That may be true in certain circumstances, but I also believe that sometimes the most efficient system is to let nature run its' natural course without any outside meddling, which often makes things worse and less efficient.
The idea of preferentially promoting women & minorities to create numerical equality where the demographics do not support it is immoral and idiotic.
Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are more often biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn't create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That's what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those pre-dispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn't actually push back or move the stick around itself, it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression.
Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of Nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
Most men don't want to be nurses because it would bore them. Most women don't want to be engineers because it would bore them.
Out of free will, a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves, we reenforce gender roles.
To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it.
And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women's Studies, etc.
And what are those? People-oriented tasks.
Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
If I discovered I lost out of a job opening because a person less qualified got it just because that person was a woman, or black, or whatever.. I'd sue for discrimination. I'm Hispanic and I don't believe one iota that a person's gender, color, etc.. should be given consideration over another applicant.
I busted my ass to get to where I'm at. I came from a poor, disadvantaged background and against all odds, I made it. I didn't have anyone spoon-feed me an opportunity because of my background. White folks back in the segregated days always did it, now we're doing it in the reverse and somehow that makes it okay? Affirmative action for the corporate world is still discrimination.
I'm all for more women and people of color in the workplace. Absolutely for it, but get them in there because they earned it.
If there aren't enough women in engineering, well then make engineering more attractive to women.
If there aren't enough people of color in college to get those degrees, well then get those programs in place and work on society's social ills to resolve that. There are tons of opportunities for disadvantaged folks to enter college if they choose to make the effort to do it.
Heck... besides white folks, Asians don't seem to have any problem getting into that very desirable area either and last time I checked, asians are a "minority" group too. Why are they able to get to that level and not others given many had the same rough upbringing?
From what I'm reading they're just putting money towards training certain groups in tech, not hiring one group over the other.
I disagree, this is not liberal racism and sexism, it is a great move for Apple and the tech industry at large. Apple has clearly stated that their goal is to make tech more accessible to everyone. So much so that the technology is transparent and the user only notices the experience. This is a strategic advantage for Apple to have a diversified workforce. This helps Apple make decisions and reach groups they might otherwise overlook. This is a core principle of Apple.
There is sexism and racism in the tech industry and it's not always transparent, we need programs like this to bring these greater issues to the surface. I say this as a white male in tech, I think this is a great and more companies need to invest in equality.
I am against all of this liberal racism and sexism. May the best qualified person get the job. That's all that should count.
Not all industries will appeal to all groups of people, it is what it is. I do not believe that any external effort should be made to influence and upset the natural balance of things.
Well said.
Positive discrimination is not a desirable quality for attracting the best talent, but maybe Apple doesn't want to attract the best these days. That would appear to be the case, anyhow.
The nice thing about being human is that to some degree we get to shape the natural balance of things and not just settle for whatever.
That may be true in certain circumstances, but I also believe that sometimes the most efficient system is to let nature run its' natural course without any outside meddling, which often makes things worse and less efficient.
What's to stop any woman for example from getting into tech? If a woman is truly interested in pursuing that path, then they can just do it.
When I download a game or an app, do I give a crap about if it were made by a female or a male or a gay or a minority? Of course I don't, I only care if the game or app is good or not.
I want the best and most talented and qualified people to be designing computers and writing software.
I will never understand the liberal stance on this.
Women IN GENERAL do not care about engineering. They are IN GENERAL not interested in it. IN GENERAL most engineers are asian, white or middle-eastern males. Since most of the west is has majority white demographics, then most engineers are going to be white males.
If you look at the numbers Apple released earlier in the year, they bear this out. Mostly men, mostly white, with a very high Asian representation too.
There have been idiotic misguided programs like this since the 60s and the result has not been more women in engineering, but more women in the humanities streams. At what point will people realize that YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE AROUND HUMAN NATURE. All social engineering is draconian, and if it is against nature, always fails.
