| > The reason promoting diversity (e.g. in tech) is good is because there is a shortage of qualified people. Are you implying that for some reason we don't hire qualified women if there are no men to fill in the roles? Would love to see your sources. > If we have certain populations that could work in the field Why not look to see how can we get more white men to work in the field? > , but don't, for whatever reason, then we want to find those causes and stop them. What if it's cheaper to just get more men instead? > Yes, it's partially there to have equal opportunity. It's not equal opportunity, white people won't get it. > But (perhaps more) importantly, we know that because of past diversity, most African Americans have a harder time in education growing up. I've heard it's because of socialism, can you prove that that's not the case? > This probably shows up as people have e.g. lower scores on tests. Me having a lower score on a test, doesn't mean that it's because I was historically oppressed. > imagine what they could do if we help them out with better education! Imagine if education would be just be better in general for all, I wouldn't leave out the uneducated white men. > I agree, but I much prefer to show why diversity tends to be a win-win, not a "you lose so we can win" situation. I have yet to see any solid evidence why having a majority white male tech population is a bad thing(and I'm not even going to get into the are Asians white or not argument). Overall my issue with your point of view is that I have yet to see any proof for anything that it's based on. Most people with your point of view will point to some statistics that are convenient to them (earnings of all women vs. men) and ignore inconvenient ones(male vs. female mortality rate) and interpret it the way they want it (we less women in tech, must be because of sexism). |