|
|
|
|
|
|
by skybrian
4358 days ago
|
|
|
Your implicit assumption is that supply is inelastic. But why should that be the case? Better benefits and working conditions result in more women being attracted to tech. To assume otherwise means that you don't think women respond to incentives. (Admittedly, there will be a lag here since reputations take a while to change.) Sure, the "less progressive" companies are going to have to compete with that, but I don't see the downside in companies competing to treat their employees better. |
|
|
I don't think a large percentage of women completely 100% refuse to enter tech because it isn't using more gender neutral wording and companies don't aim for a 50/50 ratio of applicants and/or hires.
You even admit that it is mostly inelastic and unlikely to change except in a span of years.
Things like pay equality and directly encouraging women to enter Tech [rather than targeting employers hiring practices] makes more sense to me.
> Better benefits and working conditions result in more women being attracted to tech. (Admittedly, there will be a lag here since reputations take a while to change.)
Except, the OP seeks to create those at the expense of women who work in less progressive companies. This leads to a pool of women of whose lives are improved and a separate pool whose lives are negatively impacted. I'm not seeing that as an improvement.
Pay equality and more education would be more productive.
> Sure, the "less progressive" companies are going to have to compete with that, but I don't see the downside in companies competing to treat their employees better.
They actually wouldn't have to even try to compete. They'd simply hire more men because it requires 0 effort on their part. The supply of men isn't going to magically change just because you encourage women. If everything is equal [pay, benefits, etc], they'd be interchangeable regardless of gender.