I wonder if it's possible that men and women, on average, have differing criteria for choosing careers, and artificially forcing the distributions towards the middle might do more harm than good.
As expected, this is the top comment on an article practically built for this argument. It may very well be that men and women have different criteria, but that is completely irrelevant, and I find this line of argumentation very frustrating as it completely ignores the actual complaints at hand. Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions. Many women feel they a…
Which is definitely a problem. But there seems to be an implicit assumption that it happens at a higher rate than discrimination in every other field, and thus STEM deserves this criticism. Is this actually true? The only data I've seen keeps harping on gender parity as if parity is its own end, rather than a means to an end as you've suggested.
> Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM.
Did they? Was there a group meeting and they all voted? Where is the evidence that gender parity would actually yield this result? If so, where is the evidence that the gender parity measures being taken would actually lead to parity? This seems to rest on a lot of suppositions.
Also, from what I've seen, women in STEM largely aren't driving this movement, contrary to what you seem to believe.
> Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point.
There are two problems being conflated here: the gender parity "problem", and the sexism/discrimination problem.
Articles like this are attacking the arguments that gender parity is a) actually a problem, and b) one that can be solved by simplistic measures like quotas, marketing directed at women, etc. If women truly are less interested in CS and similar fields, then none of these measures are likely to work. And so far they haven't made a dent.
I'm also skeptical the discrimination problem will be solved by these measures either. I'd prefer something far more direct.