I'm getting out of the business.
It's no longer worth the trouble I went to to get back into it.
It was once a fascinating field, full of interesting people who did creative and useful things, but it has been turned over to a generation of whiny, selfish, self-absorbed rhesus monkeys.
I want to thank every squishy libtard helicopter Mommy and pap-psychology-peddling school administrator in America for their combined efforts to ensure that this country's future will depend, in large part, on people too fucking stupid to understand just how fucking stupid they are.
This is dangerous: this is how wars begin; it is how societies are destroyed; it is how civilized nations with traditions of freedom and egalitarianism lose their way and suddenly decide that shipping millions to industrialized death camps is a good idea.
Your Overlord, it should be noted, is an expert at wasting time. "Procrastination" might as well be my middle name. I am one of those people who has a habit, developed over many years, of not doing something when doing it might save him trouble, and when he can do so in a relaxed, leisurely way. Instead, I leave everything to the last moment and then power through it, spending the time I could have been utilizing on whatever project required my attention to do things I like to do, like sleep late, let my laxative really go to work so I can have a nice, long, relaxing BM, and spending countless hours playing video games.
This system works for me; I see no need to change it.
So, believe me when I tell you, when it comes to time-wasting exercises, I know them when I see them, and I can usually smell them before they're visible.
I must be getting old, or perhaps someone played a Jedi mind trick on me, because I did not have an inkling that I was about to endure maybe the worst professional workshop EVAH.
Perhaps it was the dishonest title of the event, "Efficiency Strategies for the Modern Data Center" that fooled me. For there was very little talk of Efficiency, Modernity, or Data Centers, for that matter.
What it turned out to be was a Feminist Complaint Jamboree. The main topic of discussion was the "Gender Disparity" in the personnel to be found in the modern IT staffing structure, particularly at the higher levels.
It began with a Wombat with Breasts telling us of her "personal journey" through the ranks of the Information Technology World. Now, if you expected that to mean you were about to hear the war stories of a grizzled veteran of the World of Computers, you'd be gravely disappointed, because she appears to be around 14 years old. The handout given at the beginning of this tour du crap described her as an "expert" in the data processing field (when I asked her directly about her experience, it turned out she had all of four --4! -- years of actual workplace experience under her belt, so the handout was a lie. She wasn't even embarrassed), but had spent the last seven years apparently earning a very good living complaining about how vagina and computer conspired to make her feel bad about herself.
The second ambush speaker was described as "an award-winning author" of several crappy books concerning the deep and serious problems women in the workplace face on a daily basis. You know, stuff like not having access to free tampons in the Ladies Room when they need them, or having to make sacrifices to "balance" work and family (naturally, one of those sacrifices is "stay home, then", and none of them should actually be made by a woman), and the tragedy of not being able to separate personal feelings from professional obligations.
I checked the titles of her books, three of them, when I got home. Reading reviews from other Feminazis, it is clear all three would be, alternately, very good sources of fuel during winter's chill, toilet paper in an emergency, impromptu doorstops. The "awards" she has "won" come from no literary or professional society or organization I can recognize or trust, and largely appear to be fabrications of second- and third-rate campus feminist movements. She is recognized as "the foremost "expert" in a field that, for all I can discover, she seems to have invented out of thin air.
When asked, she claimed she had no experience -- whatsoever-- of Information technology, computer programming or science, the corporate world (she was an academic before becoming an author, and still is), or what happens in the IT world -- even what it is that we do in a general sense -- except through anecdotal evidence.
But she has "studied" these subjects at great length.
I didn't know Mad Magazine had a technological bent.
If 60 minutes of that bullshit wasn't enough to make you want to choke a bitch, this was followed by 15 minutes of recordings of women complaining about the trials and tribulations of being female in a male-dominated field. It was only then that I realized that of the 30 or so people in the room, only about five of us were sporting penises, and perhaps three others, but they were wearing dresses and who knows these days?
Not a word about "efficiency", unless one redefines the word to mean something it doesn't.
Which is what this was all about.
Apparently "efficiency" has been redefined around the concept of gender. An organization that turns out product -- software or widgets, automobiles or thingymabobs, golf balls or whatchamacallits -- on time, under budget, in the quantity needed and with superior quality, with a minimum of mistakes, responding to the demands of an international marketplace, is no longer "efficient".
No, "efficiency" is now measured by how many vaginas occupy cubicles, and even more-sharply defined by how many va-jay-jays have tittles...errr...I mean Titles.