If women do not care about engineering, they won't get into engineering. Women not caring is not due to "muh patriarchy" it is becaue of biology. They are drawn to more social fields because that is what they are wired to excel at.
"Increase the presence of women, minorities" Look at Carly Fiorina and her legacy. Affirmative-action-promoted incompetence with monumental consequences.
TL;DR: Women don't go into engineering because they don't like it, and no amount of money or social engineering is going to change that.
The idea of preferentially promoting women & minorities to create numerical equality where the demographics do not support it is immoral and idiotic.
<strong style="font-style:normal;line-height:1.4em;">The idea of preferentially promoting women
Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are more often biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn't create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That's what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those pre-dispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn't actually push back or move the stick around itself, it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression.
Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of Nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
Most men don't want to be nurses because it would bore them. Most women don't want to be engineers because it would bore them. Out of free will, a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves, we reenforce gender roles.
To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it.
And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women's Studies, etc.
And what are those? People-oriented tasks.
Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
Superb post, Ts!
Would that I could write such a great post.
Despite Apple's recent Apple Watch-flavoured burps, at least two of its advocates are still in possession of overwhelming common sense.
I'll just say that this isn't (and shouldn't be) about hiring practices. It needs to be about providing all people education early on so that they are on equal footing. This is why you see a number of pre-school initiatives in states to try and close the achievement gap.
People from all backgrounds need equivalent exposure to educational opportunities.
Then, when hiring, the candidate pool will be more equal in their qualifications. Right now it feels like if we have 10 people apply for a position, and one person is of a different race even though the other 9 people are better qualified, the pressure is to hire the minority. My job is to hire the best person possible, regardless of race or gender.
People tend to hire people they can easily identify with. White men tend to hire other white men.
I know for a fact that I've got jobs through positive discrimination; firms telling me that they're not just looking for someone with the right skills but someone who will also "fit in".
I'd love to live in a world free of discrimination but we're not there yet. A little positive discrimination towards women and minorities - when there's some much negative discrimination against them - will have to do for now.
I'll just say that this isn't (and shouldn't be) about hiring practices. It needs to be about providing all people education early on so that they are on equal footing. This is why you see a number of pre-school initiatives in states to try and close the achievement gap.
People from all backgrounds need equivalent exposure to educational opportunities.
Then, when hiring, the candidate pool will be more equal in their qualifications. Right now it feels like if we have 10 people apply for a position, and one person is of a different race even though the other 9 people are better qualified, the pressure is to hire the minority. My job is to hire the best person possible, regardless of race or gender.
Liberals often confuse opportunity with ability.
A low IQ dummy will never achieve the same things a genius will. Equalizing access to education means lowering the bar.
Not everyone was meant to be a college grad and it is a disservice to the less-capable members of society that the west basically shits on trades.
Someone may not have what it takes to be an engineer, but they may be a damn good machinist or welder.
Higher quality education won't matter if the raw material isn't up to spec.
Comments
I wonder if idiocy is an aging white male trait, generally?
Racist.
That's a racist comment.
More of a baldist comment.
More of a baldist comment.
Ageist comment.
Better education is always a bad idea. /s
Racist.
Idiot.
Originally Posted by mstone
Better education for women is always a bad idea. Just ask the Taliban.
The Taliban are also uneducated.
The idea of preferentially promoting women & minorities to create numerical equality where the demographics do not support it is immoral and idiotic.
Gender roles, while often thought of as societal constructs, are more often biological pre-dispositions. The majority of men (approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in object-oriented tasks. The majority of women (again, approximately 15% deviance) have a natural interest in people-oriented tasks. Society didn't create gender roles–society merely grew accustomed to them. That's what society does–it grows accustomed to the way things are and holds it in place. Biological predisposition is what set the trend, and society grew accustomed to those pre-dispositions. Society is not active, it is passive.
