zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
I think this was well written. There were a few instances where, upon first reading it, I objected. But rereading it, I thought the language used was chosen well.

I have one main gripe, though: The scope limitation to tech.

> "Toxic tech cultures are those that demean and devalue you as holistic, multifaceted human beings. Toxic tech cultures are those that prioritize profits and growth over human and societal well being. Toxic tech cultures are those that treat you as replaceable cogs within a system of constant churn and burnout.

This is __not__ a tech specific problem. This is a systemic aspect of labor in an overly-capitalist society. Not bashing capitalism, either. But, spare me the 'woe is me, tech bros are out to get us'. Sure, some are. But these problems exist in every industry; the service industry, Hollywood and film, architecture and construction, finance, etc.

As I said, I think the rest of the article was well written and on-topic. That, though, is trying to paint rice grains with a broom.

>>wcarro+4d
In fact, it very probably is a tech-specific problem. Among the STEM fields, CS is almost uniquely imbalanced. STEM fields in general range from ~30-55% women, and those fields include things like Mathematics --- anyone who has gone to an academic cryptography workshop has probably noticed how many more women there are in the room --- which are strong proxies for CS ability. And, of course, among the professions in general, the difference is even more stark; compared to law, we're stuck in the 1960's.

>>tptace+Md
A more equal gender distribution doesn't mean that women are treated better. Take Hollywood, for example.

>>brucep+yj
Does Hollywood have a more equal gender distribution? I heard the average movie has about 6 male roles for every female roles, including extras.

>>mcv+EK
Depend on what movies you include when counting. Many studies prefer to only look at the top 10 or 100 highest gross earning movies and those only cover a tiny portion of the female audience. Selection bias.

Looking at the gender distribution of the movies that a sample of 10000 women and 10000 men has seen, you get very different numbers.

>>belorn+I51
This sounds like you've got data backing this up. Do you have a link?

>>mcv+H71
I recall that last time I went looking I took imbd, located movies with large difference in approval rating of one gender compared to the other, and then looked at the cast. Its not perfect proxy for identifying what the targeted/intended audience is, and there is also top lists of so called "chick flicks" if one permits those.

Every study however that I have seen has only looked at the highest gross films, be that the top 5 or top 100. Of those only a few will specifically target a female audience like the 2008 Sex and the City that only had women in star roles.

Here is the IMBD ratings: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1000774/ratings

It should not be hard to find a matching movie with the genders reversed where all the star roles are men, the target audience are male, and the ratings flipped.