Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 28th May 2012 19:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 519759
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-16
I didn't say that. Although I do think that men and women are different (on average), and I'm not convinced that as a group they'd always make the same choices, even if they were treated identically.
My point was that unequal representation in a particular workplace doesn't necessarily mean that there's discrimination in that environment. That seems obvious to me, but a lot of feminists (and other affirmative action proponents) seem to take inequality of outcome as proof of unfair treatment.
Why men tend to choose some fields and women tend to choose others is a different issue. One that the forms of positive discrimination I've encountered (such as gender quotas when hiring employees) don't really take into account.
To significantly increase the percentage of women in their IT department, the company I used to work for would have had to hire women who weren't just unqualified, but were also uninterested in the job.
I'm not sure that hiring blatantly unsuitable female applicants would really do much for women in IT. How much respect would they get if it was known that they were only hired as part of a social engineering project to encourage the next generation?