[flukus]

> The Facebook analysis took into account engineers’ “level” within the company and found “no statistically significant difference” between female and male engineers within the same level.

> Parikh attributed the difference that the original analysis found to “the difference in gender distribution between levels”, meaning the fact that Facebook has more female engineers at lower levels than higher levels.

This is a case of damned if you do damned if you don't. If they try to artificially increase gender diversity then this is an expected outcome.

So now we've created more artificial diversity do we have to extend the gender discrimination so that women are treated differently in the code review stage as well?

[mc32]

Gender balance is a good thing for the economy and our future as a nation. With that in mind, it makes sense to "promote" fields to women where they are a minority and promote fields to men where they are a minority.

At the same time, while we address the imbalances, we should be careful not to scare off people by making things sound worse then they are. Welcome people rather than shame people into acceptance. It's not easy and will not happen overnight.

Keep in mind, women can do quite well even in societies where women are exposed to greater patriarchy --India, Russia, China. It would seem clear it's also a cultural issue --i.e. as a culture women don't see (to use a phrase) "STEM" as a necessary ticket out but also it's not ingrained yet as good or cool enough to make people _want_ to go into those fields rather than say social sciences.

[ramblerman]

> Gender balance is a good thing for the economy and our future as a nation

Gender equality is a good thing. I'm not sure why the assumption is that this means perfect parity across every industry.

[flukus]

> Gender balance is a good thing for the economy and our future as a nation. With that in mind, it makes sense to "promote" fields to women where they are a minority and promote filed to men where they are a minority.

I agree, but the promotion is coming at a time and place that's way too late. Get the 14 year old girls to start experimenting with programming instead of worrying about being labelled a geek and then you'll start to see some real progress. Get toy stores to have electronic toys that aren't always in the boys section. Just don't expect the business world to fix a cultural problem that it didn't create and can't fix.

[lj3]

> Gender balance is a good thing for the economy and our future as a nation.

Source? I've seen nothing that proves that gender balance is good for our economy or our future.

[mc32]

One circumstantial word: Japan. Demographic equality isn't necessary, but acceptance and encouragement so that they may envision themselves in those jobs as a viable option, else we take the lazy way out and import labor to meet demand.

[malandrew]

But how is addressing a gender imbalance a solution to that problem. There are many ways to address a shortage of talent in an occupation besides moving people from one gender from one occupation to another, especially the naturally talented (nb: intelligent is a highly heritable trait). Furthermore that solution will likely just result in a talent shortage in the occupation you're moving people away from, requiring other solutions like bringing in talent from abroad.

[untog]

Surely the fact that skills are equal within levels yet more men get promoted is a problem? You seem to be implying that promoting more women would be diversity for diversity's sake, but the data suggests that it would address an imbalance that has nothing to do with skill.

[loco5niner]

> Surely the fact that skills are equal within levels yet more men get promoted is a problem?

Not really. If skill levels are equal within levels, it would indicate that the proper people are getting promoted, regardless of gender.

[flukus]

> Surely the fact that skills are equal within levels yet more men get promoted is a problem?

Only if you started with an even distribution. If the workforce was 20% female today but only 10% a few years ago then you would expect fewer women at higher levels.

> You seem to be implying that promoting more women would be diversity for diversity's sake, but the data suggests that it would address an imbalance that has nothing to do with skill.

That's interesting in it's own right, but it could suggest a lot of things, like the ability of their outreach programs to attract the best female talent.