How do we know this?
Because there are several studies that show a "more-diverse workforce" produces superior results.
Which is why I reckon Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, IBM and a host of others are not very successful, what with their "unbalanced" workforces made up of predominantly white males and Asians.
Ask which studies say this, and the responses are "dozens", "one done by the University of Outer Mongolia (Go Nomads!)", "the _____ Institute" (which turns out to be a feminist website), "_____ Magazine (which turns out to be a knock off of Cosmopolitan, only with more quizzes, which surveyed 40 chicks, only one of whom was actually in an IT-related business), and much more in this vein.
The Overlord has been in the Information technology field, and associated fields, for 34 years (this spring). There have ALWAYS been women in the field, or at least there always have since I've been in it, and in significant numbers. I have had female bosses, and female employees and staff. My general impression of them all has been that they run the gamut from the tragically incompetent to the super-ridiculously-overqualified. Hundreds of them in my personal knowledge in all of the places I have worked. I have seem them in the 5 of the Fortune Top Ten companies I have worked for; in private consulting work; at the major hardware and software vendors/suppliers. As managers, worker bees, technicians, and whatnot. However there seems to be a "crisis" in the IT world nowadays where there is a dearth of females.
The reason for this, according to the Wombat and Professor Because-Penis, is that women are somehow barred from the field. If not physically kept out of data centers, at least they are barred emotionally and socially by some sort of invisible conspiracy that someone forgot to tell me about. I mean, how am I supposed to do my part to ensure this remains a "male-dominated profession and culture" if my compatriots fail to clue me in?
This is the point where we're treated to a painfully agonizing Greek Tragedy about feelings.
I would almost beg to have my body slathered in honey, staked to an anthill, and watch the little bastards kill me one little piece at a time while someone raped my beloved pet hamster just within my field of view, than be forced to listen to this.
Because no one gives a fuck about your feelings. If you wanted someone to care, you're in the wrong business. This business is oriented towards results. Results are all that matters, and the Powers That Be do not care if the positive results are achieved by a man, a woman, a three-legged donkey, space aliens, Mickey Mouse, a republican or a democrat, or a severely retarded German Shepherd with a speech impediment that makes his bark sound like "Moof!".
If you want someone to care about your feelings, get a therapist or a puppy. This is business, not Dr. Phil.
There is no prejudice, either overt or sub-conscious: The only color anyone sees is Green. The only time gender matters is when it comes to Dead Presidents on dollar bills. It is the kind of business where you either can hack it or you can't. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit. You're only EVER as good as the results of your last project, and if you doubt that, just remember, there are thousands of people with similar or better qualifications than you currently unemployed or underemployed, and thousands of more in Russia, China and India waiting for H-1B visas, begging for galley-slave wages just to get to America.
I'll cut this short so as to not make you physically ill, as well, Dear Reader, to it's essential aims/themes. These became apparent after listening to the Wombat and Professor But-Muh-Vag!, and the comments of the assorted Chattering Snatches assembled.
1. There are fewer females in the IT workforce today than there might have been in the past. No empirical evidence is given for this, but it seems to be a general feeling among those who attended this Gestapo torture session. The younger generation of women is not joining the ranks in great numbers, it appears. The reasons for this, we are told, are varied (but are always Men's fault) and largely concern the idea that females are "made" to feel "uncomfortable" with being technically skilled. Listen long enough, and you discover that these vague feelings originate with women (and are often a result of being judged BY other women), but are always the result of the Great Patriarchal Penile Conspiracy.
Not too passive-aggressive, and no projection there, sure.
2. Women are NOT being barred from Computer Science departments in college; neither are they being banned from Engineering courses, nor even from Higher Mathematics courses. No one (except other women) is telling them they can't take those courses (mostly, they are being discouraged by other women who tell them these fields are full of angry rapists).
But, as the numbers of women have increased on college campuses their percentages within those disciplines have declined (for this they actually had citable, reliable sources). Women obviously are not taking advantage of those opportunities to acquire the basic skills. Why? "Because feelz and Crotch Rockets". They are "receiving a message from the greater culture" that such endeavors are not feminine (but not by Men). Which is funny, because I thought Feminism was all about equal opportunity and not being cast in traditional gender roles, but what the fuck do I know?
After all, I have a Tallywhacker.
3. Because women are not entering the field (because feelz and Trouser Trout) they subsequently don't achieve representative numbers in management positions, or within certain sub-sets of the field (ex: Artificial Intelligence) which tend to be more-prestigious and, thus, more-lucrative.
