TheAtlantic article: The More Gender Equality, the Fewer Women in STEM

Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#51
But this is exactly what people like you are doing.

It is like a girl loves animals and people and want to be a doctor or a nurse. While you trying to say "hey look I know you actually want this but you know math and computer are also fun. Have you checked them out? How about this programm for google for women only? I bet you can get in there with no problem" And yes I think women are being tricked into these job because of diversity reasons. You have ridiculous high chance to get into these jobs as a women you will never be unemployment because of diversity etc. Meanwhile companies struggle to get even 30% in these field filled with women. and again this will not change If if you would bann every men in these jobs.....

Also I love the word "guidance" like it is some religion or shit.

Mabye JUST maybe you should listen to all this actual scientif evidence and accept that men and women are different. That children with more testerone are more intrested in technical and mechanical stuff and then you should start to finally look at your child or a teacher should look at his/her children in school and look what they really want and support these chidlren not based on gender, race or any bullshit but on their own interests
You act like the average child has it all figured out. Majority of college students are undecided or change majors frequently. If I had someone to mentor me I’d be in a better spot, so would the majority of people.

Also if you ban every man, then it becomes 100% women, it’s def nitely changed lol.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#54
They'll work with what they have, but will continue to reach out. They may get more aggressive in recruiting though.
And they get jackshit. They tro to pry EVERY women in there and it still wont reach 30%. Meanwhile on the search for women like they are unicorns they will ignore men who really want to work there.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#55
You act like the average child has it all figured out. Majority of college students are undecided or change majors frequently. If I had someone to mentor me I’d be in a better spot, so would the majority of people.
IT is not even hard to figure out since boys and girls have these differences on the first day they are born. People like you always talk about social conditioning. That is exactly what you are doing with this.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#56
IT is not even hard to figure out since boys and girls have these differences on the first day they are born. People like you always talk about social conditioning. That is exactly what you are doing with this.
i don’t understand what point you are trying make anymore.
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,319
1,759
1,080
#57
This article is retarded and the posts in this thread are also retarded.

Yeah, so Middle Eastern countries do things some things better than us. Seems like their STEM educational culture is superior.

Or you can just make up non reasons, and idiotic unproved theories.
The only thing I see unproven is your supposition that certain gender splits are the expected outcome and anything else is abnormal.

OK keep an open mind here, I propose some kind of wearable electronic device like a bracelet (or a collar) that shocks women that read too much and men who do too much math. We need to achieve true equality any means necessary so sacrifices must be made.
We need some kind of inspector running around, hobbling dancers who dance too well and blaring airborne at people who think too much.
 
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#58
And they get jackshit. They tro to pry EVERY women in there and it still wont reach 30%. Meanwhile on the search for women like they are unicorns they will ignore men who really want to work there.
Over 50% of tech workers are foreign born, that either means not enough men in America are good enough or companies are saying we can get equivalent work at cheaper prices. Either way women are not the main cause if some white male is not hired by google.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#60
And they get jackshit. They tro to pry EVERY women in there and it still wont reach 30%. Meanwhile on the search for women like they are unicorns they will ignore men who really want to work there.
Lol no. They never ignore white men. But I'll come back to explain how It works later.
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#61
Over 50% of tech workers are foreign born, that either means not enough men in America are good enough or companies are saying we can get equivalent work at cheaper prices. Either way women are not the main cause if some white male is not hired by google.
The problem is that men do not even get a chance because they do not get the support they need. Again More and mroe men are not even trying to go into university. And this has nothing to do with interest but rahter missing support.

Also I love how you actually said men in the us are stupid while women on the otherhand an hindered by again men to get into these jobs. How much biased can you even get?

And yes they ignore men and coiuld we remove this white? What is next white cis males?
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#62
The problem is that men do not even get a chance because they do not get the support they need. Again More and mroe men are not even trying to go into university. And this has nothing to do with interest but rahter missing support.

Also I love how you actually said men in the us are stupid while women on the otherhand an hindered by again men to get into these jobs. How much biased can you even get?

And yes they ignore men and coiuld we remove this white? What is next white cis males?
The field is 80% men lol, men don’t get support they need, really?

Edit: sorry I missed the obvious redirection to men getting college degrees all of a sudden. So in your mind, if men get left behind when it comes to education we as a society need to help, but when any other group needs help, we need a hands off approach?
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#63
The field is 80% men lol, men don’t get support they need, really?
I think you do not understand Women are prefeed at job interviews. Women are prefered in terms of support programms women are supported with everything they do men are not. The 80% lies in the fact that way more men are interested in these fields then women are. Again scientific and bilogical evidence over feelings.

It is also a fact that women outclass men by far in terms of education. Less and less men are even getting into university. So where is the support here? Menawhile people like you talk about how it is hindering for women wearing a stupid shirt at work and how toxic nerds in these fields are while ignoring these bilogical evidence and the actual reason for having much less percentage o women in these fields. And to adjust to your unreal utopian thinking you try to trick and force women into these fields they normally would not even have interest in. But through social conditioning they are pushed into these fields.

And honestly I am kind of tired to say the same tuff over and over again when you totally ignore scientific evidence for my argumentation. So have a nice day I am going to bed. Mabye if you have actual evidence and not feelings we can talk again.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Zog
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#64
I think you do not understand Women are prefeed at job interviews. Women are prefered in terms of support programms women are supported with everything they do men are not. The 80% lies in the fact that way more men are interested in these fields then women are. Again scientific and bilogical evidence over feelings.

It is also a fact that women outclass men by far in terms of education. Less and less men are even getting into university. So where is the support here? Menawhile people like you talk about how it is hindering for women wearing a stupid shirt at work and how toxic nerds in these fields are while ignoring these bilogical evidence and the actual reason for having much less percentage o women in these fields. And to adjust to your unreal utopian thinking you try to trick and force women into these fields they normally would not even have interest in. But through social conditioning they are pushed into these fields.

And honestly I am kind of tired to say the same tuff over and over again when you totally ignore scientific evidence for my argumentation. So have a nice day I am going to bed. Mabye if you have actual evidence and not feelings we can talk again.
This why we can’t have a conversation. You keep bringing up these lame ass straw men that I don’t bring up. If you want to bring up men’s education, bring it up into a separate topic. Women and shirts in the workplace? Wtf are you bringing that up since no one has mentioned any of that. Focusing on women is now “tricking” and “forcing”, we are not talking about sex workers here.


