You can read this article, along with my other posts here.
I decided to revive this article for International Women's Day, to shine a light on the...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
To each their own I suppose. Maybe we just have a natural inclination for different things. There's nothing stopping either gender from working in technology or doing their own thing. Some of the most memorable members of computer science were women, Grace Hopper, Ada Lovelace etc. Whatever we can do to make it more inclusive is a good thing.
That's the problem though. Assuming that the ratio is due to a natural inclination for certain subjects being more suitable for certain genders, instead of addressing some of the things preventing women from being able to participate.
I'm not saying that every woman needs to participate in technology, but we should be more aware of the blockers or things that cause women to leave the industry. We have a long way to go to allow technology to be more inclusive.
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.
Hi Vitali! Unfortunately, I can't share any secret tips since I don't have any.
My process is just writing the post (for my own blog), converting to Markdown, posting here (including choosing 4 tags), and hoping for the best!
I think it's all about writing articles targeted to the community and keeping your tone personal. People want to hear from people, not companies! :)
Massive props to you for that incredible work done on FeMake and also for using a .tech TLD 😉. Keep on going and paving the path with dem lines of code 😁
Thank you! 😊