So just because white men predominate in a field that automatically makes the field less meritocratic? If you live in a society where white men have more access to the tools that will allow them to forge their merit, when those white males encounter a meritocracy they will naturally rise to the top. You can argue that the society where these men come from is not meritocratic, but you can not argue that the field they enter is not meritocratic just because they are over represented.
That's a well stated argument, and it's definitely true that you can't look at the tech industry in a vacuum. But I think it would be very difficult to argue both that US/Western/California society is sexist in a way that prevents women from entering the field, and also that all the men that entered the field have magically freed themselves from the sexist cultural biases and attitudes of the larger society they grew up in.
Also, in this scenario, even if the tech industry is not actively sexist, it is being affected by the sexism of the wider society - and, if you think there is anything wrong with that (eg decreased pool of potential employees/founders/idea people), then it is quite possible to make tech-industry-specific moves that counter the extra disadvantages imposed from outside the industry, like affirmative action programs for girls that give them increased access to the tools that will allow them to forge their merit, even when you can't quite identify the process that is reducing their access in the first place. In fact I think that for a field which prides itself on solving big problems, saying 'it's not us it's the rest of society' is a cop-out, and to agree with your statement and not support affirmative action in some form is equivalent to supporting entrenched sexism.
There is a huge difference between saying "tech industry, you are so innovative, why don't you look at this problem and see if there is something you can do to fix it" and saying "tech industry, you are racist, sexist, misogynist, and you should be ashamed of yourselves". I am all for the tech industry finding solutions to hard problems, and I am all against the tech industry being blamed for something it did not cause.
Yes, and 'tech industry, you are so sexist and should be ashamed of yourselves' is a reasonable response to people saying 'Lack of women in tech is clearly a sign that women don't want to be in tech/aren't suited to it because anyone can enter tech and pitch a VC if they want', or 'Affirmative action will just mean there are incompetent females getting ahead at the expense of more competent males' (see the complaints about the Etsy scholarships, for instance: usually comes with complete denial of any systemic disadvantages).
I guess in these cases they are being blamed for not seeing the problem and so perpetuating it, rather than for causing it. But at some point it seems reasonable to say that ignoring or denying the existence of something so well-studied is wilful rejection that makes you part of the problem. How about the phrasing 'tech industry, you are perpetuating sexism/racism even if you don't intend to and you should be ashamed of yourselves'?
is a reasonable response to people saying 'Lack of women in tech is clearly a sign that women don't want to be in tech/aren't suited to it because anyone can enter tech and pitch a VC if they want'
Is there any argument against your views for which an ad-hominem attack would not be a reasonable counterargument?
Notice that if any other group is proportionately overrepresented in a population, it can still be "meritocratic". It is only if there are too many white men, and only white men, that a group can no longer be considered meritocratic.
Meanwhile, people tend to forget that half of successful startup founders are immigrants, including large portions from China and India. Most tech companies I've seen are not very white. If Silicon Valley is a good old boys network, the good old boys have done a terrible job at exclusion.
Also, apparently women from other countries didn't get the memo that the tech industry is sexist, and they come in droves to Silicon Valley to kick ass and chew bubble gum.
> Notice that if any other group is proportionately overrepresented in a population, it can still be "meritocratic".
false. a meritocratic system will very closely match the demographics of the population at large, because no given demographic is inherently better at a given task[1].
> It is only if there are too many white men, and only white men, that a group can no longer be considered meritocratic.
it's no coincidence that most un-meritocratic systems are overrun with white men-- white men are, historically, a priviledged group. so, of course, if a system values privilege over merit, one will see more white men. is that really that hard to understand?
[1] there are, of course, some small differences in average ability among different populations, but in most every case this is not the overriding factor leading to population imbalances in a given field.
You realize that it is trivially easy to falsify your worldview by glancing at, say, Asian American SAT statistics? Measured ability varies widely across population groups, and not always in white guys' favor. Otherwise, every profession from the NBA to electrical engineering would be perfectly balanced like a college recruiter's pamphlet.
Your statement is just a statement of faith, contradicting all available evidence.
The burden of proof doesn't rest on the person arguing against your borderline phrenological explanations of intelligence.
And yes, faith in humanity IS needed for an enlightened thinker.
The meaning and purpose of life will never be proven. There is plenty of room for faith in our world of rationalism.
You need more art in your life! The world is more than just a bunch of metrics in a spreadsheet to fret and argue about.
We should be skeptical of superstitions, but not skeptical of love, truth, and beauty! Don't misinterpret the quest of the Enlightenment! To listen to love and to live!
Don't project your misery on to me my friend, it is wasted breathe! I've got the fire of life on my tongue and your motivations are but wisps of faint discontent. In the raging flames of passion all you can see are your own fallacies.
(get it, the play on "faux outrage"? faux/fallacies, outrage/raging flames? sorry to ruin the poem for you, but you know, part of the problem here is that too few people on this forum have ever learned how to read/listen/see...)
What if those young white men are all working in companies that depend on VC capital to survive and thrive? And what if the VC investment decisions are also made by young white men?