What is my unreal utopian thinking? That it’s fine for a company to invest into creating a more diverse workplace? Or that citizens should demand more diversity from corporations?

What evidence are you actually presenting to suggest we stop investing in women?
 
Likes: 404Ender
Aug 17, 2017
331
123
190
#65
I think you do not understand Women are prefeed at job interviews. Women are prefered in terms of support programms women are supported with everything they do men are not. The 80% lies in the fact that way more men are interested in these fields then women are. Again scientific and bilogical evidence over feelings.

It is also a fact that women outclass men by far in terms of education. Less and less men are even getting into university. So where is the support here? Menawhile people like you talk about how it is hindering for women wearing a stupid shirt at work and how toxic nerds in these fields are while ignoring these bilogical evidence and the actual reason for having much less percentage o women in these fields. And to adjust to your unreal utopian thinking you try to trick and force women into these fields they normally would not even have interest in. But through social conditioning they are pushed into these fields.

And honestly I am kind of tired to say the same tuff over and over again when you totally ignore scientific evidence for my argumentation. So have a nice day I am going to bed. Mabye if you have actual evidence and not feelings we can talk again.
Almost every single US high school has a college credit program. Nothing is stopping anyone from going to college. And most Americans qualify to get a degree for free with pell grants, especially if over the age of 24 or an independent before the age of 24. If you cannot get a pell grant, then there are loans. A community college associates degree does not cost much. There's literally no excuse other than lack of ambition.

I don't know what you mean by "Getting into university". Unless you are attempting to get into some sort of fancy, over priced university then there is literally no competition to get into one. State universities accept anyone with a high school degree.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#66
Dunki you are heavy on identity politics when it involves white men, but are exclusionary everywhere else. In the U.S. There's no excuses other than believing that you can't do it. That's a common issue because people are growing up with poor support and education. But when you decide to do it there are no excuses.

Germany is way different, but you don't need the university to make a living. Talking collectively, not individually.
 
Mar 5, 2007
1,416
787
915
#67
I have no idea why people think that a study like this means that when it comes to women in STEM that means to stop trying to be diverse, stop trying to remove obstacles that normally affect underpresented classes.

It just means that in the right situation women can be represented in the STEM field by over 40%.
Yes, under the "right" situations like heavy economic inequality forcing them to choose what they wouldn't chose. Like I said you're arguing for mediocrity and unhappiness in the name of "diversity" and you seem so determined from it that throughout the thread you seem blind to what you're actually lobby for. I'm proposing a free society (many of which are closer to socialism) in where men and women can choose whatever the fuck they want and you're proposing practically forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make in the name of equality.


Damore got fired at google because he is a idiot.
This isn't an argument.

Google has always had mentorships since day 1 that overwhelmingly helped white males.
It does? There are mentorships only for "white males"? Is there any proof of that?


But because google decided to invest in mentoring women suddenly there is a problem. Google successfully raised female tech. Workers from 17% to 20% in three years. Good job google.
Yes, after all these forced programs that aren't merit based but gender based the percentage increase was... 3? A stunning development!
 
Last edited:
Likes: prag16
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#70
This sounds suspiciously like you're making the claim that without a STEM degree you can't expect to make a living.
In that post I was not talking about STEM, but college in general. In the U.S. no individual needs college to make a decent living, but on the big scale people need it.

Yes, under the "right" situations like heavy economic inequality forcing them to choose what they wouldn't chose. Like I said you're arguing for mediocrity and unhappiness in the name of "diversity" and you seem so determined from it that throughout the thread you seem blind to what you're actually lobby for. I'm proposing a free society (many of which are closer to socialism) in where men and women can choose whatever the fuck they want and you're proposing practically forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make in the name of equality.

It does? There are mentorships only for "white males"? Is there any proof of that?

Yes, after all these forced programs that aren't merit based but gender based the percentage increase was... 3? A stunning development!
Your opinions are unrealistic.

We don't force women to do anything, and we don't take unqualified women, or promote bad fits. We make our companies more inviting and do all that we can to help women prosper, and we reach out and offer encouragement. We say: "doesn't this look interesting to you afterall, it could be your career and it pays well. Look, there are other people like you doing this too. You can do it!".

There is no guaranteed roadmap for diversity, it's an experimental process. These diversity programs may or may not work, and results are slow. Most companies don't have them, but the leadership drives diversity because it makes them more competitive.

If you want something you make an effort to get it.
 
Likes: mr2xxx
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#71
Almost every single US high school has a college credit program. Nothing is stopping anyone from going to college. And most Americans qualify to get a degree for free with pell grants, especially if over the age of 24 or an independent before the age of 24. If you cannot get a pell grant, then there are loans. A community college associates degree does not cost much. There's literally no excuse other than lack of ambition.

I don't know what you mean by "Getting into university". Unless you are attempting to get into some sort of fancy, over priced university then there is literally no competition to get into one. State universities accept anyone with a high school degree.
So why does this happen then? Why does no one care? And I am not talking aout white or black men I am talking about men in general even though it would be even worse with black men
Again women these days get almost pressed in these courses. They are starting with little girl like google has a programm just for little girls. This goes on in high school for women this goes further in colleges and shortly before etc. Men do not have these programms these opportunities to try something out.

https://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/

And I am saying istead of trying to push women into soemthing they biological maybe do not even wanted to. (Again tests with babies) we should focus on EVERY CHILD to find out what their interests are, what they like and what they want to be and then support them. What I do not like are these hipocracies going on. "Its men who are the reason for less women in stem. Its mens fault for not wanting to go to college etc.

AGain why is the general idea of helping EVERYONE not based on gender, race or whatever such a bad idea for you guys? All I am hearing is LOL men even better LOL white men and honestly I am quite fed up with these esexist and racist views
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#72
So why does this happen then? Why does no one care? And I am not talking aout white or black men I am talking about men in general even though it would be even worse with black men
Again women these days get almost pressed in these courses. They are starting with little girl like google has a programm just for little girls. This goes on in high school for women this goes further in colleges and shortly before etc. Men do not have these programms these opportunities to try something out.

https://collegestats.org/2013/05/why-men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed/

And I am saying istead of trying to push women into soemthing they biological maybe do not even wanted to. (Again tests with babies) we should focus on EVERY CHILD to find out what their interests are, what they like and what they want to be and then support them. What I do not like are these hipocracies going on. "Its men who are the reason for less women in stem. Its mens fault for not wanting to go to college etc.

