2 ms·
>How bad does tech have to be for you to acknowledge a problem? Who said I didn't acknowledge there was a problem? The descriptor at issue is awful. The usual
by scythe 10y ago
>How bad does tech have to be for you to acknowledge a problem?
Who said I didn't acknowledge there was a problem? The descriptor at issue is awful. The usual conditions for use of the word "awful" require more than just there being a problem.
The alternate hypothesis that I mentioned, that sexism in tech comes from the country as a whole, is not a denial of there being a problem. I don't see how that could be inferred.
>tech is generally worse(0) than doctors(1) and lawyers(2)
Lawyers and doctors are generally highly educated, whereas the majority of the technical workforce has a Master's in some kind of engineering or even less. The educational institutions provide a means to change culture which generally means that cultural changes propagate faster here than in most of the country. As such it's a bit of a biased comparison. This is why, as you mention, there have been "huge improvements" in such a short time span as the last decade.
- eli 10y agoI don't follow your point. Is the problem not sufficiently awful to bother trying to solve it? Or is it that tech is off the hook because it's the schools or "the country as a whole" (whatever that means) which is more to blame? The gender imbalance is particularly acute in silicon valley and I think SV has an obligation to do something about it. It isn't about whose fault it is.
- scythe 10y agoI am arguing: - causation matters - SV is not a notable causal locus - Generally SV companies should be expected to comply with federal laws/norms on inclusiveness but "special action" is unnecessary and mostly self-congratulatory (oh wow this tech stuff is so awesome everyone should do it) - there is a plausible if isolated and somewhat orthogonal correlation between companies which make money by "breaking rules" and companies where people break rules as relates to acceptable social conduct. In the specific case of companies (AirBnB, Uber) who are essentially being paid by venture capitalists to ignore regulations and hide the money trail it makes sense that such norms may enforce loyalty. It's sort of like David Cameron's porcine bride. However only a small (but highly notorious) fraction of SV companies depend on this. On the third point I want to note that saying "tech jobs are awesome, why aren't more women in them" is a sneaky way of asserting "tech jobs are awesome" i.e. for everyone. In reality they're okay but it's not like people here are actually happier or anything.