Why are there no notable female programmers?

Why are there no notable female programmers?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-Hamilton-American-computer-scientist

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      She didn't do anything impressive and was basically a nepobaby. Grace Hopper is the only relevant female programmer I'm aware of.

      Because it's a field heavily dominated by incels who shame any women who try to do it

      Other narcissistic lies like this are a big reason why civilization is falling apart

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not really true, I'm guessing you've never had a job at a medium to large software company.

        [...]
        Hamilton is not the best example, she joined the nasa team when the software was mostly finished but she led important QA work and other things. I'm sure she was a capable programmer but she gets wrongly mythologised because of her gender.
        [...]
        Hopper seems to be the strongest example, but Lovelace is a badly fabricated pop culture meme that way too many fall for.

        OP said "notable female programmer". I'm not disagreeing with your points, but I'm not wrong. It doesn't matter if she's a good example of a programmer or not anymore than it matters if Thomas Edison is a real inventor or not. If people generally recognize it as true then it is suitable enough for OP's definition.

        Does this sate your autism?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not really true, I'm guessing you've never had a job at a medium to large software company.

        [...]
        Hamilton is not the best example, she joined the nasa team when the software was mostly finished but she led important QA work and other things. I'm sure she was a capable programmer but she gets wrongly mythologised because of her gender.
        [...]
        Hopper seems to be the strongest example, but Lovelace is a badly fabricated pop culture meme that way too many fall for.

        >use any search engine
        >"first software engineer"
        >don't even need the keyword "female"
        >first result: "Margaret Hamilton"
        You don't get much more prolific than that. Yes there are others listed here too, but your points are silly.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          LOL

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Explain

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No you dumb c**t, your shitposts are so moronic I'm not even going to bother.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No rebuttal to his post? Then why bother posting at all?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To call her a moronic c**t

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            lol, well i guess that is an answer to my question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Metarationality > rationality. Also I had to call my gf and couldn't respond to most posts itt, ironically.

            to bump the thread and provide arguments against the positions

            This basically. The more people who experience anti-woman rhetoric the more ground down c**t-worship gets. Enough of that and men will have almost-rational views of women.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No you dumb c**t, your shitposts are so moronic I'm not even going to bother.

            LOL

            LOL

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          thats cause its a lie, the rope automations of ancient greece could be called programming; babbish, bool, etc etc the line in blurry they pick it so its a women

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >use any search engine
          anon.... Try doing actual research, I'm not wrong.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Black person, she's just the one who coined the term "software engineer". So called "software engineers" aren't real engineers, they're just computer programmers with pretensions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they're just computer programmers with pretensions
            ...and math skills, and credentials, and a deeper understanding of the code they write on average compared to your common programmer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No, that's just programmers. There are no math or coding standards that must be attained before a programmer may call himself a software engineer. It's literally just a title that programmers give themselves if they're feeling pretentious, or a title given to them by their boss in lieu of better pay (fancy titles as compensation is a common scam, and the sooner you recognize this the better.)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's all fun and games until you program something that demands specific tolerances with physical world application such as CAD machines. The only thing really giving you leverage in your argument is that "engineer" is not a protected title. Having said that, most programmers cannot pass the fundamentals of engineering tests and are currently synonymous with "coder book camp" types. It's not 2015 anymore, anon.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most "software engineers" are those bootcamp-level types and a programmer who is comfortable with advanced mathematics and experience programming industrial machinery is still a programmer.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >use any search engine
            anon.... Try doing actual research, I'm not wrong.

            thats cause its a lie, the rope automations of ancient greece could be called programming; babbish, bool, etc etc the line in blurry they pick it so its a women

            Ohh my sweet naive anons. OP's question isn't about hard logic. Your responses are akin to saying "awkctuly Thomas Edison wasn't an inventor" when the point is that he is still well known as one. The same is true for Margaret dispute your objections. Nothing said about her being a data clerk who got the job from her husband appears to be false, but that's not OP's question. She is a "notable female programmer" having been titled the first software engineer regardless of if she deserves it or not. You SHOULD be able to understand this distinction.
            >but search engine isn't research
            No shit, Black person, but I'm not about to pull out books, peer reviewed articles, or documentaries to facilitate OP's pointless question.

            TL;DR: you're a pedantic homosexual

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            looks like it's somebody's time of the month!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno man, i just expect other IQfy anons to have better rationalization skills than the average customer at Starbucks, but maybe I'm asking for too much.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not being pedantic, correcting how a person who's still alive gets hyper mythologised to "here she stands with a stack of all the code she wrote" is just a total commonly regurgitated lie taking hard work away from others.
            Secondly no my response is not akin to that, I said
            >she led important QA work and other things. I'm sure she was a capable programmer
            I need better rationalization? You're culturally brainwashed and buckbroken.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      not really true, I'm guessing you've never had a job at a medium to large software company.

      - Grace Hopper (of COBOL fame)
      - That one woman from NASA who stood next to a huge pile of printout
      - At a stretch, Ada Lovelace

      I couldn't go on, though.

      Hamilton is not the best example, she joined the nasa team when the software was mostly finished but she led important QA work and other things. I'm sure she was a capable programmer but she gets wrongly mythologised because of her gender.

      Grace Hopper is easily the second most significant person in the history of computing, and Ada Lovelace was the first computer programmer ever. What culture war bullshit are you on about?

      Hopper seems to be the strongest example, but Lovelace is a badly fabricated pop culture meme that way too many fall for.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >drags up a decades old example
      >a glorified printing clerk
      >no git history

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >She helped write the computer code for the command and lunar modules
      >>Hey be a doll and get me some coffee.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the patriarchy doesn't celebrate successful women unless they're successful specifically in roles that reinforce the patriarchy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's because women don't ever need do things for themselves. Women will always either bribe men with sex to get them to do things for them or whine at men until they get annoyed enough to do things for them.
      See:

      Because it's a field heavily dominated by incels who shame any women who try to do it

      for examples of whining that were helpfully provided by kind anons

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You will never be a woman

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There have been noteworthy women. Off the top of my head, there's Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, Margaret Hamilton, and Radia Perlman. Research has shown even going back to the 1960s that people most likely to excel at programming (tech in general) are moreso asocial and favor crafting things with pure hard skills. Women are much more social than men and tend to gravitate towards fields involving soft skills.

      One of the many things I can't stand about modern feminism is their lack of a good consistant definition of patriarchy especially when they continue to use the term in countries where they had civil rights for decades. Tech is centered in hard left cities and you have to be moronic if you really think that its muh patriarchs and muh handmaiden working against you. Freedom doesn't mean equal outcomes. Just accept the fact that there is no grand conspiracy with mechanisms that spring when strong wahmen that disrupts the sytem is detected. Women aren't as interested compared to men. You hyperfixate only on the good careers too.

      Because it's a field heavily dominated by incels who shame any women who try to do it

      Women ironically reinforce many so called "boys clubs" they try to break into. Majority will literally shame geek culture and nerdy men until they either grift free attention and potentially money from simps on social media/platforms or realize tech is an industry with good money.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ada Lovelace
        Irrelevant
        >Grace Hopper
        Talented and significant
        > Margaret Hamilton
        Nepobaby (her husband helped her get her position) and mostly irrelevant
        >Radia Perlman
        "Hey let's use basic b***h graph theory to detect cycles in a network" is not impressive. Perlman is obviously very intelligent but the problem she solved was not particularly difficult. Plenty of men have done much harder, much more impactful work and been totally forgotten.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the patriarchy doesn't celebrate successful women unless they're successful specifically in roles that reinforce the patriarchy

      Yes. Obviously. Long live the Patriarchy.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's a field heavily dominated by incels who shame any women who try to do it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Stacys shame nerds for being cave dwellers and autistic
      >Years later they try to get into IT
      >Gets wienerblocked by the very same nerds they mocked back in school
      You love to see it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What's even more funny is based nerds would rather have some of their own transition than let moronic foids enter our spaces.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the same reason there are almost no notable woman in any other field, they're less capable than men. It's simple biology.
      *It's machismo bullshit/sexism/whatever.
      Woman absolutely can, but are encouraged instead to be simpler individuals or just housewifes. It's literally pure Medieval homosexualry. If the Medieval Age had not occurred, things wouldn't be so "man-sided". We'd have a lot more prominent female scholars, musicians, programmers, etc.

