The article delved into whether or not there was systemic bias against women in tech interviews, given that interviewing.io's data showed that men continued onto next rounds 1.4x more often.
The conclusion based on the experiment, that it wasn't due to bias, but because women were more likely to not continue to refine their skills by continuing to interview.
> When you do meet the rare American born female developer she is either: A. a designer who realized that there are no design jobs so she became a front-end dev; B. a first-generation Asian-American (B/C Asian parents steer their children into STEM); or C. it's a woman with blue hair and a pierced face who is there to "shake up the patriarchy" and make a statement about gender.
This is a sexist comment (and borderline racist).
Let's assume for a moment that this is true. I'm not sure it is, but we'll go with it.
Software companies don't hire women who aren't interested in technology because those women don't apply for the job. The aim of ideas like the one in the article is to make the hiring process fairer by removing a gender bias from the pool of candidates who do apply. That's all. It doesn't imply that the candidate pool will change.
The point is that every equally qualified candidate in that pool should have the same chance of getting the job. Better candidate should have higher chances. Biases skew that probability downwards, so we should aim to remove them. Otherwise we aren't hiring the best people.
https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/if-you-think-women-i...
The gender gap in the workforce is wider than the gender gap in computer science as a major. Particularly at senior and management levels, we see a severe underrepresentation of women. To me, that suggests either a hiring bias or an attrition problem, not a pipeline problem.
This is a completely useless comment, and exactly the sexist kind of attitude that drives women out of tech.