There is no 'partisanship' in my comments. I'm just making a comment. That's all.
"I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean"
I mean exactly what I say. There's nothing to interpret.
There is a lot of noise in the press about 'injustice' in terms of gender and race in the Silicon Valley - when, as a baseline - the Valley employs almost exactly the people that are fed into it. When you read articles about such issues - they generally do not refer to the fact that the % make up of the Valley is almost identical to the % makeup of those with relevant qualifications.
So - as a 'starting point' for any concern, it should be noted that by the easiest and most obvious measure - the Valley seems to be doing a pretty good job. Maybe even a great job.
I think this is unfair: a lot of voices 'screaming bigotry' in the press lack this perspective, and instantly distort the scenario by taking the assumptive position that 'there is inherent unfairness in the valley because only x% of their Engineers are of minority group ABC' - when in fact, it's actually pretty fair, given the talent pool they draw from.
I can't say that I've ever read an article critiquing the Valley on gender representation - that ever made mention of this fact.
So even though there is an issue to be addressed - it's also being misrepresented.
When I say 'there's more to the story' - I'm not offering a consolation or token to 'the other side' of the debate. I don't view these things as having sides. I'm simply stating that I think there's more to it. That's all.
I'm not debating anyone or taking any sides.
As for the 'male/female' perspective - I wish I had that reference for you - I read it relatively recently, and the data point really popped out at me, which is why I remembered it.
I'm a guy - so 'lack of role models' is something I would never consider as a possibility for 'why I wouldn't want to work in tech'. So, knowing that so many girls feel that way, make me think about the issue differently.
How can this be helpful? Well, for one, obviously by making sure that the 'stories' of female engineers are told, that there is visibility etc. - which is kind of a no-brainer, one that really should not be contentious.
But there are other issues. The Canadian Navy did a study (long ago) where they found that when ships deployed with very few women on board, that it was stressful for them. But when there was a 'critical mass' of them (I think like 8%), then they seemed to get along a lot better. So, this 'critical mass' concept might be useful in planning: if a 'guy founded' startup grows, they may consider reaching that 'critical mass' as an absolute minimum for female participation. Most companies don't think about gender issues until headcount gets larger, so maybe once they start growing, they can try hard to get 'a good group' of girls in, beyond that threshold, so that they don't feel isolated. The same could very well apply to minority groups - i.e. maybe there is a 'critical mass' below which many feel isolated. Black and Latino Engineers are pretty rare. This could be an issue there.
The 'role model' issue may be also strongly related to the lower participation of females in upper management. But that's a whole other can of worms, and I've already written too much so ...
a survey of tech workers shows that men point primarily to the 'funnel problem' whereas women point to the 'lack of role models'.
Interesting. Do you have a reference to this survey at hand?
Which I thought was telling, and hints at an opportunity for improvement.
I'm not sure if I'm particularly dense (though I don't dispute this might be the case), but I think people generally assume that their intent in statements like this are much clearer than what is actually the case. I have a hard time knowing how to interpret what you mean, or what opportunity you see. Is it that you think there should be more role models for women? That the lack of role models for women indicates that there just aren't that many women in tech and that's because women aren't generally interested in tech so there really isn't a problem? That there's a mismatch between how men and women perceive the problem that needs to be addressed? If that's the case, do you think one perception is more accurate than the other? My comment to which you initially responded asked for specifics on implementation and measurement on addressing disparities in tech. I'm still interested in hearing for details rather than generalities.