| > Source. Well, what I mean is that we're not even close to a gender parity, it would be fine at 35-40% female in my opinion but the industry is closer to 14-25% (depending on country) and to me that indicates a problem. I think quota's and the extreme bias towards education programs that favour women is problematic though, in my opinion it infantilises Women which I dislike because I really believe women are just as capable as men in this field. That's why I liked Damores memo, it spoke to the idea that instead of having quotas we should seek to bring in a more human centred approach to asking the question: what do women bring uniquely to the table and how can we ensure that women know that this is desirable and that they're welcome. Killing the trope that Tech work is isolationist was one example from the memo that would likely cause some traction. > As an example, you can look into construction field which is heavily dominated by men and women in the field feels the same but outside, it's a different story in terms of interest. > How do you make construction work more attractive for women? I think drawing a parallel to construction is a fine one, but I would argue instead for Architecture. Construction doesn't need a diverse set of views, neither does nursing or mining. But Architecture does because the consumers of architecture is everyone. And I think that's the crucial difference here: things that are designed for everyone should have a diverse set of eyes on them. |
Secondly, I don't understand why it has to be CS. A product requires more roles than a CS graduate. UX/UI, design, support, marketing, management, documentation, etc.
There can be more women in any of those roles and there seems to be in some.
A team of CS graduate wouldn't pull off a global product even if they are diverse because they are CS graduates.