AGain why is the general idea of helping EVERYONE not based on gender, race or whatever such a bad idea for you guys? All I am hearing is LOL men even better LOL white men and honestly I am quite fed up with these esexist and racist views
There are stem camps, stem schools, inventors studios, after school programs, tech schools, and more for kids. Upper middle class boys dominate these programs that parents send them to. Regardless of who has the highest representation boys have access.

And for the poor, well, the brightest ones can get sponsorships to these, but it's not many.

Girlstart doesn't take anything away from men. It would be a problem if there weren't any programs already.

And they are not pushing women, they're reaching out and encouraging (pulling) them when they show interests. Pull, not push.

In the U.S. as an adult it's on you to go to college. If you decide to go, we make it easy to get in regardless of age. And Dunki, it's not easy for a few men to work in an organization full of women either. Daycare is a big barrier to men, and as important as it is, it's not that important so no one cares.
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2017
331
123
190
#73
So why does this happen then? Why does no one care?
Literally, every single child, male or female, is indoctrinated to go to college in elementary through high school. You are constantly told how college graduates earn more, are happier, is the only real way to be considered successful, etc. You are constantly reminded how good grades can get you into a good college. Most high schools are paired with the local community college to allow students to earn college credit for free.

Pell grants and government loans are there to allow every single US citizen to go to college.

Clearly someone cares, or at least the US government sure seems to.

Again women these days get almost pressed in these courses. They are starting with little girl like google has a programm just for little girls. This goes on in high school for women this goes further in colleges and shortly before etc. Men do not have these programms these opportunities to try something out.
I don't know what you are talking about. No one ever pressed me to do anything other than the generalized "go to college" type of propaganda while in school. I never got word of any of these programs or were helped by them. I applied for some women-based scholarships but they never picked me. :(

The majority of scholarships are for both genders anyway.

I'd assume google has a girls coding program because they feel it will be profitable for them in the future. After all, men attend and graduate college less. Google is a corporation, not a charity. Investing in women is the investment that poses the least risk.

And I am saying istead of trying to push women into soemthing they biological maybe do not even wanted to.
I don't think you can push anyone to complete a degree that they don't want to. It takes a lot of work, time, and effort to get a degree.

we should focus on EVERY CHILD to find out what their interests are, what they like and what they want to be and then support them.
That's the job of the parents and the child themselves. The only person that can figure out what you want to do is you. The state already supports the child's financial ability to go to school.

Its mens fault for not wanting to go to college etc.
I think it is on the person if they chose not to go to college. It's way too easy to get into college all while getting it paid for. Man or woman. Especially with the ability to get a degree through online courses nowadays.

A lot of men go to vocational schools instead of college as well. That's not reflected in your statistics. The vast majority of cops, plumbers, mechanics, HVAC, construction workers etc. are men. Men also favor warehouse and factory work over women.

AGain why is the general idea of helping EVERYONE not based on gender, race or whatever such a bad idea for you guys? All I am hearing is LOL men even better LOL white men and honestly I am quite fed up with these esexist and racist views
I don't know who "you guys" is supposed to be.

It would not bother me if there were a male based program to encourage men to go to college. I would just think "Thats good. The more educated people the better."

I would not get offended in the manner that you are. It is kind of silly, because you are just the reverse version of the "you guys". I'm not insecure or jealous. Men being encouraged to go to college doesn't bother me.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
38,285
1,357
1,320
#74
This is a fine method of thinking; provided you live under an authoritarian regime.

Thats the point. Given equal oppprtunity and the pursuit of study based on indiivdual preference, you wind up with a a paradox of what people 'think' they should be as opposed to what they want to be.

This study suggest that if you strip people of what they need, what they actually want is quite different.

Hence if you want equality, you will in fact end up with a result that doesnt reflect that.
But in the end that's true equality. Allowing people to be what they want to be in their careers. This study has cleared up some things for me.
 
Jan 31, 2011
5,809
48
500
Straya
#75
No sure how it works in USA, but I chose engineering computing and autamotive as electives in high school. EP had 1 female out of 25-30 males, similar in Automotive.
This is at a stage even before inviting females into University for STEM.

My school now has special female STEM system in conjuction with a university. Females in this affirmative action group even get a special uniform.
 
Mar 5, 2007
1,416
787
915
#77
Your opinions are unrealistic.

We don't force women to do anything, and we don't take unqualified women, or promote bad fits. We make our companies more inviting and do all that we can to help women prosper, and we reach out and offer encouragement. We say: "doesn't this look interesting to you afterall, it could be your career and it pays well. Look, there are other people like you doing this too. You can do it!".

There is no guaranteed roadmap for diversity, it's an experimental process. These diversity programs may or may not work, and results are slow. Most companies don't have them, but the leadership drives diversity because it makes them more competitive.

If you want something you make an effort to get it.

My opinions are unrealistic? You argue for equality of outcome even though it is scientifically supported that the two sexes have different preferences and on top of that you want that through some pretty crude and authoritarian methods and I'm unrealistic?

And btw you guys have some pretty specific thoughts on what this "diversity" should be. As it has been mentioned you don't fight for garbage collectors diversity and you don't fight for diversity in spaces where women are the majority, in fact when someone points out the hypocrisy like Dunki did you accuse them of only caring about "white men" (funny how he didn't mentioned whites in that post but whatever). It's hypocrisy of the highest order especially since your "social justice" movements pretend to represent everyone, not just women. You really give social justice and equality a bad name.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#78
My opinions are unrealistic? You argue for equality of outcome even though it is scientifically supported that the two sexes have different preferences and on top of that you want that through some pretty crude and authoritarian methods and I'm unrealistic?
I am not arguing about equality of outcome (but we do apply equality of outcome standards/legislation selectively, and measure for it always), and barely talk about equality of opportunity so far. I'm talking about what is actually going on with getting women into stem, why, and how it is done. There's no authoritarian or social justice this or that, relax with the buzzwords. Dont let your hatred for womens targeted programs cloud your judgement, companies now do this of their own free will. Do you think this study impacts Google? It doesn't. They want something that benefits them, and they go out and get it. Now if Google wants a 50/50 ratio that's on them, whether they are capable of getting it due to biological interests or not. But again, that's all on them.

