Thread regarding Oracle Corp. layoffs

Fake.

Fake, fake, fake.

You're either lying to s--- up to someone, or you are pretending to be someone you are not.

If you really just say it's garbage that a man can admit that one or two of his female co-workers are probably better at their jobs than him, and certainly more committed...then I suppose you must believe the reverse. That all men automatically think they're better than women, and therefore that women must be the victims of these attitudes. If you really think this them I'm sorry for you. It must be hard always identifying as a victim.

I don't much care if you believe it or not, but I do have a couple of female co-workers that are better and more committed to their jobs than I am. ( I am no superstar, and can't be much bothered these days ). Call this out as fake if you want, it's of no consequence to me.

P.S. Never said I was a developer and never said that I currently work for a female boss

Post ID: @Xfx9vNU-2eqd

This post is total garbage. No male developer would come on here and discuss how he is a worse developer than some woman he works for. Especially not one that works at Oracle.

Then to give a bunch of details seeming to identify him..... total garbage.

Fake. Fake, fake, fake.

Don't know what this is, but no one should take it seriously.

@3sgr

It's exactly the same if you're a male nurse !!

I really don't understand your position... It's a fact that in developed economies fewer and fewer girls are studying tech. So why try and force equal numbers in the workforce, it can only lead to positive discrimination elsewhere.

Trying to make the argument that because one s-x is in a minority in the workforce they they must be regarded as sub-standard and 'sleeping with the boss' is just bogus - I have never seen that attitude from anyone in 30 years in tech.

When trying to balance any workforce artificially, where do you draw the line ?

Equal numbers of males and females, ok -so 50% females, and of those half of them should be of color right ? - oh yeah and half of those should be from lower socioeconomic groups. Oh and while you're at it half of those should be from single-parent families and so on and so on.

What you end up is getting down to the level of the INDIVIDUAL - which is where were already are.

Each employee is an individual, they are recognized for their own merits and not because they belong to some 'group'.

....or should we start promoting lower-achieving male nurses and holding back female nurses to try to balance the numbers... because after all they must be victims of something right ?

"The problem with this attitude is that it makes you think that the ones who do want to be there are somehow damaged goods."

I would think that it's the opposite, actually. That if they want to be there it's because they like what they do and are good at it.

“The proportion of women drawn to careers in tech will always be less that men. It's stupid to try to pretend otherwise.”

The problem with this attitude is that it makes you think that the ones who do want to be there are somehow damaged goods. Secondary. Not worth the time. Must be sleeping with the boss, etc.

This is how stereotypes are perpetuated.

Why is this surprising? When MH got kicked out of HP for his p-starlet expense fiasco, LE wrote a Wall Street Journal editorial defending him and and calling the HP Board id--ts for firing MH, and then LE hides the Turd. What else do you need to know about the misogyny of these two buds?

Yeah - ha ha - I enjoyed a good rant.

As a father of 3 daughters aged between 14 and 22 - none of which have/are/or intend to study STEM subjects at university.... they all will be brilliant in their chosen careers, and I couldn't get any of them anywhere near the tech industry even with a gun to their head... they'd be bored stupid.

The proportion of women drawn to careers in tech will always be less that men. It's stupid to try to pretend otherwise.

Trigger you much?

So - actually I didn't say that I know how much my managers made. What I did say is that a couple of female co-workers who I am close to did disclose to me their earnings during a general moan about lack of increments etc. at Oracle. One made the same as me, and one made more but she's better at the job than me (and far more committed than I am these days).

It's an interesting comment you make about women in tech putting up with c-ap in the workplace. Do you think that most men don't too ? There's plenty of instances I see around me of men not getting the recognition they deserve, having other people take credit for their work, having a stagnant career path, being passed up for opportunities and promotions, getting zero increments year after year, having non-existent performance reviews and no goal setting, getting blamed for stuff that isn't their fault, being criticized and bullied by psychopath managers ( of which there are plenty in Oracle ). I have personally experienced most of these, but do I see myself as a victim ? No - because you know what - it's a tough world out there.

If I really wanted to progress my career (a bit late now, but I could have done it 10 years ago) - I could have worked the regular 12-14 hour days, done the back-stabbing, promoted myself continually to the VPs and SVPs and I could also be one of those psycho managers today. I chose instead to do my job diligently, finish work at a reasonable hour, spend time with my family and use the extra time to do stuff I enjoy. In no way am I a victim.

