3 ms·
I 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 "t
by eli 10y ago
I 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.