Again, that might be good enough for you, but not everyone has to agree with that metric. Some people might want to increase the percentage of women in tech. Bu

Again, that might be good enough for you, but not everyone has to agree with that metric. Some people might want to increase the percentage of women in tech. But that's not the same thing as wanting to make sure _do_ X. It's encouraging and aiding participation, not mandating ratios. > These two from a quick search Thanks for the citations. A cursory search finds these critiques about the first one: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30229-6/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... > One article described sex-related differences in career interest inventories using pooled datasets dating back to the 1960s. Analyses by cohort were claimed but not shown. [...] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/lcnxph/is_womens_interest_in_people_over_things/?rdt=55102 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/lcnxph/is... > For example, the three subscales of the inventory that make up the “thing” dimension require “thing” to be interpreted so broadly—including “the global economy, string theory, mental representations, or tennis”—that the term becomes “vacuous.” Valian also suggests that preconceptions about which sex does stuff with things have influenced the creation of the items. Why, for instance, don’t activities like “Take apart and try to reassemble a dress” or “Try to recreate a dish tasted in a restaurant” appear on such scales? But also, as Valian observes, the sexes are artificially divided when they are categorized as either “thing people” or “people people.” In fact, being interested in things doesn’t stop you from being interested in people, and vice versa. These critiques, one should note, do not dismiss the study for being "sexist", but rather point out how it is constructed in flawed ways. Does this invalidate it? Of course not. But this means that this is an ongoing debate, often couched in subjective sociological analysis. Hardly a "given in neural science." And so not something sufficiently rigorous for one to make policy upon. Perhaps, then, one should reexamine one's premises. Looking at the responses to the second study, it does look like accusations of sexism are present. But also accusations of misinterpretations of developmental data, lack of replication of study results, overstating the significance of findings, and so on. So it looks like a compelling narrative that is worthy of ongoing investigation but again, far from given. > An initiative like this does nothing but foster resentment and push-back. I mean, does it? It looks like a support network, something that exists for almost any demographic for any purpose in America. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40103537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40103537 There are many interest groups and causes and enthusiasts. Maybe it's not for you. But if so, who cares? Let people try to effect change as they feel is right. If you think it's wrongheaded, let the results prove it for themselves. What kind of busybody gets resentful at a support network?