2 ms·
> But they were once just as stereotypically male as tech is now, and yet have radically shifted their gender balance. You say this as if the fields themselves
by TulliusCicero 7y ago
> But they were once just as stereotypically male as tech is now, and yet have radically shifted their gender balance.
You say this as if the fields themselves decided, but it could just as easily be that women pushed in harder.
> Fifty years ago people would no doubt have told you that women just weren't interested in becoming lawyers or doctors.
Again, what was the difference? You've suggested a relative difference in sexism at the time, but I've seen no data suggesting this. It just looks like a guess on your part.
- foldr 7y agoI think you are reading a lot into my comment that isn't there. I don't know exactly why women fifty years ago made the decisions that they did. You don't, either.
- TulliusCicero 7y agoYou're being vague and deflecting here. In one comment you suggest that the cause is law and medicine being relatively less sexist, and here you just say, "well, we don't know why they did what they did." Well, which is it? What basis do you have for your earlier point? > You don't, either. Why would you even say this? The comment you responded to didn't have me asserting a reason why. It's like you're attacking a strawman.
- foldr 7y ago>. In one comment you suggest that the cause is law and medicine being relatively less sexist I claimed that this is the case today. You are the only one of us making any assertions whatsoever about levels of sexism in the 1960s and 1970s, which are irrelevant to choices women make now.