3 ms·
My point was that: "we strive for diversity" = discimination against men. Your story is interesting but I don't see how it relates to my point. If women are nat
by bluecalm 10y ago
My point was that: "we strive for diversity" = discimination against men. Your story is interesting but I don't see how it relates to my point. If women are naturally better managers they would in fact make it more often to managerial positions - I am all for that (as I think genders are different and men are naturally better at some things and women are better at other things and fighting this is not a good idea) but if that's the case we should get rid of all diversity planning and "striving to have more women" as that's tipping the odds even more.
- Mz 10y agoIf women are naturally better managers they would in fact make it more often to managerial positions Not necessarily. You can be really talented and completely overlooked due to discrimination/bias/prejudice. There is plenty of evidence that people expect leaders to be tall, have deep voices, broad shoulders, etc -- ie look and sound like a man. They have studied this. Others here are suggesting that women get promoted faster in IT because only the best and most dedicated stay. If you are already good and also happen to have traits that are beneficial when assigned managerial tasks, then that could go hand-in-hand. They may be approaching diversity efforts all wrong. I suspect they are and I do my best to advocate for another path. However, most men who criticize this stuff do not genuinely seem to be interested in a better path forward. They seem to be interested in coming up with some justification for "we should keep advantaging men the way we do now -- that works for me! -- and stop trying to do anything to dismantle the very real barriers women face."