[yagibear]

Why is it that so many people (such as this author) use participation rates as an indicator of equity? I understand gender equity to refer to equal TREATMENT of different genders, which is quite different from having equal NUMBERS of both genders in the workplace. Some differences in participation rates MAY be due to gender inequity, but some may also be due to other factors such as innate differences between genders (a crude example: perceptions about the meaning of prerequisites as mentioned in the article).

The first proposed "solution" merely promotes participation rates as a measure of gender equity, and the 2nd proposal "Provide female entrepreneurs with..." just adds another form of inequity. Only the 4th proposal seems truly gender neutral and constructive.

[B-Con]

> Why is it that so many people (such as this author) use participation rates as an indicator of equity?

It's easier to chase metrics than fix problems. Any many are deaf to the possibility that equal treatment would not yield equal participation.

[setra]

This is just the Marxist dialectic applied to social issues. If there is a difference in outcome it can only be because of discrimination.

[necessity]

Relevant: https://youtu.be/ENL-Jv8GVkk#t=29m15s

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Why wouldn't it? Kids are taught from childhood what their gender is supposed to like. If we got rid of that, surely far more non-men would be in tech.

[xixi77]

IMO equity is not the only consideration -- there may be a value to workplace diversity itself, and #1 adds some transparency to the issue. The #2, if you look at it, actually suggests solutions where gender is invisible, rather than push for preference for women over equally-qualified men. #5 sounds non-neutral, but really could be implemented in neutral manner -- what it says is that women have a harder time finding mentors. Surely some men are in that category too.