| > 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. |