And btw you guys have some pretty specific thoughts on what this "diversity" should be. As it has been mentioned you don't fight for garbage collectors diversity and you don't fight for diversity in spaces where women are the majority, in fact when someone points out the hypocrisy like Dunki did you accuse them of only caring about "white men" (funny how he didn't mentioned whites in that post but whatever). It's hypocrisy of the highest order especially since your "social justice" movements pretend to represent everyone, not just women. You really give social justice and equality a bad name.
Dunki flips a shit whenever he thinks white men aren't being included. The rest of your post is off subject.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2007
1,416
787
915
#79
I am not arguing about equality of outcome (but we do apply equality of outcome standards/legislation selectively, and measure for it always), and barely talk about equality of opportunity so far. I'm talking about what is actually going on with getting women into stem, why, and how it is done. There's no authoritarian or social justice this or that, relax with the buzzwords. Dont let your hatred for womens targeted programs cloud your judgement, companies now do this of their own free will. Do you think this study impacts Google? It doesn't. They want something that benefits them, and they go out and get it. Now if Google wants a 50/50 ratio that's on them, whether they are capable of getting it due to biological interests or not. But again, that's all on them.

Dunki flips a shit whenever he thinks white men aren't being included. The rest of your post is off subject.

You are most definitely arguing for equality of outcome, this way of thinking and these programs are the epitome of equality of outcome. You are also deliberately avoiding the evidence presented in this thread and you're now just vaguely supporting these programs because they "benefit Google" (no evidence presented for this).

So let me get this straight here, you purposely ignore scientific evidence to keep supporting crude programs that aim to equal representation for specific high-paying jobs even though it is obvious from the data this could only happen if both sexes are forced into it but deny that you support equality of outcome... Am I getting this right? As I've said before in this forum not even Marx was championing for this shit yet here we are with people advocating it but only based on identity not class, of course, because corporate media that are in full control of this divisive and often non-nonsensical identity politics narrative would NEVER offer support for that.

There is a huge difference btw between being obsessed with the identity politics and just calling out identity politics and those often obsessed with them. Dunki is obviously doing the second but I guess even pointing out the hypocrisy means that someone only cares about "white males" to some people.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Dunki
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#80
I am not arguing about equality of outcome (but we do apply equality of outcome standards/legislation selectively, and measure for it always), and barely talk about equality of opportunity so far. I'm talking about what is actually going on with getting women into stem, why, and how it is done. There's no authoritarian or social justice this or that, relax with the buzzwords. Dont let your hatred for womens targeted programs cloud your judgement, companies now do this of their own free will. Do you think this study impacts Google? It doesn't. They want something that benefits them, and they go out and get it. Now if Google wants a 50/50 ratio that's on them, whether they are capable of getting it due to biological interests or not. But again, that's all on them.



Dunki flips a shit whenever he thinks white men aren't being included. The rest of your post is off subject.
No I flip my shit when I hear stuff lol white people or or lol men. And this were your and or others words. What me really makes me upset if you bring race in a gender specific topic. And I also said why not also use cis in it as well to see your true intentions. What I want is true equality. Everyone being treated the same and supported as the other ones. The 7 year old Daniel had no choice to be born as male or if you are interested in as white. So should he be less supported than girls? Why are girls special? Because they are weak and need help? Because this is the conclusion I would draw out of these one gender only classes etc.

I do not think women are weak and need special help....
 
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
#81
This shit is all very very very complex, and I wish people would treat it in that way. Especially, it's wild when I come in here and see people drawing conclusions that the actual scientists who do the studies themselves, don't make, or on the other side just tossing the study itself out of the window. It would be great if we could engage in this stuff in a way that doesn't end up with us jumping out the window, especially when so few of us have done the reading needed to say anything with the certainty that I see sometimes (if we want to tackle subjects in a scientific way then we should act a little more like scientists).
 
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#82
You're still giving him money, and thats wrong in my book.
This shit is all very very very complex, and I wish people would treat it in that way. Especially, it's wild when I come in here and see people drawing conclusions that the actual scientists who do the studies themselves, don't make, or on the other side just tossing the study itself out of the window. It would be great if we could engage in this stuff in a way that doesn't end up with us jumping out the window, especially when so few of us have done the reading needed to say anything with the certainty that I see sometimes (if we want to tackle subjects in a scientific way then we should act a little more like scientists).
the conclusion i draw are result of several ones from different fields and which make perfect sense if you combine them. Also I am not a scientist and this is not a scientific place. We only can draw our own opinions based on the research results presented. Again I am still waiting for scientific research which support the male culture and boys clubs preventing women from entering these fields
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#83
You are most definitely arguing for equality of outcome, this way of thinking and these programs are the epitome of equality of outcome. You are also deliberately avoiding the evidence presented in this thread and you're now just vaguely supporting these programs because they "benefit Google" (no evidence presented for this). As I've said before in this forum not even Marx was championing for this shit yet here we are with people advocating for this crap but only based on identity not class, of course, because corporate media that are in full control of these divisive and often non-nonsensical identity politics would never offer support for that.
Take off your politics goggles:

There is a market need for diversity in the never ending quest to gain competitive advantage and better ones self. How do companies know? Correlation studies, outcome studies, consumer surveys, hard data on women CEOs etc. Companies continuously publish their findings and struggles online. It's studied in depth. This is the basics of what I am talking about regardless of the origins of diversity, this study, or the political climate.

You wanna pin it all to leftists telling everyone what to do, and pressuring companies, prove that women aren't interested via biological or freedom, etc. But there is a market drive. If societal representation is only 30%, then leading companies like Google will compete for that %.

Now the social situation is that there's untapped potential, and I happen to believe that's true if we continue to reach out and avoid situations like with the Dallas Mavericks. And note, I didnt imply equal representation.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
38,285
1,357
1,320
#84
the conclusion i draw are result of several ones from different fields and which make perfect sense if you combine them. Also I am not a scientist and this is not a scientific place. We only can draw our own opinions based on the research results presented. Again I am still waiting for scientific research which support the male culture and boys clubs preventing women from entering these fields
It doesn't prevent women from entering the fields. But the environment does promote boys to code and doesn't do the same for girls when they are in middle and high school. Like we know this much.
 
