How could you solve the problem without indicating the group of people who is being treated differently?
I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.
I guess first you have to specifically define "the problem" because there are tons of situations like this.
> no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now
Is this really true? Perhaps you could find ways to improve processes overall so that "equality" was an outcome of an improved unbiased process without focusing on specific race, sex or beliefs.
Because that question is easily answered: It seems the more desirable goal would be that women and men can equally find the kind of work they want, instead of being forced into or out-of jobs on some purposeless quota system.
If there is a 1:1 applicant pool then absolutely! If there is not a 1:1 hiring ratio implies hiring less qualified applicants to reach a quota (assuming equal distribution of skill, which I think most people would agree is the case).
Have you searched for those things? There are lots of campaigns to get more women in those jobs... just google the job title and more women or even feminism.
> Another finding from the studies was that most women will go into white-collar jobs, but there will also be a large number of energy jobs available in blue-collar areas. Several jobs, such as welding, fall into this category, and they offer good salaries, but women typically do not pursue jobs in this area. In part, this could be because there are comparatively few women currently in these areas, so it is difficult for other women to see themselves doing these jobs.
WIM
> Created in 2006, WIM (UK) now counts over 1,300 members, from all corners of mining-related businesses and professions.
> between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen.
I've seen much more dialogue and engagement than intimidation and suppression. Most things I've seen on this topic were people complaining and writing, not forcing Mozilla to do anything. The only one that got close to "intimidation" is the OKCupid thing, which is still debatable.
> Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now?
Are you seriously comparing the oppression of gay people with the "oppression" of people who have homophobic views? I don't think this should be explained to you, but it's totally OK to discriminate people because of what they think or the opinions they have; is not OK to discriminate people by what they are. For example, any company should be free to fire White Supremacists, but not to fire white people just for being white. Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't dissociate themselves from people whose opinions they find offensive? And you are complaining about political correctness?
> But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him.
Again with this comparison! You seriously need to stop comparing the discrimination of gay people with the discrimination of homophobic people. Next thing you know, you are probably going to argue that LGBT organizations need to accept homophobic managers and volunteers.
> look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them.
I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I haven't noticed a lack of compassion. in your whole comment, there is no single argument to explain your position, and the only thing you did was create arguments from thin air and disproving them. I don't even know who you are talking about... everyone who supported the firing of Eich?
> The underlying message of this program is that as programmers, girls are different than boys. This is both false and absurd -- mathematics, logic and computer science have no gender.
No, the underlying message is that society treats women and men differently, and thus comparisons like what you just did (changing "girls" for "boys") do not work. You may not believe that, but that's another problem. If I create a program to help poor people become programmers, am I really saying that rich people are different than poor people? And do you think I can use "low income" and "high income" interchangeably on those programs?
Why do you feel the need to say that Asian people are more at a disadvantaged that women? Can't we agree that both are at a disadvantage and we should help them? Your statement is highly subjective and really difficult to prove. You are also implying that we should help women less and Asian people more. Don't be like that. There's absolutely no need to try to empower one group while lowering another one.
Both groups may be at a disadvantage and may have certain privileges, but people rarely acknowledge the (1) the disadvantage of Asians, especially Asian men, and (2) the privileges of white women. Secondly, the population of Asian men is 3% in the US, the population of white women is 32%, and the feminist movement is far stronger than the Asian (or Asian male) movement, thus Asian men are also placed in the "privileged" and "oppressor" class.
So while one powerful group is pushing for representation of women in engineering, another is fighting for broader social equity for Asians - the latter is often seen as less legitimate when applied to Asian men specifically (low social status, lower marriage/dating prospects), or which are huger racial things that may never be fixed anytime soon in a US society while Asians remain a tiny minority, because those are the kinds of inequalities that people tolerate, while under representation of women in engineering is widely recognized and addressed as a bad thing.
Not the OP, but in this context, I think Asian men are meant to feel privileged by virtue of being a) male and b) heavily represented in the tech scene. And yet at the end of the day, Asian men suffer from racial disadvantages that may never be addressed in our lifetime. Hence, there is sort of a cognitive dissonance that develops.
> Why do you feel the need to say that Asian people are more at a disadvantaged that women? Can't we agree that both are at a disadvantage and we should help them?
I was trying to say that Asian people are also at a disadvantage, and that we should try to help them as well. I have seen several "X for Women in Tech" initiatives, and absolutely none for, say, "Asian Men in Tech".
> You are also implying that we should help women less and Asian people more
That implication may seem true if you think of "resources for helping" as a finite amount. I was just saying that we should help Asian people more. This could actually be a good thing. Maybe there are rich Asian men who don't donate to "Rails Girls Summer of Code", but who might consider donating to a similar program for Asian people? I don't know.
> There's absolutely no need to try to empower one group while lowering another one.
Definitely. But as a disadvantaged person myself, it would benefit me and others like me more to promote the empowerment of an often-overlooked group of people.
"just because the victim is a woman, doesn't mean it's sexism."
You really think people forget about that? That there are a lot of people around the planet who think any aggression against a woman is sexism? So much that you think your comment is necessary and adds to the discussion?
I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.