Sorry, but that is not a problem: is a polite and legitimate objection; furthermore, Jackson never suggested that maybe there are different inclinations, never mentioning subjects more "suitable" for one gender instead of another - a rather different concept.
Just for the sake of my own curiosity: would you be advocating also to reduce the female percentage of workers in sectors like healthcare and education?
1) The article was about female inclusion in technology, so a comment about natural inclination will be interpreted under that lens.
2) Regardless of how "polite" your argument is, it is not legitimate. Assuming that the current gender ratio is due to natural inclination is dismissive of the problems that women face every day.
3) I am advocating for all industries to be just as open and welcoming to both genders. If they were, it's likely that we would actually see more diversity in not just tech, but in sectors like healthcare and education. It's not about reducing a certain gender, but empowering all individuals to have equal opportunity.
Sorry, I am missing a point: how is that non-legitimate, exactly? Different inclination dictated by hormones has some scientific ground, while conversely I find dismissive to ignore this point altogether and insist on problems that have to be there as a sole cause of different percentages.
Human economy works on limited resources, included finance and people: if you want to increase, say, men in education and healthcare or women in engineering and brick-laying, you will end up reducing the opposite gender.
So, will you reduce the percentage of women in healthcare and education, to spread them also across less fashionable/cozy roles like constructions workers, military and the like to go closer to a 50/50 ratio?
[I am not sure that in most western countries the problem is nowadays about "empowerment", more about being poor and living in bad networks - the so called "poverty trap", but let's skip this point for now]
These problems are multi-dimensional. I say this in the article very cleary. However, distilling our ability to contribute to technology based only on hormones is offensive.
I am aware of the fact there is a finite supply. If you actually read my third point above, you would understand that. It's also very off-base to assume that women want to be in "fashionable or cozy" roles.
Sorry, but you are insisting on a strawman nobody but you raised here: stating that different biologies might bring different interests is rather different than suggesting that they imply different skill levels.
Similarly, I never stated that women would not 'want to be in "fashionable or cozy" roles': that is another implication of yours.
What I asked if, in the alleged name of more "diversity", you would reduce the number of female workers in industries like healthcare, education, etc.
I find having to tell me "If you actually read my third point above" a rather un-constructive and patronising way to address my question ("womansplaining"?), but I will try not to take offence.
It is a simple "yes" or "no" question, so, again: would you reduce the number of female workers in industries like healthcare, education, etc?
If female biology were the reasoning behind so few women in technology, then how do you explain changing ratios over time? How do you explain the fact that many of the first developers were women?
I would not force anyone to do anything under the "name of diversity". The point of my article which was followed up by my comments, is that technology is currently not inclusive and that we can do better. If it were more open and that meant some women in healthcare, education, or another sector switched to technology, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Stop trying to frame it as a negative as me (or anyone else) trying to reduce women from another industry.
Your answers are proving the uphill battle women have to face in justifying the constant problems they face. For this reason, I will not waste my time replying to any of your further comments.
Apologies, but I am pretty confident I am not the one trying to force an argument here :)
Nth proof of that, for example, is that you insist on points not raised by either me or the original commenter: neither of us ever stated that biology was the sole cause of it.
The argument about the first developers were women is sadly another fallacy cherry-picked and reported without much thought - imho -: while nobody in his/her own right mind would ever dream of denying the important contributions of people like Lovelace of Hopper, they were just a few among Babbage, Turing, Djikstra, Eich, Wozniak and countless others which happened not to have a XX sets of chromosomes (for what matters - apparently a lot for you).
The common myth parroted by a certain political/ideological area, has been debunked countless times - the times in which women were a majority of engineers were never really there, as their job was mostly secretarial/data-entry related before the computer revolution.
It would have been also quite unlikely, as back then most women were far from being able to access a proper education and be engineers. A situation that I find despicable, of course.
I am assuming nobody would, say, call "engineer" somebody just putting data in an excel file or the like, but feel free to counter-argument. Or just disagree.