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
#85
the conclusion i draw are result of several ones from different fields and which make perfect sense if you combine them. Also I am not a scientist and this is not a scientific place. We only can draw our own opinions based on the research results presented. Again I am still waiting for scientific research which support the male culture and boys clubs preventing women from entering these fields
It's fine that this is your conclusion, but if a person's argument against other people is that "this is science and you're stupid/going against science if you disagree", I think that's a bad argument if that person is using a scientist's scientific results to draw conclusions that the scientist would never draw.

Studies show that representation and having role models can have a huge effect on who ends up in what field, more than money. (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16706352/innovation-inequality-race-gender).

Here's a summary:
  • Among affluent families, young kids who perform highly on math tests are much more likely to make successful inventions than low-ability kids.
  • But this isn't true among low-income families. There, high-scoring and low-scoring kids alike are about equally unlikely to become inventors — suggesting that it isn’t a lack of aptitude that’s holding back poor kids; it’s that aptitude alone isn’t enough.
  • Kids are more likely to grow up to be inventors when they grow up in cities with other inventors, which means where you’re born has a lot to do with whether you’ll innovate.
  • This holds up even when we look into specific categories of invention. If you grow up in a city full of antenna innovators, you are more likely to innovate regarding antennas — suggesting that early life exposure to relevant networks is important.
  • Fascinatingly, the effect is gender-specific — girls are likely to grow up to be innovators only if their city includes an existing stockpile of female innovators (and similarly, male role models for boys), underscoring the importance of role models and self-image.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2017
5,100
3,719
315
#86
It's fine that this is your conclusion, but if a person's argument against other people is that "this is science and you're stupid/going against science if you disagree", I think that's a bad argument if that person is using a scientist's scientific results to draw conclusions that the scientist would never draw.

Studies show that representation and having role models can have a huge effect on who ends up in what field, more than money. (https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16706352/innovation-inequality-race-gender).

Here's a summary:
No I am saying if you put feelings over science it is stupid. Not opinions in general. And this is something I can go by. But this also does not show how males or male culture like promoted by many feminists are preventing are toxic for women. I totally can see the connection of missing role models. These are very important boys or girls. Just like Superhero are very important for kids. But I do not see this as a Gender issue in general. Like the study says if I read it wrong it is mostly about class and not gender. Also I do not think that potential is a good meassurement since potential of a certain person and what that person actually wants are often also different.
 
Jan 14, 2018
869
3,117
245
#87
The above mentioned study was an interesting read, but I'm not quite so sure about its political implications. The conclusions presented within the study are not quite in line with global trends, which may be due to differences in american culture. If we take a look at worldwide patent applications, we get a picture that is much less distorted by national socio-economic, political and cultural divides.

First, let me state that female participation in international patenting is on the rise across almost all countries in the world, which is a good thing:



It goes to show that party politics have much less impact than is assumed by the vox article stated above. It has more to do with the fact that woman workforce mobilization is a global trend, spanning over almost all countries on the globe, no matter their political composition. It is no mystery, that due to recent globalization effects, individual countries are seeking to maximize their workforce potential in order to stay internationally competitive. This has nothing to do with american party politics.

Funnily enough, China has the biggest share of women in international patent applications:



I'm sure that most are aware that China in not exactly the most liberal country in the world, yet has the highest female participation in innovation. The second country is South Korea, being a democracy, it is much more liberal, but still presents stricter gender roles, considering the fact that it is ranked much lower than the United States on the Global Gender Gap Report. South Korea is also ranking abysmally low on the glass-ceiling index.

Here is the female participation in patent registration across countries of the European Union:



As we can see, the economically disfavored Eastern European countries largely dominate in female representation, despite their more conservative culture and politics. In fact, the very liberal economic powerhouses of Europe, where quality of life and freedom of individual choice are highest, tend to rank much lower on this scale.

If we look at international patent registrations by global region, we get a very similar picture:



While Europe and North America have largely stagnated or regressed, Asian patent application rose by 10% in ten years! Representation in Asian and especially Chinese movies is much less diverse than Hollywood productions, they also tend to feature much more traditional gender roles. When it comes to role models in science, Asian people are also much underrepresented with most famous scientists being either European of American. Yet they have higher female representation in patent innovation.

Furthermore, if we compare patent applications with income groups, there are huge disparities:



We can see that income, compared globally over countries with vastly different political systems, is still the most important factor when it comes to patent innovation. This is due to the fact that high-income countries have a much higher research & development spending, meaning that these countries have the economical overhead to invest and subsidize such programs.

Now, let's take a look at female participation in international patent registration across different fields of technology:



Women’s inventing activities are in line with their preference to work in technology fields like chemistry as well as medical and health related disciplines, while they invent less often in technologies like mechanical engineering, construction, and transporting. If you would take a look at the different countries, this distribution largely remains the same, especially for all European countries.

Considering the above, one could assume that economical factors and liberty of choice heavily influence these factors.

Now what about role models? The study in the vox article claims that women and minorities don't innovate, because they have fewer role models. But, if we take a look at american patent rates by ethnicity, we can see the following:



Now I'm not an expert on ethnic relations in the U.S., but I find it kinda weird that Asian people are vastly outnumbering everybody else when it comes to patent innovating. But I do consume a lot of U.S. media and it seems to me that they are one of the least represented ethnicity in Hollywood.

So how is it that despite so few role models, Asians still innovate so much? I can only speculate but I think that it mostly boils down to the current mindset in american culture. Asian culture is known for its strict discipline and hard work mentality. In fact, their work culture is so strict, that 600.000 Chinese mainlanders die every year from working too hard. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all other people are lazy, but that certainly plays a role. If you'd ask me, the very comfortable life in most high-income countries has certainly led to a more lackadaisical approach to life. We certainly tend to coddle our children a lot, running the risk of making them more fragilized for the hardships of life. At least compared to other countries, we have a very cozy and soft style of life. Or why is it that, in general, we are falling so much behind in innovation when it comes to Asian countries?

The study in the vox article also suggests that kids in the U.S. heavily identify with role models that share their gender or ethnicity. They then imply that gender and ethnic representation in tutoring is required to get these children into innovation roles. First, I'd like to know the reasons why kids in america put so much importance on identity? As far as I'm aware, children are born color-blind, so could it be that the sorry state of affairs in U.S. ethnic relations coupled with identity politics are cultivating that attitude in the younger generations?

