Why girls are getting more jobs then boys? [Serious Issue]

Why girls are getting more jobs then boys? [Serious Issue]

• 5 hours ago, # ^ | What are the real issues?

  • 5 hours ago, # ^ | ← Rev. 2 →   +16 Unequal & unfair distribution of wealth and opportunities. Global inequality. Corruption in politics and economy. Populism. Perhaps racism. Those are just a few issues that seem to be central (in my opinion). Let's please go after the rich and powerful, who are trying to stick to privileges they never deserved, instead of going after those who can hardly defend themselves.

    • 5 hours ago, # ^ | "Let's please go after the rich and powerful," Its not that simple, who should we attack, who is going to decide whether someone deserves his / her wealth or not. Shall every new born get equal share of Earth's wealth? A free bank balance every time someone is born. This also gets complex. World population crossed 8 billion few months ago, we have added 10 million in couple of months. Oof, life is complex. This is just too complex. Maybe AI is going to fix it, may be not.

      • 5 hours ago, # ^ | You're right, issues are complex and solving them will require enormous attention. Attention is our most important resource for problem solving. That's why we have to direct our attention to the actual problems. And not draw other people's attention away from actual problems, like the author of this post is sadly doing. Just notice how the focus of this blog's author is less on his "smart friends not getting a job" and much more on women getting jobs, like this would harm him. This is terrible populism, and it's important to stand against this kind of post so that instead we can focus on real issues.

        • 4 hours ago, # ^ | Yeah exactly, I have some suggestion though. We've to impose CAPS on everything. Caps on bank balance, caps on world population. Youngsters should be wary of SEX. It is extremely disgusting. In the future, we're going to turn entirely asexual with lab reproduction of human babies(only in critical cases). We've to turn into CYBORGS for the better. Too many humans(stupid, ignorant) means too much problem. We have to increase the average intelligence to such a level that these issues will disappear by end of century. And then a UTOPIA will dawn.

          • 2 hours ago, # ^ | sir, you should not go so far into the future. Just play Cyberpunk 2077

    • 5 hours ago, # ^ | (1) Yes, there is a wealth gap between men and women. I have no doubt. But this is not treated because women are not treated fairly. It is because women have to bear children, take time off work, etc & have different biological construction. (2) What do you have against the rich that (rightfully) earned their money? Yeah, maybe they have some nice stuff, nice cars, control the media, etc. But you can't just "go after them" as if they are some demons. They are humans too. (3) Yes, you are right that there may be fewer women in politics. But so what? I can still have my views (as a woman) represented by men. As a white women, I can have my views represented by a black man. Like...it doesn't really matter the gender makeup of political ppl, moreso their views. And if you're trying to argue that women are underrepresented in politics because of injustice, I don't think so. Woman probably aren't interested in being politicians because they are too busy being mothers, etc. (4) Equality sounds fucking awesome, I agree. But let's be real--God(*) didn't make human species with equality in mind. (*) If you don't believe in God, just replace the sentence with "human species didn't evolve with equality in mind." Some humans have health issues. Some humans have impaired mental capacity. And some babies are just born smarter than others. Some people are more emotional. People from some races are different (not biologically necessarily, but geographical differences can affect the person [e.g. hot versus cold environment]). Equality can never exist. Even if men and women were given 100% same opportunities and upbringing, guess what--99% of bricklayers will still be men. Okay, long rant. Hope you have a good day! (Sorry if I was too abrasive, mostly just want to respond.)

    • 2 hours ago, # ^ | I think the real problem is an aggressive and destructive mindset embodied by the phrase "go after the rich and powerful" without regard to any sense of fairness or justice, and with no distinction between those who earned it rightfully and those who cheated. The entire point of this mindset is to go after people, and inevitably the only way to make things right is to use group violence instead of honest and peaceful methods. Inevitably it comes down to banning this, or forbidding that, or increasing taxes to do that. And if you don't like it, that's what the police, firearms, and armored cars are for. Why don't we just stop going after people in the first place?

• 4 hours ago, # ^ | URM and women having a large advantage is just true. Why is it that every time this is brought up, people try to divert it into another topic?

  • 3 hours ago, # ^ | Companies always try to hire top talents, because they have more ambition, more room to grow and will perform better in the long run. Let's assume a company has two applicants who scored similarly in an assessment test. The first one is among the top 50% of students in a wealthy country, and the second one is in the top 1% of students in a poor country. Then the company will very likely go with the second person, because it's very easy to see that the second one has shown more ambition and talent to reach their current stage and will thus grow and perform better in the future. When companies give preference to minorities or women, it follows the same logic: hiring the top people relative to their groups. When a woman is skilled in computer science, given the overall statistics that most women are not successful in computer science, it is fair to assume that this particular woman has exceptional motivation and talent. (And of course there are other motives, for example if a company's product targets women, who make up half of the population, then it will be helpful to have a better understanding in their workforce of their customers)