      Also, property laws would be far worse as that is what was refined during the Medieval age, but let's not go there unless you really want to.

      Not sure if bait or if leftists are brain dead. In the most egalitarian countries where women are encouraged the most to go into programming the less women there are in those fields. Sweden and norway has the least amount of programmers even when universities and companies are desperate to hire them. Do you know which countries have the largest amount of women in programming (compared the men)? it's in Iran in India. Surely you don't mean that women are treated better in iran/India than sweden/Norway?
      When women have the freedom to choose they choose more stereotypical female jobs. The largest and most cited social study in history shows this.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For the same reason there are almost no notable woman in any other field, they're less capable than men. It's simple biology.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      forgot pic

      Because it's a field heavily dominated by incels who shame any women who try to do it

      Sounds like a women issue.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry to break it to you anon, but there is in fact a woman in the picture you posted.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          who's husband was a nobel prize winning chemist, and as soon as he was hit by a bus and killed, her "genius" miraculously vanished immediately

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the same reason there are almost no notable woman in any other field
      They have all the glory stolen from them and get pushed out of any field when it becomes popular or profitable.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, of course. It's a grand conspiracy across every culture and every country for nearly 2500+ years!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For the same reason there are almost no notable woman in any other field, they're less capable than men. It's simple biology.
      *It's machismo bullshit/sexism/whatever.
      Woman absolutely can, but are encouraged instead to be simpler individuals or just housewifes. It's literally pure Medieval homosexualry. If the Medieval Age had not occurred, things wouldn't be so "man-sided". We'd have a lot more prominent female scholars, musicians, programmers, etc.

      Also, property laws would be far worse as that is what was refined during the Medieval age, but let's not go there unless you really want to.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        see

        Women have 10℅ smaller brains than men and this isn't being taught in public schools. Look it up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not an argument, we have plenty of capable female scientists and scholars and all, just not as much as we could have had, and due to wide variability, there's a lot of females who are way higher IQ than your worthless ass, homosexual

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there's a lot of females who are way higher IQ than your worthless ass, homosexual
            These tards cannot get away from everything being personal, holy shit. The more I interact with women with an open mind the less I see them as human beings.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Women share a ton of traits with blacks.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Women having 10℅ smaller brains than men doesn't exclusive mean they're all drooling morons you dumb frick. There's going to be a version of albert einstein with a 10℅ smaller brain, no doubt.

            BUT when you look at the whole picture, women in general having 10℅ smaller brains than mean they're GENERALLY not equal to most men.

            In otherwords we think there's MILLIONS of these "smart" women when in fact maybe it's more like 100k or something. Telling girls in general that they are smarter than they really are leads to COMPLETE disasters for humanity (ie uncontrolled immigration).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Telling girls in general that they are smarter than they really are
            xthey already do that among themselves as they outsmart men out in public and social situations all the time.

            >100k
            Oh you sweet summer child. Go outside more. Touch grass more.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Where do you think the whole "women don't think, they feel" came from?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A lie repeated a million times.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It makes 100℅ sense when you take into account that they have 10℅ smaller brains.

            If YOU were born with a 10℅ smaller brain would you be as logical as you are right now?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I see the medieval age also affected every male animal species on the planet. Must've been a rough act by nature that affected every species.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And I should add, we wouldn't have all this woke garbage and SJWs and feminism in its current form going on and shitting up society more than it would have been.

        It's as if people treating each other like shit is what rots our world.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ORRRRRR pretending that women don't have 10℅ smaller brains than men has placed ridiculous expectations on women that they have been unable to fulfill.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >has placed ridiculous expectations on women that they have been unable to fulfill.
            [citation needed]

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Think about how many of them become prostitutes and single mothers despite prestigious college educations and end up having to rely on men.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It's as if people treating each other like shit is what rots our world.
          Spoken like a true Black personbain moron. Evolution itself only works in a world with violence and death.

          >For the same reason there are almost no notable woman in any other field, they're less capable than men. It's simple biology.
          *It's machismo bullshit/sexism/whatever.
          Woman absolutely can, but are encouraged instead to be simpler individuals or just housewifes. It's literally pure Medieval homosexualry. If the Medieval Age had not occurred, things wouldn't be so "man-sided". We'd have a lot more prominent female scholars, musicians, programmers, etc.

          Also, property laws would be far worse as that is what was refined during the Medieval age, but let's not go there unless you really want to.

          Literal cultist fantasy, holy shit

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution itself only works in a world with violence and death.
            Evolution can only be stopped by extinction. We have plenty of studies demonstrating that "natural selection" is unnecessary since decades ago. It speeds things up, but is not otherwise needed at all. The pressures of society and occupations will continue to shape humans into the future without the need for the inane savagery of death and violence.

            Women weren't so restricted by society before the Medieval Age, blue-pilled idiot. Not even the Native Americans were so shit to their own women as Medieval Europeans were, easy stuff to look up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution can only be stopped by extinction. We have plenty of studies demonstrating that "natural selection" is unnecessary since decades ago. It speeds things up, but is not otherwise needed at all. The pressures of society and occupations will continue to shape humans into the future without the need for the inane savagery of death and violence.
            I can't tell if this is just advanced hyper-femoid brain or if you're genuinely schizophrenic. Either way: Please have a nice day for the good of our species.

            >Women weren't so restricted by society before the Medieval Age, blue-pilled idiot. Not even the Native Americans were so shit to their own women as Medieval Europeans were, easy stuff to look up
            Your understanding of history is completely fricking moronic (unsurprisingly) but it's hilarious that your example of a feminist society is a loose collection of very primitive people (the less primitive ones were hyper violent pedophilia cannibals, before you bring up Aztecs and linear algebra or something) were genocided almost completely and only continue to exist on reservations at the whim of the patriarchal civilization that you're whining about. Almost as if letting women have a say makes you weak, and moronic, Idk.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *that were genocide

            10% smaller brains anons. Just stop and think about it for a minute. As utter dogshit the life you're going through might be right now imagine if you suddenly woke up with a 10% smaller brain.

            Ugly women have it extremely rough when you stop and take that into consideration.

            This is true. We should be nice (very impersonally so that they don't think you're interested in them) to ugly women who aren't evil.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the schizoid here is you, and we're all better off without idiots with their blind faith in "natural selection"

            "Certainly! Let's delve into the fascinating interplay between modern lifestyle and evolution.

            1. ****Dietary Changes and Evolution**:
            - Our dietary habits have significantly evolved over time. Early humans primarily consumed raw, unprocessed foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, and lean meats.
            - **Cooking Revolution**: The discovery of fire and cooking techniques transformed our diet. Cooking made food more digestible, allowing our ancestors to extract more energy from it.
            - **Soft Foods**: As we shifted to softer, cooked foods, our jaws and teeth adapted. Smaller jaws became advantageous because they required less energy for chewing.
            - **Wisdom Teeth**: The reduction in jaw size led to the phenomenon of missing or impacted wisdom teeth. Our ancestors needed these extra molars for grinding tough plant material, but modern diets no longer necessitate them.

            2. ****Sedentary Lifestyle and Physical Adaptations**:
            - Our modern lifestyle is characterized by sedentary behavior. We spend more time sitting, using technology, and engaging in less physical activity.
            - **Posture**: Our spine has adapted to sitting, but this sedentary posture can lead to issues like back pain and poor posture.
            - **Muscle Atrophy**: Lack of physical exertion results in muscle atrophy. Our ancestors were more physically active, relying on strength for survival (hunting, gathering, building shelters).
            - **Evolutionary Trade-Offs**: While our brains have grown larger over time, our physical strength has diminished due to reduced muscle mass.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3. ****Technology and Brain Evolution**:
            - Our brains have undergone significant evolution. Early humans relied on survival instincts, memory, and social skills.
            - **Cognitive Load**: Modern technology (computers, smartphones) offloads cognitive tasks. We rely less on memory and more on external devices.
            - **Social Networks**: Social media and virtual connections have altered our social interactions. Our brains adapt to new communication patterns.
            - **Neoteny**: Humans exhibit neoteny—the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood. Our large heads and relatively small bodies are an example.

