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.
> 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.
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.
> So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?
That's called being respectful of the views of others, and not presuming to interpret their words in any way one chooses.
> 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.
I have a better idea -- say exactly what you mean. Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.
The problem with leaving interpretation of your words to others, is they will interpret your words in ways you didn't intend.
> Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.
I never assumed; I simply hoped it would be the case. Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant, I already made my point so if you end up missing it that's perfectly fine with me.
> Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant ...
Want to communicate? Communicate. Use words that have universally accepted meanings. Stop assuming that others will or must fill in your blanks for you.
So far, you've tried and failed to argue that incoherence is a virtue and your communications breakdowns are the fault of others. Sorry -- no sale.
> I already made my point ...
The only point you've made is that you haven't made your point -- instead, you assign to others the responsibility for decoding the things you didn't 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.
Why did I post? To emphasize that the OP is encouraging a no-standard standard. My reply adds the requirement that the people be qualified, as opposed to the idea that, as in the OP's original post, everyone who wants a tech position should get one.
My posts emphasize the opposite of what you claim.
> Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. Here is the original content:
"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 the real balance that we need to reach for -- and unlike what many people seem to think, this ratio is not necessarily 50%."
No mention of the qualifications of the candidates, only their number, their gender, and their wish to be in tech. It's a competence-blind standard. So I objected. Now I hear that I should have used my psychic abilities to divine the OP's real meaning.
> you didn't understand the OP's implied assumption.
The OP's "implied assumption" is not my responsibility, but that of the originator.
Effective communication starts with ... wait for it ... saying what you mean, and leaving nothing to the imagination. If a reader can reply and say, "Wait ... did you actually mean ...", then something is wrong.
Here's the key phrase:
" ... equalize the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech to that of the people who want to be in tech ..."
If the OP really meant to specify qualified people, she should have said " ... correct the gender ratio of the people who actually are in tech by including people qualified to be in tech but unfairly excluded..." or other similar wording.
To assume rather than to specify is to make the classic error of assuming everyone has the same values and attitudes. If that were true, there would be no need to try to communicate ideas.
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.