[lutusp]

> The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech.

That's a bad idea -- it would stigmatize those who entered the field by such a program that they were given their positions, rather then earning them. The same problem exists in race relations, where equality by law conceals equality by merit.

Women are fully qualified to take their place in science and tech -- that's well-understood -- but to force equal numbers would obscure the fact that women can easily earn their place in science and tech.

[toasterlovin]

I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law.

[lutusp]

> I don't think the OP meant to achieve this goal with law.

Read the quote: "The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually _are_ in tech to that of the people who _want_ to be in tech."

How would that be achieved without a law? If a law weren't required, it would already have happened, since, logically and without obstacles, those who want to be in tech would be in tech.

The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

[toasterlovin]

> How would that be achieved without a law?

By changing people's attitudes.

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

While legally provable gender discrimination is an issue, I think the bigger issue is changing people's attitudes. I agree that can't happen all by itself, but I do think it can happen without laws. Call me optimistic, but I think all these discussions on Hacker News (and other places) are part of what will change things - that is, people arguing with each other, hashing stuff out, and moving forward. It's a slow, painful process, but, in my opinion, it is the permanent solution.

[lutusp]

>> How would that be achieved without a law?

> By changing people's attitudes.

Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.

Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.

The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.

Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.

[toasterlovin]

Pretty sure the OP was assuming qualified people only...

Also, you say:

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field.

Which, to me, implies that you were also assuming qualified people only, since excluding people who aren't qualified is perfectly fair.

[lutusp]

> Which, to me, implies that you were also ...

Not "also". My point was that the OP's statement disregards the issue of qualification by saying that everyone who wants a position should get one. I emphasized the issue of qualifications, and not "also" but alone.

My use of the word "unfairly" moves the standard to qualified people, which contrasts with that of the OP.

[wfunction]

Yes, I most certainly didn't.

[lutusp]

Here's the reason a law would be required to get every woman into tech who wants to be in tech. There will always be people -- men and women -- who want to be in tech, but who won't get into tech simply because they're unqualified to be there.

Therefore, for any particular exclusion, someone would have to decide whether the exclusion arose from a person being unqualified for technical work, or it being a case of unfair discrimination. In other words, for someone who isn't qualified, just changing attitudes wouldn't achieve the stated goal, to wit: every woman who wants to be in tech, getting into tech.

The bottom line is that many people -- men and women -- would jump at the chance to be in tech, but aren't qualified to be there.

Therefore the only way to achieve the stated goal would be to have a law that forced employers to overlook everything except that a person wants to be in tech.

[wfunction]

I thought being qualified was rather obvious, the fact that I didn't mention it doesn't mean I thought we should ignore whether or not people are qualified.

[lutusp]

> I thought being qualified was rather obvious ...

People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident. Here's what you said:

"The goal of getting women into tech should be to equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech."

Seems pretty clear to me. The above would require a law, a compelling factor. Attitude adjustments wouldn't be enough.

[wfunction]

> People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident.

Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351

So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?

I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.

My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.

[toasterlovin]

Above, in response to me, you say:

> The goal is really to remove obstacles that unfairly exclude some people from the field. I don't think that will happen all by itself. If if could, it would.

Doesn't your use of the phrase "unfairly exclude" imply a narrowing of the scope down from "all people who want tech jobs" to "all qualified people who want tech jobs", since excluding unqualified people is fair? I don't understand why now you are arguing that you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption. This statement implies that you did.

Am I missing something?