Thing is, this kind of logic has been used before, to justify hiring strategies that left the unbalanced status quo untouched (whether in relation to gender, race, or whatever). This approach shifts the responsibility for the gender imbalance in STEM onto the educators (where, admittedly, some of the responsibility does belong), rather than placing it on the hiring mechanisms of STEM firms.
However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies. If we want to see the gender imbalance change, that is where we have to address that imbalance.
To say this is not to take a position on Adria Richards. It's about the logic of the position, not the mis/behavior of some of that logic's adherents.
However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies.
Can anyone provide any support for this claim?
That colleges pump out X% women STEM grads and Y% men and that companies hire X' women and Y' percent men where X/Y is less than X'/Y' ??
And ideally that would be followed up with the studies of the men and women STEM graduates that did not find jobs in STEM that tracked where they did find jobs, and if those jobs were second choices to a STEM job?
"This approach shifts the responsibility for the gender imbalance in STEM onto the educators (where, admittedly, some of the responsibility does belong), rather than placing it on the hiring mechanisms of STEM firms."
It's not just the hiring mechanism of STEM firms, it's the culture of these firms. I work at a larger company that has quite a few female software developers, and I can't imagine any of them even wanting to apply for a job in a company that consists of a bunch of macho guys who are trying to hire a "rock star" or "ninja" programmer to code 12 hours a day (a schedule that pretty much implies that they're looking for a young person with no life or commitments outside of work). These companies will never get the chance to hire them because they'll never have an interest in working there.
How did this status quo come about to begin with? Was it through gender discriminatory practices? Is it possible (I'm just asking here) that the gender "imbalance" is the equilibrium?
So is the imbalance addressed by showing more women that STEM is a valid choice from an early age or is it that we start at the firms and try to work your way backwards? At a certain point is it a systemic failure?
The love of mathematics, technology, and tinkering is universal?
I've read a few books written by women about women in tech that claim the opposite, that women predominantly like tech because of the fascinating applications, not the intrinsic love of tinkering with the terminal.
However, at the risk of mentioning the obvious, it is not the educators who are not hiring women into STEM positions, but STEM companies. If we want to see the gender imbalance change, that is where we have to address that imbalance.
To say this is not to take a position on Adria Richards. It's about the logic of the position, not the mis/behavior of some of that logic's adherents.