and birthrate.

For the tough guy white men who say things like, "Well, its womens fault they are where they are. Or, its black peoples fault they tend to be more poor." Don't say foolish things. Count yourself lucky that you were born in a time when history favors you, and swallow your disgusting pride. Where I see a prideful man, I see a weak man full of insecurities. If you want to be strong, pick up those who've fallen behind. You'll need them to do the same one day.

When I was in the army, there was a kid who was our village idiot. He was slow, lacked motivation, etc. Every platoon has one.

Everybody treated him like a turd. He didn't have a single friend. If you were soft on him, he'd never toughen up. Well guess what? He never got better at nothing, and yet there he was still on our team, dragging us down. The truth is, sorry, weak men who are afraid of their own inadequacies like having people who are worse than them around. They think it will cover up their own failures.

Eventually I came to a leadership position, and the platoon turd came under my control. I didn't baby him, I didn't coddle him, but I didn't demean him either. I just left him alone, offer advice and encouragement if he asked, and literally within a few months he was a valuable member of my team. And if I had to go to war again, I'd choose him over most of the others in my platoon. He was one of the few who didn't lose his S*** when it was fighting time -- and I suspect that's because he wasn't overly concerned with his own safety and image, but more concerned with doing his job and helping the team.

 

War fighting, garbage collection, septic tank maintenance, oil rig roughneck, fishing boat crew, pylon driving, structural iron and steel workers, power line installers and repairers. If women wanted equality they would be busting the doors to these professions who are well above 90% male dominated... Or perhaps they would have to admit it is beyond their capabilities in many cases or beneath their dignity in others..or they prefer living to possible death. I sometimes get the impression that if we empower women any more their heads will explode.

 

The other problem is that an all women or "diversity" member company (since there is many occurrence of an all white male company) has less chance to sway investor due to not fitting the stereotype, despite data showing they are more stable company (because the barrier filter is higher for action and is de facto meritocratic, not a merit of the diversity in itself in this case).

Non bias random simulation based on proportion of population show that the problem wouldn't exist and the actual occurrence in the real world is not meritocratic and heavily bias for a certain type of the population. But why would people let facts get between them and their deep feeling on the issue? It's not like people value rationality and fairness anyway, meritocracy only mean things are important only if they cater to them.

Also pointing to one population doesn't mean all that population, but a significant number of that population get advantage unfairly, college drop out getting investor backing in high risk domain faster than other group and you get stuff like Juicero. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/the-tech-start-up-that-made-a-700-juicing-machine-has-shut-down.html
This is where the problem should focus, on weeding out the insanity of the system.

 

To be frank those domain are also filled by immigrant and get the diversity quota at least filled
ANd women in war is something that they have been pushing for too, and there is many historical precedent like the Dahomey amazon. And who forgot who did all of that during ww2 in america?

 

This is a stupid argument.

So women aren't lining up to fight in idiotic wars or do nasty work that is sure to be automated in the future.

Does that mean they should be discriminated against in other, totally separate professions?

 

I have a Great Pyrenees. Awesome dog. They certainly conserved the best qualities of this former asian mountain wolf over the last 9000 years by progressively breeding out the undesirable and breeding the social traits that allow complex integration and work with humans.

 

Sure? I don't see how anything on here contradicts anything I said.

Also, even if some industries are dominated by males or females for valid (?) reasons, it doesn't that all are, so...

 

Women in America produced for the war fighters. Women make fine support crew. In war fighting they become a liability due to the inherent biological traits of men to want to protect them. And the enemy can do devastating psychological damage to their opponent with a captured female. If I was in a squad in a firefight and was pinned down with one other and my legs got blown off I would not be happy if that person was unable to carry me the 2 miles back to a position i could get medics to treat me.

 

Equality of opportunity is the rallying cry. But apparently that is not what is really wanted. Special treatment and discriminatory practices are the underlying motive.

 

The valid reasons are what is so often overlooked in these discussions.

 

Here's me as the only female member of these forums still reading this disaster of a thread:

 

I think that attitude is changing and that's the correct thing that should be changing. I don't think business hiring practises should change at all. Logically, if you win hearts and minds, the rest will come in due time without breaking your quality control.

For me it's about allowing it to happen under ideal conditions rather than brute force.

 

Well let them fight in battalion of their own then, seems to do damage to the enemy too. Seems like problem easily solved, also double the logistic of people you can deployed, seems like optimization of resources.

I mean I mentionned the Dahomey amazon, they were brutal so much than enemy wouldn't even provoke them when unarmed, in fact the french cornered one that hadn't weapon and she rip a soldier's throat with her teeth (as reported by the french), french were so much afraid they reinforced the soldier presence.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dahomeys-women-warriors-88286072/

I mean why hold off such a formidable potential when you need to win a war? I'm not merely stating an opinion, I'm offering bits of facts too.

Recently there was the Yazidi who pushed back ISIS

 

That's a possibility in any particular case, but the burden is on you to prove such a detailed and definite assumption as a generality, when there are others that could fit just as well (or none in particular at all).

Are you really saying that diversity hires need to be made to encourage those who do not enter a field because there are 'not too many' people of the same gender in that field? Is there anything to be said for the idea of taking responsibility for one's own choices, or are individual choices now something which exist only as a collective social construct, based on a democratic vote by everyone of your gender?

Btw I thought this might be relevant to the topic:

 

Yes, because some jobs are "for men" (and vice versa), because of silly reasons and that perpetuated myth discourages people from following something they like.

Why does it have to be black or white? Can't it be a little bit of both?

I wanted to be a cook (and a lion tamer, but that's another story) when I was a child. I was told that cooking is for women and was discouraged and eventually lost interest. Maybe if I was encouraged, I would be posting on some gourmet chef forum right now instead of here. Or maybe I just didn't want it badly enough, that's also valid.

 

Well since we mentionned RIOT and their policy of hiring top level hardcore gamer:

Making Diversity and Inclusion Work

They seems to be pionner into diversity hire too, the video highlight their rational, so it seems they see benefit in doing so, I doubt it's from the bottom of their little heart.

EDIT:
the rational is quite clear anyway, if you want to be globally dominating brand, you need hire that reflect the diversity of your market to be able to respond to it. It's business 101.

 

The important distinction to make here is: were you being told that being a chef is for women while you were in the workplace? Because sorry but the stresses of being on the receiving end of personal, inexpert opinions from family members and friends (which I'm sure we've all had to do from time to time) does not constitute a reason for nation-wide affirmative action.

If it happened at work, I'm sure that's some form of harassment.

 

I have total respect for the female Kurdish fighters. True kick ass! The fact is they and the Amazons are outliers. In any argument there are exceptions. The tendency is that the exception proves the rule. My job as a man, biologically speaking, is to protect the tribes eggs and to inseminate as many of those eggs as possible. Everything else is window dressing from a biological imperative POV. Ergo, strategically it imperils the core biological imperative to use women of the tribe as war fighters as it puts the egg cache in a situation of extinction.

 

And all this time I thought you were a young white male.