5 ms·

Which is a good thing right? What are the goals here? the top level responses I see are using this as an opportunity to talk about why experience is lacking, o

Which is a good thing right? What are the goals here? the top level responses I see are using this as an opportunity to talk about why experience is lacking, or as if this is an ironic outcome showing how its all a waste of time to get to the same result of the domesticated housewife. I think at this point, focusing exclusively on the highest selective evolution of "merit" and skill is the flaw. If we are trying to grow the economic pie and cater to the most people, then hiring/career growth practices based on "the best" at the theoretical best academic or refined practice will have diminishing returns for companies. And this isn't saying that there is no circumstance where women or some other subgroup would be able to conform to the strict merit based regime in proportional numbers as incumbent groups. It is saying that the barking up this tree is flawed to begin with, if you can address a greater market by having a variety of views of the market. Now that we have participation in the workforce, it would be more productive addressing how goods and resources are appropriated amongst people that help in any way, how incentives are aligned with the growth of the effort.

manfredo 8y ago
This summarized my view as well. If you plot the share of women's majors over time, computing's decline coincides with an increase in medical and law school enrollment. If, say, a woman wanted to be a doctor or lawyer but knew society wouldn't respect women in these roles and chose computing instead, was that a good thing? I'd say no. I like to joke with people, there is an extremely simple way of solving the gender gap in tech: universities can just mandate that a certain percentage of women major in computing related fields. Just select 30% of women by lottery and forbid them to choose a major other than computing related ones. Of course, most reasonable people are against such a measure.
- gammateam 8y ago
  I'm all for facetious humor but this is a bad joke for this thread
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Perhaps "joke" is the wrong term, it's more of a thought exercise. The point is to illustrate the fact that equal representation at the expense of agency is not a good thing - which absolutely is relevant to the discussions going on in this thread.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    It's not a joke or even a thought experiment. The Soviet Union basically did exactly that and had >50% female participation in CS courses.
abandonliberty 8y ago
It's the expected outcome. Male dominated/inequitable societies will cater to male preferences. It's insane to think that increasing gender equity would turn women into men. Instead it allows women to be women, which is a good outcome. Unfortunately SJWs/affirmative action would have you believe that equality is sameness. Forcing women to be men is not equitable.

manfredo 8y ago

This summarized my view as well. If you plot the share of women's majors over time, computing's decline coincides with an increase in medical and law school enrollment. If, say, a woman wanted to be a doctor or lawyer but knew society wouldn't respect women in these roles and chose computing instead, was that a good thing? I'd say no. I like to joke with people, there is an extremely simple way of solving the gender gap in tech: universities can just mandate that a certain percentage of women major in computing related fields. Just select 30% of women by lottery and forbid them to choose a major other than computing related ones. Of course, most reasonable people are against such a measure.

gammateam 8y ago
I'm all for facetious humor but this is a bad joke for this thread
- manfredo 8y ago
  Perhaps "joke" is the wrong term, it's more of a thought exercise. The point is to illustrate the fact that equal representation at the expense of agency is not a good thing - which absolutely is relevant to the discussions going on in this thread.
- repolfx 8y ago
  It's not a joke or even a thought experiment. The Soviet Union basically did exactly that and had >50% female participation in CS courses.

abandonliberty 8y ago

It's the expected outcome. Male dominated/inequitable societies will cater to male preferences. It's insane to think that increasing gender equity would turn women into men. Instead it allows women to be women, which is a good outcome. Unfortunately SJWs/affirmative action would have you believe that equality is sameness. Forcing women to be men is not equitable.