Maybe it's a cultural thing related to american history, so that study may be valid in that context. But from my humble perspective that certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the world. At least where I'm coming from, we don't put so much emphasis on our external characteristics, hence why children have it much easier to find role models that primarily pertain to their interests and not their self-image.

A better solution would be an egalitarian approach that raises children by putting importance on what they have in common as human beings, rather than constantly underlining their gender and ethnic differences. By doing so, it would be much easier for kids to identify with role models, no matter their ethnicity or gender related identity.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
38,285
1,357
1,320
#88
Now what about role models? The study in the vox article claims that women and minorities don't innovate, because they have fewer role models. But, if we take a look at american patent rates by ethnicity, we can see the following:



Now I'm not an expert on ethnic relations in the U.S., but I find it kinda weird that Asian people are vastly outnumbering everybody else when it comes to patent innovating. But I do consume a lot of U.S. media and it seems to me that they are one of the least represented ethnicity in Hollywood.

So how is it that despite so few role models, Asians still innovate so much? I can only speculate but I think that it mostly boils down to the current mindset in american culture. Asian culture is known for its strict discipline and hard work mentality. In fact, their work culture is so strict, that 600.000 Chinese mainlanders die every year from working too hard. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all other people are lazy, but that certainly plays a role. If you'd ask me, the very comfortable life in most high-income countries has certainly led to a more lackadaisical approach to life. We certainly tend to coddle our children a lot, running the risk of making them more fragilized for the hardships of life. At least compared to other countries, we have a very cozy and soft style of life. Or why is it that, in general, we are falling so much behind in innovation when it comes to Asian countries?

The study in the vox article also suggests that kids in the U.S. heavily identify with role models that share their gender or ethnicity. They then imply that gender and ethnic representation in tutoring is required to get these children into innovation roles. First, I'd like to know the reasons why kids in america put so much importance on identity? As far as I'm aware, children are born color-blind, so could it be that the sorry state of affairs in U.S. ethnic relations coupled with identity politics are cultivating that attitude in the younger generations?

Maybe it's a cultural thing related to american history, so that study may be valid in that context. But from my humble perspective that certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the world. At least where I'm coming from, we don't put so much emphasis on our external characteristics, hence why children have it much easier to find role models that primarily pertain to their interests and not their self-image.

A better solution would be an egalitarian approach that raises children by putting importance on what they have in common as human beings, rather than constantly underlining their gender and ethnic differences. By doing so, it would be much easier for kids to identify with role models, no matter their ethnicity or gender related identity.
Role models aren't just hollywood actors though. They can be your teacher, parent, Aunt, Uncle, friends, etc. That's the only thing you might be missing and not understanding in your post.
 
Mar 12, 2011
8,187
163
580
#89
Now what about role models? The study in the vox article claims that women and minorities don't innovate, because they have fewer role models. But, if we take a look at american patent rates by ethnicity, we can see the following:



Now I'm not an expert on ethnic relations in the U.S., but I find it kinda weird that Asian people are vastly outnumbering everybody else when it comes to patent innovating. But I do consume a lot of U.S. media and it seems to me that they are one of the least represented ethnicity in Hollywood.

So how is it that despite so few role models, Asians still innovate so much? I can only speculate but I think that it mostly boils down to the current mindset in american culture. Asian culture is known for its strict discipline and hard work mentality. In fact, their work culture is so strict, that 600.000 Chinese mainlanders die every year from working too hard. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all other people are lazy, but that certainly plays a role. If you'd ask me, the very comfortable life in most high-income countries has certainly led to a more lackadaisical approach to life. We certainly tend to coddle our children a lot, running the risk of making them more fragilized for the hardships of life. At least compared to other countries, we have a very cozy and soft style of life. Or why is it that, in general, we are falling so much behind in innovation when it comes to Asian countries?

The study in the vox article also suggests that kids in the U.S. heavily identify with role models that share their gender or ethnicity. They then imply that gender and ethnic representation in tutoring is required to get these children into innovation roles. First, I'd like to know the reasons why kids in america put so much importance on identity? As far as I'm aware, children are born color-blind, so could it be that the sorry state of affairs in U.S. ethnic relations coupled with identity politics are cultivating that attitude in the younger generations?

Maybe it's a cultural thing related to american history, so that study may be valid in that context. But from my humble perspective that certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the world. At least where I'm coming from, we don't put so much emphasis on our external characteristics, hence why children have it much easier to find role models that primarily pertain to their interests and not their self-image.

A better solution would be an egalitarian approach that raises children by putting importance on what they have in common as human beings, rather than constantly underlining their gender and ethnic differences. By doing so, it would be much easier for kids to identify with role models, no matter their ethnicity or gender related identity.
1. Asians are not being represented primarily due to them being around 5% of the population. With China being a big importer of Hollywood films this should be changing.

2. Asians innovate so much due to a few factors:
- They make the most, thus have more opportunity.
- Location


Top 5 States for Patents: 1. California 2. New York 3. Texas 4. New Jersey 5. Illinois

Luckily Asian immigrants came to places that developed a culture for innovation/patents. California has the most Asians with 30% residing here.

- Half of innovators majored in some form of engineering as an undergraduate, and more than 90 percent majored in a STEM subject as an undergraduate.


We can see that Asians have the highest rate, more than double 2nd place which means just from this they are more than twice than whites to be patent creators.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bryank75
Nov 17, 2013
482
111
0
#90
The above mentioned study was an interesting read, but I'm not quite so sure about its political implications. The conclusions presented within the study are not quite in line with global trends, which may be due to differences in american culture. If we take a look at worldwide patent applications, we get a picture that is much less distorted by national socio-economic, political and cultural divides.

First, let me state that female participation in international patenting is on the rise across almost all countries in the world, which is a good thing:



It goes to show that party politics have much less impact than is assumed by the vox article stated above. It has more to do with the fact that woman workforce mobilization is a global trend, spanning over almost all countries on the globe, no matter their political composition. It is no mystery, that due to recent globalization effects, individual countries are seeking to maximize their workforce potential in order to stay internationally competitive. This has nothing to do with american party politics.