            4. ****Medical Advances and Evolutionary Impact**:
            - Medical interventions have changed our evolutionary trajectory:
            - **Antibiotics**: They alter natural selection by allowing individuals with weaker immune systems to survive and reproduce.
            - **Assisted Reproduction**: Fertility treatments enable people with genetic conditions to have children.
            - **Longevity**: Modern medicine extends lifespan, affecting population dynamics.

            5. ****Evolutionary Lag**:
            - Evolution operates over long timescales, while our lifestyle changes rapidly. Our bodies may not fully adapt to modern conditions.
            - **Mismatch Hypothesis**: Some health issues (obesity, diabetes) arise from a mismatch between our evolved biology and our current environment.

            In summary, our modern lifestyle—characterized by diet, technology, sedentary behavior, and medical advancements—continues to shape our evolutionary path. As we adapt to new challenges, our bodies and minds undergo subtle changes, reflecting the dynamic interplay between nature and nurture."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3. ****Technology and Brain Evolution**:
            - Our brains have undergone significant evolution. Early humans relied on survival instincts, memory, and social skills.
            - **Cognitive Load**: Modern technology (computers, smartphones) offloads cognitive tasks. We rely less on memory and more on external devices.
            - **Social Networks**: Social media and virtual connections have altered our social interactions. Our brains adapt to new communication patterns.
            - **Neoteny**: Humans exhibit neoteny—the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood. Our large heads and relatively small bodies are an example.

            4. ****Medical Advances and Evolutionary Impact**:
            - Medical interventions have changed our evolutionary trajectory:
            - **Antibiotics**: They alter natural selection by allowing individuals with weaker immune systems to survive and reproduce.
            - **Assisted Reproduction**: Fertility treatments enable people with genetic conditions to have children.
            - **Longevity**: Modern medicine extends lifespan, affecting population dynamics.

            5. ****Evolutionary Lag**:
            - Evolution operates over long timescales, while our lifestyle changes rapidly. Our bodies may not fully adapt to modern conditions.
            - **Mismatch Hypothesis**: Some health issues (obesity, diabetes) arise from a mismatch between our evolved biology and our current environment.

            In summary, our modern lifestyle—characterized by diet, technology, sedentary behavior, and medical advancements—continues to shape our evolutionary path. As we adapt to new challenges, our bodies and minds undergo subtle changes, reflecting the dynamic interplay between nature and nurture."

            HAHHAHAHHAAH Holy shit this c**t is so moronic she needs an llm (created by men) to express her moronic thoughts

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            HAHHAHAHHAAH Holy shit this c**t is so moronic, this troony can't come up with a counter-argument due to room-temp IQ and likely also struggles to express xer moronic thoughts, or can't at all, and is also a pathetic techlet

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If schizo c**ts are calling me, a father of 3, a troony then I must be doing something right.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            3 what? dogs? nobody cares, /b/ro, go smoke pot instead of posting here, Black person, you haven't done anything right in your life or you wouldn't be here

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >then I must be doing something right
            *then I must be a moronic shitposter on a Taiwanese basket-weaving forum
            fixed yer typos, now get lost

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Evolution itself only works in a world with violence and death.
        Evolution can only be stopped by extinction. We have plenty of studies demonstrating that "natural selection" is unnecessary since decades ago. It speeds things up, but is not otherwise needed at all. The pressures of society and occupations will continue to shape humans into the future without the need for the inane savagery of death and violence.

        Women weren't so restricted by society before the Medieval Age, blue-pilled idiot. Not even the Native Americans were so shit to their own women as Medieval Europeans were, easy stuff to look up.

        predditors are so fricking moronic and historically illiterate LMFAO
        my sides

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine being so seak you cave to societal demands. thanks for confirming women are worthless. it's no wonder TV and tiktok influence them so easily

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's untrue and extremely mean-spirited. How would you like it if someone said you were automatically incapable just because of something you had no control over? You wouldn't, so don't say it about others.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it is true though

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bell curve, less autism (they choose to make more money for less effort) and more preggo.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    smells like incel in here

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm engaged actually. I still fricking hate women. And yes my fiance knows.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder why

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's a man

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yet you're not even in the top 1 million

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And that's relevant how? We're discussing the large-scale differences between two halves of the human race. The individual characteristics of the people (or talking veganas in your case) in the discussion are irrelevant.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Comparing yourself to the top 1% of humans just because you happen to be the same sex as them is a hilarious cope.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're the only person in this thread I've seen do that, that's how I'm pretty sure you're a c**t. c**ts can't separate their personal identity from groups they belong to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            49% of the population are male and 51% are female; not 1% and 99%.

            You can't just use the top 1% of people to justify sexism just because they happen to be male. You're no better than feminists claiming they're oppressed just because most rich people happen to be men, even though the majority of homeless/poor/mentally ill people are also men.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can't just use the top 1% of people to justify sexism just because they happen to be male. You're no better than feminists claiming they're oppressed just because most rich people happen to be men, even though the majority of homeless/poor/mentally ill people are also men.

            What? Ive read this like 10 times trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I think this made more sense in your head. The one part I can make out is:

            >you cant use the top 1% of people to justify sexism

            That's a false premise. Chess is an intellectual sport and we're simply nooooticing that theres more men than women. No one said that they are the "top 1% of people" whatever that means.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >waaah waaah waaah
            Get rekt homosexual freak

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            49% of the population are male and 51% are female; not 1% and 99%.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        typical leftist moving the goal post and red herring to draw attention away from the deficiencies of whatever "protected class" they decide to defend that day.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You seem upset.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm unranked. I don't play chess. And even if I did, my name wouldn't be in that ukraine-propaganda website.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Judit Polgar managed to break into the top 10 of chess a couple decades ago. But she was a freak of nature who was simultaneously raised in the perfect environment for becoming a chess star.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because women have no shame and would rather show their breasts for easy money than put in work to earn an honest living. It's been that way since the dawn of time. Women were prostitutes thousands of years ago and nothing has changed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's not like I have shame. I just don't have any breasts. FML.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        breasts or gtfo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who pays them? moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They do it for free.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Women in a work setting can only manipulate men with breasts and lies and generally just leech off the industry. Very small percentage of women can be substitute of men if you really want (the tip of the bell curve). But they are mostly inferior and hired in masses just because of the culture of the modern times.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They do it because men are simps who will do anything for a pixel of pussy. If men didn't simp women, they'd be forced to actually work on themselves.
          Women are just passively reacting to the actively repulsive coomer nature of men.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    - Grace Hopper (of COBOL fame)
    - That one woman from NASA who stood next to a huge pile of printout
    - At a stretch, Ada Lovelace

    I couldn't go on, though.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Barbara Liskov is more important than any of those.
      >but she stole the idea for the Liskov Substitution Principle
      Yeah, but she stole it from another woman. Kind of like how Zuckerberg stole Facebook.
      >That one woman from NASA who stood next to a huge pile of printout
      Literally a data entry clerk.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The LSP is a crutch for a fundamentally flawed way of writing software (class inheritance). Not that impressive.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Lovelace and Hamilton (the nasa c**t) are both wildly overrated. Stop propping up their cults.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I have to pretend to be a man to be respected for my opinion on IQfy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >pretend to be a man

      so just not openly saying you're a woman? Is it that difficult?

      Also GTFO women are not welcome here. I'm married. I know first hand how destructive and stupid women are.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      on the internet, nobody cares if you're a fat hog with a sopping c**t. Nobody asked what gender you are, so thanks much and go frick yourself

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why are there no notable female programmers?
    This isn't even remotely true.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Grace Hopper is easily the second most significant person in the history of computing, and Ada Lovelace was the first computer programmer ever. What culture war bullshit are you on about?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      > second most significant person in the history of computing
      And who is the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.? All men.

      >Ada Lovelace was the first computer programmer ever
      Debunked many times if you do some research instead of believing in popular culture:
      "Lovelace is widely celebrated for a variety of reasons. She is variously described as a mathematical genius, as having a critical influence on the invention of the Analytical Engine, of being the first programmer, and of being a prophet of the computer age. The first two of these are unsupported by evidence of any kind and are readily disproved by the simple chronology of events. The third claim to fame (that she was the first programmer) is understandable but wrong. But the tribute of being a visionary of the computer age justifies as fully deserved the tributes paid to her for otherwise mistaken reasons" (see Doron D. Swade: Pre-electronic computing, in: Cliff B. Jones and John L. Lloyd (eds.): Dependable and historic computing, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg etc. 2011, pages 75–76).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And who is the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc.? All men.
        Sure. But the premise was not that the majority of notable computer scientists are men, it was that they all are. #2 being a woman is a pretty hard refutation of that.

