[YeGoblynQueenne]

I'm sorry but that is a very intellectually dishonest passage. There is real concern that women may be turned away fom technology careers because of cultural bias that says those jobs are not for women. And the answer to that is that "maybe they're just not interested"?

Well- how do you explain the fact that "they're just not interested"? Why is cultural bias not an explanation of this lack of interest? And if it isn't, then what is?

You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like. At some point we have to figure out why girls are not into technology as much as boys are and it's very lazy to just dismiss it as "not a girl thing".

[thg]

There are real genetic differences in how the brains of men and women work. Men and women do not have the same interests, the same goals, nor the same desires. To claim otherwise is ignoring established scientific facts. Studies on this subject always lead to the same conclusion: That women are just less interested in tech jobs, just as men are less interested in social jobs.[0]

I presented the OP with a objective, data-based argument and limited myself to quoting only the article (of which there are many, many, many more I could have chosen from) exactly to avoid a subjective response like yours. I am not interested in ideological discussions about purely subjective arguments (Read: flamewars). You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.

[0]: https://flowingdata.com/2017/09/11/most-female-and-male-occu...

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The data you present does not explain anything. It is just an observation. Yet you present it as an explanation to another observation.

By analogy, it's like answering the question "why do cows eat grass?" with "because cows are herbivores", which is really just restating the question. An actual explanation would require understanding how cows have evolved to become herbivores in the first place, and not meat-eaters, like, say, wolves. Without such an explanation, there is no way to understand why cows are herbivores and wolves are not.

By analogy, without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.

>> You can ignore the data all you like, but please don't try to drag me into an argument with that.

This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I notice there's a misunderstanding, so let me clarify this. I called the passage you quoted "intellectually dishonest", not you. And the "you" in the phrase "you can't just stop the ball rolling" did not mean you personally, but everyone in general.

The same goes for the sentence "how do you explain the fact". For example, if I asked the question "how do you invert a binary tree", I wouldn't be asking how a specific interlocutor would do it personally, rather, I'd want to know how it is generally done.

A more accurate way of stating the question would be "how does one invert..." etc. But that is a bit of an archaic turn of phrase that tends to make one look a bit of a twit, so one tends to avoid it. I do.

[thg]

> The data you present does not explain anything.

Not when you look at it subjectively and only focus on the specific subset that supports your argument. I believe that's called 'selection bias'.

> without any understanding of why women are not interested in technology jobs, there is no way to understand the gender disparity in technology.

The scientific understanding is there. It's just not the answer you want it to be and hence you ignore it.

> This is very unpleasant. First you assume I'm "ignoring the data" when I actually discussed what the data means. Then you assign a motive to me, that I'm "trying to drag you into an argument". Please don't do that.

>> that is a very intellectually dishonest passage.

>> You can't just stop the ball rolling wherever you like.

Of course it's okay if you do it. To a quoted article, no less, not even my own words. But when I point out what you did then I'm the bad person. This is why I had no desire to get dragged into this kind of discussion.

For the sake of the argument, I presume you are a woman (personally I don't care if you are male, female, a tree, or whatever else). You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be. That is false. The fact alone that you are a woman in tech means you are part of a minority. It doesn't matter how vocal that minority is, it still is just a minority that does not represent the interests of the majority. Just because you chose a career in tech, while most other females did not, does not inherently mean that there is a problem and that that problem needs fixing. Vegans aren't "sick" just because they chose to eat no meat. Salafists aren't bad people just because of their choice of religion. Cat owners don't hate birds just because they have cats. Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I myself am part of a minority too, being autistic. Unlike you, I have to deal with it no matter what I do and where I go. Would it be nice not to have to live in a world tailored to neuro-typicals and not having to face (extreme) prejudice everywhere I go? Hell yeah. But that is wishful thinking and not reality. Just like gender equality in tech is wishful thinking, but not more. The sooner you accept reality instead of chasing a dream based on wishful thinking, the sooner you can start making a difference for the women that made the same choice you did.

Now have a nice day. I have nothing further to add and won't answer you again.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> You think that, just because you are interested in tech, every other woman must also be.

You keep assigning motives and thoughts to me, even though I made it clear that I find it unpleasant and asked you to stop it. I clarified that my original comment was not addressing criticism to you personally and that the use of word "you" did not mean you personally, either. I don't see what I did to justify your confrontational tone, other than disagree with your interpretation of some data.

As to the rest of your comment:

>> Most women just have no interest in a technical career. Be that (software) engineers, mechanics or truck drivers. It is a choice they made based on their interests (you can prove that yourself by just asking random women on the street) and it is on you to accept that you are part of a minority and that isn't going to change.

I'm not as uncommon as you think. I'm originally from Greece, where it is quite common for women to follow careers in technology and the sciences. It is not common in the UK where I live, but that suggests some sort of cultural bias. Additionally, I've worked with several female developers from India over the years and they also don't think it's uncommon, or that it's a job that's not suited for women- quite the contrary; they see it as "office work" which is definitely better for women than manual work.

But let's stick to women in the US and the UK, which I'm guessing you're more familiar with. The point remains that observing that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain why they are not interested in technology. Which means it doesn't explain why women are not pursuing careers in technology, either.

This has nothing to do with subjective or objective analysis. Data alone does not explain anything. It does not have exegetic power, one would say. So the observation that "women are not interested in technology" does not explain anything not because I don't want it to, but because it can't.

Theories do have exegetic power. But observations alone do not constitute a theory.

[brucephillips]

The study you linked says nothing about genetics.