Was reading up on some articles in response to another male leader coming under fire for long-ago claims of sexual harassment. With the intensifying of these stories, I'm betting that the response is intensifying too. Of course, most of the respondents are women and also self-proclaimed feminists. I'm mostly talking about this article here.
Pina argued that since the workplace environment is so important in determining whether sexual harassment occurs, searching for characteristics that harassers have in common is mostly a distraction. "The thing we can really control is the culture," she said.
Here's the thing, men that try to address these problems get burned by feminists. James D'Amore, the young engineer at Google who wrote a very well-researched paper to explain what he saw as the biological differences between males and females entering tech roles, ended up loosing his job due to false claims on what was in the paper and because of women's levels of comfort. In his report, James used an entire page to give some suggestions on what he thought were some ways in which we could address the workplace differently to account for these biological differences. Still, the paper was rejected.
Now, the feminists seem to be saying the same thing, except it's phrased as the culture needs to change because it's breeding sexual harassers. Maybe the real problem that women don't like is that a man is doing the job of addressing the problem in a rational way. The main issue I have is that this smells like the brewings of policy change, with a feminist tilt but no clear goal. We need to tap the resource that is women, but we shouldn't do it at the cost of quality. Having more women in tech equaling better industry seems like potential for fallacy. I think what D'Amore was also getting at is that it'd be better to focus more on bringing the quality out in the women who are already in tech.
But, do we need fines and regulation to restrict companies from establishing workplace culture or identity, especially when a more open market and freedom to create a company's identity has been part of a winning formula for decades? And what is even the point? Again, what is the real goal in artificially pushing more women into these roles versus taking a more rational approach in simply improving the way we view gender in the workplace?