I guess I have to stop reading there. :/
I’m also not sure of the aim; if you have no desire to convince those who don’t initially agree, you’re preaching to the choir. Isn’t the diversity gang enough of an echo chamber already?
I'm more than happy to discuss how alcohol does impact diversity and inclusion in negative ways. I think it's fascinating subject I haven't thought about.
Otherwise you get Twitter.
At least from my perspective, affirmative action is immoral, and any notion of power imbalance doesn’t seep into my understanding of the definition of discrimination.
People can have deeply considered all the nuances posed and still come up with a perspective that differs from the accepted social justice narrative.
Well. That explains Reddit! /g
(Its the procedure of an argument by flooding you with half baked sources, and by the time you're through 5, you have 20 more.)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
(Edit: I wasn't proposing DOING that. I was making note that these logical fallacies tend to stack and greatly compound each other. And they can be a nightmare to unravel if ONLY in a gish gallop. If both of these are executed, the gish is a insincere attempt at complete disruption; and anyone trying to stop it is accused of being really rude. And from a social media perspective, someone calling out a sealioning themselves looks rude.)
I'm a husband and father, and I respect my family, and I have friends outside of work, so one of the last things I would ever want to do is drink at work or after hours with my coworkers.
Feels like a non issue, a consequence of working with too many manchildren. If you don't like the brodrinking then don't be friends with them and find a better job.
I love it, too. It gets it out of the way upfront: if we can't agree on $THIS base assumption, then we can't have a healthy discussion about $THAT. In order for that to happen, we need to have another discussion first."
If, after discussing whether or not there is an inclusion and diversity problem, you are still at odds, there is little point in further refining the discussion by including alcohol.
The latter can exist without the former.
In all companies I have worked at - there has been diversity. I am also someone who doesn't drink and never felt like this is an issue, though I am from one of the best-known countries for their beer. Next to waffles and chocolates, that's pretty much our thing.
I've almost always had a team that existed of a mix of ethnicities and gender.
I do think that beer doesn't belong in the workplace, but we do have days when we drink _after_ work, and not necessarily in the workplace. No one ever complained about me getting a coke instead.
Sometimes, if I am with people who I know longer, I tell them it is because of having an alcohol related death in the family.
I also continue with saying I don't mind that they drink.
I have done this for about 11 years without any issues.
Admitted; on the workfloor after work with the team no one gives a crap although you might, again in my experience, get less invites for social gatherings as it is still considered ‘boring’ in many circles. That girl or guy who never meshes well at TGiF or the ‘after work pint at the local’.
As someone who sometimes drinks too much and often drinks nothing at all (I have no off switch so I prefer nothing), I know that feeling; you really need a lot of energy and patience to stick around at gatherings where everyone is plastered and having too much fun and you are sober.
I have seen the issue in UK, US, NL, DE, HK, AU and, ofcourse, CN. But anecdotal so your mileage definitely may vary.
The author probably thinks there is an injustice, because people who write on this topic usually think there is. Nothing that they say depends on the problem being one of injustice.
(1) Women and men tend to (when considering large numbers) choose different professions when they are choosing freely for themselves
(2) The more egalitarian and socially inclusive a society is, the more the differences between women and men are exaggerated, especially in career choices.
I want women and men to choose occupations that are easy for them to find long term meaning in. I don't want my girls choosing STEM because they feel like they're less-than if they don't.
Here's a reductio ad absurdum: is it a diversity and inclusion problem that there are almost no female bering sea crab fisherwomen or oil rig workers? Men are more willing to choose more lethal professions, it's part of what our hormones tell us to do.
I merely found data which loosely supports (and you could successfully argue that it has no correlation) my hypothesis.
There's a very large body of universal, systemic evidence that women are (in large numbers) more interested in people than things, and vice versa for males. IT is a very thing-oriented industry. When women choose not to do IT freely of their own preferences, we should not react by suggesting that men are the problem.
I definitely see more women in construction, more men in nursing, and definitely in non-Western countries women in software development.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/does-gender-equality-...
EDIT: To be clear, I wish you were right. I want you to be right. But you're just not, and it's slightly tragic, but mostly the data should cause us to reorient ourselves around how we interpret the data, because the social constructionists' theories are just wrong.
Personally witnessed a few extremely technical women (one of them an ex boss) who, in general could hold up a CS or specific data flow discussion with me that I came up with. She would be on the same page in less than a minute. No other male employee I have ever been in company was able to do what she did (you'd have to have met her). She was from China originally, is a very active CTO in a SV company. She has women friends in similar situations. I'm not saying that you have to be chinese, but the evidence of they way we bring up women in western societies is a much much stronger determiner of personal preferences than "hormones LOL". (And not that China doesn't have other problems either)
That's what I'm saying the data explicitly disproves.
Look, this might come as a shock, but let me lay out what everyone on both sides of this argument believes: Everyone who chooses the profession and performs well should be included. The contention is whether their genetics should matter, and those who reject the assertion that there's an inclusion problem answer "no".
Here's a more direct point: the fact that women tend not to choose STEM tells you nothing about each individual woman. The mere fact that someone got the job is explicit evidence that they're probably just as capable as everyone else that got the job. Membership in a social class as defined by the progressive left is just... meaningless. As it should be. #MLK
Does nursing have a diversity problem? How about mining?
I would think someone would at least want to look at the demographics of people applying vs people getting hired vs people qualified vs demographics of the general population.
Is the gender ratio in prisons evidence of the matriarchy? Is the gender ratio in teaching because of systematic bias against men? What about the gender ratio in that more women graduate college than men?