        >Debunked many times
        Not at all. There are different definitions and standards for exactly what would qualify someone as the "first computer programmer." Naturally, not all would lead you to conclude it was Ada Lovelace. But the most commonly accepted qualifiers by the greatest number of people leads to the answer being Ada Lovelace.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The first programmer was the person who invented the first programmable computer. Nothing else would make any sense. If the Wright Brothers let their sisters sit in the wienerpit before they took their first flight, I'm sure they would be credited as the first pilots in current year too

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The first programmable computer was only intended to be a calculator. Its inventor did not do any real programming on it. The first person to do anything interesting enough with it to qualify as "programming" by modern standards was Ada Lovelace.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >anything interesting enough
            Goalposts. Keep reaching.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You know she mostly just copied down his work, right? Stop parroting shit that you haven't done one fricking minute of research on. moronic fricking subhuman.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and then Charles designed a machine but he did not even know what this machine was for, that is until his assistant copied one of his algorithms
            do you hear yourself?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > ada Lovelace
            Basically a fraud bored rich lady with gambling addiction. She gets celebrated for the work of somebody else.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Grace hopper
      Never heard of the b***h

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Grace hoppers are those bugs that make a ton of noise at night in the summer.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's fine if you're uneducated, but now that you know, do study up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          She's irrelevant.
          Maybe she should start doing onlyfans to get more attwntion and contribute more to society.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're adorable, sweaty

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >second most significant person in the history of computing
      after von neumann, alan turing, alonzo church, and a few others, maybe

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't really think she's even top 10. Compilers are incredibly important but "inventing" them isn't that hard. Same issue I have with Radia Perlman: The solution to the problem she solved is kind of self evident if you work in the problem space.

        Of course that's not to say none of these women weren't smart, they just weren't anywhere near as groundbreaking as c**ts say they are

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of women going into STEM imagine themselves becoming queen of the incels, but they don't actually like the incels they want to lord over.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This is the other thing, as much as I hate the broad brush, women don't have hobbies, at most they do arts and crafts like 5 year olds but generally they don't.

      When they do have hobbies that aren't A&C, typically it's just to enter circles with men and get their attention, more so in the more man-heavy hobbies (DnD, W40K, programming, games, etc), the hobbies are just a means to an end for attention.

      Ironically now that I think about it, women being shit at programming makes complete sense, they live off attention yet programming is a very solemn hobby, so it makes sense why they refuse to touch it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        This. Women dominate the nursing field because they dream of hooking up with a doctor

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        not really true, one of the most common hobbies for women is writing kpop fanfics and generic YA garbage

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Before nocode nonsense et al, you needed to be autistic to learn programming. Autism comes from social neglect growing up, since women will almost definitely be socialised with (dealing with men even if women hate them), you're less likely to actually get autistic women.

    On top of that, you need autism and time, it's perfectly viable that a woman is autistic but goes down the mainstream path (husband, family, etc) simply because some bloke wanted her breasts, men are socially neglected all the time so John Spergy can be left to his own devices.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Autism is genetical, not social.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Autism is genetical, not social.
        Proper autism ... social maladjusted nerds are a result of society.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only women who get into programming are legitimately autistic or have a screw loose. There's no glory in being hunched over your computer being a code monkey. You don't get to fantasize about fricking your boss because he's not going to be some gigachad doctor. You're not going to work your way up the ladder because you're a female. Women want all those things so programming isn't for them

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are many. jart is a notable one.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They probably want to stay anonymous. A group of women developed Ovarit for example. I don’t know about lolcow or crystal cafe or other websites for women.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >A group of women developed Ovarit for example. I don’t know about lolcow or crystal cafe or other websites for women
      Literally everything you just mentioned are lightly customized instances of open source software written by men lol. Why are women such irredeemable liars?

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    blood is bad for computer chips

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Relax, friendzoners, at least women will always be better than men at making babies... Until a man invents artificial wombs and puts them in a fembot.

    https://youtube.com/shorts/ZjKPE6RLudw?si=aq1xOu0SncmxCVXy

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I made a video about exactly this topic 5 years ago and it's still relevant:

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >hideous
      >moronic
      >sexist
      The average IQfyentooman

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If you disagree with anything I said, feel free to debate. I still stand to my points and several people agree with me, female or male coworkers, personal friends who are in the IT industry and even some people from the general public.
        My points are all based on facts/reality and observation from personal experiences.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sorry after 30 seconds of your homosexual talk I had to turn it off

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women don't want to spend their time making magic sand do mathematics.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >So the fact that the top 1% has an extreme bias towards one sex says absolutely nothing about the average capabilities of that sex
    If you accept that then you accept israelites are ashkenazi israelites are the smartest race
    >the general population of programmers is still 90+% male
    >Fricking have a nice day moronic useless hole
    Gee I wonder why women don't want to become programmers

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Gee I wonder why women don't want to become programmers
      Because it involves thinking to produce something.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Are you sure it's not because only gross slimy incels become programmers?

        >WAAAAAHHHHHH WOMEN DESRRVE TO HAVE POWER OVER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE HAS TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE REALITY A PRETTY PINK BARBIE PLAYSET SO WE NEVER HAVE TO FEEL SAD EVER WAAAAAHHHH
        At this point I genuinely wish I was a homosexual. Women are fricking trash.

        >If you accept that then you accept israelites are ashkenazi israelites are the smartest race
        Sure, per capita I think that's true. Why would I ignore reality just because it doesn't fit my expectations? I'm not a woman.

        >Why would I ignore reality just because it doesn't fit my expectations?
        Because /misc/tards are remarkably inconsistent

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you

          [...]
          You can't just use the top 1% of people to justify sexism just because they happen to be male. You're no better than feminists claiming they're oppressed just because most rich people happen to be men, even though the majority of homeless/poor/mentally ill people are also men.

          ? You're somehow more moronic than post 2020 poljeets. Glass houses and all.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What does /misc/tard even mean? Why does everything you say have no substance? It's all mindless insults from you.

          NTA btw

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes. You sound insecure, dude. Who are you trying to impress?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >WAAAAAHHHHHH WOMEN DESRRVE TO HAVE POWER OVER EVERYTHING AND EVERYONE HAS TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO MAKE REALITY A PRETTY PINK BARBIE PLAYSET SO WE NEVER HAVE TO FEEL SAD EVER WAAAAAHHHH
      At this point I genuinely wish I was a homosexual. Women are fricking trash.

      >If you accept that then you accept israelites are ashkenazi israelites are the smartest race
      Sure, per capita I think that's true. Why would I ignore reality just because it doesn't fit my expectations? I'm not a woman.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you accept that then you accept israelites are ashkenazi israelites are the smartest race
      but it's true

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      jews are fricking moronic,spare me your garbage you fricking c**t. Reminder that as of 2022 israel is the country with the most posts total, more than the entirety of america and france combined.
      The chance of seeing 3 posterd agree on something and at the same time being all israelites from discord or another social platform is extremely high.

      >inb4 i get a three day for this
      i hope the dildo you are bouncing on today gets stuck and your father kills himself from shame

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe there is no female Mozart for the same reason there is no female Jack the Ripper.
    - Camille Paglia

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >for the same reason there is no female Jack the Ripper.
      Have you never heard of one of the many women who end up torturing and killing their own children? That's far worse than some gay who went around killing prostitutes. If anything, women are more likely to have disgusting fetishes for gore and dismemberment.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >looks up female serial killers
      >finds many results
      female open her mouth and speaks nonsense. Sad. Many such cases.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      i don't get it

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because they're weak and stupid? Females killed more of their own children than every killer combined.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Women are too mid to do anything interesting because they have far less mental extremes than men. They're the more midwitt sex.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Incel moids seething

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >sex is the only thing women are good for

      based. I agree.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >lie about something
      >people call you a liar
      >Incel moids seething yaaaaasssss
      Amazing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        will there ever be any justice in this world?

