http://www.codefirstgirls.org.uk/ (Fuck they're in Europe too)
http://djangogirls.org/ (Fuck they're even in Eastern Europe)
http://railsgirls.com/ (le agile lean rubyist startup)
Western civilization is fucked.
> Western civilization is fucked.
I think almost all women aren't female supremacists.
And I think more start to understand that we do want them to help us with both >>47656160
and STEM. Just not in the forms of arbitrary "self-taught, I'm now good enough or it's discrimination" idiocy.
Get the usual for qualifications.
female detected. go back to pretending you're going to change the world with your friends.
I'll just leave this "programmer" here
>tfw no qt3.14 hacker gf
I just want somebody to do CTFs with ;_;
To adequately understand male and female tendencies I think we have to look at neurological makeup and attempt to employ evolutionary models.
Almost no one wants to be a miner. They might bitch about "my jobs!" and "my family traditions!" but the reality is if they let go and something better came around, there would be other maybe even better jobs, and they'd be just fine. Possibly getting paid similar amounts.
Ultimately, being a miner is dirty, dangerous, requires awareness and perception, and ravages your body. Being a garbageman is dirty and sometimes requires physical labor. Being a surgeon requires extensive education and again, foresight and awareness.
I don't think culture is entirely why women are predisposed against these jobs, culture likely partially reflects what is intrinsic. Men have always been disposable and as far as our species goes, only required for our ability to project force and make a lot of children. That's it. Look back at history, who through our hierarchical control structures is sent out to kill each other? Who has the biggest body count, and who is driven most under nationalist delusions to protect who?
Pretty clear. Women need to make children. Women are therefore genetically predisposed to dislike tasks that are uncomfortable or involve danger.
You could look at it from a lot of angles. I'm not saying it's universal and uniform, but I hardly buy that it's oppression or societal brainwashing that keeps them doing what they're doing. Most seem to play and game the system quite well modern day.
Feminists are likely the small percentage that is either pissed off, or works differently and therefore expects everyone to follow along and be like them. I've played similar roles my whole life, and it doesn't work. They'll just hate you or fuck shit up elsewhere, because ultimately your expectations are a form of oppression and coercion as well.
They're never going to realize that simply because the most they'll do is web development using JS, Python or similar shit for backend or CSS for frontend. All you do in webdev is use frameworks that do all the work for you and copypaste code from whatever you can find on the internet that's related to what you're doing. Anybody can do that shit and you need like 0 intellect for it.
It's why these movements became so popular, because they only ever use piss easy languages and frameworks. I mean, the people behind raspberry pi sell python as a language for fucking grade school kids and these females take pride in their hello world script. GIRL POWER XD
Where's formallogicgirls.com, proofassistantladies.com and typetheorybitches.com?
I wish I could find a woman who doesn't work like that. I see to be an uncommon breed and am having difficulty finding another of my sort, or at the very least someone I even somewhat have something in common with.
>Western civilization is fucked.
I don't understand how you can draw this conclusion from websites that teach girls to code or are about women coding.
Besides you being assmad that they get their special websites what exactly is the problem? It's not like most male CS majors are good at coding either.
>I wish I could find a woman who doesn't work like that.
90% of women don't need this sort of hand holding. This is for the other 10% that think coding is a boys club and are too scared to even attempt it because men are scary.
Bad example, they do want to be surgeons because they make bank/status. Same reasons there's so much interest in programming. They think it prints money and they can be just like Sheryl Sandburg and #LeanIn or Ellen Pao.
>you are tears
Then put pictures of guys lecturing about type theory or compiler construction.
Or put some guys coding safety critical embedded systems and explain that they're updating missile software so it can't lock on to white male soldier thus limiting the chance of friendly fire.
That's great, then these initiatives will perform poorly as per your prophecy. So what does it mean if your prophecy happens to fail and these support groups actually produce productive results?
I definitely do not want a female surgeon. Not offence to women but their perception of 3D space is worse than men's. When you're talking about sharp things in my guts I want the gender that has had hundreds of thousands of years of hand-eye coordination behind it, driven through hunting and warfare.
I more mean the whole attitude in general. In my experience, women do tend to want to lean, and they do expect a degree of coddling. Otherwise they just aren't rigidly self driven in the right ways. I don't know how to put it.
