| Your primary failure was confusing personal popularity with social popularity with status/agency/influence. You're - mostly - continuing to make the same mistake. Of course status is defined by caste power and social agency. What else would it be defined by? Facebook likes? The fact that no one much likes lawyers is irrelevant. So is the fact that lawyers individually may fail to make a living from lawyering, or even that a few outliers have a social conscience. Let me know when an engineer becomes president of the US and we can talk about the other details. >not because the top echelons of law are disproportionately well compensated, or because those people make decades-long careers out of making connections with businesses and power brokers This confuses cause and effect. The point of becoming a certain kind of lawyer is exactly because it's the best way to gain status and self-serving influence through that kind of activity. Writing a compiler will never get you that kind of status, no matter what gender you are. Nor will making a cool app. Becoming a billionaire might. But tech billionaires tend to become billionaires because they act in aggressively self-serving ways in business and/or are well-connected, not because they're rewarded purely for being brilliant engineers. Engineering brilliance on its own will get you GitHub stars and conferences and maybe a job or two. But no more than that. Still don't believe me? Ask a few thousand people outside tech who their favourite engineer is. That's how high-status engineering is. |