Again, you dodged my question: I did not ask if you would be ok with more women switching from healthcare/education to IT, but if you would enforce male quotas in those sectors, pushing out women.
And "glad" to see that women doing nasty, unhealthy and unrewarding jobs like working in the construction or defence sector didn't even make it to your radar, despite me asking multiple times, unless you just wanted to timidly leave a door open with "another sector", which does not sound too likely.
To be clear, I did not put any negative frame: you said that yourself. And so for you reducing women from a sector is "negative", but reducing men seems to be ok, mh...
Well, sorry you ended up resorting to playing the "if you even doubt about this truth, you are bad": I was raised in catholic fundamentalism, where that kind of thought is the rule, so I think I know where it all leads.
I am not sure that people will get an idea about the "problems they face" more from my answers than from yours, but ok.
Finally, referring to our discussion as a "waste" was sterilely impolite: I don't expect you to apologise - I just wanted to state it.
Dude you need to stop watching so much Jordan Peterson pseudo-babble, and broaden your viewpoints.
Where at any point are you seeing reference or allusion to any kind of authoritarian enforcement of gender rebalancing?
Your interpretation of 'inclusion' is quite literally the opposite of it's own meaning, as if there's some kind of agenda to rebalance 'quotas' via exclusion.
This is just about making industries and communities a welcoming and celebrated environment for anybody and, like adults, re-evaluating certain attitudes and behaviours that impede that. Seeing a change in demographics of these groups/communities/industries would be a welcome and natural byproduct of this. Like seriously, why would you not want to be a part of that, instead of stamping your foot in the ground going "nope hormones"?
Sincerely, the grandson of a lady who worked as part of the Enigma cracking team.
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
The common myth parroted by a certain political/ideological area, has been debunked countless times - the times in which women were a majority of engineers were never really there, as their job was mostly secretarial/data-entry related before the computer revolution.
Do you have a source for this?
I'd had the impression that there was, at one point, a higher proportion of female IT technicians or programmers than men in the 1970s, but I am open to being corrected.
And P.S. Watch whose words, and which words, you're calling "pseudo-babble," bucko.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Sorry, but that is not a problem: is a polite and legitimate objection; furthermore, Jackson never suggested that maybe there are different inclinations, never mentioning subjects more "suitable" for one gender instead of another - a rather different concept.
Just for the sake of my own curiosity: would you be advocating also to reduce the female percentage of workers in sectors like healthcare and education?
1) The article was about female inclusion in technology, so a comment about natural inclination will be interpreted under that lens.
2) Regardless of how "polite" your argument is, it is not legitimate. Assuming that the current gender ratio is due to natural inclination is dismissive of the problems that women face every day.
3) I am advocating for all industries to be just as open and welcoming to both genders. If they were, it's likely that we would actually see more diversity in not just tech, but in sectors like healthcare and education. It's not about reducing a certain gender, but empowering all individuals to have equal opportunity.
Sorry, I am missing a point: how is that non-legitimate, exactly? Different inclination dictated by hormones has some scientific ground, while conversely I find dismissive to ignore this point altogether and insist on problems that have to be there as a sole cause of different percentages.
Human economy works on limited resources, included finance and people: if you want to increase, say, men in education and healthcare or women in engineering and brick-laying, you will end up reducing the opposite gender.
So, will you reduce the percentage of women in healthcare and education, to spread them also across less fashionable/cozy roles like constructions workers, military and the like to go closer to a 50/50 ratio?
[I am not sure that in most western countries the problem is nowadays about "empowerment", more about being poor and living in bad networks - the so called "poverty trap", but let's skip this point for now]
These problems are multi-dimensional. I say this in the article very cleary. However, distilling our ability to contribute to technology based only on hormones is offensive.
I am aware of the fact there is a finite supply. If you actually read my third point above, you would understand that. It's also very off-base to assume that women want to be in "fashionable or cozy" roles.
Sorry, but you are insisting on a strawman nobody but you raised here: stating that different biologies might bring different interests is rather different than suggesting that they imply different skill levels.