As for your humorous comment regarding 'armchair analysis' - There is a very interesting thing called the 'Gender-equality paradox' - You can google it - but essentially it is the unexpected outcome that in first-world countries which strongly legislate to promote gender equality - the exact reverse of the expected outcome is achieved - FEWER females study STEM subjects and MORE gravitate to stereotypical female careers. This was first noticed in the Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland and Norway) which were trailblazers in legislating for gender equality in education and the workplace, and so it is sometimes called the 'Nordic Gender Equality Paradox'.

There are clearly very complex socio-economic reasons for why this is so, but in first world countries it is a fact that fewer females choose to study STEM subjects - and the more gender-equal society is, the fewer and fewer do so. Hence trying to force a 50:50 workforce in tech companies is pure fallacy.

I have no idea how that Google engineer treated his female colleagues, I expect he was just as professional to them as he was to his male colleagues - It's a very long time since I read his email in full (and not just the media sensationalized excerpts). I suspect he just understood the above paradox and said out loud what a lot of his co-workers were thinking.

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

http://www.epicenternetwork.eu/blog/the-swedish-gender-equality-paradox/

In case you missed it, Turd’s “Class of ...” program is institutionalized age discrimination. Oracle fires experienced sales reps and replaces them exclusively with kids fresh out of college. How much more blatant could this age discrimination be! And this is a program created and sponsored by LE and MH, so goes to the very top of the company. Institutional age discrimination!!!

I call BS on you, 2chw. You actually know how much your colleagues and managers make? Highly unlikely. As for your armchair analysis of females in STEM......wrong. Women who do tech put up with a lot of c-ap in the workplace before many dropout. Girls are interested in those topics.

You sound like that misogynistic Google engineer, Damore. He was dead wrong, showed his biases which illustrates my point above. How supportive a colleague to women do you think he was?

This posting is such a load of bull.

I have many technical co-workers who are female and they are excellent at their jobs ( and for those who disclose it - it seems they are paid the same, or more, than me - and they deserve it ).

I have also had several female managers through my career and again, they have been excellent - in my experience they make far better managers because they are far more people-centric and less fixated on how great they are compared to a number of male managers that I have had. Again, look at the proportion of female Service Delivery Managers in Oracle - it's high, and they do an excellent job.

The fact of the matter is this. If you lined up the population of the world and said "Who wants to work in a high-stress, nerdy, technology hardware/software industry " - then around 10-15% of those who put their hands up would be female, and the rest would be male. Trying to artificially balance the workforce towards some false ideal is just nonsense. In general, females are not drawn to careers in the technology sector in the same proportion as males. Those that are, in my experience within Oracle, are very well respected and do well.

Look at our university courses these days, subjects such as medicine, psychology and biology have a very significant majority of female students. When I visit the doctor, 4 times out of 5 I see a female. It's the same when I take my pet to a veterinarian. Should there be an outcry "there are too few men in the psychology sector !" - No it's just that -in general- females are drawn to these types of careers more.

So if we look at the layoff numbers and its say 20,000 people. 10,000 men and 10,000 women you'd say hey thats fair its equal numbers right?

But if women represent only 13% of the company and Oracle has 130,000 employees then we only had 16,900 female workers. We just gave severance checks to over 50% of the women at Oracle.

On the other hand we gave severance checks to less than 10% of the men. Get my drift? You need the percentage of women before and after the layoffs. We also need to compare the age of the women.

If what is being said here is true then Oracle laid off experienced older women and replaced them with MH "class of" graduates. So if we laid off 10,000 women over 40 and hired 10,000 women under 30... you can see a whole new spin on Diversity.

"Who got laid off over the past 3 to 4 years? I'd bet money it was women, minorities and workers over 40."

From what I saw in the great layoff of 2017, in BRM, it was a mix of young and old, white and non white, men and women.

In a mass layoff they have to be careful about that.

FWIW, there aren't a lot of women in tech. It's kind of impossible to have a 50/50 workforce. Almost everywhere I have worked, big, medium and small companies, women have been a minority of the engineering workforce. They are heavily sought after by Corporate America and I was once on a team that interviewed a woman who was clearly not fit for the job, and our director told us to hire here, because we needed more women. But even though we would hire incompetents, women were still a small minority at that company. Oh, did I mention she was paid as well as we were?