3 ms·

So much focus is on the 'nurture' aspect for reasons why women leave tech or don't thrive in tech. Why can't the 'nature' aspect also be a factor? Women have

So much focus is on the 'nurture' aspect for reasons why women leave tech or don't thrive in tech. Why can't the 'nature' aspect also be a factor? Women have fundamentally different biological imperatives than men. Now days with ample choice in careers and women gaining the lions share of college degrees....they still choose certain subjects. Are there just certain characteristics of different fields that attract different types of people?

Kednicma 6y ago
Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. So we know that there's no biological or innate reason why women are unable/unwilling/unskilled at this labor. Instead, we conclude that it's culture. Incidentally, part of the culture which causes women to leave is your inherently-othering comment which seeks to divide women and men into a binary categorization. Edit to the children comments: To spell it out more clearly: The proportion of laborers in different fields is wholly cultural. The entire concept of fields of labor is wholly cultural. The entire concept of labor as something done not just for survival is cultural. Your brains are extremely plastic and you exist almost entirely on cultural, not instinctual, impulses.
- throw2021_01 6y ago
  Why do most men cannot make good money on OnlyFans?
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Those eras where women had very little choice of other careers except clerical positions of which programming was an extension of at the time. Well aren't they? There's quite a lot of differences between men and women whether one wants to accept it or not. There's massive amounts of socioligical and physiological science backing this. Additionally, you can Google sociological studies on what women and men prioritize in their careers and women overwhelming prefer caregiving and time for family while men prefer more traditional status and materialistic success. Google it! Step out of the critical sex theory for a second. This isn't some toxic masculinity seeking to repress women. This is reality.
- thursday0987 6y ago
  > Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. wasn't this the same era that women were mostly secretaries and programming, typing, debugging, doucmentation, etc. were all seen as secondary tasks supporting the main effort instead of the main effort itself? also, during these eras, there simply weren't nearly as many programmers or money in programming, so the segment of the population that even had access to a computer, let alone knew how to program, was severly limited and not a representative sample of the potential population of programmers at that time. > So we know that there's no biological or innate reason why women are unable/unwilling/unskilled at this labor. we know no such thing and its bad science to say that we do. Perhaps you should qualify this statement to be more clear. > Instead, we conclude that it's culture. bad conclusion that ignores other factors, including availability of access to computers, proportion of the population that knows how to program, status of programming in relation to the work being done (secretary work vs primary work), etc.
- throw2021_01 6y ago
  Why is it that most men cannot make good money on OnlyFans?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
It is nature: despite of all efforts men still cannot get pregnant. The society is trying hard to fight the nature and convince women that their primary goal should be a successful career, but so far the nature wins.
helen___keller 6y ago
I'll play ball. I assume the reason for the focus is because we can change the 'nurture' part and we can't change the 'nature' part. I mean the standard argument that follows from your post would be that we shouldn't aim for 50% male 50% female because maybe in truth there are just 30% less women "naturally inclined" to taking up engineering than there are men. I can accept that maybe we shouldn't target a particular quota or ratio on diversity. But I don't accept that we should drop inclusivity and diversity altogether: regardless of the 'nature' aspect, if we KNOW that there are issues with the 'nurture' aspect then we should do something about that. So then we return to the question: Are there issues with our culture where it isn't inclusive enough, and if so what can we do to remedy this? And that's something that I believe every HR department should be asking if they care about employee well-being.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  Ok I'll bite also.... Your theory is that HR should take actions to social engineer a culture to accomodate women. I propose that any attempts to social engineer a culture via HR or any non-organic method is a doomed enterprise from the start. You also will have to social engineer a culture that fits other groups. What about older developers? What about different race developers? What about cross-gender developers? What about Ahmish developers who only use pen and paper? What about Indian culture vs Korean culture vs Chinese culture vs American culture? It rapidly becomes a slippery slope of accommodating each and every cultural difference. Then you have side effects. Also, after these HR corrections, what if workplace culture becomes so biased towards one group such that other groups are excluded? The emphasis on 'culture fit' is itself an exclusionary idea by nature as it implies that there is a pre-set culture to fit into instead of the culture emerging organically from the employees. Basic, minimum work provided culture does not need to be inclusive it needs to be tolerant and fair, and that is all. The goal is not inclusivity towards any one group, the goal is a to award performance based on hard work, talent, productivity, etc. Engineering a culture is a ridiculous and to be frank, creepy idea. and is a fruitless doomed endeavor. Instead of HR focusing on a more inclusive culture they need to be focusing on objective empirical ways to measure employee value and the culture issue will sort itself out.

