21–30 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a problem that the nursing profession is dominated by women? If so, why?
I don't know anything about the nursing industry. But I would comment, that increased diversity (whether it is gender/race/age/etc) always yields benefits as you have a more diverse range of viewpoints to draw from. So it is always a problem when one group is over(or under) represented in a given area.
Right, this is just a call for something akin to affirmative action, which has had questionable results at best. The onus here isn't on women. And the right solution is not to preferentially favor women in the tech field. What you'll end up with is a situation where asshole misogynists consider themselves even more justified in treating women in tech as second class citizens. This time because "they only got there th…
I don't see anything wrong with helping people be more comfortable in tech, when the typical format does not work for them.
>If I appear to be moronic, self-centered, or sexist… it’s only because I am (I’m a guy). Still I believe my heart is in the right place, and unlike my head, hopefully it’s not in my pants. What the hell? I feel like I'm watching a US TV commercial. "Whoops honey, if I didn't have my sports cap on I'd probably lose my head." "Oh dear, you lovable oaf." Mother and daughter shake heads at retarded male
Pinker devotes an entire chapter of the book to gender, and the first half of that chapter to workplace equality. His thesis here is that a lack of 50-50 gender equality in a given profession isn't necessarily indicative of discrimination or unfairness, unless you believe in the blank slate. That is, unless you discount the possibility that women, on average, are interested in different things than are men. He goes on to present a vast amount of evidence that such differences in preference do exist, regardless of cultural conditioning.
This isn't to say that discrimination is non-existent. Many of us have seen (or heard) enough to know that it's alive and well. The point is that we shouldn't arbitrarily strive for perfect 50-50 equality. There will always be fields in which men and women outnumber each other by large margins, and that's okay. The best we can do is to try and stamp out discrimination wherever possible.
In the US you need to have an income of greater than $200k/year or assets not including your home of over $1 million in order to be an accredited investor. [1]
You don't have to be an accredited investor to invest in startups, but it does open up the company to additional annoying reporting requirements such that almost all advisors suggest staying away from such. From info on his own assets that he's posted in the past, it seems Dave's chosen to skirt said law himself, but it seems quite brash to (without disclaimer) push others to do the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anything about the nursing industry. But I would comment, that increased diversity (whether it is gender/race/age/etc) always yields benefits as you have a more diverse range of viewpoints to draw from. So it is always a problem when one group is over(or under) represented in a given area.
By extension, do you support "empowering" the employment of men in a female dominated profession by decree with the same zeal you show here toward women in tech?
It's not equal to have proportional gender representation in only desirable jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it a problem that the nursing profession is dominated by women? If so, why?
I don't know anything about the nursing industry. But I would comment, that increased diversity (whether it is gender/race/age/etc) always yields benefits as you have a more diverse range of viewpoints to draw from. So it is always a problem when one group is over(or under) represented in a given area.
I'm not objecting to this proposal in any way - nothing wrong with more investors - but there's no doubt in my mind that the female tech entrepreneurs who'll benefit from this will have worldviews very similar to their male counterparts.
If you really want diversity of viewpoints, you'll need to discriminate on harder-to-nail-down concepts like socioeconomic class or culture.
>If I appear to be moronic, self-centered, or sexist… it’s only because I am (I’m a guy). Still I believe my heart is in the right place, and unlike my head, hopefully it’s not in my pants. What the hell? I feel like I'm watching a US TV commercial. "Whoops honey, if I didn't have my sports cap on I'd probably lose my head." "Oh dear, you lovable oaf." Mother and daughter shake heads at retarded male
I agree. And frankly I find it the most grating thing about my generation: no spine. Stand up and speak. Don't try to soften the message with tired jokes and deflection. Just make your point. If people are angry, they're angry. Listen to their reactions and if you think you were in the wrong, apologize. If you think you were right, defend yourself. But you never, ever, open with an apology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anything about the nursing industry. But I would comment, that increased diversity (whether it is gender/race/age/etc) always yields benefits as you have a more diverse range of viewpoints to draw from. So it is always a problem when one group is over(or under) represented in a given area.
Do you have evidence for increasing diversity helps?