Earlier quoted context omitted.
> doesn't diminish or invalidate the issues people have It depends what those issues are > still allows people to constructively ask the question.. How do we make tech more attractive to females? Why is this of value? If tech as it is isn't attractive to females, why dress it up? Do we do the same with any other field? The word "dominated" or "domination" does have a slight stigma attached.
Sorry for the late reply. > It depends what those issues are Not really. Female rejection implies and is consistent with male domination, it's simply addressing the root cause rather than the symptom. It doesn't claim to change the situation at all. > Why is this of value? First, let me stress that this is not a cause I've picked up for myself, so I'm not the ideal person to ask. However, within this thread there are…
"measurable benefits to increased diversity" is a little suspect. What kind of benefit, and to who. I don't accept that any good end justify the means.
Also, Male domination is the result of female rejection. To flip causality, you have to show that women want to go into tech, but are prevented from doing so.