How many "exceptions" have to come to our attention before we change the rule?
Google Dwayne Betts. He is a tour-de-force. He wants to dedicate his life to helping others, but despite the life he has lived since serving his time in prison, he was nearly prevented from practicing law in the state of Connecticut.
"In conversations", he said "lawmakers will look at me and say 'you're an exception.' Yeah, well, in 2005, I wasn't. And I want to fight for that guy."
You shouldn't have to be as exemplary as Dwayne or this law professor in order to not be written-off from society.
From the article: “Climate change is not a real thing for most of these people,” Stern said. “But you change your mind quick when your kids are puking.”
Sounds like your team kind of backed into an insight psychological research has identified and Google has attempted to apply. Something called "psychological safety".
"Psychological safety: Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?" - from re:work
There's a great NYTimes article about it that looks at your hunch about the weirdness of the team members being the key to awesomeness. But Google ultimately realized that it wasn't so much about how different the backgrounds of the team members were, but was instead that that internal diversity could produce psychological safety.
Lots of people here are pretty certain the "key" to a "successful education" are parents.
But one successful teacher's view is this:
"...Like all the teachers I talked to in Washington, Mr. Taylor laments the lack of parental involvement. “On back-to-school night, if you have 28 or 30 kids in your class, you’re lucky to see six or seven parents,” he says. But when I ask him how that affects his teaching, he says, “Actually, it doesn’t. I make it my business to call the parents—and not just for bad things..."
h/t u/jseliger, who linked to a helpful article at the Atlantic, where I'm quoting this from.
I think the reason the overall picture painted of women in tech is bleak because the typical experience of being a woman in the tech industry is bleak. Women are scared away from tech by their experience in tech, not by tech's reputation, so I'm not surprised there aren't more Lea's out there.
Women who quit the tech industry (56%) do so at a significantly higher rate than they do in science (47%) and engineering (39%) ("HBR Research Report: The Athena Factor:Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology" -- and I'll add that the report is good about addressing why childcare and the heavy workloads don't entirely account for the quit rate.)
Quit rates in the industry shouldn't be higher than other STEM industries. Even if you grant a pipeline problem, in which case sharing positive stories about women in tech improves the situation, once women are involved, positive stories can't impact how they are treated. The quit rate suggests it's a worse situation for women than in similar industries.
One commenter here suggests Lea's case shows nothing needs to change, which is odd, since Lea doesn't say that. It's also odd that this commenter suggests rule changes addressing inadequacies ought to be characterized as "special rules" -- special changes to fundamentally sound policy -- instead of "better policy" -- fundamental changes to flawed policies. Policies demonstrated to be flawed by their unfair and differential impact on women.
Nonetheless, it is great Lea has had a positive experience. I am glad she shared it.
I think the reason the overall picture painted of women in tech is bleak because the typical experience of being a woman in the tech industry is bleak. Women are scared away from tech by their experience in tech, not by tech's reputation, so I'm not surprised there aren't more Lea's out there.
Women who quit the tech industry (56%) do so at a significantly higher rate than they do in science (47%) and engineering (39%) ("HBR Research Report: The Athena Factor:Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology" -- and I'll add that the report is good about addressing why childcare and the heavy workloads don't entirely account for the quit rate.)
Quit rates in the industry shouldn't be higher than other STEM industries. Even if you grant a pipeline problem, in which case sharing positive stories about women in tech improves the situation, once women are involved, positive stories can't impact how they are treated. The quit rate suggests it's a worse situation for women than in similar industries.
One commenter here suggests Lea's case shows nothing needs to change, which is odd, since Lea doesn't say that. It's also odd that this commenter suggests rule changes addressing inadequacies ought to be characterized as "special rules" -- special changes to fundamentally sound policy -- instead of "better policy" -- fundamental changes to flawed policies, policies demonstrated to be flawed by their unfair and differential impact on women.
Nonetheless, it is great Lea has had a positive experience. I am glad she shared it.
Subsidy is one way of handling the signup fees. And it might work. But I can't tell if you're saying subsidy is the right answer here, or if you're saying the congressman's complaint to Google is out of line.
Google Dwayne Betts. He is a tour-de-force. He wants to dedicate his life to helping others, but despite the life he has lived since serving his time in prison, he was nearly prevented from practicing law in the state of Connecticut.
"In conversations", he said "lawmakers will look at me and say 'you're an exception.' Yeah, well, in 2005, I wasn't. And I want to fight for that guy."
You shouldn't have to be as exemplary as Dwayne or this law professor in order to not be written-off from society.