| > Anonymous? My user can easily be googled... Feel free to link it up with your real-world identity; I just find more generic profiles with the same user id. > women are less INTERESTED Yes, this is an example of your lack of historical grounding. That is the same sort of sexist nonsense that we've been seeing for generations. The argument goes: women aren't technically inferior, it's just that they're naturally not interested in bothering their pretty little heads with high-status jobs like law, medicine, and engineering. Their biology just drives them toward naturally nurturing jobs, like homemaker, paralegal, nurse, and secretary. Sure those jobs happen to be all low status, lower paying, and lacking in ability to advance to positions of authority. But it's just a coincidence that women's biological lack of interest happens to keep them subsidiary to men, just like they always have been. It's just "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company. > where there are practically 0 bars for entry This is just shockingly ignorant. Please actually read about the topic. Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this. Plenty of research refutes it. In America, gender socialization starts early and runs deep. > So 50/50 representation is to be expected Sure, now. 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, it wouldn't have been. And somebody just like you would have been posting impassioned screeds about how women just don't want to be doctors and lawyers. How the data clearly shows that they aren't interested. How any advancement past the current status quo would have been only due to shocking discrimination against men. As subsequent events prove, those dudes were making a self-serving, willfully ignorant argument. They were wrong. At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism. |
No, it's not even close to the same.
That an individual is less likely to choose a career doesn't mean that individual inherently is bad at it.
You keep trying to imply that I think less of women. I don't. I'm happy to acknowledge there are plenty of women who are much better than me at tech and plenty that have helped me out. Just because there happen to be less doesn't mean they are inherently worse.
And you could do well leaving out ad hominems. I have been respectful throughout this discussion, while you accuse me of sexism every other line. Most people aren't as impatient as I am when called a sexist as many times as you have. Do you see why conservatives avoid these discussions now?
Odds are I've done more to bridge the gap than you have - I have been a TA for a high school AP Physics MOOC and I am a volunteer at the Lawrence Hall of Science. Do you spend your weekends tutoring young girls and getting them to pursue science?
>> This is just shockingly ignorant.
As someone who had at least 15 girls in my AP Computer Science class in high school, no, it's not. In fact, you can google the requirements needed for taking an AP exam: find a high school willing to let you take it (usually the high school you attend), and pay the $100 fee. That's it.
>> Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this.
Sure there are plenty of successful women in tech. No one's making the claim that all women aren't interested, and it's never even been mentioned that women are worse at tech.
They just happen in smaller numbers compared to men.
>> Plenty of research refutes it.
93% of occupational deaths are men, as I have mentioned 2 posts ago.
Why can't more women be truck drivers, police detectives, nuclear reactor facilitators, logistics workers, mechanics, or electricians? These jobs all happen to be high 5 figures and many are 6 figures.
It turns out, it has nothing to do with tech being sexist, and all to do with women on average being less likely to chase riskier careers in favor of more stable careers at the expense of a lower salary.[1]
>> At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.
All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females is lower than those that practice affirmative action bar-lowering, and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution.
Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind.
[1]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full.pdf