4 ms·

Like nursing? So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve

Like nursing? So do something about it, if it bothers you. Each person is free to choose how to prioritize their time and efforts, and is not required to solve every other problem (or even every other similar problem) in every other field in every other country on earth as a prerequisite. But we both know that, and we both know that you're running off a script of sound bites. Actually, for a time "programmer" was skewed towards women. Yes, that's exactly my point. The types of "scientific" "biological" "truths" people like Damore tend to cite don't change in the time frame of that observed change. It's almost like there was some social factor involved. Perhaps some social factor having something to do with the large number of men who suddenly showed interest. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women, so we don't have to worry that such a thing could have happened. We'd only worry if, say, we had many, many examples of it from many fields of endeavor in many societies across a huge percentage of recorded history. Oh. Wait.

stcredzero 9y ago
So do something about it, if it bothers you. I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait. But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did. According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?

stcredzero 9y ago

So do something about it, if it bothers you. I've personally engaged in education programs for high school women in tech. Though of course we have literally zero cases in all of recorded human history of men rigging a system to favor themselves over women...Oh. Wait. But the typical intellectual dishonesty here comes in the form of citing this history, then asserting that the current day must be the same, with zero proof. That is exactly what you just did. According to the Google and YouTube execs, there are factors in the job which may skew employment according to preference, and perhaps the job should be changed to take preferences into account. This is exactly what James Damore proposed in his memo, and furthermore what Google and Youtube execs said in public: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrOp8ewzJDc Furthermore, they also state that employment at Google is at parity with the STEM/tech education pipeline -- about 2 in 5 women. Where is your evidence of "rigging" given the existing anti-discrimination laws and Google's extraordinary efforts to work against that? Or are you just pointing to it having happened in the past, then point to a non 50/50 distribution as "proof." Sorry, but that's circular logic. Can you justify the 50/50 distribution with other than circular logic? Aren't you just taking that as an unexamined axiom?