4 ms·

I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law.

lutusp 14y ago
> I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law. Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech." How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech. The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.
- toasterlovin 14y ago
  > How would that be achieved without a law? By changing people's attitudes. > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would. While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    >> How would that be achieved without a law? > By changing people's attitudes. Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there. Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech. The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there. Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
    - toasterlovin 14y ago
      Pretty sure the OP was assuming qualified people only... Also, you say: > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Which, to me, implies that you were also ... Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone. My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.
wfunction 14y ago
Yes, I most certainly didn't.
- lutusp 14y ago
  Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there. Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech. The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there. Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
  - wfunction 14y ago
    I thought being qualified was rather obvious, the fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean I thought we should ignore whether or not people are qualified.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > I thought being qualified was rather obvious ... People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech." Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.
      - wfunction 14y ago
        > People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351 So maybe you just took it too literally at face value? I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer. My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.

> I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law. Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech." How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech. The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

toasterlovin 14y ago
> How would that be achieved without a law? By changing people's attitudes. > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would. While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.
- lutusp 14y ago
  >> How would that be achieved without a law? > By changing people's attitudes. Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there. Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech. The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there. Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
  - toasterlovin 14y ago
    Pretty sure the OP was assuming qualified people only... Also, you say: > The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Which, to me, implies that you were also ... Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone. My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.

wfunction 14y ago

Yes, I most certainly didn't.

lutusp 14y ago
Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there. Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech. The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there. Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.
- wfunction 14y ago
  I thought being qualified was rather obvious, the fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean I thought we should ignore whether or not people are qualified.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > I thought being qualified was rather obvious ... People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech." Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.
    - wfunction 14y ago
      > People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351 So maybe you just took it too literally at face value? I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer. My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.