3 ms·

I'm not really seeing what you're rebutting? Are you denying the results of the research I linked that shows resume bias? Or think the research wasn't thorough

I'm not really seeing what you're rebutting? Are you denying the results of the research I linked that shows resume bias? Or think the research wasn't thorough enough? Are you saying that you believe the only reason for there being less woman in tech is their nature, that their gender makes them naturally less interested in tech? And your only data point here is an anecdote about you and your sister? > What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women You don't see this as gender discrimination? Why did men have more access to computers? Why was the access to computers based on gender? > It makes only one claim: that the people being hired now are not the victims of past discrimination. I guess we interpret what they meant differently. I didn't interpret it to mean the victim of past discriminations, they never use the word "past" or refer to the past in any way. My interpretation and what my rebuttal was for is that they're saying that the current women are no longer at a disadvantage and don't suffer any disproportionate discrimination anymore. Basically the question is, are women today being pushed away from pursuing a tech career, and do they face additional obstacles in doing so if they try? The person I responded too seemed to imply that the answer is No they're not. I'm not convinced because research still demonstrates that obstacles do exist which aren't seen for men. > The real divide became between who had a computer at home and who hadn't. So many men too had no access to tech jobs or higher education in tech, it's not only women Class discrimination is also important to fight. Access to opportunities shouldn't be reserved only to the rich. But women are in an even worse position if they're also from a poor family. > Look t the layoffs, it's men in majority. It's obvious that when most employees are men, most of the employees laid off would be men as well? Maybe I didn't get what you meant here? > A thing that is evident to anyone working in tech, there are simply much less women candidates than men, companies that need employees should or shouldn't be allowed to look in the largest possible pool? Exactly, that's the other point, there's less woman in the pool, so you need to make sure they don't get starved out, and to increase the representation of women in the pool you need to go out of your way to recruit women, it's one possible way to break the cycle. I feel like we're talking a bit past each other at this point though. Maybe I get the impression the disagreement is on the Nature vs Nurture part? Are you explaining all the discrepancies as inherent to being a woman vs a man? That it's all just caused by natural interest and motivation? I think this is an unanswered question personally, and I'm not seeing conclusive evidence that you can conclude it's purely a natural based outcome. Your anecdote about your sister really doesn't meet my bar for proof unfortunately.

LorenPechtel 4y ago
>> What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women >You don't see this as gender discrimination? Why did men have more access to computers? Why was the access to computers based on gender? If this is evidence of gender discrimination it's by the parents, not by the companies doing the hiring. The companies are doing nothing wrong in hiring the most qualified even if that skews highly male. The reality is that the autism spectrum is *highly* overrepresented in STEM, especially the solitary pursuits (things like programming where the job is a worker at a computer.) The autism spectrum skews highly male. That's going to skew such jobs male. (And, personally, I think this actually understates it--autism is not binary, but a spectrum. That means there's plenty more that lean in that direction without reaching the point of qualifying for a diagnosis.) > Class discrimination is also important to fight. Access to opportunities shouldn't be reserved only to the rich. But women are in an even worse position if they're also from a poor family. And the antidiscrimination efforts do virtually nothing about this. Companies neither know nor care what someone's class background is, they just care what they can do. > Exactly, that's the other point, there's less woman in the pool, so you need to make sure they don't get starved out, and to increase the representation of women in the pool you need to go out of your way to recruit women, it's one possible way to break the cycle. You're assuming discrimination perpetuated by the employers, yet the only sources of discrimination you cite have nothing to do with the employers. There's no cycle to break.
- didibus 4y ago
  I'm not saying the employer is discriminating. Read my other reply to you, I think it clarifies better what I'm saying. My argument is that, there's a great possibility that gender inequality persists today, and that it contributes to the gender gap. Not that I'm convinced it does for sure, but that it's still highly likely it does, based on research data and other reasonable hypothesis. Therefore, some companies are trying to combat this possible inequality, by choosing to prioritize a similarly qualified women candidate over a qualified men, in order to limit the effect of possible hiring bias, and promote women representation in tech, in hope to make their workplace more women friendly. If there is in fact lingering gender inequality, this should help combat it, and it's arguably a good thing (we can separately discuss if in practice it works to combat it or not, but at least it's understandable why they'd do it). If it turns out there isn't any lingering gender inequality against women, I agree that this would appear to put a bias against men now, creating an inequality against them. This is where it gets a little tricky, because now it's about your belief of the true cause. I see some men worried about their own career chances often believe that probably there isn't inequality and it's just personal choice. But I also don't understand why you'd worry about it in that case, if women just don't want to become programmers, no amount of policy encouragement would change that, and you've got nothing to worry about. I also personally feel the evidence for lingering gender inequality appears stronger, and I think you can learn valuable insight by trying some corrective policies and also seeing the outcome. The more policies fail to reduce the gender gap, the more you learn the factors that have or don't have an impact on it, eventually that could lead us to know the real cause.

LorenPechtel 4y ago

>> What changed is not discrimination, but that the industry first started asking for prior experience with computers, which men had more than women >You don't see this as gender discrimination? Why did men have more access to computers? Why was the access to computers based on gender? If this is evidence of gender discrimination it's by the parents, not by the companies doing the hiring. The companies are doing nothing wrong in hiring the most qualified even if that skews highly male. The reality is that the autism spectrum is *highly* overrepresented in STEM, especially the solitary pursuits (things like programming where the job is a worker at a computer.) The autism spectrum skews highly male. That's going to skew such jobs male. (And, personally, I think this actually understates it--autism is not binary, but a spectrum. That means there's plenty more that lean in that direction without reaching the point of qualifying for a diagnosis.) > Class discrimination is also important to fight. Access to opportunities shouldn't be reserved only to the rich. But women are in an even worse position if they're also from a poor family. And the antidiscrimination efforts do virtually nothing about this. Companies neither know nor care what someone's class background is, they just care what they can do. > Exactly, that's the other point, there's less woman in the pool, so you need to make sure they don't get starved out, and to increase the representation of women in the pool you need to go out of your way to recruit women, it's one possible way to break the cycle. You're assuming discrimination perpetuated by the employers, yet the only sources of discrimination you cite have nothing to do with the employers. There's no cycle to break.

didibus 4y ago
I'm not saying the employer is discriminating. Read my other reply to you, I think it clarifies better what I'm saying. My argument is that, there's a great possibility that gender inequality persists today, and that it contributes to the gender gap. Not that I'm convinced it does for sure, but that it's still highly likely it does, based on research data and other reasonable hypothesis. Therefore, some companies are trying to combat this possible inequality, by choosing to prioritize a similarly qualified women candidate over a qualified men, in order to limit the effect of possible hiring bias, and promote women representation in tech, in hope to make their workplace more women friendly. If there is in fact lingering gender inequality, this should help combat it, and it's arguably a good thing (we can separately discuss if in practice it works to combat it or not, but at least it's understandable why they'd do it). If it turns out there isn't any lingering gender inequality against women, I agree that this would appear to put a bias against men now, creating an inequality against them. This is where it gets a little tricky, because now it's about your belief of the true cause. I see some men worried about their own career chances often believe that probably there isn't inequality and it's just personal choice. But I also don't understand why you'd worry about it in that case, if women just don't want to become programmers, no amount of policy encouragement would change that, and you've got nothing to worry about. I also personally feel the evidence for lingering gender inequality appears stronger, and I think you can learn valuable insight by trying some corrective policies and also seeing the outcome. The more policies fail to reduce the gender gap, the more you learn the factors that have or don't have an impact on it, eventually that could lead us to know the real cause.