Re: @Disgusted Of Tunbridge Wells
@LionelB
"Not everywher, but a fair assumption"
How is that a fair assumption? You have gone from observation that there are more boys than girls in a part of industry to accusing the boys of effectively being abusive and unwelcoming. This is based on your anecdotal experience and your preassumed assumption that there should be more girls in IT than are choosing to.
However there is a problem with the idea, the assumed conclusion is an assumption. You acknowledge men and women are different by making the dividing line gender, then assume they are the same that they should have the same desires and motivations aka more women in a job they dont choose.
"But yes, lowering barriers of prejudice may well require action. Action like, ooh, maybe education? Protest? A little empathy, consideration and plain good manners on the part of some men?"
Right so imposing change, which is why I believed you were after imposing changes to fix a problem you have yet to establish. So lowering barriers by action (no legal barriers so imposing on peoples decisions to fix a 'problem' you believe exists), Education aka indoctrinate early to coerce- regardless of coercion against women making their own choices or guys 'attitudes' (look at teaching CRT and racial guilt to see how thats going). And your assuming there are no good manners on the part of men after they have been through the adjustment that gentleman behaviour is sexist (then causing a fuss because men dont give up a seat for a woman).
All to 'correct' a 'problem' there has been no demonstration of existing.
"Ditto. But not top-down coercive action, and again twisting my words regarding the "action" I was not proposing."
Ok, so how? Education is top down, protesting is to get the top to change their impositions down. I am willing to believe you I am just asking how when your comments seem to read differently (again I am assuming no malice on your part, just trying to find the 'solutions' you believe in).
"My "expectation" is that women not be discouraged from entering a profession through gender stereotyping and archaic social attitudes."
Agreed. But are they? Thats the missing piece for me. For example there seemed to be a lingering stereotyping by women that the army is limited to males as it was a legally imposed barrier. That takes a little time to work through so actual sexual discrimination of who gets shot and blown up can be more balanced. But such isnt in IT.
"Yes. Have another read of that Swedish report."
Your gonna have to point out where it claims to know. I honestly may have missed it but from what I read it is assuming a conclusion and expecting problems.
"I'd say that left to their own, social barriers seem to be quite stubbornly self-sustaining."
And what if its free choice instead of 'social barriers'?
"Choices do not necessarily require overt "force" to be skewed. Differentials in opportunity and social attitudes can be very effective at skewing "free choice"."
How about other differences such as gender? Could that factor into the calculation? That be the thing skewing the choice, people freely choosing what suits them?
"What can I say? I have. Certainly the "less welcome" part."
Ok. So does an instance of someone forced into the sex trade suggest its the norm? An instance of murder? An instance of sexism? An instance of racism? Unfortunately some of these have led to an assumption of it being the norm against reality.
Have a look at the ritual child abuse witch hunt in the UK. The certainty that there was a problem, the push to action to resolve it and the damage caused by chasing the wild goose.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
