They do know some psychology, but more of tactical "how to calm this person right now".
edit : corrected a typo
You can make a reasonable argument that the causation goes the other way, with men giving higher priority to money when choosing a career. This makes sense, because a male's career has a huge impact on dating success.
This conspiracy theory has been given a name, which is widely use in feminist circles: the Patriarchy.
The reality is that there are many factors that determine how much you are individually paid. Two people of the same gender, role and title can have vastly different compensation because of negotiations.
> In tech, some people are concerned that increasing diversity will "lower the bar", but in sports, which has a more competitive hiring market than tech, we saw the opposite, increasing diversity raised the level instead of lowering it because it means hiring people on their qualifications instead of on what they look like. I don't disagree with people who say that it would be absurd for tech companies to leave money on the table by not hiring qualified minorities. But this is exactly what we saw in the sports we looked at, where that's even more absurd due to the relative ease of quantifying performance. And yet, for decades, teams left huge amounts of money on the table by favoring white players (and, in the case of hockey, non-French Canadian players) who were, quite simply, less qualified than their peers. The world is an absurd place.
It would be absolutely wonderful if everything was a meritocracy like this, and it's what most people ask for.
Unfortunately in the tech industries and modern media, "diversity" initiatives are the exact opposite and only want people based on what they look like.
Sexism exists (and perhaps it would be more productive if you stopped only believing in binary extremes) but it's not a widespread conspiracy. Did you skip the line about the same gender/title/role still being paid differently?
When is the last time you read a nursing magazine, or did a web search for information about increasing the numbers of male nurses?
People do complain about these things.
But how do they complain? Compared to the tech situation, where you don't dare think it might be anything but sexism and oppression.
Here's an article in the Guardian about the topic.
https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/mar/01/w...
Some choice excerpts:
“Nursing is all about the empathy and caring that people show, but those traits are not exclusively female [..]”
Let's see, "Tech is all about logic, but those traits are not exclusively male".
“Men might find it harder to put into words their caring and compassionate qualities, but can demonstrate them more easily.”
-> "Women find it harder to express their technical chops, but they can demonstrate them more easily"
"When I was a ward manager, or sister, I did get some people saying: “Shouldn’t you be a brother?” But, actually, no one has ever commented on the fact that I’m a matron and a man."
-> Tech language is sexist and must be changed.
"Davies questions whether it is the work itself that doesn’t attract men, or whether other factors are to blame"
-> If you even dare to suggest that something other than horrible sexism is to blame for the imbalance in tech, no matter the overwhelming evidence, you are censured or fired.
That said, the focus should be on equality of opportunity, and not outcome. So, yes, we should encourage more women to study and do well in tech but force-fitting jobs is unfair and creates bad incentives.
Which is essentially "we want to be equal when it comes to the good things and unequal when it comes to the bad things". I'm sure there are plenty of people who want to be equal to professionals who work 70 hour weeks when pay day comes around, but they don't want to be equal when it's time to work.
Are you saying that the likelihood of slacking off is higher for certain groups than others? I doubt what you say is 100% proven or even probable but that said the likelihood of this happening is equal across all groups
No, and I have no idea how you can misread my comment to mean that. What I'm saying is that most people don't want to work 70 hours a week. But most people would very much like the pay that you get from working 70 hours a week. If you allow them to choose both sides individually, I'm pretty sure they'd choose the low input and high output.
Used to work at Uber Freight. There were definitely conversations around safety for women drivers or a lack thereof. Just wanted to point out that this statement is a little presumptuous especially if the author is not involved in the industry. Just because you're not exposed to it doesn't mean there aren't complaints. There's a documentary called Big Rig and it showcases the lives of truck drivers, some of them are women. They go into depth about the dangers of being on the road as a women, go watch it, you'll quickly realize some people do care.
There's one problem with this theory. H1-Bs overwhelmingly go to Indians. I don't think there's anyone campaigning for increasing the participation of Indians or Asians in general in tech.
> The business and political community is hyperfocused on software engineering jobs for two reasons. Corporations want political support for H1-B. And, in some cases, STEM workers have high importance in influencing the political world
Are you saying that this is manufactured, a "liberal agenda", or something else?
Diversity fosters an environment with less marginalization and discrimination.
I could be wrong, but I think women in tech want more women in tech, and candidates from diverse backgrounds want more diversity.
I'm not too sure about that. I think the likelihood of discrimination is probably the same when you have a "diverse" group compared to a relatively homogenous group. What matters is whether there are jerks in either group.
I've been on teams where I was the only white guy and everyone else was Indian and we all got along great, and I've been on teams with lots of different "identities" represented and people did not get along.
If the team is more diverse, someone is more likely to point out when discrimination/prejudice is involved, as there is a higher chance someone will be sensible to the specific type of discrimination involved. Nobody can have a universal perspective on things, and someone from a different background might percieve something you will be unaware of.
For example, one of the canonical inclusion problems for women is that many people perceive their aggressive behavior more negatively. Hiring more women won't help, because women are equally susceptible to the bias. And calling it out on the spot won't help, because how can you know when other people are improperly forming negative opinions?