Funnily enough, China has the biggest share of women in international patent applications:



I'm sure that most are aware that China in not exactly the most liberal country in the world, yet has the highest female participation in innovation. The second country is South Korea, being a democracy, it is much more liberal, but still presents stricter gender roles, considering the fact that it is ranked much lower than the United States on the Global Gender Gap Report. South Korea is also ranking abysmally low on the glass-ceiling index.

Here is the female participation in patent registration across countries of the European Union:



As we can see, the economically disfavored Eastern European countries largely dominate in female representation, despite their more conservative culture and politics. In fact, the very liberal economic powerhouses of Europe, where quality of life and freedom of individual choice are highest, tend to rank much lower on this scale.

If we look at international patent registrations by global region, we get a very similar picture:



While Europe and North America have largely stagnated or regressed, Asian patent application rose by 10% in ten years! Representation in Asian and especially Chinese movies is much less diverse than Hollywood productions, they also tend to feature much more traditional gender roles. When it comes to role models in science, Asian people are also much underrepresented with most famous scientists being either European of American. Yet they have higher female representation in patent innovation.

Furthermore, if we compare patent applications with income groups, there are huge disparities:



We can see that income, compared globally over countries with vastly different political systems, is still the most important factor when it comes to patent innovation. This is due to the fact that high-income countries have a much higher research & development spending, meaning that these countries have the economical overhead to invest and subsidize such programs.

Now, let's take a look at female participation in international patent registration across different fields of technology:



Women’s inventing activities are in line with their preference to work in technology fields like chemistry as well as medical and health related disciplines, while they invent less often in technologies like mechanical engineering, construction, and transporting. If you would take a look at the different countries, this distribution largely remains the same, especially for all European countries.

Considering the above, one could assume that economical factors and liberty of choice heavily influence these factors.

Now what about role models? The study in the vox article claims that women and minorities don't innovate, because they have fewer role models. But, if we take a look at american patent rates by ethnicity, we can see the following:



Now I'm not an expert on ethnic relations in the U.S., but I find it kinda weird that Asian people are vastly outnumbering everybody else when it comes to patent innovating. But I do consume a lot of U.S. media and it seems to me that they are one of the least represented ethnicity in Hollywood.

So how is it that despite so few role models, Asians still innovate so much? I can only speculate but I think that it mostly boils down to the current mindset in american culture. Asian culture is known for its strict discipline and hard work mentality. In fact, their work culture is so strict, that 600.000 Chinese mainlanders die every year from working too hard. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all other people are lazy, but that certainly plays a role. If you'd ask me, the very comfortable life in most high-income countries has certainly led to a more lackadaisical approach to life. We certainly tend to coddle our children a lot, running the risk of making them more fragilized for the hardships of life. At least compared to other countries, we have a very cozy and soft style of life. Or why is it that, in general, we are falling so much behind in innovation when it comes to Asian countries?

The study in the vox article also suggests that kids in the U.S. heavily identify with role models that share their gender or ethnicity. They then imply that gender and ethnic representation in tutoring is required to get these children into innovation roles. First, I'd like to know the reasons why kids in america put so much importance on identity? As far as I'm aware, children are born color-blind, so could it be that the sorry state of affairs in U.S. ethnic relations coupled with identity politics are cultivating that attitude in the younger generations?

Maybe it's a cultural thing related to american history, so that study may be valid in that context. But from my humble perspective that certainly doesn't apply to the rest of the world. At least where I'm coming from, we don't put so much emphasis on our external characteristics, hence why children have it much easier to find role models that primarily pertain to their interests and not their self-image.

A better solution would be an egalitarian approach that raises children by putting importance on what they have in common as human beings, rather than constantly underlining their gender and ethnic differences. By doing so, it would be much easier for kids to identify with role models, no matter their ethnicity or gender related
I think the focus on the divide between socially liberal and socially illiberal countries gets us a bit off topic if we’re solely talking about the effect of representation on minority and female participation in certain sectors of the workplace. You can be socially liberal and have awful representation, and vice versa. Party politics, at least as it was talked about in the vox piece appears to have been solely a conversation about the effect of tax cuts on innovation.

“Women’s inventing activities are in line with their preference to work in technology fields like chemistry as well as medical and health related disciplines, while they invent less often in technologies like mechanical engineering, construction, and transporting. If you would take a look at the different countries, this distribution largely remains the same, especially for all European countries.”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but couldn’t representation be the reason for the above.

“So how is it that despite so few role models, Asians still innovate so much?“ when we talk about representation and role models we don’t solely mean in movies and tv shows. We mean in real life, in your actual community, that’s what the vox presented study was looking at. Furthermore Mr2xxx did a pretty good job at breaking down why American Asians tend to do so well. I would like to add that I think it’s a little reductive to say that “working hard” is the main reason why they become inventors at a higher rate than everyone else, especially when in a graph you posted you show that Asian countries being the undisputed world leader in innovation is a fairly new thing.

“A better solution would be an egalitarian approach that raises children by putting importance on what they have in common as human beings, rather than constantly underlining their gender and ethnic differences. By doing so, it would be much easier for kids to identify with role models, no matter their ethnicity or gender related identity“

To me, this only works within a truly egalitarian society.
 
Jan 21, 2018
327
247
180
Republic of Catalonia
#91
Take off your politics goggles:

There is a market need for diversity in the never ending quest to gain competitive advantage and better ones self. How do companies know? Correlation studies, outcome studies, consumer surveys, hard data on women CEOs etc. Companies continuously publish their findings and struggles online. It's studied in depth. This is the basics of what I am talking about regardless of the origins of diversity, this study, or the political climate.

You wanna pin it all to leftists telling everyone what to do, and pressuring companies, prove that women aren't interested via biological or freedom, etc. But there is a market drive. If societal representation is only 30%, then leading companies like Google will compete for that %.

Now the social situation is that there's untapped potential, and I happen to believe that's true if we continue to reach out and avoid situations like with the Dallas Mavericks. And note, I didnt imply equal representation.
Companies just want to appeal better to the public and identity politics and "diversity" are just that. And it's all because of "lefties" (and I am a leftist).

Google fired Damore because he's opinions contradicted the PC culture and they don't want to be associated with that. They prefer to say they have done "studies" that indicate that having more women/black people/transexuals are better for their company.

