[thoughtexplorer]

> if people would just let them.

People do let them. You can't force what people are interested in and you can't let in that which does not exist. In fact many places in tech give preference to women applicants, because they don't apply often and the companies want more women. They're just rare to see. :(

There's no grand conspiracy. The truth is much less exciting: Women and men have different preferences, generally speaking.

Women are more interested in people (i.e. healthcare). Men are more interested in things (i.e. engineering).

Most nurses are women. That's not because women are activity trying to keep men out. It's because fewer men are interested or apply!

We also don’t see women in the most dangerous jobs. No one seems to have a problem with that, just as no one has a problem with most healthcare jobs being dominated by women. As they shouldn't, because people should be allowed to pursue and apply to what they want to.

[komali2]

There's no actual evidence to suggest preference for career type is inherent to being a woman or man. There's plenty showing that women right now have different interests of men, but the cause can easily be societal conditioning - i.e., something that can be fixed.

[thoughtexplorer]

That probably does play a part but it's a different level than what we're talking about. Its more narrowly about whether people's current interests are being allowed.

[mike22223333]

Sweden tried it. It failed.

[komali2]

sigh

I want to consider your, er, argument, in best possible faith, but you've given me almost nothing to work with here.

Sweden tried what?

Failure means what?

[trustmath]

Please read the article. This article is about automated reasoning that discards resumes that are strongly correlated to resumes of women.

[sakopov]

I think you need to read the comment again. The author's reply was to your comment saying "if people would just let them", not what the ML algorithm does in the article.

[trustmath]

That's somewhat appropriate, but, I think having higher standards for identifying discriminatory practices is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'.

Achieving that level of a standard is a balance.

There shouldn't be excuses being made. All that can do is contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions that presently exist, because the core issue isn't being identified.

Furthermore, if the core issue is the excuse itself, then again, this is covered under the umbrella of 'if people would just let them'. The secondary issue would then be that the core issue isn't being questioned.