        American women need the Junko Furuta treatment ASAP. No amount of punishment is enough for these stupid prostitutes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the Junko Furuta treatment
          paizuri?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Double paizuri

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nah that's sick, the main problem is male inbuilt c**t worship. Once a strong majority of men are educated out of it women will go back to being dumb but important lesser creatures.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >just two more weeks until /misc/ wins

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            /misc/ has turned moronic and we're all going to lose in the near future

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You have to be willing to sit on your ass for hours on end, hand cupping your balls while reeking of butt to get good at programming. In other words, men are more willing to be slimy nerds because men have the ability to just get lost in whatever they are interested in just out of pure unadultered interest and forget or don't care about showering and greasy hair, eating, etc. It's the same reason men eat dirty butts or work dirty jobs, it's whatever, just get stuff done and autistically hack at your interests. Some of these interests make money like crypto, computers, etc, others make you a loser such as anime and etc. dudes don't care. Females require constant attention and society validation, friends, going out, etc, which goes against getting good at X.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women have 10℅ smaller brains than men and this isn't being taught in public schools. Look it up.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They also on average have 25% less muscle mass, 10% less VO2 Max, and smaller overall. Not a cringey male feminist but a lot of the brain is used for things other than consciousness and intelligence. The elephants big brain is mostly for motor skills for such a big body. If you want to make a decent comparison, look at an IQ chart of men vs women. The averages are about the same (women have a miniscule edge) but the distribution is different as men have more spread out data meaning that at the extremes they are smarter and stupider. It just has .

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >comparing elephants to humans

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is Barbara Liskov, yes that Liskov from the Liskov Substation Principle. The L in S.O.L.I.D.

    cry more chud.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So did she do something actually useful?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What was it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Liskov Substitution Principle. LSP.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That isn't useful

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It is.

      >pOOP brainrot
      That shit is not only not useful, it's actively harmful.
      I love how OOP is supposed to simplify programming, and yet you have to learn all this esoteric lore to attempt to make it actually useful. What a fricking disaster.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And the alternative is to learn the esoteric lore of Rust and Haskell or pray to the Gods that come moron doesn't forget to clean up their shit in C?

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    See: Kathleen Booth.
    Of course, all of this took place before women had penises.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like she worked with her husband on almost everything. Kind of suspect.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    lack of funding

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i became a notable female programmer

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You will never be a woman

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    10% smaller brains anons. Just stop and think about it for a minute. As utter dogshit the life you're going through might be right now imagine if you suddenly woke up with a 10% smaller brain.

    Ugly women have it extremely rough when you stop and take that into consideration.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Here’s how you can skyrocket your success with women by learning how to interact with them on an emotional, not logical basis.

    Probably the biggest obstacle to men being able to interact with women in a healthy and successful way, is their use of logic and reason to try to get a woman to do what they want. Men who write to me are always so focused on and worry about what to say to women to make them feel sexual attraction for them, instead of directing their attention to how their actions and what they say make women feel. Women come pre-wired to think and act based upon their emotions. When a man starts using logic and reason to persuade a woman, right away she can tell that he does not understand women, and therefore, is also unsuccessful with them. If women think you are unsuccessful with other women, they will reject you.

    Women Are Not Logical

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women simply want to have fun and enjoy the moment. There is no thinking or following logical plans when it comes to having fun in a woman’s eyes. Men who are only focused on getting serious or being serious, don’t know how to just relax and have a good time. When overly serious or logical men interact with women, the things they say cause women to feel emotions that are inappropriate for the moment. Women want to be in a love story, not an emotional drama. Women know that men who are overly serious and logical, usually try to force women to do things they do not feel they are ready for.

    A woman wants to feel safe and comfortable. That she can be herself, and have a good time free from any drama or serious subjects. Love is playful and fun, not serious. If you want to blow your chances or ruin your relationship with women, just act serious and stay in your logical mind.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I heard a cope recently froma female saying that women brain can be smaller, but they are more active than men's.
    I said "duh, you have to do more work to achieve the same result. Just because your brain needs to work more, it doesn't mean it's using more output power than a men's. It's like saying your old car will outperform a sports car if you step in the accelerator harder than them".

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is that one woman in the 60's or 70's who did a ton of shit. I can't recall any others.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ask Copilot for a long list of more, because there's a lot and increasing in the modern day

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ask what now?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not an argument or relevant to my post or the thread

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Great counterargument anon, it provided nothing. Enjoy your buttnet.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You provide nothing beyond inane shitposts, and your existence is worthless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, if you're on 4chins, you're already worthless.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Shhh, hear that? That's the sound of no one caring. And it is past time you returned to /b/, sweetie.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I miss old /b/, it was fun back in the early 0ts. Haven't checked in a long time however last I checked it was just porn. You will never be a woman.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You will never be a woman.
            Amen to that.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    men don't (and shouldn't) get praise for mediocrity so they naturally compete for excellence. women get praised (especially from other women) for mediocrity so there's no incentive for them to push for true excellence. this is why you see a vastly disproportionate number of notable males in virtually every field barring grevience studies

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure having a 10℅ smaller brain has something to do with that.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I doubt it. Averages are just averages, there's outliers on either side. If the biggest female brain by mass competed with the smallest male brain by mass, who would triumph?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >red herring
          In GENERAL having a 10℅ smaller brain is going to limit your brain horsepower, don't cha think?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know if any brains have been "filled up" per se. A rat can program if it's trained to, and a human cannot if they haven't been trained.
            Like

            men don't (and shouldn't) get praise for mediocrity so they naturally compete for excellence. women get praised (especially from other women) for mediocrity so there's no incentive for them to push for true excellence. this is why you see a vastly disproportionate number of notable males in virtually every field barring grevience studies

            said, the potential for greatness is in all, but the motivation isn't

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            hahahahahahahauayayayayaha

            Ah shit at least I got a good laugh tonight. Dear god.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, do you have any evidence that this is the case? Like, studies with large sample sizes conducted across a variety of cultures over a long span of time? Studies that are reproduced? by multiple different universities across the world?
            I'm sure an elephant has a larger brain than yours.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        and different brain structures.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >men don't get praise for mediocrity
      Hell yes, they do. All the time, everywhere. They also get crapped on for mediocrity, I do not know the ratio, and you are deluded and a shut-in if you are thinking that praise for mediocrity is rare (I sure wish it was). It is one of those bad aspects of America, though it is not unique to this country either. It is context-relative, too.

      Woman may praise each other openly for mediocrity (not always), but they sure love to shit on each other for it behind each other's backs, and more.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        His implicit point was they don't get praised for mediocrity specifically because they are men. Not sure how you didn't pick up on that.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    most of brilliant women likes to spent their time with other shit
    just like that

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because women are just different?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The word you're looking for is "worst".

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are there no notable male... ...

    help me out, there's gotta be something

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      child murderers?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why are there no notable female serial killers, rapists, domestic abusers, or terrorists?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        misogyny

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >serial killers, rapists, domestic abusers
        There are and they almost always get trivial sentences or not arrested at all, as in the case of my aunt being allowed to beat her children by the police.
        >or terrorists?
        That dyke who shot and killed 3 kids at a school in Tennessee just a year or two

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That dyke who shot and killed 3 kids at a school in Tennessee just a year or two
          not notable enough given there are school shootings every week in america

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is there any answer I can give that won't result in me being called an incel

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >can't even talk about women without insulting them
          Truly a mystery why people like you don't get sex

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Guys who insult women have higher chance to get laid than simps like you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Ah yes. Because incels are known for their love of women.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, no, science has not found any meaningful cognitive differences between the sexes.

    However, women are only like 10% of programmers IIRC. And they were most certainly even less common than that among well-known computer scientists in the mid-20th century.

    So, the answer to OP seems pretty obvious- there is a difference in the interests of each sex. From where does that difference arise? No conclusive answer.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Well, no, science has not found any meaningful cognitive differences between the sexes.
      Where did you get that from?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Common sense. The sexes are both human, and in your daily life they seem to have a similar capacity. If someone were to claim that their cognitive abilities differ, the burden of proof would be on them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >From where does that difference arise? No conclusive answer.
      Anti-discrimination laws are extremely new, not even 1 full lifetime old. Women could barely own property, take out loans, or whatever, until the 70s/80s. Even once you have more legal freedoms the body of women who exist up to that point are going to have their interests clustered around the things they have traditionally done, and there are going to be social pressures to encourage those interests and discourage others, so the waves of the past can propagate into the future.
      There's also their tendency to be the sex that takes care of the children, so they're going to be spending less time gaining skillz and experience at work and thus less invested in careers, and having less money. When they have kids they'll probably encourage their kids to be like them, as humans do.

