> I'm fairly certain that the aggregation of jobs described as "tech industry" in this statistic are a rather different collection of jobs pre-mid 80s and post-mid 80s. Not necessarily because of people massaging a statistic(but many people no doubt would be happy to overlook the previous supposition in making a case,) but because the nature of most jobs in computing has changed with the advent of personal computers. In the punch card era many "tech jobs" were more secretarial/office management/accountancy roles, nowadays with the explosion of computing devices there are many more software development and hardware engineering roles.
That's an interesting supposition but I'm not necessarily sure it's true. If you consider the number of women graduating with computer science degrees between then and now[1], the trend is the still there: growth until the mid 80s and then reversal. If the trend were merely explained by the fact that tech jobs have transitioned from "secretarial" jobs to engineering roles, why is it also present in the ratio of women studying actual computer science in college?
> What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?
Since my point is that the gender ratio itself is a red herring, I'm not sure what the purpose would be in speculating about its cause in other industries.
> Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?
That's your argument? That the level of sexual harassment in the tech industry is at a "normal" level relative to other industries and is simply over-reported?
It sounds like you're bending over backwards trying to justify the status quo here. But okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is simply over-reported. Does that make it any less problematic? Should we simply accept the situation as "well, that's just the way things are", instead of actively trying to improve it?
If you look at this data you can see there is clear distinction in the types of work chosen on average between the sexes. These choices align nicely with the findings of personality research between the sexes.
It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.
The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.
Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.
You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.
What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?
In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.
I thought one the guiding principles for people these days was you shouldn't treat members in a group in a way that is informed by the actions or characteristics of other members of the group.
> If you look at this data you can see there is clear distinction in the types of work chosen on average between the sexes. These choices align nicely with the findings of personality research between the sexes.
I am not disputing this at all.
> It's seems such a cliche to say "Sure, sexism exists to one degree or another." But okay, I can agree.
Okay, we've found some common ground here. Let's go a little further. "The tech industry has a problem with sexual harassment and sexist treatment towards women." Agree or disagree?
> The problem is when you pick some particular gap and say this gap is a problem because the main cause is sexism.
Except I did not say either of those things.
> Doing this is a problem not just because it ignores many other relevant factors, but because when proclaiming the cause as mostly sexism you are then accusing many people of something of which they are innocent.
> You're unjustly maligning many people when you do this.
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
> What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the divergence in sex ratios of fields like nursing & elementary teaching compared to engineering and more theoretical pursuits comes down to personality differences between the average man and woman, and not sexism?
You don't need to convince me of this because I am not disputing it. I am disputing the idea that sexism has no role to play, however.
> In regards to your concerns about the status quo of the tech industry or any other and sexism therein, individual cases should be dealt with appropriately. Individuals should act responsibly and respectfully.
That is a great platitude however it does not seem to be helping very much as we (as an industry) seem quite content to perpetuate the status quo.
That's an interesting supposition but I'm not necessarily sure it's true. If you consider the number of women graduating with computer science degrees between then and now[1], the trend is the still there: growth until the mid 80s and then reversal. If the trend were merely explained by the fact that tech jobs have transitioned from "secretarial" jobs to engineering roles, why is it also present in the ratio of women studying actual computer science in college?
> What about other industries with even more skewed sex ratios but fewer or no high-profile articles about sexual harassment, what's the cause in those industries?
Since my point is that the gender ratio itself is a red herring, I'm not sure what the purpose would be in speculating about its cause in other industries.
> Has anyone put to an analysis that these sort of events occur more frequently in the tech industry, rather than the tech industry is high profile and thus these events get more attention?
That's your argument? That the level of sexual harassment in the tech industry is at a "normal" level relative to other industries and is simply over-reported?
It sounds like you're bending over backwards trying to justify the status quo here. But okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is simply over-reported. Does that make it any less problematic? Should we simply accept the situation as "well, that's just the way things are", instead of actively trying to improve it?
[1] https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf13327/pdf/tab33.pdf