I'm surprised no one called me on the claim that I'm an "uncommon breed" and referenced that it's just a faulty or myopic perspective, and that we're all made of the same core things, compromise learn to get along and see similarities, blah blah blah. Unfortunately I really am an abnormal sort, and have a very uncommon range of experiences. I am who I am, and what I want in another person stems from that.
I don't even know what I could ever do about that.
I'm gonna be pretty honest here with you. I think you're projecting a bit with the whole "women like coddling" thing.
Also you sound like an edgy teenager.
I disagree. Even if we take what you say as the absolute truth, as far as I'm concerned if they've gotten through medical school, through their internships/residency/what-have-you, advanced far enough through their careers to be hired be someone who's willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of euro for their skills, I'll presume they're qualified to do it. I care about her surgical skills, not her gender - only feminists are obsessed with gender and I am not a feminist.
I wouldn't discount all of that because of the generalised traits of their gender which may or may not be manifest in them. In actuality, I'd dispute those generalised traits exist but it doesn't matter either way.
Well I'd also have to accept that there are natural variations in 3D spatial abilities between females, and so the high-end of female 3D spatial abilities can reach the high end of male abilities, but there is a much lesser chance that an average female surgeon would be as good as an average male surgeon.
And how about this brain teaser: how could you be sure that it was truly a meritocracy and that feminists hadn't bungled their way into giving women preferential treatment due to their gender over their abilities?
Now if it were solely based on their ability to perform surgery, I'd expect a lot less female surgeons even if the application rates were the same, so what you have is if 5 females apply to be surgeons in a class of 100 (95 males) and the pass rate is 4/5 for females and 50% for males, what does that say about the meritocracy of the place?
Of course 5 is a small sample, but plug in 100 colleges and you have 500 female applicants which gives you a better number. So if 400/500 pass, and the female 3D spatial pool is worse than the male one to start with, what does that say?
Of course it's all about the reality, I could be way off and only 20% of women actually pass the requirements to be a surgeon.
You have an extreme level of faith in authority that allows you to feel comfortable in ignoring multiple layers of ambiguity with which you have no capacity to perform intelligent risk assessment. There simply isn't enough information, but you want a conclusion, so you take a faulty shortcut.
That shortcut is fine enough, for you. But don't try to present it as though it's correct or based in anything. People and systems do not deserve inherent trust, and you are much better to not rely on them by default.
I'd have to meet the woman first. As a rule though, women are more apt t do weird stuff I may not agree or be comfortable with. Men are no more trustworthy, but as far as I've seen, in the medical field especially, their attitudes are much less likely to be shit. They're less likely to be careless, and there's less arrogance. Their sense of shame and personal responsibility is not so easy to just reason away. My limited experience tells me they all suck in their own way, so I have to choose the one that consistently sucks least.
>How are your undergrad psychology classes going?
Wow I need to be a trained psychologist to understand projection? That's fascinating.
I guess >>47656281 must be one because you're not shitting on him for quoting EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY which is a joke.
The anon I replied to said:
>I more mean the whole attitude in general. In my experience, women do tend to want to lean, and they do expect a degree of coddling. Otherwise they just aren't rigidly self driven in the right ways. I don't know how to put it.
He doesn't get along with women, or doesn't understand them, so in his mind that means they're lesser than him or just do things the wrong way. That's not psychology, that's just reading what he wrote, he literally says "I don't understand women, they don't do things in the right way".
There's not much point in us debating because I agree with you in principle.
>And how about this brain teaser: how could you be sure that it was truly a meritocracy and that feminists hadn't bungled their way into giving women preferential treatment due to their gender over their abilities?
All I care about is a true level playing field. I will listen and sympathise with the suggestions of feminists insofar as it removes things that aren't fair to women - e.g. being told they can't do certain jobs at young ages, no maternity leave, sexual harassment on the job, gender-based discrimination and so forth.
I will not sympathise with them when it comes to arbitrarily setting easier standards for 'underrepresented' groups of people (given that 'underrepresented' is arbitrary in itself). So naturally I'm opposed to positive action ('affirmative action' in the USA). Who is anyone to decide what groups need what help from the authorities and to what extent? There's no scientific way of quantifying just how 'underprivileged' or whatever any group of people is, so giving any group a hamhanded leg up at the expensive of meritocracy is an insane and dangerous policy, and also a lazy one.