      OP question is like asking why slaves went to work on farms after being released from slavery. Dumb question.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Totally fricking delusional

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Are you going to offer a real rebuttal, or are you going to cower at my quads?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ah yeah, the female homeless epidemic of the beginning of time to 1970

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where did I mention homelessnses? This gpt?

          It is a fact that women had a lot less material and social capital at that time than they do now. It is a fact that they were even more likely to be homemakers, and to be encouraged away from typically masculine interests at the time (by parents, classmates, employers, colleagues).
          These kinds of things are bound to decrease the % chance that any given woman even gets exposed to a masculine interest at a young age, let alone actually choosing to become an engineer or something.
          And as I said, anti-discrimination is not even one human lifetime old. We have not really seen how things will play out.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm just struggling to see the relevance is all
            women generally didn't own property, and yet almost none of them were homeless So where is the discrimination?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, if you're a woman and you want to go get a job, you will need somewhere to live. But you can't buy a property or get loans without your shitty husband's approval, so now the range of where you could get a job is limited to a small area.

            Property is only one aspect of discrimination though. What about educational institutions simply refusing you? Employers can refuse you if they don't like women, or if they think you'll cause tension with their employees because they dislike you, or if they think other business entities or clients will dislike you. They can also pay you less money.

            There is a lot of research that shows something called "occupational crowding", that women have clustered around professions that tend to pay less. Women also are a very low fraction in jobs that don't require a degree but do on-the-job training and are decently well paid, these tend to be a lot of the masculine things you think of.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm fairly sure that spinsters predate the 1970's.
            If you don't know, that's a mature, unmarried woman who typically lives alone and supports herself. Something that doesn't seem to be possible according to you

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yet so few of those women existed in that past. What increased their number? Economic and cultural factors. Thus, hostile factors were clearly at play.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or marriage stopped being the easiest way to get a home and income
            Enter: the state

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It's insane you actually believe that this overrides very obvious biological differences. Why do you feel the need to lie and use fallacies so much?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If I lied, you could point out the lie.
            If I used a fallacy, you could have pointed it out, yet you did not.

            >very obvious biological differences.
            Very little is "obvious" in science. What differences do you reference? What evidence do you have for them? Your foundation is sand.

            We have seen what women do when they have free choice and opportunity. If there's growing pains, I seriously doubt they will solve themselves before the systems which created equality implode. It would probably take many generations of enforced equality to breed these behaviors out of people. But is that something that's even worth doing in the first place?

            >We have seen what women do when they have free choice and opportunity.
            What is that? Define this
            >But is that something that's even worth doing in the first place?
            People choose what they choose, so I would say no- there is nothing about a woman engineer that is inherently desirable over a male engineer. I don't think people push for this equality for aesthetic reasons, but moreso because the higher-paying jobs have tended to be male-dominated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't bother, his entire worldview is informed by sexless rage

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We have seen what women do when they have free choice and opportunity. If there's growing pains, I seriously doubt they will solve themselves before the systems which created equality implode. It would probably take many generations of enforced equality to breed these behaviors out of people. But is that something that's even worth doing in the first place?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Last time I checked science found an identical average intelligence, but tighter distribution for women. So women will never be the top smartest people in the world, but they're also not going to be complete fricking morons like a lot of guys are.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      see

      Women have 10℅ smaller brains than men and this isn't being taught in public schools. Look it up.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You will never be a woman

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Nor do I ever want to be one moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ywnbam

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i've worked with them, there are some good ones, but a lot of b***hes who will take offence if you just do your job and review their code and will be passive aggressive as frick every day like you pissed in their coffee or something, and a lot of half-wits who will pull shit like "uhm, i didn't know i wasn't supposed to break the production server, nobody told me :P", they aren't good at their jobs but are infinitely more preferable to deal with than the crabby b***hes with sticks up their asses because at least they're trainable and will do the stuff you tell them to do

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I heard of a history of a guy that hired 100% of the IT workforce as females.
    The programmers responsibility were just to maintain the old products and develop new products.
    The company was called boo.com and went bankrupt in 2000.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I'm one of the people that worked there btw before they made that decision.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why are you guys falling for the redditor's bait posts?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to bump the thread and provide arguments against the positions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The sealioner feigns ignorance
      That's where you're wrong.

      The users of this site have fundamentally weak axioms at the foundations of their shitty jenga towers. I and many other anons know this, so we ask and ask until we question the weak foundations themselves. When an anon questions the foundational beliefs of these tribalist homosexuals and demands justification, they reel backwards in pain like vampires shown the light, and their tower is knocked over harder than ol' Dubya ever could.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Critical Theory is a crock of shit. It's like those artists that take dump on a canvas and call it "art".

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'll list of a few of the ideas that underpin a lot of these peoples beliefs

        IQfy tribalists tend to believe a lot of the following:
        >Being part of a tribe is important and I must adopt a tribe
        >If someone expresses one belief that even slightly aligns with one of my enemy tribes, they must be part of the enemy tribe
        >You should be scared of death (useful for manipulating people using fear)
        >Widely reproducible scientific findings cannot be trusted, social proof and popularity should be the source of truth instead
        >The primary actors upon the world are individuals rather than systems
        >People are personally responsible for all of their shortcomings regardless of the environment surrounding their upbringing
        >Conspiracies that involve vast numbers of people across vast distances and long periods of time can be sustained with perfect non-attribution profiling of the motives of the conspirators can be evaded with 100% perfection

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This is such an institutional/c**toid post it hurts. If you're older than 16 you have terminal moronation and should have a nice day.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          One last one to add,
          >Humans have no agency whatsoever, all events are done by a small group of my enemies, including good events that benefit me

          This is such an institutional/c**toid post it hurts. If you're older than 16 you have terminal moronation and should have a nice day.

          So I have pulled too many blocks out from the bottom of your tower, then? Which of those beliefs do you hold? Or just more of your commie wiener-sucking fake-arguments?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Literal schizophrenia. I don't believe in any of those (or at least not absolutely, conspiracies do exist but are not omnipotent). I object to your worldview in general and you in particular. You are divorced from reality in certain fundamental ways. Again: Kil yourself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also my hatred of women has been reinvigorated by this thread, ironically. It's hard to hate people without frequent visceral reminders of why they deserve to be hated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then what do you believe? All I did was take a decent sampling of butthole-posts that I typically see appear on IQfy, or pedophile homosexual liberal boards like /misc/, and reduced their asinine posts to their base components. Much of the vitriol against women in threads like this one hail from these components.

            >I object to your worldview in general and you in particular.
            What worldview?
            >You are divorced from reality in certain fundamental ways.
            How so?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Then what do you believe?
            With regards to what? I gave up on unified dogmatic views of reality a while ago.
            >What worldview?
            Faith in institutions. This is not to say evidence should be discarded, but your eagerness to believe "the party line" is absolutely revolting.
            >How so?
            I can't put it into words. I can just tell you're an absolute piece of shit who lives further behind social abstractions than most people do. The kind of subhuman that gets excited about traveling to a country that she doesn't speak the language of.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Faith in institutions. This is not to say evidence should be discarded, but your eagerness to believe "the party line" is absolutely revolting.
            How so? What is my faith in institutions? I'll consider an idea about the material world if someone can actually prove the idea, that's where my faith lies. The alternative for a lot of users seems to be, "if it goes against my intuition or my personal experiences it is invalid" or "if group A tended to do X in the past, it must have been an intrinsic quality of group A to only like doing X".
            In this thread the topic is women. No one ever actually *proved* the notion that women are lesser in cognitive capacity than men. They just state it and pretend that the prevalence of the statement renders it as fact.

            >I can't put it into words. I can just tell you're an absolute piece of shit who lives further behind social abstractions than most people do. The kind of subhuman that gets excited about traveling to a country that she doesn't speak the language of.
            I already exist in myself. You can't put it into words indeed.

            Oh also:
            >butthole-posts
            Dividing people into morally-coded groups labeled "meanie/butthole" and "good". You have the moral sense of a ten year old, just hidden behind redditor faux edge.

