The problem is the inane assumption, which is now taken as a fact (without rigorous substantiation) that any male heavy gender ratio is a result of bias by white men (not even necessarily the majority, mind you, we simply ignore fields where women are over represented).

Not to mention the conflation of equality of opportunity with equality of achievement.

In our society it has become a taboo to even consider that stratification by gender and/or race of achievement could possibly be related to group wide differences in behavior or ability. This is, ironically, causing immense bias in modern culture; but it seems bias is OK when its the en vogue kind.

Did you read the article? If it were just an assumption and no effort had been put into investigating the reasons for it and if/how those reasons can be addressed you would be right. From the article:

"A new study from Microsoft sheds some light...gender stereotypes, few female role models, peer pressure and a lack of encouragement from parents and teachers largely to blame."

So no assumptions are being made, this has been researched. This discussion is even about some of that research and it turns out girls are being discouraged by factors that are completely addressable.

> we simply ignore fields where women are over represented

Nobody's ignoring anything. My wife is a registered nurse here in the UK and encouraging men to get into nursing is definitely a thing. It turns out that men who do go into nursing have a significantly higher chance of promotion, which you'd hope would encourage them to and is it's own issue. But please, go off on a 'whataboutist' tangent as though the legitimate answer to every uncomfortable problem in the world is 'whatabout' some other problem.

Would it be plausible that young girls are encouraged to see happiness, and personally fulfilling careers, whilst young boys are encouraged to seek money or a specific career choice?

If this were the case, then the participation of women currently entering the workplace would represent the baseline distribution of inclination, whereas men represent a modified distribution caused by hostile attitudes (e.g. men are classically discouraged from becoming nurses, or teachers to young children).

There's often a view that whatever condition men have is the correct one, and ought to be emulated in the female population. For somethings maybe this is true (yes, suffrage is pretty good), but for things like work-life balance and professional-inclinations, I am not so sure.

Why are we talking about prejudice from hostile white men in the industry? Who brought up that topic? Are you aware of studies on that? Do you have any links to them? It seems like a complete digression from the article and the thread to this point, but if you really want to discuss it I'm game. What opinion on that do you feel like arbitrarily ascribing to me?

> do you seriously mean to suggest

I didn't suggest any such thing. Where are you getting this stuff? I presented what I think is a perfectly good test as to whether unequal gender representation is an issue and an example of one example of under-representation of men I'm aware of. What is it with making up opinions for me?

I said 'faced by one gender over another', because one gender faces them more than the other. No mention of white men oppressing anybody (despite all the press Uber has been getting recently ;)

But fair enough. I am not all-knowing. As you're so keen to change the subject I am happy to oblige, what gender imbalances in which men are outnumbered by women are due to prejudice and are being ignored?

Programs for women in trades:

http://www.careersinconstruction.ca/en/why-construction/oppo...

Programs/orgs for men in nursing:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14165427

Tech is not unique, but for some of us in the industry it seems logical to focus our attention here.

> mind you, we simply ignore fields where women are over represented).

No, we don't. This point has been asked, and answered, so often (even on HN) that it probably falls under this bit of the guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them.

EDIT there are dozens of these:

4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5598659#5599061

3 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7538789#7539557

5 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3452516#3454185

The same trite point - "what about women in nursing? Are they oppressing men" ignores the fact that nursing is generally a low status job and that men in nursing get paid more and promoted faster than women, which is not what happens to women in tech.

You're missing the point that in all those other threads someone asks this tired question, and then other people give multiple answers linking to all the programmes to get women into mining or construction or men into teaching or nursing - the question has been asked and answered, and the only reason it keeps being asked is because people keep asking the same question without bothering to do any searches at all for answers.

> notice how you immediately presume that men are choosing not to go into nursing because of a lack of interest

I haven't said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Since you've done this it's obvious you're not interested in a good faith discussion.

These threads follow a predictable pattern.

Every single time people say "What about women in contruction?" or "what about men in teaching?", and every single time they do it in the same "AHA!" way.

But, if they'd bothered to plug it into any fucking search engine they'd have seen that considerable effort is spent in these other trades to change the gender balance.

Search for yourself. Google "gender inequality u.s." and you won't see a single mention of a female dominated industry on the front page.

Respectfully, why are you framing this as a question? You don't need anyone's permission to observe that prejudice is an important moral issue --- and the only people who would answer "no" to your question don't sincerely acknowledge moral imperatives in the first place.

That's a perfectly fair question. I asked in order to try and find common ground, and in case the poster has some other reason for caring particularly about imbalance instead of opportunity, or in case the poster doesn't think that the imbalance is due to differences in opportunity as described in the original article. However I could have phrased it more clearly.

Considering you haven't proven any deliberate imbalance.

Equal opportunity exists. You're asking for equal outcomes.

This article is literally about research that has identified inequalities in opportunity. Is expecting you to even know what we're talking about really too much to ask?

But off you go and take a look. I'll sure you'll find something in the research you don't even seem aware exists, linked above, to complain about. At least we'll have something to discuss instead of just slinging mud around.

Also, please, point out anywhere in my posts where I asked for equality of outcome? Which of my posts are you even talking about?

Its clear that certain people here want equal results probably because equal opportunity is much harder to track or destroys certain agendas.