3 ms·

OP's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech. 2. Trying to correct (1) will do more harm than good. aspaceman's scenario: 1. There are a minority

OP's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech. 2. Trying to correct (1) will do more harm than good. aspaceman's scenario: 1. There are a minority of women in tech, because on the whole, more men like tech jobs than women. NOT that NO women would do tech jobs, but in the "absence of discrimination", maybe gender ratios would be 60-40 men or something. 2. Because women are in the minority, male co-workers take them less seriously, and their opinions aren't as valued as mens'. 3. Womens' opinions being less valued, etc., results in women leaving tech for other fields. 4. Tech gender ratios are further skewed than they otherwise would be (Maybe 80-20 men). Now here's where it gets tricky. It _is_ entirely possible that trying to correct these imbalances would do more harm than good. However, it is _also_ possible that there are some "low-hanging fruit" corrections which would bring tech gender ratios back into balance without really inconveniencing anybody. Given that it's possible that some interventions might bring about a more natural gender ratio, it's reasonable to try many different types of interventions, and see which ones work. Note that the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously. The more serious men take womens' views, the better everything gets.

aspaceman 9y ago
I completely agree with this description of my point, and would only add that this sentence "the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously" is what I find to be the most important takeaway. As a person in STEM, you need to take women seriously when they talk about this stuff. Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences.
- depressedpanda 9y ago
  > Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences. That's a good question. Personally, I take people seriously if they take the problem seriously. I don't take activists seriously because too many of the them come from a subjective "feels before facts" place, and my strong belief that the main reason there is a gender disparity in tech is that women simply aren't interested (which TFA proves). I emphatically think that tech would greatly benefit from having a more equal gender ratio, but I think that the programs and solutions activists want to implement -- and have implemented, like affirmative action -- and the impossibility of discussing their validity is absurd. What we should focus on is the reasons behind women's disinterest in engineering fields. What are they? None of their friends want to pursue the field? Culture? Biology? Lack of role models? That they simply, given the chance, would rather do something else? Perhaps a mix of the above? Once we've identified what the reasons are, and which reasons we can actually do something about, we should use this information to eliminate any external obstacles preventing women to choose a tech career. My sad anecdotal experience from asking many brilliant women why they wouldn't pursue a career in IT even though they clearly possess the potential for it, is that because they are brilliant they can choose any career path they want, and they are more interested in things that are not tech, because tech is not social enough. In the end, I believe much of it is a PR issue; we need to get rid of the cultural idea that IT is only for the anti-social 80s hacker living in his mom's basement. Affirmative action, e.g., "positive" discrimination, may indirectly deal with this PR issue, but surely there are many, many methods that are better and more fair to everyone?

aspaceman 9y ago

I completely agree with this description of my point, and would only add that this sentence "the root of this problem is men not taking women seriously" is what I find to be the most important takeaway. As a person in STEM, you need to take women seriously when they talk about this stuff. Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences.

depressedpanda 9y ago
> Ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss the "minority of women" and "activists'" experiences. That's a good question. Personally, I take people seriously if they take the problem seriously. I don't take activists seriously because too many of the them come from a subjective "feels before facts" place, and my strong belief that the main reason there is a gender disparity in tech is that women simply aren't interested (which TFA proves). I emphatically think that tech would greatly benefit from having a more equal gender ratio, but I think that the programs and solutions activists want to implement -- and have implemented, like affirmative action -- and the impossibility of discussing their validity is absurd. What we should focus on is the reasons behind women's disinterest in engineering fields. What are they? None of their friends want to pursue the field? Culture? Biology? Lack of role models? That they simply, given the chance, would rather do something else? Perhaps a mix of the above? Once we've identified what the reasons are, and which reasons we can actually do something about, we should use this information to eliminate any external obstacles preventing women to choose a tech career. My sad anecdotal experience from asking many brilliant women why they wouldn't pursue a career in IT even though they clearly possess the potential for it, is that because they are brilliant they can choose any career path they want, and they are more interested in things that are not tech, because tech is not social enough. In the end, I believe much of it is a PR issue; we need to get rid of the cultural idea that IT is only for the anti-social 80s hacker living in his mom's basement. Affirmative action, e.g., "positive" discrimination, may indirectly deal with this PR issue, but surely there are many, many methods that are better and more fair to everyone?