| > Your implicit assumption is that supply is inelastic. But why should that be the case? 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. |