Similarly, I never stated that women would not 'want to be in "fashionable or cozy" roles': that is another implication of yours.
What I asked if, in the alleged name of more "diversity", you would reduce the number of female workers in industries like healthcare, education, etc.
I find having to tell me "If you actually read my third point above" a rather un-constructive and patronising way to address my question ("womansplaining"?), but I will try not to take offence.
It is a simple "yes" or "no" question, so, again: would you reduce the number of female workers in industries like healthcare, education, etc?
Please stop trying to force an argument.
If female biology were the reasoning behind so few women in technology, then how do you explain changing ratios over time? How do you explain the fact that many of the first developers were women?
I would not force anyone to do anything under the "name of diversity". The point of my article which was followed up by my comments, is that technology is currently not inclusive and that we can do better. If it were more open and that meant some women in healthcare, education, or another sector switched to technology, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Stop trying to frame it as a negative as me (or anyone else) trying to reduce women from another industry.
Your answers are proving the uphill battle women have to face in justifying the constant problems they face. For this reason, I will not waste my time replying to any of your further comments.
Apologies, but I am pretty confident I am not the one trying to force an argument here :)
Nth proof of that, for example, is that you insist on points not raised by either me or the original commenter: neither of us ever stated that biology was the sole cause of it.
The argument about the first developers were women is sadly another fallacy cherry-picked and reported without much thought - imho -: while nobody in his/her own right mind would ever dream of denying the important contributions of people like Lovelace of Hopper, they were just a few among Babbage, Turing, Djikstra, Eich, Wozniak and countless others which happened not to have a XX sets of chromosomes (for what matters - apparently a lot for you).
Feel free to verify for example here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pion...
The common myth parroted by a certain political/ideological area, has been debunked countless times - the times in which women were a majority of engineers were never really there, as their job was mostly secretarial/data-entry related before the computer revolution.
It would have been also quite unlikely, as back then most women were far from being able to access a proper education and be engineers. A situation that I find despicable, of course.
I am assuming nobody would, say, call "engineer" somebody just putting data in an excel file or the like, but feel free to counter-argument. Or just disagree.
Again, you dodged my question: I did not ask if you would be ok with more women switching from healthcare/education to IT, but if you would enforce male quotas in those sectors, pushing out women.
And "glad" to see that women doing nasty, unhealthy and unrewarding jobs like working in the construction or defence sector didn't even make it to your radar, despite me asking multiple times, unless you just wanted to timidly leave a door open with "another sector", which does not sound too likely.
To be clear, I did not put any negative frame: you said that yourself. And so for you reducing women from a sector is "negative", but reducing men seems to be ok, mh...
Well, sorry you ended up resorting to playing the "if you even doubt about this truth, you are bad": I was raised in catholic fundamentalism, where that kind of thought is the rule, so I think I know where it all leads.
I am not sure that people will get an idea about the "problems they face" more from my answers than from yours, but ok.
Finally, referring to our discussion as a "waste" was sterilely impolite: I don't expect you to apologise - I just wanted to state it.
Dude you need to stop watching so much Jordan Peterson pseudo-babble, and broaden your viewpoints.
Where at any point are you seeing reference or allusion to any kind of authoritarian enforcement of gender rebalancing?
Your interpretation of 'inclusion' is quite literally the opposite of it's own meaning, as if there's some kind of agenda to rebalance 'quotas' via exclusion.
This is just about making industries and communities a welcoming and celebrated environment for anybody and, like adults, re-evaluating certain attitudes and behaviours that impede that. Seeing a change in demographics of these groups/communities/industries would be a welcome and natural byproduct of this. Like seriously, why would you not want to be a part of that, instead of stamping your foot in the ground going "nope hormones"?
Sincerely, the grandson of a lady who worked as part of the Enigma cracking team.
Do you have a source for this?
I'd had the impression that there was, at one point, a higher proportion of female IT technicians or programmers than men in the 1970s, but I am open to being corrected.
And P.S. Watch whose words, and which words, you're calling "pseudo-babble," bucko.