|
|
|
|
|
|
by ubernostrum
3410 days ago
|
|
|
If the process produced one gender ratio at one point, and a wildly different gender ratio at another point, and the process is asserted to be meritocratic, then the only explanation is that the relative innate qualifications of people as a function of their gender changed between those two points in time. Also, your second paragraph amusingly makes a different form of my argument for me (if you can't assume that the ratio at one point in time is indicative of general facts about qualification as a function of gender, you also can't assume that it is at a different point in time -- it may be that a decade or two from now there will be an order of magnitude more programmers!). |
|
|
Sure, for example, boys being encouraged to become computer programmers. There's an article on NPR that discusses this[0]. Also, when you say "the process", I'm not sure you're adequately describing the evolution of programming and its related skillset demands. A strong increase in competition would naturally lower the ratio of women to men:
- time invested in programming correlates strongly with skill
- historically men have been able to put more time into careers than women(who often need a better work-life balance to manage a household).
- the historic SMAM[1](mean age at marriage) gives men an extra ~2-2.5 years over women even if you assume equal parenting responsibility, before men must also make parenting concessions.
[0] - http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
[1] - http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmarriage/...