OK riddle me this. Why is /g/ against women in STEM fields again? Doesn't more women coworkers = higher chance of getting laid?
Because women are normalfags and normalfags ruin everything they touch.
>>54471184
>wanting to sleep with coworkers
This sounds like a bad idea.
>>54471209
> working at a company that wants to control your human feelings and prohibits dating coworkers
Good job, goy!!! There is literally nothing wrong with dating / sleeping with coworkers as long as you are an adult who can draw a line between personal stuff and work
Because companies pay for actual value and not for how likely someone is to get laid.
With your logic companies should hire prostitutes and gigolos depending on if there are more males or females to even out the ratios of getting laid.
>>54471184
Only /alphabros/ are against women in STEM fields. The same ones who love to give food advice in /fit/ but are always reluctant to post pictures of the food they make at any point...or themselves...or anything for that fact.
What /g/ is against is diversity for diversities' sake. The hiring and employment of the incompetent for the political reasons of hiring them, versus their merits. I've worked with female techs, programmers, designers, etc. over many, many years. Hell, a dorky-looking girl got us to the moon with a manual of math as tall as she was. Mad respect for all of them. The girls out there, though, that are shoe-horning themselves into start-ups and businesses with sub-par if any talent at the things they're being paid to do are what kill me. Like, yes, tell us how geeky you are with your ability to make a RasPi playback a PCM stream over a speaker you "hacked" out of a McDonald's toy. You're the real MVP whose showing women that STEM isn't a boys clubs. You deserve those 6 figures. Meanwhile, my home-girl writing 10k line automation scripts for unassisted deployment of pre-defined configs to virtual servers with automatic provisioning, fuck her. She's patriarchy, bruh. The way she doesn't even claim shes a girl in every email she responds to, shit. She's setting girls back to the stone age, amirite?
>>54471383
Agreed. There are many women with good talent out there. I wasn't talking about those. Some people on /g/ are genuinely against girls entering STEM fields only because of their hatred of girls and the thought that girls are inherently dumber
>>54471239
That's not really the reason I was thinking of, but okay.
I'd just rather not have that shit in my work life.
