2 ms·
You've only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech? Do you mean that you've only met 3 people who openly admit it? Because I've met COUNTLESS p
by issa 9y ago
You've only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech? Do you mean that you've only met 3 people who openly admit it? Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her".
- occultist_throw 9y ago> ....Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her". Well, the pregnancy avenue is a significant area of unfairness between the sexes. Women of childbearing age DO have that hanging over their head precisely due to federal law. There's 2 ways to fix it. Get rid of the federal law (and deny that pregnancy carries complications!) or offer the same benefit to the male. I'm for offering the same benefit to the male. And now, that both have that law, the differentiation becomes moot.
- sunir 9y agoYes. I am Canadian though. I have become more open to the idea that the US is a wildly different place. However it doesn't matter. For the individual person arguing a different point of view you can only succeed in persuading them if you respond to what they are saying fairly and charitably rather than argue with straw men and shadows from your own mind and fears. That is what I am saying. Your ontology of the argument is too austere. People have other beliefs than women should be able to work or not.