Also working hard to better yourself is a continuous process and it doesn't stop when you get hired at BigCorp, continue doing so and you'll get results no matter your gender.
This sounds like Affirmative-action; while having good intentions did not work out quite like they hoped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action , search for the word "Negative".
Also, I wouldn't want my coworkers thinking I only got the job because I'm a black male. Even I myself don't like the idea that I might have gotten something only because someone else saw me as a charity case or I'm just the "token black guy" so the company can prove "See? We got a black guy! We're cool & hip now!" Replace "black male" with "woman" and I still believe my statement is true for most people.
I'm somebody who was part of this affirmative action population. I come from the poorest country in Europe called Moldova, the unemployment is high, education low, your typical eastern-european anti-intelectual culture, you get the idea.. Anyway.. when I was 15 I got a scholarship in Romania because there were quotas for us 'moldavians'. At the time Romania was not much better off than Moldova, but certainly when it comes to math and CS to me at least it looked years ahead of the programs we had in Moldova! So I packed my bags and left for a much better education and what I would say now without reservation: a better life. Looking back I think I was very lucky to have gotten the education and exposure to an environment with great teachers/programmers. Maybe I could have succeeded in Moldova, who knows.. It's possible I suppose, but unlikely.
And counter to your point, if you read the article, you'll find that affirmative action programmes have been very successful in improving participation rates and shrinking the wage gaps. Not to the point of equity, but an improvement. (Sidenote: if you search for Positive, you'll find twice as many as Negative)
Thomas Sowell--who is proposes several of the arguments against affirmative action in the wikipedia article-- is extremely intelligent, but if you follow his work you'll see that he's incapable of supporting anything that goes against the idea of ideologically pure free market systems.
Do you think that any amount of positive discrimination is harmful for a given population?
I'm interested in hearing alternatives to an "affirmative action like" approach that would be effective.
There is so much wrong with this. You do no justice to anyone when you discount merit in the pursuit of ham-handed ratios.
What would happen if we let merit and drive determine outcomes above all other things? Maybe there are caveats I'm not considering.
In the end not enough businesses and institutions are equipped to accurately assess skill. So rather than being hired based on skill, what you'd really be hired based on is perceived skill.
The people who can sell themselves and spin their skills will continue to thrive, the people who can't but have skills will find niches to do their work, and the people who don't have either will complain that the first two groups are being "pushy" or have an unfair advantage because they're selling themselves better.
Something like that.
Edit: even if we could measure skill... how? I don't suspect it's always an objectively measurable thing. e.g. most people who seek out psychiatric help want to find someone who is good fit for them and they can trust and talk to, not the "state's top ranked psychiatrist" (who is inherently intimidating).
https://www.nber.org/papers/w5903 (1997)
Essentially, they found that switching to blind auditing for orchestra musician positions raised the ratio of women hired severalfold. Thus, people' skill is (was?) rated lower if it is known they are female.
There's such a thing as interviews, though.
http://geekfeminism.org/2009/11/29/questioning-the-merit-of-...
Personally, I think you need a pretty mixed group of people in charge of hiring in order to get anywhere near to a fair and balanced process. It's too easy to discount racist or sexist hiring practices (either subconcious or overt) under the guise of wanting people who "fit with the team's culture".
While merit plays a role, pretending that before affirmative action hiring was merit-based is naive at best.
Given this, I'd like you to please consider that the perception that a specific gender or race is worse at tech may be a bigger influence in an interview than the objective merit or lack thereof that candidate has (something that's impossible to measure in knowledge-work anyways).
What's this supposed to mean? Is this some sort of reverse sexism? Reparation in kind for the gentle sex?
Is it safe to say that male members outnumber their female counterparts?
If so, what's the reason or the catalyst behind this disparity in interest and participation rate between sexes?
I predict 7 or more.