The reality is it will take generations of having equal playing field for professional gender discrepancy to iron themselves out into a Starship Troopers-esque meritocratic gender equality. Trying to artificially and arbitrarily expedite this is daft.
Remember to sage, report and ignore.
With an emphasis on ignore
You're right. I tend to be pro-establishment. It might not be reality, but in an ideal situation I think we should be able to have faith in any given system to perform as it's meant to. If it's not doing that, we ought to reform it. I don't like the idea of discounting 'the system' entirely.
I also might be spoiled by the fact I come from a small, rich, ethnically homogenous, largely positive action-free country with free(ish) university. I have a fairly strong trust in how little the system has been interfered with by SJWs. I might have a different attitude if I were Murrican.
There's also the fact I've never had any major surgery. I would indeed have to meet my surgeon first if I was up for anything risky.
I hate SJWs, SRS, most of tumblr, and basically every gurlgaymer (or any gaymer) shit in general. But what I hate more than that is the faggots who enable their stupid crusade. Faggots like you.
Look at what you fucking wrote:
>You have an extreme level of faith in authority that allows you to feel comfortable in ignoring multiple layers of ambiguity with which you have no capacity to perform intelligent risk assessment.
>I'd have to meet the woman first. As a rule though, women are more apt t do weird stuff I may not agree or be comfortable with. Men are no more trustworthy, but as far as I've seen, in the medical field especially, their attitudes are much less likely to be shit. They're less likely to be careless, and there's less arrogance.
Can you not see the blatant hypocrisy in those statements? You are telling him that he is foolish for having "extreme levels of faith in authority" but then you just say "yeah I don't trust doctors in general but I'd prefer a male one because they're probably better". That doesn't make any sense at all, you are literally saying you have blind faith in male doctors because "they'll probably fuck up less" but you're cautious about the fucking medical board that issues medical licenses for people to practice medicine?
This is why radical feminists exist, all they have to do is pick out this one post and say "all men are like this" in the same way you're saying "women are inferior". Fuck I'm mad.
>He doesn't get along with women, or doesn't understand them, so in his mind that means they're lesser than him or just do things the wrong way.
My problem has always been that I understand people on the wrong levels, and can't ignore these things to find beauty or relevance in any other type of understanding. It overshadows things. I'm not perfect myself, but I've grown to be very specific in what type of thing I see as tolerable, relateable, or something I want to get involved in.
Never did I say or even imply anyone was "less", I didn't put things on tiers, you did. Funny you'd bring up projection in the same breath.
>That's not psychology, that's just reading what he wrote, he literally says "I don't understand women, they don't do things in the right way".
I said they don't do things in the right way, -for me-. Am I not allowed to have tastes or acknowledge I'm more compatible with certain traits? Am I supposed to tell myself I can just love everything anything? Get over it.
Also, I should tack on, that isn't what literally means. If you're having an issue, address me directly.
>Western civilization is fucked.
No it's not. Feminists are never competitive in anything. Technology doesn't care about race or gender which means the best (almost always) win. Worry about people in third world countries whose dream it is to work three times as hard for a third of the money. And even then you're competing with their motivation, not their resources. You still have more stuff, the only threat they can possess is wanting it more.
I'm taking the piss out of you because you're dropping psych buzzwords in a manner typical of someone young and new to the field of study. I'm not accusing you of being a trained psychologist - that wouldn't be an insult.
I haven't interacted with this person >>47656281 at all. I'm not obliged to interact equally with everyone in any given thread. I'm especially not arsed reading whatever this person has to say, and I'm not sure why you're bringing him up (other than to deflect).
>Also, I should tack on, that isn't what literally means. If you're having an issue, address me directly.
>My problem has always been that I understand people on the wrong levels, and can't ignore these things to find beauty or relevance in any other type of understanding. It overshadows things. I'm not perfect myself, but I've grown to be very specific in what type of thing I see as tolerable, relateable, or something I want to get involved in.