The reality is that all of those things don't matter.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
453
203
180
#92
Why STEM only though? I mean let's achieve 50 / 50 in every field - like sailing, troops, rigs and other. What I see is that equality is trying to be forced in the fields where the work itself is more or less soft. (I do not mean "doing nothing")
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
#93
Companies just want to appeal better to the public and identity politics and "diversity" are just that. And it's all because of "lefties" (and I am a leftist).

Google fired Damore because he's opinions contradicted the PC culture and they don't want to be associated with that. They prefer to say they have done "studies" that indicate that having more women/black people/transexuals are better for their company.

The reality is that all of those things don't matter.
That's a pretty biased opinion.

Answer me this: Do you think that the Behavioral and this Gender Equality study are scientific facts that should prove that companies should not have diversity programs, or seek diversity?
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2014
470
11
345
#94
Why is there a focus on trying to get more females into STEM fields? I mean there isn't a focus into getting more men into the fashion/make-up product field.
 
May 24, 2005
38,285
1,357
1,320
#95
Companies just want to appeal better to the public and identity politics and "diversity" are just that. And it's all because of "lefties" (and I am a leftist).

Google fired Damore because he's opinions contradicted the PC culture and they don't want to be associated with that. They prefer to say they have done "studies" that indicate that having more women/black people/transexuals are better for their company.

The reality is that all of those things don't matter.
Well it does matter if you have a more diverse workforce. That's just a fact. Of course you can't force people to work at your company if they aren't out there to apply, but if they are applying and are cross all the T's and all the "I's" are dotted then it makes alot of sense to hire them. Than just hiring one or two of the same type of people.
 
May 24, 2005
38,285
1,357
1,320
#96
Why is there a focus on trying to get more females into STEM fields? I mean there isn't a focus into getting more men into the fashion/make-up product field.
Because historicly women have been pushed away from STEM fields. So now that we as a culture realize that women can do these jobs, it's smart to get as many as possible into the STEM jobs if they want to do that work.
 
Jan 14, 2018
869
3,117
245
#97
Role models aren't just hollywood actors though. They can be your teacher, parent, Aunt, Uncle, friends, etc. That's the only thing you might be missing and not understanding in your post.
Absolutely, but it's hard accounting for that. That's why I linked to the distribution of Nobel price winners in my previous post. Point being that perceived self-image and patent innovation don't correlate. So yes, role models matter, but from a global perspective, identity not so much.

2. Asians innovate so much due to a few factors:
- They make the most, thus have more opportunity.
- Location
Certainly, but these factors affect everybody as stated by the study in the vox article. There are other variables to take into account, work mentality, economic pressure, individual freedom of choice, etc...

Party politics, at least as it was talked about in the vox piece appears to have been solely a conversation about the effect of tax cuts on innovation.
It's certainly a dig at the political opposition, considering that identity politics is a huge talking point of the american democrats and the study serves to reaffirm that. Female participation in patent registration as been on the rise since the 70's, no matter what political administration was in office.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding but couldn’t representation be the reason for the above.
Unlikely, because there really was not much representation when these trends emerged in the first place. It's more likely that these preferences develop along consumer habits.



I would like to add that I think it’s a little reductive to say that “working hard” is the main reason why they become inventors at a higher rate than everyone else, especially when in a graph you posted you show that Asian countries being the undisputed world leader in innovation is a fairly new thing.
Yes but you have to consider that Asian innovation processes were largely hampered by the communist regimes, after the cold war things changed.

To me, this only works within a truly egalitarian society.
I disagree, only egalitarian principles lead to egalitarian societies.
 
Last edited:
Jan 21, 2018
327
247
180
Republic of Catalonia
#98
That's a pretty biased opinion.
I find this statement really ironic.

Answer me this: Do you think that the Behavioral and this Gender Equality study are scientific facts that should prove that companies should not have diversity programs, or seek diversity?
What?

There's no scientific evidence of "diversity" in the work environment being good or bad. What I'm saying is that companies just want to hire "minorities" because they think that is good for their image, not because they actually think they are actually going to become better at their work.
 
Jan 21, 2018
327
247
180
Republic of Catalonia
#99
Well it does matter if you have a more diverse workforce. That's just a fact. Of course you can't force people to work at your company if they aren't out there to apply, but if they are applying and are cross all the T's and all the "I's" are dotted then it makes alot of sense to hire them. Than just hiring one or two of the same type of people.
No, it's not a fact at all. Is just wishful thinking.

You hire based on the capabilities of someone to do their work, not on their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Because historicly women have been pushed away from STEM fields. So now that we as a culture realize that women can do these jobs, it's smart to get as many as possible into the STEM jobs if they want to do that work.
No, is not smart to get as many women possible in a forceful and artificial manner.

Let women decide and stop trying to make the fact that there is not as much women in STEM or there isn't as much women CEO's some kind of problem that must be fixed. It's not a problem at all, because women are deciding what they want to do, and despite what feminism says, they are not interested in the same fields as men.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,126
950
735
I find this statement really ironic.



What?

There's no scientific evidence of "diversity" in the work environment being good or bad. What I'm saying is that companies just want to hire "minorities" because they think that is good for their image, not because they actually think they are actually going to become better at their work.
I didn't share my opinion when talking about corporations, and you haven't done your research. There is plenty of data and information, we just don't get it in the form of "diversity generates x dollars more". But we do get nice correlation data, hard facts about performance, and use cases where adding diversity instantly made a big difference in a product as the medical field has experienced many times over. Data must be diverse as as well.

Some academics suggest that there is no causation between more women on the board and greater profitability. They argue that there well may be reverse causation as bigger, higher-profile stocks that, by definition, have already done well, are the ones that are more likely to appoint women to the board. Hence, more women on the board could well be a signal that the company is already doing well, rather than a sign of better things to come.

“The Research Institute results did find that large-cap companies, which tend to be historical strong performers, are more likely to appoint women to their boards.

However, even in an isolated comparison of the large-cap companies the outperformance of companies with women in the board held up. This indicated that the causation between greater gender diversity and improved profitability goes beyond simply pre-existing strength of the company.”

So, companies that are successful and diverse are not sacrificing something just for the sake of diversity. In other words: they’re not winning all the games and then saying, “Maybe we should round this place out.”
Companies don't fuck around and do things because it is cute.
 
Last edited: