Earlier quoted context omitted.
When do men unfairly benefit from things in the tech industry? Can you show something specific , that isn't a strong assumption of invisible discrimination on the basis of statistically differing outcomes? Cuz I don't recall encountering any "men in tech" events, or investment funds that invest only in men, or efforts to encourage white boys to study computers.
There aren't explicit posters on the wall pushing young white men into studying comp sci, but there are historical and sociological reasons for why they're over-represented. > When do men unfairly benefit from things in the tech industry? There's a systemic problem which benefits men over women, regardless of which industry. For example, men have a more positive sentiment for the same resume than women do: https://ww…
This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?
You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments
But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.
Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.
No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.
Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.