> I don't see how this is an unreasonable argument to make. There is a dearth of male kindergarten teachers, for instance. This doesn't mean the school is being "sexist". It might just mean that certain genders tend to be attracted to certain types of professions.

If that's all the manifesto said, this wouldn't be a story. I am a minority in tech and I certainly didn't see a lot of people like me in my Computer Science program so naturally there is under-representation in the work force, it happens.

But when you start wading into the, 'Women are biologically less well-suited for this work...' is where you get into problems. No different than arguments that used to be made against black people before de-segregation.

> But when you start wading into the, 'Women are biologically less well-suited for this work...' is where you get into problems.

But women ARE biologically less suited for certain types of work. Women, for instance, are weaker than men (yes, there are exceptions. . .). Which would make them less efficient for, say, construction work.

From what I understand, the guy used scientifically valid sources to make his claim. I'm not saying that what he's saying is true, but it's sourced well enough for it should be discussed without him getting fired.

Was he making a statement or trying to find an answer?

I don't know how much he was trying to find an answer but he does leave a good amount of qualifiers in there like, 'this may be the cause' or 'this could explain'. I could be wrong, but it seems like he was trying to put forth a argument in good faith that was not divisive, yet he got into dodgy territory with how he constructed and executed his argument.

Or it might mean that certain genders tend to be dissuaded from pursuing certain career paths.

It might, but it does not - that's kind of the whole point, the gender differences appear even in societies/areas where there's opposite social pressure. Preferences matter, preferences differ between gender, and even in a hypothetical ideal world with perfectly equal opportunity and noone being dissuaded from pursuing certain career paths the gender distribution of quite a few professions would be far from 50/50 due to the preferences.

For an example more detailed/sourced argument, http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... might be a start.

It's an abuse of HN to use it primarily for political or ideological battle. Since this account has been doing this, and also has broken the HN guidelines by being uncivil, we've banned it.

>There are some barriers, implicit and explicit, that are perfectly appropriate. Some of them serve a higher purpose, like reinforcing gender archetypes and standards of behavior that are productive in the long run in their own ways.

This argument is interesting -- you're not saying discrimination doesn't exist, just that it's... good?

What would be appropriate about a barrier that discourages men from becoming teachers, or discourages women from STEM fields?

Where is the productivity gain in pushing a young girl away from STEM?

If exceptional people really have something to offer in areas where they are shunned for other reasons...

Many exceptional people won't even discover their talent if they are actively dissuaded from pursuing the education and career they have the aptitude for, all in the name of "reinforcing gender archetypes".

Tearing down the entire social structure

Tearing down a social structure that's weighted against certain genders in certain career paths sounds exactly like the right solution. Let people choose their path on their own desires and aptitude, don't choose it for them based on some historical standards of behavior.

No, it definitely means there are fields that are biased against men. These include any field in which nurturing and compassion are considered vital traits.

Since when are men inherently not nurturing or compassionate?

Playing the devil's advocate...it could mean the school is being "sexist"

It does indicate that there is some mechanism that affects different genders differently, but that alone is not enough to assume sexism, you need additional evidence to single out that explanation.

I think the gender differences are driven by a combination of genetics, stereotypes, personal preferences, and yes, sexism, acting in a feedback loop. Genetics cause a slight natural difference; this gets summarized as a stereotype; people comparing themselves with the stereotype develop their preferences based on that; and if they don't conform, they are seen as abnormal (e.g. male kindergarten teachers get suspected of pedophilia) and are correspondingly discriminated against.

In the latter parts of that paragraph, the author agrees with you.

Or look at the NBA, coal miners, oil rig workers, chess teams, math clubs, computer gaming tournaments, etc.

There are gender disparities all over the place. There are racial disparities all over the place.

As long as these disparities aren't enforced intentionally by sexist/racist laws, I fail to see what the problem is.

If truly there is discrimination against talented women in the tech industry, then another company would hire all of these underpaid talented women and take over the tech industry.

Why did Larry Page, Jerry Yang, Bill Gate, Zuckerburg, etc all hire mostly males in their startups? Because they wanted to overpay underqualified males because they were sexist against women?

The argument doesn't make sense. If they did that, then another startup would have taken those underpaid overqualified women and destroyed their competitors.

Indeed, to focus on certain industries to force "diversity" and to ignore the many, many others that you mentioned that are even less diverse seems wildly hypocritical to me. Why are certain industries cherry picked to be obsessed over and others ignored? If they're going to demand equal representation of skin color and gender across professions, they should be consistent about it.