Stop forcing things. I agree that having a diverse workforce is beneficial for everyone, the company, the workforce, and to some extent society, but this isn't the way to go about it.
If there aren't any woman to hire in tech roles, find out why that is and tackle _that_ problem. Assuming of course it's a problem, which is an assumption we're sweeping under the rug. Culturally, we're pushing woman away from tech. On the other hand, it is a given in neural science that — oversimplification warning — men like "things", and woman like "people". It's not surprising then that there are more men in work that involves "things".
An initiative like this does nothing but foster resentment and push-back.
What do you mean? AFAICT from the article, they were a nonprofit that provided support and training for women in (or interested in) coding.
From the article:
Beyond that, she describes a "camaraderie of other women that are interested in the same things I'm interested in," and got career advice from other participants at the WWC events.
As well as networking events and speakers, she also benefitted from events geared towards learning new skills.
Seems pretty reasonable and positive. What am I missing? What's being forced?
> men like "things", and woman like "people". It's not surprising then that there are more men in work that involves "things"
Whenever we encounter broad, overarching theories like this our brains immediately jump to things which might confirm it. Our brains love creating simple rules which explain complex phenomena.
But if we really want to understand what is true, we need to think explicitly about 1) what is the hypothesis which is being offered and 2) what counterexamples might there be to disprove it. A theory becomes stronger after withstanding counterexamples, not weaker.
So this hypothesis is that the lack of women in tech in the US is fundamentally biologically driven, rather than culturally driven. Put in this way, we should naturally ask the question, are women in all cultures as averse to computers as in American culture?
> No amount of downvotes will change facts.
I’m with you there. That begs the question: what are the facts?
> Put in this way, we should naturally ask the question, are women in all cultures as averse to computers as in American culture?
Agreed, that's a good way to get closer to the truth. I'm afraid I don't know, but at least in my own experience it is also true in Malaysian, Indian, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and I'm sure more cultures that I can't think of off the top of my head. Again, this is from my _personal_ observations, but it's 100%, which has been enough for me not to dig any further and conclude it's true.
The next point would be why. Is it purely biological, purely cultural, or a mixture? I've explained why I think it's mostly biological, but happy to be proven wrong.
>> No amount of downvotes will change facts.
> I’m with you there. That begs the question: what are the facts?
I was referring to the "woman like people, men like things" fact. There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist. To have a happy society, we need to agree that "equal" does mean "the same".
> which has been enough for me not to dig any further and conclude it's true
That might be good enough for you, but that's not good enough for society in the least- either in terms of fostering change, or simply in terms of studying a sociological phenomenon.
Anecdotally, I don't think that's true about Indian culture at all, and I don't believe it's true in Russia and other former Eastern Bloc countries, nor in Chinese culture. Not to mention, it's rather ham-fisted to conflate nationality with culture, as all countries are made up of myriads of subcultures.
> There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist.
>That might be good enough for you, but that's not good enough for society in the least- either in terms of fostering change, or simply in terms of studying a sociological phenomenon.
Alright, but do we need to? I'm interested in equality for all, meaning everybody gets the same chance. If someone wants to do X with their life and you try to stop them, I'm going to be more than a little miffed. But that's not the same as making sure they _do_ X.
>> There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist.
> Post them if you've got them
These two from a quick search (but the ones I was initially thinking of are references buried in a massive book by Steven Pinker):
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:
> 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. [...]
> 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.
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?
The initiative you're being dismissive of is what emerged from "find out why that is and tackle _that_ problem". There are systemic barriers in place, which are being ignored because it makes the discussion uncomfortable. That's the purpose of promotional groups. They exist to point out those things and help us move past it. Forget tech for a moment and consider any other civil rights that we take for granted today that we wouldn't have x years ago.
If addressing it causes "resentment and push-back" consider reflecting on your own biases first. It is very likely the issue is there.
If there aren't any woman to hire in tech roles, find out why that is and tackle _that_ problem. Assuming of course it's a problem, which is an assumption we're sweeping under the rug. Culturally, we're pushing woman away from tech. On the other hand, it is a given in neural science that — oversimplification warning — men like "things", and woman like "people". It's not surprising then that there are more men in work that involves "things".
An initiative like this does nothing but foster resentment and push-back.
No amount of downvotes will change facts.