By the way -- how can that chart list "employee donations" by company?! Do individuals who donate to a party have to declare which company they work for?!
We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.
We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.How do you suggest we discuss identity politics, without politics?
We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?
We all know US politics is bullshit... and hot things are hot... let's not stray off-topic.How do you suggest we discuss identity politics, without politics?
We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?
The OP is after all after advice and is sharing his personal story.
We could also all agree that the general poltics side of it is done, and just keep it to engineering industry related matters and/or personal stories and advice going forward maybe?Good luck getting those worms back into the can...
I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.
For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.
And that's 2014, if you would take that image from today And the republicans now an extreme right wing party.
I'm against all radicalization, since I was born in a communist country, which then turned into a failed state, I know too damn well, that you have to keep the politicians in check. But the public in the US is asking for even more radicalization from the parties.
You are right that woman should be introduced to engineering or technical professions early on. But I guess early on means just after the cradle. Don't push the stereo type gender specific toys onto kids and see if anything changes.
I largely blame social media for this. The algorithms create huge ideologically aligned echo chambers and the net effect of this is a positive feedback loop where any ideology gets more and more extreme and people get less and less exposed to dissenting views. Unfortunately short of somehow killing social media I don't see a way to change this.
Though, to counter this, you have individuals who have earned their position through nothing but luck. To use an apolitical example, the Queen of England cannot have been particularly skilled to end up as monarch, she was just born into the right family. There are plenty of other examples of meritless positions.
Nobody pushed gender specific toys on me as a kid. I wasn't interested in most toys, instead I was fascinated by lightbulbs and electricity since my earliest memories, in fact my first word was "light" and I still to this day tend to look up and see what sort of lights are in a room. I also naturally gravitated toward machines, cars, trains, airplanes, engines, I think it's obvious that some people are hardwired to have an interest in some things over others.
I think a meritocracy is a noble goal, and we must simply accept that luck will always play a part. No matter what system one has there will always be a luck component. Sometimes a person will do everything right and things still won't work out, other times someone ends up in the right place at the right time and something falls into their lap, that's just part of life. Some people are born smarter, some better looking, some in better locations, some have better personalities and make friends with the right people, there's no way to change any of that, it just is.
I guess a really good question is while it is pleasant to believe a meritocracy exists, we have to accept a huge amount of where people get in life is just damn luck.
I wonder how large part of the objection to D-E-I is that it is never discussed, just adopted as axiomatically correct.
For whatever reason, it seems that people are adopting ideas and concepts and completely rejecting any kind of examination of them.
We will never be able to discuss say intersectionalism or the difference between equity and equality, because the willingness to examine the concepts is an even worse offense than simply rejecting them. (Intersectionalism is related here because it is precisely the origin for equity replacing equality; and many of its proponents openly admit that they believe meritocracy, any kind of individual merit based systems, are their biggest enemy, worse than any oppression per se.)
To simplify a bit, it is easier to be a bigot, because then only your values differ from those of the D-E-I proponents. If you demand meritocratic treatment, equality among individuals, and reject tribality, you violate their entire ideological basis, and are therefore a worse enemy.
For the same reasons I value diversity, I value discussions and arguments over important matters. I know that if I was a ruler, I would be a despot; and that if I only explain how I see things, and let the majority rule (you know, democracy), then the results are likely to be better because the extremes tend to be "filed off" and something that a big majority can accept, will be done. (Roughly speaking; power and money having such strong corruptive tendencies, and whatnot.)
Therefore, I find this rejection of rational, critical discussion about such core tenets and axioms, a deadly risk.
Companies and most organisations tend to have a hierarchical structure, which makes them at the same time more and less vulnerable. More, because only a small number of executives need to be swayed, to sway the complete company. Less, because if you have good executives (meaning hungry for money and power, but still team players and somewhat controllable by the board or owners so they won't simply sell the company for their personal benefit), they will be swayed more by commercial reality than the social one. I know very few executives outside Finland, so I don't know where on that swayability spectrum typical ones lie, and it would be interesting to hear your views.
For example, having a diversity policy helps to maximize the pool of candidates when hiring.
Also, having a diverse workforce helps to bring more perspectives to product design and development, and it helps to reflect more customer viewpoints and avoids narrow stereotyping, therefore potentially broadening product appeal. (It could help to avoid, for example, the famous automatic hand soap dispenser that only recognizes lightly pigmented skin.)
Also, having a diverse workforce helps to bring more perspectives to product design and development, and it helps to reflect more customer viewpoints and avoids narrow stereotyping, therefore potentially broadening product appeal. (It could help to avoid, for example, the famous automatic hand soap dispenser that only recognizes lightly pigmented skin.)Those have nothing to do with D-E-I, and everything to do with ensuring the business works. It's also exactly why I've done my best work in a team where we had very different viewpoints, and only slightly overlapping domains of core knowledge: such a team can cover a wider range than any single person.
Please, do remember that you don't need to convince any of us that having a workplace with individuals from different backgrounds is a good thing. We already know that and agree. We've also agreed that inclusion, accepting any individual regardless of their social attributes, is a good thing. Both of these things can be shown to help create better products, and make a more interesting workplace. They do not make up for lack of knowledge, skill, or experience, but when the necessary knowledge and skill and experience is there, the next thing to look for is diversity and inclusion. Not because it's morally or ethically right, but because it can be shown to lead to better products and processes, given good enough administration.
We've also agreed that inclusion, accepting any individual regardless of their social attributes, is a good thing.
For example, having a diversity policy helps to maximize the pool of candidates when hiring.This I don't understand. Isn't it more important to get good candidates instead of many candidates?
Or is the idea that as long as you have sufficient numbers of candidates, some of them will do?