Kednicma 6y ago

Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. So we know that there's no biological or innate reason why women are unable/unwilling/unskilled at this labor. Instead, we conclude that it's culture. Incidentally, part of the culture which causes women to leave is your inherently-othering comment which seeks to divide women and men into a binary categorization. Edit to the children comments: To spell it out more clearly: The proportion of laborers in different fields is wholly cultural. The entire concept of fields of labor is wholly cultural. The entire concept of labor as something done not just for survival is cultural. Your brains are extremely plastic and you exist almost entirely on cultural, not instinctual, impulses.

throw2021_01 6y ago
Why do most men cannot make good money on OnlyFans?
nickthemagicman 6y ago
Those eras where women had very little choice of other careers except clerical positions of which programming was an extension of at the time. Well aren't they? There's quite a lot of differences between men and women whether one wants to accept it or not. There's massive amounts of socioligical and physiological science backing this. Additionally, you can Google sociological studies on what women and men prioritize in their careers and women overwhelming prefer caregiving and time for family while men prefer more traditional status and materialistic success. Google it! Step out of the critical sex theory for a second. This isn't some toxic masculinity seeking to repress women. This is reality.
thursday0987 6y ago
> Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. wasn't this the same era that women were mostly secretaries and programming, typing, debugging, doucmentation, etc. were all seen as secondary tasks supporting the main effort instead of the main effort itself? also, during these eras, there simply weren't nearly as many programmers or money in programming, so the segment of the population that even had access to a computer, let alone knew how to program, was severly limited and not a representative sample of the potential population of programmers at that time. > So we know that there's no biological or innate reason why women are unable/unwilling/unskilled at this labor. we know no such thing and its bad science to say that we do. Perhaps you should qualify this statement to be more clear. > Instead, we conclude that it's culture. bad conclusion that ignores other factors, including availability of access to computers, proportion of the population that knows how to program, status of programming in relation to the work being done (secretary work vs primary work), etc.
throw2021_01 6y ago
Why is it that most men cannot make good money on OnlyFans?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

AlexTWithBeard 6y ago

It is nature: despite of all efforts men still cannot get pregnant. The society is trying hard to fight the nature and convince women that their primary goal should be a successful career, but so far the nature wins.

helen___keller 6y ago

I'll play ball. I assume the reason for the focus is because we can change the 'nurture' part and we can't change the 'nature' part. I mean the standard argument that follows from your post would be that we shouldn't aim for 50% male 50% female because maybe in truth there are just 30% less women "naturally inclined" to taking up engineering than there are men. I can accept that maybe we shouldn't target a particular quota or ratio on diversity. But I don't accept that we should drop inclusivity and diversity altogether: regardless of the 'nature' aspect, if we KNOW that there are issues with the 'nurture' aspect then we should do something about that. So then we return to the question: Are there issues with our culture where it isn't inclusive enough, and if so what can we do to remedy this? And that's something that I believe every HR department should be asking if they care about employee well-being.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
Ok I'll bite also.... Your theory is that HR should take actions to social engineer a culture to accomodate women. I propose that any attempts to social engineer a culture via HR or any non-organic method is a doomed enterprise from the start. You also will have to social engineer a culture that fits other groups. What about older developers? What about different race developers? What about cross-gender developers? What about Ahmish developers who only use pen and paper? What about Indian culture vs Korean culture vs Chinese culture vs American culture? It rapidly becomes a slippery slope of accommodating each and every cultural difference. Then you have side effects. Also, after these HR corrections, what if workplace culture becomes so biased towards one group such that other groups are excluded? The emphasis on 'culture fit' is itself an exclusionary idea by nature as it implies that there is a pre-set culture to fit into instead of the culture emerging organically from the employees. Basic, minimum work provided culture does not need to be inclusive it needs to be tolerant and fair, and that is all. The goal is not inclusivity towards any one group, the goal is a to award performance based on hard work, talent, productivity, etc. Engineering a culture is a ridiculous and to be frank, creepy idea. and is a fruitless doomed endeavor. Instead of HR focusing on a more inclusive culture they need to be focusing on objective empirical ways to measure employee value and the culture issue will sort itself out.