    • 101 minute(s) ago, # ^ | ← Rev. 2 →   0 Your comments have given me a new perspective on this topic, but I still have a question: you argue for hiring based on the motivation of the candidate (not only in this specific comment, but also in other ones in the past), but how does this practice take into account the inherent (i.e., natural) talent of some people? Let's say you have to choose between two people: 1. The first one is very hard-working, spent thousands of hours on practicing CP problems and got to expert on Codeforces. 2. The second one spent less than a thousand hours on practice and got to master on CF. Who would you choose? Sure, the first one is much more motivated to do work, but the unfortunate truth is that the second one is likely to do more difficult work than the first person, especially considering the fact that the latter person has likely still a lot of untapped potential, and, if given enough incentives, can improve still a lot. This comparison is not perfect: in the context of this discussion, females do not only need to do intellectual effort (becoming better in CS), but also social effort: fighting stereotypes and standing tall in society and the CS community. I also do not intend this to be a gendered argument (the latter person in my example may as well be female, non-binary, etc). I am just wondering whether hiring based on the motivation of the candidate is a fail-proof system, and if not, how we can improve it.

      • 47 minutes ago, # ^ | I think that in a lot of cs related jobs the skill required doesn't translate to cf rating, or is much more acquired. So the company wants to find the most suitable candidates for the job, and it will pick the people who will most likely succeed in it, which relates much more to hard work / devotion / motivation.

        • 41 minute(s) ago, # ^ | Aha, makes sense then! But are there CS jobs where an inherent talent is required (similarly to achieving high CF ratings) and where this talent can be deduced during the hiring process?

          • 35 minutes ago, # ^ | ← Rev. 2 →   +1 Of course natural talent plays a big part, it's not only motivation or only talent, without either the other won't help. cf rating is kind of a specific thing that doesn't say a lot, but I guess that a high rating does point somewhat to good problem solving abilities.

      • 40 minutes ago, # ^ | Thank you for your very constructive comment here :) I totally agree with you that recruiters will often prefer "natural talent" over "hard-earned skills". But I believe this is exactly why companies want to hire people from the top of their respective groups. Talent is somewhat abstract, but for the sake of simplicity, let's say we want maximum intelligence (similar to IQ). We know that intelligence is somewhat evenly distributed in society (I won't insist that it is exactly evenly distributed everywhere, there's a lot we don't know, but we can be certain that one social group is not twice as intelligent as some other). Consequently, when hiring only outstanding talents, a company will statistically employ people from all groups quite evenly, because each group in society will have their own share of outstanding talent. Meanwhile, you can increase your skills through hard work (e.g. by learning a new programming language or solving tasks on codeforces). Skills are also very valuable for companies, because they can rely on them right away. I'm not an expert on assessment centers, but I assume the goal is to determine candidates levels of both talent and skill separately, perhaps with a focus on talent. This is why they won't only give you the problems you have trained for, but instead also challenge you with new and often unconventional tasks, to measure talent instead of skill. Many here, I'm afraid, might be subject to exactly that misunderstanding: even if a woman is not very experienced with a certain type of tasks ("no high score on codeforces"), she might still earn many points in an assessment center (e.g. on an IQ test). So it might look like she got preferential treatment due to this hidden variable, even if that's objectively not the case.

• 116 minutes ago, # ^ | If you check you can see that there are efforts to make women in areas where there are mostly men but not the other way around yet they say it's to make men and women equal. There is a huge distribution of pay in modelling, where men are paid less than women. Also there is no effort to increase more men in nursing, why is that? How will be achieve "equality" if we don't increase men in women dominated areas. Also sewer cleaning, brick laying, construction etc. are dominated by men, yet there is no programs like "women in sewer" to increase women there, why is that? Hoping to see conservatism spread in Germany!

  • 24 minutes ago, # ^ | It's important to look at the big picture. It's very easy to find, e.g. here: In India, men had 3.57 times the income of women in 2017. Please rest assured that, as soon as countless millions are suffering from unequal pay due to structural discrimination in the modelling business, I will be fighting right along your side to fix the issue!

• 61 minute(s) ago, # ^ | Thank you for one of the only comments here that make an effort towards understanding and having a productive discussion about the topic. I don't usually seek knowledge in works of fiction, but I remember hearing somewhere that fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate, which is easily verifiable in the real world, even with a limited knowledge of it. It's disheartening to see so many public figures, like politicians, media hosts etc. using fear to recruit people for their cause. It's a terrible, and terribly effective, demagoguery that never results in any progress being made. I guess codeforces is just not the right platform to talk about this stuff (and these blogs are getting a bit repetitive), which why I left this comment as neutral as possible, and I also hope my very relevant Yoda reference didn't dismiss the point I was trying to make. Let's focus on cp, keep this community as inviting and inclusive as we can, lift each other up, use reason and logic, and refrain from starting discussions that might offend or discourage others.