[abnry]

If men and women are completely interchangeable, physically and psychologically, then this article makes a lot of sense.

But if women really do have something different (at least on average) to bring to the table, then this women really does add diversity.

The purpose of diversity is not quotas, but differences that work together and add something to the whole.

[albertgoeswoof]

I think the point is that the diversity she brings isn’t enough diversity to justify her as someone who is adding to diversity in a tech company. You could add 1000s of women like her and the company wouldn’t be particularly different.

[blueboo]

It seems obvious that adding 1000s of women like her would absolutely meaningfully change the company though

[mantas]

Adding 1000 people would change most companies, regardless of what those people look or think like.

[zhangela]

Thank you so much for helping clarify! This is exactly what I meant in the article.

[thanatropism]

I'm not saying men and women shouldn't work together, but isn't office drama related to sexual tension something to subtract from that complementarity as well?

In my working life I've seen (and also experienced) a lot of productivity-eating unresolved sexual tension, including between people who were married/had partners and didn't reeeally want to mate, at least not rationally.

I mean, I know men behave like pigs at Hackatons and I'm all for codes of conduct but even in better conditions (no one's an incel, yadda yadda) this happens.

[creep]

I think it's much less about sex than you think. From my experience, groups of all men and groups of all women are much less productive than a mixed group. "Sexual tension" is a factor in mixed groups, but so is any other kind of conflict.

The following is just my experience and I don't claim to generalize although I will use it as a generalization since it is what I have observed.

Groups of men tend to fall into a pattern. There is a leader, there are people vying to be the leader, and there are "subordinates" who execute directives. Male groups try and get something done. These groups are about organizing people.

Groups of women also fall into a pattern. They tend to plan and analyze and put less priority on execution. In female groups the leader/subordinate dynamic is much less apparent, and it's mostly a dance of trying to understand what everyone is saying and what everyone wants. These groups are about organizing ideas.

Mixed groups obviously have a mix of these approaches. Men and women help each other to reach a balanced state of execution and planning, looking at the details while also keeping the big picture in mind. In addition to that, mixed groups are way more dynamic and adaptable. Patterns emerge contextually within the group, rather than following a standard social protocol. To me, this indicates higher potential for productivity in all areas of a project.

Sexual tension can occur, but I think it's a bit silly to suggest it's a Big Deal in the workplace, that it's something significant enough to single out from every other messy thing that can happen in groups of people. To make myself clear, sexual tension is a separate thing from sexual harassment, which is definitely a problem but is the result of some bad players and not the mixed group dynamic itself.

[malcolmgreaves]

If a man cannot do his job while around a woman, that's undeniable proof that said man is immature and lacks basic discipline. That's grounds for dismissal: it's not the company's job to train aan how to act properly and not treat women as sexual objects.