|
|
|
|
|
|
by stcredzero
3025 days ago
|
|
|
How do you know that what they want is a consequence of our culture? Did they say so? Liana K makes the case for this side of the issue very well. The 30k foot version: Note that programmer used to be a preferred occupation for women. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRvtA2JIIA As someone who thinks that James Damore was unjustly fired and that many people and news media imputed things on him which he did not mean or in fact say -- Let me say that there is something toxic and immoral in the Bay Area tech community. There is something like that in any large enough group of people. If someone is a small enough minority, they can become a target for the very small number of sociopaths. Power does corrupt. There is an element of truth behind both sides of this issue. If it weren't so, it would not be as difficult as it is. It is okay if a person is not interested in a type of work. It doesn't necessarily imply anything wrong with either. I agree that is okay. However, I think it's highly likely that not all of the ire I've seen around this issue is an ideological fiction. |
|
|
We need to encourage both boys and girls at an early age [i.e. we should not discourage either boys or girls]. As these boys and girls grow up into men and women in the workforce, having been side-by-side all through school, I think both, by then men and women, will both find they have a place in the tech workforce.
In the US (and other places) we have people who pursue fame (in acting, singing, etc.) when we know and they know their chances are slim. But we as a society value "celebrity". We celebrate liberal arts. We don't so much celebrate hard sciences. That's part of the problem. We don't need so many cashiers and delivery boys and girls with liberal arts degrees doing nothing in their careers.
We could have many of those people who study liberal arts go into more meaty things --there are better prospects for STEM than for liberal arts graduates.