4 ms·

Potentially, the author is using this example as a vehicle to ask us to consider that a 50/50 gender split is unrealistic when you ever try to correct for a dif

Potentially, the author is using this example as a vehicle to ask us to consider that a 50/50 gender split is unrealistic when you ever try to correct for a different inequality. I think the author also intends to try and suggest that the 50/50 split doesn't need to be blamed on men.

sudosteph 9y ago
Those are both fine points and I think we would find a lot of common ground if that was the topic. However the title was: "Is gender inequality in technology a good thing?" So is the author saying it is a good thing? Does he mean that gender inequality (as it presents today) is good? Or just that some gender equality (60/40 for example) would be as good as 50/50? I hope he means the latter, but the wording implies the former. I'm just worried that he didn't acknowledge the potential for factors besides autism to be relevant or provide a more fair target equality ratio to strive for. That makes me think he thinks the current numbers are fine, which I disagree with. The level of imbalance we see today indicates to me we are missing out on talent, and my experience makes me think it's a pipeline problem due to underexposure of tech careers to logical, but non-tech hobbyist young females.
UncleMeat 9y ago
Perhaps a 50:50 split is unrealistic, but what about a 70/30 split? Representation is terrible across the board, with many universities seeing 10% female enrollment. People seem to come up with small reasons why 50:50 might be unreachable and use that as justification for halting change.