That's fine but again you seem to be attributing it mostly to women in your posts. It's just a pattern I see everywhere, and honestly women do the same thing. It's always "men" that are the problem, although at least you are realizing that the issue is most likely that you're different than other people. And that's ok, it's just who you are. But you're wording it in a way that makes it seem like you're saying other people are in the wrong for being different to you. That was my main issue.
I'm actually a grad student in Aerospace. And I'll say it again, projection is a common concept in society. You don't need to be a psychologist to use that term. Projection isn't even considered psychology anymore because all of Freud's shit is been thoroughly debunked.
'Nerdiness' became not uncool anymore in the last few years, as did Silicon Valley and consumer tech (look at the popularity of the iPhone and Apple generally among American women). 'Feminism' became less of a dirty word and was adopted as a pet cause by numerous pop culture trendsetters.
Basically, the idea of it (as opposed to actual nature of it) became fashionable amongst those who once scorned it.
>If it's not doing that, we ought to reform it.
This is pretty refreshing. I think this here is the key, if it's broken we should fix it. Problem is, we don't. We barely acknowledge there is a problem and it tends to get more and more broken while society gets more vicious in pushing the idea that absolute faith should be invested. It doesn't work, it's a fucked up feedback loop, and the flaw lies in ourselves.
Being from America definitely helps in seeing this side of our species.
I see no hypocrisy. There is no faith being placed in anything but my own capacity for risk assessment using my own logic, my own experiences, and my own resulting beliefs. And all of that leads to a slight degree more trust in a male.
You're one of those types that parses in a way that doesn't really work with how I think. You're not really prone to weighing statements together to understand the message as a whole, and instead pick out individual parts without judging them in context. You don't really think much when you read, as far as I'm concerned. I said, explicitly, I'd need to meet the woman first. It wasn't stated, but it was implicit the same went for a male surgeon. In actuality I don't trust or like much of anyone, the idea of letting someone do anything to my body is pretty foreign and would take a lot of thought and (perceived) awareness.
I've had a lot of experience with the medical community in various places, however. Women are much more apt to be on a binary scale of overconfidence or self justifying carelessness. Males are more apt to be jaded and useless. It really depends. You're a black and white thinker it seems, so emphasis on the "apt". It specifies a weighting systems, not a binary one.
>You don't need to be a psychologist to use that term.
And I'll say it again - I never said that you do. I said that dropping that buzzword is typical behaviour of naïve first year college students taking psych classes for the first time.
You were behaving like one. Whether you are or aren't is inconsequential, though if you care about not behaving in a laughably immature manner you should probably stop with it.
Do they think men just slap their dicks on keyboards or something?
Why do they need to put the fact that they're women forward? No on fucking cares. That's not feminism, that's just falsely accusing everyone of sexism.
>'Nerdiness' became not uncool anymore in the last few years
I stopped reading there, you absolute retard
No doubt that lady will have a huge impact and leave impressive footprints,surely a a cataclysm- I mean, a catalyst for a topological change.
I heard some even caused species to go extinct.
>You're one of those types that parses in a way that doesn't really work with how I think.
I stopped reading right there. I'm doing risk assessment using my own logic and I have determined that arguing with you is going to be so boring that I'd rather kill myself.
Besides I literally give 0 shits about defending female surgeons on 4chan.
It used to be an insult, now it just means you're passionate about something - nay, that you're merely interested in something. People say 'oh, I'm a total pop culture nerd' or 'I'm a history nerd' where before it was an insult not unlike people calling each other autists around here.
'Geek' is largely the same. You can't deny 'geek chic' happened.
People's perception of programmers and engineers changed also. Before people thought of awkward, socially inept nerds like 90's era Bill Gates when they thought of STEM types, now it's those billionaires who wear jeans and a t-shirt to work.
I used to have a belief, "only once you've learned to be disgusted with everyone equally can you progress to accepting everyone, to a degree" or something. But that didn't last long, now I still just don't really care for most anyone and have a very well developed framework of reasons why. It's hardly specific to either sex, and I didn't meant o imply women are all the same. If I truly believed that, why would I even post about looking for one? Certainly almost no one goes searching for unicorns, as they thoroughly believe nothing exists to find.