Like shoving a stick through a bucket of molasses, it doesn't actually push back or move the stick around itself, it simply holds onto wherever the stick is, or has been moved to. Individuals cause change, society keeps it there and keeps change as a slow progression.
Ask yourself why, in Norway, for example, 85% of Nurses are female, and 85% of engineers are male, regardless of how hard the education system has tried to reverse the roles. The answer is quite innocent. It comes in the form of the most common response from school children, “That sounds boring.”
Most men don't want to be nurses because it would bore them. Most women don't want to be engineers because it would bore them.
Out of free will, a free choice to decide what we want for ourselves, we reenforce gender roles.
To create a perfect 50/50 split in all fields of study would require the elimination of free choice, to force women into engineering, and men into nursing, because the quota demands it.
And as for feminists… which fields are they studying? Sociology, Women's Studies, etc.
And what are those? People-oriented tasks.
Yep, you read that right. Out of free will, feminists have chosen gender roles.
Ageist.
Balding, not balled. Most men who lose their hair begin balding at a pretty early age.
From what I'm reading they're just putting money towards training certain groups in tech, not hiring one group over the other.
I disagree, this is not liberal racism and sexism, it is a great move for Apple and the tech industry at large. Apple has clearly stated that their goal is to make tech more accessible to everyone. So much so that the technology is transparent and the user only notices the experience. This is a strategic advantage for Apple to have a diversified workforce. This helps Apple make decisions and reach groups they might otherwise overlook. This is a core principle of Apple.
There is sexism and racism in the tech industry and it's not always transparent, we need programs like this to bring these greater issues to the surface. I say this as a white male in tech, I think this is a great and more companies need to invest in equality.
Well said.
Positive discrimination is not a desirable quality for attracting the best talent, but maybe Apple doesn't want to attract the best these days. That would appear to be the case, anyhow.
Well said, again.
I completely agree.
Superb post, Ts!
Would that I could write such a great post.
Despite Apple's recent Apple Watch-flavoured burps, at least two of its advocates are still in possession of overwhelming common sense.
I'll just say that this isn't (and shouldn't be) about hiring practices. It needs to be about providing all people education early on so that they are on equal footing. This is why you see a number of pre-school initiatives in states to try and close the achievement gap.
People from all backgrounds need equivalent exposure to educational opportunities.
Then, when hiring, the candidate pool will be more equal in their qualifications. Right now it feels like if we have 10 people apply for a position, and one person is of a different race even though the other 9 people are better qualified, the pressure is to hire the minority. My job is to hire the best person possible, regardless of race or gender.
People tend to hire people they can easily identify with. White men tend to hire other white men.
I know for a fact that I've got jobs through positive discrimination; firms telling me that they're not just looking for someone with the right skills but someone who will also "fit in".
I'd love to live in a world free of discrimination but we're not there yet. A little positive discrimination towards women and minorities - when there's some much negative discrimination against them - will have to do for now.
Careful
I'll just say that this isn't (and shouldn't be) about hiring practices. It needs to be about providing all people education early on so that they are on equal footing. This is why you see a number of pre-school initiatives in states to try and close the achievement gap.
People from all backgrounds need equivalent exposure to educational opportunities.
Then, when hiring, the candidate pool will be more equal in their qualifications. Right now it feels like if we have 10 people apply for a position, and one person is of a different race even though the other 9 people are better qualified, the pressure is to hire the minority. My job is to hire the best person possible, regardless of race or gender.
Liberals often confuse opportunity with ability.A low IQ dummy will never achieve the same things a genius will. Equalizing access to education means lowering the bar.
Not everyone was meant to be a college grad and it is a disservice to the less-capable members of society that the west basically shits on trades.
Someone may not have what it takes to be an engineer, but they may be a damn good machinist or welder.
Higher quality education won't matter if the raw material isn't up to spec.
Currently OS X (Yosemite) and iOS are disasters. That came to be with what APPLE currently has in house. It's time for diversity.