            Well, people who spew vitriol all of the time are definitely buttholes. If they're not, then no one is an butthole.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >How so? What is my faith in institutions? I'll consider an idea about the material world if someone can actually prove the idea, that's where my faith lies.
            Does this apply to every single one of your beliefs? What do you do in cases where sufficient proof can't be found? What constitutes sufficient proof? How do you decide to delegate that entire process to an expert when you aren't personally capable of evaluating evidence?
            >The alternative for a lot of users seems to be, "if it goes against my intuition or my personal experiences it is invalid" or "if group A tended to do X in the past, it must have been an intrinsic quality of group A to only like doing X".
            Sure, and all of those certainly have issues. But at the end of the day they're common patterns of thinking for a reason and practicality trumps intellectualism in all cases. Again, thinking that way often makes you wrong, but constraining yourself (or rather, pretending to, as it's impossible to actually do it right) to scientific "proof" means you can't approach most questions and technically shouldn't have an answer on most things. Not always a bad thing, people should talk less and listen more, but you can't live life that way.
            >In this thread the topic is women. No one ever actually *proved* the notion that women are lesser in cognitive capacity than men.
            What would you accept as proof for that? It's pretty fricking obvious that this is effectively a faith-based belief of yours and that you won't ever believe in anything different.
            >They just state it and pretend that the prevalence of the statement renders it as fact.
            Yes and no, you're conflating informal references with abject fabrication. Plenty of people here alluded to objective facts that you could have looked into yourself and found evidence against your position.

            >Well, people who spew vitriol all of the time are definitely buttholes
            I don't care. What I care about is your childish (feminine?) preoccupation with sociability.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What would you accept as proof for that? It's pretty fricking obvious that this is effectively a faith-based belief of yours and that you won't ever believe in anything different.
            The belief in a cognitive difference is also based entirely on faith. What constitutes proof? I know what doesn't- anecdotes from a single human being or even a group of human beings. Proof would be some kind of testing of ability across many cultures and regions, accounting for malnutrition, access to education, and other factors like that. Something reproducible, that has actually been reproduced by a large enough number of institutions such that there is no need to trust any single one of them.
            To this day, I have never once seen a user on this website actually prove any of their baseless claims about meme topics such as this.

            >Does this apply to every single one of your beliefs? What do you do in cases where sufficient proof can't be found? What constitutes sufficient proof? How do you decide to delegate that entire process to an expert when you aren't personally capable of evaluating evidence?
            It applies to my beliefs about the material world, like how fast apples grow, or how to measure the hardness of concrete. Measuring the cognitive differences between men and women seems easy enough. There are other kinds of knowledge you cannot really measure as easily, like when it comes to economics and various kinds of political and social stuff at scale- for those "proof" is, ah, a difficult concept.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can't believe you're already squirming.

            >What constitutes proof? I know what doesn't- anecdotes from a single human being or even a group of human beings. Proof would be some kind of testing of ability across many cultures and regions, accounting for malnutrition, access to education, and other factors like that. Something reproducible, that has actually been reproduced by a large enough number of institutions such that there is no need to trust any single one of them.
            Beyond moronic. Your only access to 99.9999% of scientific knowledge is wholly "anecdotal." Almost everything you've learned has been communicated to you by someone you considered an authority figure (this includes author) and you took it on faith after maybe some weak cross checks. There's nothing wrong with this, it's the hand we've been dealt, but human knowledge is ENTIRELY dependent on webs of trust and language.
            >b-but I read the study
            Thereby trusting the anecdotal evidence coming from, how did you put it?
            >a group of human beings
            Inb4 you mischaracterize me as anti empirical.

            >To this day, I have never once seen a user on this website actually prove any of their baseless claims about meme topics such as this.
            Ironically, if you ignore non-biological screeds posing as science I want to say the conventional position regarding Black folk and IQ is that they do have a lower average. That's why you people tend to focus on discrediting IQ entirely rather than claim that it's equally distributed across races. And no I'm not going to waste my time spoonfeeding you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Beyond moronic. Your only access to 99.9999% of scientific knowledge is wholly "anecdotal." Almost everything you've learned has been communicated to you by someone you considered an authority figure (this includes author) and you took it on faith after maybe some weak cross checks. There's nothing wrong with this, it's the hand we've been dealt, but human knowledge is ENTIRELY dependent on webs of trust and language.
            You and I both know that's not the same kind of 'anecdotal'. I also trust that mathematicians properly verify the shit they prove, even though I will not be reading most mathematics papers that get written. Yes, we are dependent on webs of trust. And guess what, nobody proved the shit that OP wants to believe. He just wants to believe it, so he selectively distrusts those webs of trust for this topic, but suspiciously continues to trust the scientists about food safety or some other random shit he wants to trust them on.

            >Ironically, if you ignore non-biological screeds posing as science I want to say the conventional position regarding Black folk and IQ is that they do have a lower average. That's why you people tend to focus on discrediting IQ entirely rather than claim that it's equally distributed across races. And no I'm not going to waste my time spoonfeeding you.
            I know of these statistics, but I have never seen evidence that these statistics persist when controlling for factors like wealth, education, malnutrition, and other shit. As far as I know, these are always just raw dumps of numbers accounting for nothing at all. They could be true temporally, or regionally, and that would not be enough to prove a statement like "being black (whatever black means) causes you to be lower in IQ".

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You and I both know that's not the same kind of 'anecdotal'.
            There's (usually, not always) more care put into it than uncle Bob parroting shit from Facebook but no. It is categorically equivalent.
            >I also trust that mathematicians properly verify the shit they prove, even though I will not be reading most mathematics papers that get written.
            Ironically math papers are relatively feasible to verify yourself you just need to know the field. But yeah that's an act of faith, generally.
            >Yes, we are dependent on webs of trust. And guess what, nobody proved the shit that OP wants to believe.
            Again, what do you even mean by prove? That there wasn't a peer reviewed paper saying exactly that fact?
            >He just wants to believe it
            Like you want to veliece in sexual equality despite the mountain of evidence, some of which you can see directly for yourself, against it.
            >so he selectively distrusts those webs of trust for this topic, but suspiciously continues to trust the scientists about food safety or some other random shit he wants to trust them on.
            Yeah this does happen too much, but within the informal context of this thread I don't see a lot of it. There are vanishingly few "great" female computer scientists/programmers and most of the exceptions are only known because of ideologues. So in any sense except legalistic wordplay OP is correct.

            >I know of these statistics, but I have never seen evidence that these statistics persist when controlling for factors like wealth, education, malnutrition, and other shit. As far as I know, these are always just raw dumps of numbers accounting for nothing at all. They could be true temporally, or regionally, and that would not be enough to prove a statement like "being black (whatever black means) causes you to be lower in IQ".
            Literally just wilful ignorance on your part.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I already said what I mean by prove. Lots of people distributed across the world who are known to have actual skill in their field agreeing that a particular model of how some physical phenomenon works is the best known model. The longer they agree, the better. The easier it is for a layman to verify it, the better.
            This is 'anecdotal' in the sense that it does rely on a web of trust. But it is not anecdotal in the colloquial sense where some old fart tells you he can cure pancreatic cancer by eating a vegan diet, he knows because it worked for him individually.

            The rest of what you said is 'mountains of evidence' this and 'willful ignorance' that. Okay, sure. But the thing about webs of trust is that, just like how someone who isn't in the WoT on FMS cannot spam up the messageboard, Anonymous has 0 weight in the real-world social web. Anonymous has to either reference someone who does have weight, or somehow gain some weight in his temporary pseudonym (only works for limited number of technical fields), or has no weight at all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >But the thing about webs of trust is that, just like how someone who isn't in the WoT on FMS cannot spam up the messageboard, Anonymous has 0 weight in the real-world social web.
            Good thing for us that we aren't there, then.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't approach most questions and technically shouldn't have an answer on most things. Not always a bad thing, people should talk less and listen more, but you can't live life that way.

            Well actually, yeah. There was that guy, famous for his quote about how the Internet would never amount to any more impact on the world than the fax machine. He may have been wrong, but there was more to that essay:
            >The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants--becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

            And you know what? Yeah, people have nothing to say. Most posts made on the internet are made by people who have nothing to say at that moment, or people who should not be listened to, like us. In fact, it was dumb of me to even visit this website and permit these posts through my mental firewall. Doing so defies the limits and filters I impose on my media consumption, but here I am like a total fricking idiot, and that's exactly why a website like this without any curation is usually completely worthless. Whatever, Anonymous is long dead anyway.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Don't let the door hit your prolapse on the way out

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh also:
            >butthole-posts
            Dividing people into morally-coded groups labeled "meanie/butthole" and "good". You have the moral sense of a ten year old, just hidden behind redditor faux edge.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >>You should be scared of death
          Projection

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          part of a tribe is important and I must adopt a tribe
          Humans are social anumals who naturally form into groups, this is a non point.
          >>If someone expresses one belief that even slightly aligns with one of my enemy tribes, they must be part of the enemy tribe
          Thats just low iq people in general, nothing to do with IQfy which on average has a higher iq than most social media sites as an aggregate population.
          >>You should be scared of death (useful for manipulating people using fear)
          I get the feeling from you're posts you're implying you dislike the right wing and spiritualist nature of this site, which would imply the opposite of this position. Materialists fear death, as their life is the only thing they have.
          reproducible scientific findings cannot be trusted, social proof and popularity should be the source of truth instead
          Most studies can't be reproduced, and should be met with a healthy scepticism. Traditional forms and ways of doing things have already been tested on a societal level.
          >>The primary actors upon the world are individuals rather than systems
          Individuals make us systems, and are influenced by them, but when you get to the top these systems fall away.
          are personally responsible for all of their shortcomings regardless of the environment surrounding their upbringing
          Nobody thinks this. People just call out egregious examples of learned helplessness.
          that involve vast numbers of people across vast distances and long periods of time can be sustained with perfect non-attribution profiling of the motives of the conspirators can be evaded with 100% perfection
          Conspiracy just means an organised minority coming together to achieve a goal, thats literally what politics is. As for secrecy, following your line of logic the d-day landings must be made up by cranks! Theres no way the allies could've planned with hundreds of thousands of men in secret, and sustained a massive misinformation campaign!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The tribalist users of this site are massively afraid of death, it's pathetic.
            >As for secrecy, following your line of logic the d-day landings must be made up by cranks! Theres no way the allies could've planned with hundreds of thousands of men in secret, and sustained a massive misinformation campaign!
            Could those landings have been kept secret for 10 years? No. Keeping an action secret is easy to do when little time has passed. Even easier with training, easier in a dire situation, etc.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How it started:
    >"here's a few female programmers, OP"
    How it's going:
    >"I'm only pretending to be moronic"

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >jpg
    moron

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There should not be "notable programmer" to begin with. Only notable program.
    You're an utter tool, a moron, and a homosexual. Kys.

  48. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because females haven't been invented yet.

  49. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >subreddit dedicated to women in tech
    >0% tech discussion
    >90% complaining
    >mostly about men

    any woman in tech who actually does any actual technical work is either a troony, temple grandin-levels of autistic, or the unicorn that actually does seemingly advanced things, but has no comprehension of why. they just know how by always relying on coworkers and getting good at following instructions.

    all the rest fill social positions or psudeo-tech middleman bullshit like exporting a CSV from a database and uploading it into another system. and that's not necessarily a bad thing, they do it well. The company gets to fill their DEI quota, and the office gets to have some charismatic cuties to break the autistic tension.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This. After WomenWhocode shut down, I was curious on what the sentiment was on r/girlsgonewired and r/womenintech. Browsed the subreddits a bit and its the usual feminist rhetoric. No one really talks anything related to tech. It's non-stop complaining about misogyny in tech (someone was even complaining about Silicon Valley techbros which is funny because these types are either neoliberal or hard left) and imposter syndrome induced by the patriarchy or whatever. No one will admit the simple answer that tech is a profession autists thrive in and there's way more male autists than female.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >No one will admit the simple answer that tech is a profession autists thrive in and there's way more male autists than female.
        it's crazy because I consider myself socially inept, but this is as loud and clear as it can be.

        there's autistic women just like there are men. sometimes unkempt and with poor hygiene and lack of attention or care to their appearance. I've worked 3 IT industries, they just aren't there. The women are all normies and stacies.

        I've browsed through that sub and opened profiles of women who explicitly stated they work in IT. They always have ZERO IT-related posts or replies. ZERO.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I met an autistic women who worked in IT once. I sold her a car, it was probably the most work I had to do selling someone a car. Made a lot of money though. She was nice, felt kinda bad for her, she was the worst driver I ever had the displeasure of going on a test drive with. Few weeks after we did the deal, I saw her walking down the street to get groceries so I figured she smashed it up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >she was the worst driver I ever had the displeasure of going on a test drive with
            kek
            >autistic
            >still a terrible driver
            it must be ingrained in their fricking DNA

  50. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There are. They manage to do it by stealing the credit of the work of men. Companies are hellbent on sucking up to Blackrock, so they hire thousands of women, just let them drink latte all day and put their names on the projects of men. Then they can gaslight the public by posting the photos of "smart" women everywhere. They are just freeloading leeches.

  51. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I can name Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace off the top of my head and then that's it.
    It's a male dominated area of interest. Computers have historically been a hobby for maidenless nerds.

  52. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because men oppress them. We used to be scientist and shit until men stole our supa powa. Now get your female asses to bed.

  53. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about women
    >it reads like reddit
    yep, women == redditors

  54. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Programming is highly male-brained

  55. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    smaller brain

  56. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    small brain
    only exist to reproduce with males

  57. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But what about Leah Rowe?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"Leah" Rowe
      he doesn't know

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A man
        has wiener
        >Leah Rowe
        has no wiener

        Therefore Leah is a defective man, which is also known as a woman.

        And here is the proof https://web.archive.org/web/20190418172637/https://blog.vimuser.org/littleleah.html

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >A man
        has wiener
        >Leah Rowe
        has no wiener

        Therefore Leah is a defective man, which is also known as a woman.

        And here is the proof https://web.archive.org/web/20190418172637/https://blog.vimuser.org/littleleah.html

        Nevermind you were right they appear to be non-binary at this particular moment https://vimuser.org/nonbinary.html

        I guess there really ain't any great women programmers.

  58. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    notable status comes from building innovative stuff or stuff that disrupts the established way of thinking about things.

    Historically, it's always been men who build stuff, whether it is houses, or roads, or trains, planes, computers, you name it.

    Women are as smart as men, they can do your typical office job that other men do. it often consists in moving paperwork around. but they are not cabled to build stuff and innovate. historically, their role has been to pro create, help to keep the house in order, look after the man and the kids. It's not a minor role BTW, whatever the feminists say, it's as important as the man's role. Their place is just not in a research lab. All girls who got the same engineering degree I got, went into marketing, consulting, HR, and shit, although they were perfectly capable of doing tech stuff. NONE went into engineering or research. They are just not interested in tech in general.

  59. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Blocks your path

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Alyssa is a trans woman.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Exactly. Trans women are women.

  60. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sophia d'Antoine. Pretty and smart. Got hit by a car recently.

  61. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that every anon posting about supposed "female" "programmers" are literal trannies spewing out their Women Are Wonderful Effect brain-rot.

  62. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The original programmers were all women. The real question is why can't any current society produce a woman who programs notably. I have my own hypothesis, but haven't really gathered any data to test it.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That was back before programming required any problem solving

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They were working on the bare metal with machines so slow you had to make every clock cycle count. That's about the most intense problem solving exercise I can imagine.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They were glorified secretaries, they did no actual programming

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Computer" used to be the extremely high IQ version of a secretary (i.e. typist who also has a math degree). They were doing everything by hand that we would now do with a computer program. When electronic computers arrived they became the "computer operators", using machines to solve all the problems they used to solve by hand.
            Again, this was all done with extreme hardware limitations so they had to be extremely efficient with resources. If you brought them back for a competition I would bet on them over all the Monster-chugging Python/JS codemonkeys of today.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are moronic, they did nothing but make punch cards based on specs given to them by men

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >specs given to them by men
            Abstract mathematical ideas invented by men for women to implement.

  63. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >who is joanna rutkowska

  64. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    there are but they all program with css

  65. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    two reasons

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      but IQ is a smaller reason. it's mostly due to interest and obsession.

  66. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    hasherezade

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *