> exercising their own agency and choosing different fields.
If we accept this as true, fields dominated by women should receive the same grace.
If we accept this as true, fields dominated by women should receive the same grace.
Discrimination is never ok. If a woman applies to a job as a developer, she should absolutely not be discriminated against because of her gender.
Self-selection is always ok. If women in aggregate are more interested in biology than computer science, that is fine.
This paper is evidence of discrimination, not self-selection.
Do you think there is something innate in women that makes them less interested in computer science? Personally I find that extremely unlikely. The only other explanation for why they would self-select away from tech is that they feel they're being told to. That might be fine by you, but I think it's a problem.
Why? Do you believe that men and women are biologically differentiated, but mentally identical?
If so, do you also not believe in transgender identity, as the entire concept is rooted in there existing a mental difference between genders?
Half the top comments on this very thread decry DEI efforts while calling this wrong without the slightest hint of irony.
We're not hand-waving away discrimination as self selection. If we saw higher call back rates among male applications as compared to identical female applications then there would be a case for discrimination. When we study the call-back rates in tech companies, the results typically show no bias and sometimes show bias in favor of women [1].
What's happening is that people are alleging discrimination on account of nothing except for disparities in representation in tech. You're right: tech shouldn't be any different. Do we conclude that veterinarians must be rife with anti-male discrimination because they're 80% women? Why do we make the same arguments about tech?