Somehow, this is not a consequence of women's choices (because "Choice" only means what you think it means when it comes to killing an inconvenient child, You Patriarchal Monster!), but a matter of Men discriminating against women. We're (that is, Men) not promoting on the basis of there being fewer women, that is to say, just promoting women for BEING women and just to bolster their numbers in higher-level positions for shits and giggles or statistical purposes, but rather EXACERBATING the disparity in numbers by using "old-fashioned metrics" like merit, credentials, time of service, work history, to inform decisions on promotions and salary. This is sexism.
(But wait! I thought gender was fluid?)
4. This lack of "Diversity" in the workforce has serious consequences. The primary one appears to be that women of middling ability will not gain access to positions of authority and high salaries, which they would otherwise be mystically entitled to because Bearded Clam. These claims are pure crap, and can be easily dismissed.
There was, however, one point made in this regard that I would tend to agree with: a lack of female input in esoteric fields, like Artificial Intelligence, threatens to present future generations with AI regimes that are heavily male-influenced, which would tend to make them less-agile and responsive to particular circumstances. This is because all programmers, of whatever stripe or wedding tackle, unconsciously bias their own programming. It is an unavoidable circumstance, given the nature of the work. It will get worse when you stop to consider that the greater numbers of men entering the field nowadays tend to come from cultures which have a history of treating females like slaves or property, and of considering "female problems" of no account ( you know who you are, Islam and China).
Hey, even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut.
5. This problem should be (not "could be",they're making a fucking demand) remedied by what essentially equals a Super-Duper Affirmative Action Program oriented specifically towards Ladyparts. The usual rigamarole of "mentoring programs", "fast track career paths", quotas and special set-asides, favoritism in hiring, etc., which predominate in other fields where results don't really count -- like government, political activism, academia, and feminism -- should rule all. Because fairness. The fact that such things constitute an inherently unfair system that never works, given the evidence where it has been tried (see: US Government, Soviet Union, democratic party), is conveniently overlooked. Perhaps the problem would solve itself if women stopped talking, altogether, worked harder, and whined less.
They'd certainly get more respect from their male counterparts.
It has been my experience that women have always been adequately represented in the field, but that it takes a specific KIND of woman to do this kind of work. Generally, on the positive side, these women are super-smart, motivated to succeed, genuinely enjoy what they do so that it's not "work" to them, are willing to make personal sacrifices, and never ask anyone to do something they aren't willing to do themselves. They're also not quitters, they accept constructive criticism, learn from their mistakes, and thrive in an environment in which ideas are freely-expressed and argued over in minute detail. They tend to have thick skins, take nothing personally, and take pride in jobs well-done. They don't cry and they don't whine.
They thrive in a competitive environment.
On the negative side (and I'm generalizing grossly) they also tend to be sexless (in the sense that they don't arouse desires in others), or lesbians, have no social life, and surround themselves with multiple pets (usually cats) to fill up an otherwise empty life that is devoted to work. This pretty much describes ANYONE past a certain level in an IT-related field. We work hours that would kill lesser beings, and when we're not working, we're thinking of working.
This does not describe the modern 20-something.
That's your problem right there.
Perhaps if someone didn't quit when things got tough for her ("My anxiety of going to work increased every day, when I realized I would be subjected to increasing levels of scrutiny in my daily routine --when I got to work, how many hours I worked, when I left, the general quality of my work -- were all going to be picked apart by people who were only interested in metrics -- mere numbers -- and not human beings.")...
... and perhaps if Professor Vagina-Monologues ("All things considered, women are more co-operative, sensitive, and communicative then Men, and this multi-dimensional aspect makes them more valuable to a corporation than the bland monotone of outdated fetishes regarding efficiency. In other words, corporations should find ways to integrate these superior qualities into their work regimes, so as to maximize value, even at the expense of temporary disruption of established corporate norms, and even of profits.")...
...actually knew something, they'd be embarrassed that they run this dog-and-pony show that cheats people out of a $300 registration fee and then subjects them to a gauntlet of professional beggars ("please support our foundation", "please buy my books and CD's", "please visit my YouTube channel and hit the tip jar")...
... they might both understand their subject better, make more sense, be taken seriously, and avoid a report of fraud to the District Attorney's office.
Thank God for tax write-offs, because that's three hours of my life I'm never getting back.
No comments:
Post a Comment