|
|
|
|
|
|
by cropsieboss
3238 days ago
|
|
|
"equally good at it". I do not think this is where we can jump from that statement. There was no where a statement saying women are of inferior abilities because scientifically, they are not. There were statements that showed women value some things differently than men. For example, lack of dress code is a big turn off for women, yet men do not care. If you need to navigate in that kind of culture you should make work positions appealing to women. Is it possible to make CS engineering appealing? Of course it is. Stanford did it. Make it more aesthetically pleasing, less sweat-stinking geeky and women will come. Can an engineering job be more social? Yes, in some engineering roles. In some it cannot. These roles will on average be less appealing to women. Maybe there's a lack of work processes making use of these social working activities. Maybe there aren't many that could incorporate a social component. This would mean women might not like these kinds of work environments. That is the only thing implied by the text you quoted. No where in the document was there an implication that women are of inferior abilities. It's just an interpretation that everyone decided to use. |
|
|
For another example, he says that women are more driven to have a work-life balance. He cautions about making any changes to accommodate this, because "currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences." His suggestion here is to let women have part-time jobs.
The way I read this is: doing really good work requires extra hours and stress, which women won't do. If we try to accommodate women by no longer rewarding people who reject a work-life balance, we'll hurt the company. Women are, on average, less valuable to the company because they're less likely to work extra hours or take on extra stress.