The problem with this whole SJW, feminism, whatever the hell matter lies more in that there are always idiots on both sides of the fence. They are the catalyst. No meaningful dialogue can take place because they're mostly myopic, delusional, and completely unwilling. Social dynamics comes into play, people jump into groups, and uh oh, it's like we're still back in the rift valley, doing it all so we can fight and kill each other in a cyclical fashion, cuz it's fun and feels good to be riled and have an enemy. There is little solution or mind expansion because few actually desire it.
I doubt I'll ever find anyone, and it;s telling that part of myself doesn't even really care. I've always lived like this, it's what I'm made for.
>Not realizing they're not only saving themselves the trouble.
Well, least you're willing to think for yourself a little bit. Now we just need someone to stroll on in and flash their degree around, so you can take it all the way and start usin' that theory of mind.
Women don't want to code.
Women don't want to manage systems and networks.
Women don't want to clean shit-filled sewers.
Women don't want to construct buildings during horrid weather.
Women don't want to collect waste.
It's not about what women can do, it's about what they want. Women always have to luxury of choice because they either fuck someone for money or just take care of kids because "it's real work guys!".
Fucking hell. And to hell with God for making me a heterosexual.
>Disliking his capacity to fully appreciate and experience the beauty of the female form
>Would prefer some disjointed sense of attraction to something aesthetically bland and emotionally uninteresting.
>Would prefer attraction to something that resembles themselves.
Why. Even women often seem to prefer the aesthetics of the female form, and gay couples form masculine / feminine dynamics anyway. What is the point.
>Not being a Lainposter
>talks about coding 3D
Holy shit! That's really tough. Are you sure you want to do that? We have 3D modelling programs now that can do all the hard work for you. Are you sure you don't want to use those? No? Positive? Okay... It's a lot of work though. Just saying.
>she loads up a generic customization page in her browser
>the "code" is selecting shapes and colors from a drag and drop menu
>not even entering hex color codes
>a company somewhere else does the work of 3D printing it for her
She took computer classes and didn't even realize this is what 13 year olds who don't use computers do the customize their iPods? It's drag and drop for a reason. She had to know and was just reading off a script or something. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on this one.
If it weren't for women we wouldn't have computers.
I'm not a SJW by any stretch of the imagination but women used to program back in the early days of computing in fucking binary. Never mind third gen languages or even assembly
Here's what I don't like. Those women (Margaret Hamilton etc) did some cool stuff because they were awesome. Not because they were women. You don't get to quote an awesome person, focus on just their gender and then say all women are like that.
Same thing for men but I've hardly seen anyone do the same thing for men.
Wait, we're not making fun actual women who work as programmers.
We're making fun of these SJW campaigns under the guise of equality that have no idea what they're pushing. The main premise of these is that there's not enough women programmers so we NEED to have more. This is mainly because programming as it currently is lucrative and still somewhat of a recently formed industry. You'd never hear these people say "We need more women auto mechanics " or "We need more male nurses ".
They're doing more harm than good by making women believe they've been somehow wronged.
Women who are actually interested in becoming programmers wouldn't be joining one of these hugboxes in the first place.
Lots of shit about postive feelings and an "interest" in STEM stuff, but did they learn to code? No, they heard some pleb seminars about the latest in vibrator technology, now on sale for only $99.99.
> girls are equal!
> break the stereotypes!
> site designed so a toddler can understand it, "girly" colors everywhere
> 75% of girls express an interest in STEM subjects in middle school but only 0.03% choose a STEM major
Maybe that's because they opt for easier money in business, useless "artistic" shit in arts and design, or humanities? Maybe it's because "muh friends go to uni XYZ so I need to as well? Maybe it's because "hurr math is harrrrrrd" and they're right, because it is for women and thus they shouldn't mess with it lest they take positions that could have been taken by males that would do a better job? Then complain about their job being too hard and the manager being mysogynist because they're expected to do the same work as a male, then bitch about lowered pay when expectations are lowered and additional people are hired so the work gets done.
Maybe it's because they're shallow and have this prejudice that only stinky nerds go into STEM (which is true for a lot of STEM majors, but not in all fields), and they think they won't get laid (or only with ugly nerds)?
Why is there this preconception that we need to force more women into STEM? Shouldn't we encourage them to stick to their guns and do what interests them anyway? Stupid world.