It's because Russia isn't a particularly nice place to live. From the article: > Most of the girls we talked to from other countries had a slightly playful approach to Stem, whereas in Russia, even the very youngest were extremely focused on the fact that their future employment opportunities were more likely to be rooted in Stem subjects. They do tech because it provides a way of getting a good life. In the West, wh…
It's simply a remnant from the soviet union where women were expected to work and contribute the same way that men did
so would you say those fields that have >50% women would need to work on their gender diversity to include more men?
Since molecular biology has something like a 54/46 distribution and tech has something like a 19/81 distribution I'd probably tell anyone who told me I should focus on the injustices of molecular biology to shove it up their ass.
People who care about a 19/81 split in one field in college when college as a whole is a 66/33 split should... well you already offered a suggestion at what they should do.
Or we could stop acting as if the metric at the end is what we need to equalize, look at it only as an indicator, and then find issues to fix. If 19/81 is caused by some actual sort of discrimination, we can fix which ever issues we identify. Just as we can with the 66/33 split.
It's because Russia isn't a particularly nice place to live. From the article: > Most of the girls we talked to from other countries had a slightly playful approach to Stem, whereas in Russia, even the very youngest were extremely focused on the fact that their future employment opportunities were more likely to be rooted in Stem subjects. They do tech because it provides a way of getting a good life. In the West, wh…
> They do tech because it provides a way of getting a good life. In the West, where conditions are less harsh, women don't feel the need to go into tech to get a good life. But does it now? All of 'the West' isn't Silicon Valley. I live in 'the west', Western Europe to be exact, and while I probably make more than a plumber or a shoe salesperson, I'd say someone with a medicine, law or business degree tends to make a…
Balance isn't the goal. Equal opportunity is the goal. If the imbalance is due to a lack of interest in a field by one gender or another that's perhaps regrettable but not a moral issue. If the imbalance is due to obstacles or prejudices faced by one gender over another then would you agree that is a moral issue that is more important for society to rectify?
The problem is the inane assumption, which is now taken as a fact (without rigorous substantiation) that any male heavy gender ratio is a result of bias by white men (not even necessarily the majority, mind you, we simply ignore fields where women are over represented). Not to mention the conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of achievement. In our society it has become a taboo to even consider that str…
Where are the campaigns for female construction and sanitation worker parity? How about male nursing? HR? Nothing? Surely those fields would benefit from equal representation and male insight. Yet we have some kind of crusade against the tech industry. Oh well, I should just shut up since I'm a straight, white, male. I'm just oppressing you poor souls.
In case this needs to be spelled out for you, and I apologize if it doesn't, but the subtext of there being a unique gender disparity in tech not shared by thematically similar STEM fields, let alone STEM in general, is that the causal agent is misogyny.
If you have any facts to back up that strong assertion, I am sure people are interested. Otherwise, a blanket accusal of 'misogyny' is asinine and nonproductive.
Silly Americans. You are always prohibited from talking about the differences between men and women. Americans think that men and women are exactly the same except for genitalia. We Russians don't. It's an example of primitive, anti-scientific thinking driven by America's cult-like obsession with gender equality. Historically speaking, placing "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" destroys nations. Ame…
So absurd that even in a community like this, one is not allowed to suggest inconvenient answers to certain questions.
Balance isn't the goal. Equal opportunity is the goal. If the imbalance is due to a lack of interest in a field by one gender or another that's perhaps regrettable but not a moral issue. If the imbalance is due to obstacles or prejudices faced by one gender over another then would you agree that is a moral issue that is more important for society to rectify?
Respectfully, why are you framing this as a question? You don't need anyone's permission to observe that prejudice is an important moral issue --- and the only people who would answer "no" to your question don't sincerely acknowledge moral imperatives in the first place.
Considering you haven't proven any deliberate imbalance.
Silly Americans. You are always prohibited from talking about the differences between men and women. Americans think that men and women are exactly the same except for genitalia. We Russians don't. It's an example of primitive, anti-scientific thinking driven by America's cult-like obsession with gender equality. Historically speaking, placing "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" destroys nations. Ame…
If you make a poor argument with emotionally loaded words (e.g. "primitive"), and then phrase it such that downvoting is a vindication of your argument, you are not contributing to the discussion. You're just lazy.