I also disagree about the quote below:
>That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic. Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled programmer to a male, or you don't.
When populations are on bell curves, this statement is nonsensical. Imagining the statement "Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled competitive wrestler to a male, or you don't" would be similar.
Does those things even play a role? If yes, how does that play a role? How large of a role? If it does play a role, why? What's important to women in career choice vs what's important to men? Why is that the case? Is it nature or nurture or both (and to what degree of each influence those choices)? Is it upbringing? Is it pressure from society? Is it barrier's to entry? And to what degree does all that play a role?
I see the potential for a much more nuanced conversation with this topic.
Saying women aren't capable of being a programmer or being successful in STEM is in my mind a garbage assertion.
Good, then, that nobody has said, or even implied, that.
"That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic."
Was there subtext I missed?
A. The average male and the average female afford applying the same level of effort in becoming programmers, with no extraneous constraints.
B. Motherhood represents a non-trivial portion of the average female lifetime effort. Though not as large as in preindustrial times, where the norm was conceiving, feeding and raising ten children, most of them not making to adulthood, leaving little energy for anything else.
To the extent child rearing cost remains unequally distributed between males and females, we're going to see statistical disparities in occupations, especially in occupations with high skill acquisition cost. Or we banish motherhood, and go extinct.
That's because the issue of men vs women in programming really is an all-or-nothing topic. Either you believe that a female is capable of being an equivalently skilled programmer to a male, or you don't.
Referencing biological differences always cascades to a question about the innate ability of a female to program. The best example I can point to is the infamous internal Google manifesto on male vs female programmers. If you read that text, it appears reasonable enough: the author thinks that there are biological differences, and these differences might lead to differences in programming strengths. But it is a wolf in sheep's clothing; as soon as you believe that there are differences, it follows that one set of differences must be advantageous to the other.
I can understand that there are biological differences between females and males, but I absolutely and vehemently choose to believe that there is no inherent difference in ability - females are 100% as capable as males when it comes to programming. Full stop.
Yes, this is double think. But I'd rather be a hypocrite than hold a secret belief that my biological sex makes me a better engineer.