> Its related to the validity of your "observation", in that, if teaching to code is not a female-dominated activity, your "observation" that she chose a female-dominated activity is false.
Well, if you insist on reductio at absurdum, let's continue on. Teaching to code in gilrs-only classes is obviously not a male-dominated activity, would you agree on that?
--
This side of the pond, it's fun to observe how Americans try to integrate minorities into bigger groups. The usual tools are: "positive discrimination", ban on open discussion and general patronising attitude on the side of a majority. Because that worked just oh so well with racial minorities.
Last thing women need is your 'knight in the shiny armour' stance toward them. Just treat them as equals, and they'll beat you in your own game once interested enough. It's that easy.
(And, yes, I'm a married man; a father of a beautiful, independent and ambitious daughter; and a hiring manager, with 100% women applicants being hired so far: for being great engineers, albeit a bit unconfident, hence only applying when absolutely sure they're up for the job).
I am not aware of any statistics on this subject. How exactly this is related to my observation?
All engineers I know who worth their salt acquired their skills mostly through self-education and lot of practice, and the process was gender-independent. I don't think 'boys-are-not-allowed' classes will put any of the participants closer to professional careers in coding.
So, given the ability to chose between a personal STEM-related project (mostly male) and teaching activity (the area absolutely dominated by female) on her spring break, Christina went for the later.
I'm next to straight underground line going right to my office.
'Just go to Reading' was exactly my point. In order to save enough for a basic housing in London, my quality of life have to drop significantly for years to come. Yet I'm considered to be 'rich' by HMRC. (Practically, this'd mean switching schools for one of my children, and waiting forever for free timeslots in nearby nurseries for another - while saving maybe extra £5-6k/y in rent, which is peanuts when counting towards possible mortgage).
Avg. house prices in my current ward are ~$750-900k for a 3bd terrace. That's ten years of my net income - and you don't have to work for that! Just sell a house you bought 15 years ago for a fraction of this cost - and here you go. Sure, you'd have to rent - just as I do. Yet, all those people are not considered to be wealthy (and they aren't, with many of them struggling with today's job market), and not taxed on the wealth they hold.
So, for me - it's all about taxation and government imposed incentives. If they want to put a leash on a younger britons generation and then pass it to Chinese landlords - they're on the right track.
Changing taxation alone can drastically shift the power balance between landlords and tenants to ease underlying supply-demand issue.
It's completely possible to live in London. But imagine trying to stay here, like, for life. Starting family, raising kids, buying your own place. Not possible, on any income. You need wealth, and in London there's no way to build it for salaried professional.
Single earner with 2 kids living in London on top-1 percentile income here. 60% of that monthly income is going towards rent, taxes and utilities for a terrace in Zone 4, plus nursery charges for our toddler. My wife can't find a job here, as she's an ex-journalist, and not a native speaker. No tax allowances (due to £100k+/y income) and no recurse to public funds (I'm on Visa, and not an EU citizen) doesn't help either. Apparently, I supposed to be rich enough for London to be taxable on 50% of my income (effective tax rate: 41%).
Thought of buying a 2bd flat recently, but it'll take us two years of struggling for every extra penny to just get a mortgage for a very moderate £250k place.
Income means nothing in this city. Either you got your housing issue settled 15 years ago using 'right to buy' or some other form of government housing subsidies, or you somehow generate wealth on a side (obviously, not through the salary, as even £200k/y doesn't seems to be close enough), or you are going to rent until you loose your source of income (i.e. due to old age) - and then you'd probably die on a street.
An economy of landlords drawing the money from their own kids. In a few decades all that accumulated wealth will be probably burned away on anti-cancer treatments, and then heavily taxed and rented younger generation will just quit on trying to build a welfare state, throwing their lives away only to provide a comfort living for older people. Hope our grand-kids will be at least able to start from blank.
Well, the economy might sustain, but the pension system is surely doomed. Which means some drastic political fluctuations, as major (and active) voters will be stripped from their expected (and promised) wealth. And any political disturbance when you are a 3rd economy in the world with 200% GDP in debt might blow up in World's face easily.
If this debt is ever to be paid, this'll be surely done partly with funds now parked at US treasuries. And, of course, any economic issues in Japan will hit China hard as well - which is another major holder of US's debt. So, top-3 biggest economies in the World might go down in instance, sinking others with them.
Japan might try to compensate that by active foreign workforce infusions (like Europe do), - but they are a really closed society still, and their foreigners count is just under 2 mil (compare with 16 mil for, say, Russia, with comparable, though much younger on average, total population size), which is nothing.
Well, if you insist on reductio at absurdum, let's continue on. Teaching to code in gilrs-only classes is obviously not a male-dominated activity, would you agree on that?
--
This side of the pond, it's fun to observe how Americans try to integrate minorities into bigger groups. The usual tools are: "positive discrimination", ban on open discussion and general patronising attitude on the side of a majority. Because that worked just oh so well with racial minorities.
Last thing women need is your 'knight in the shiny armour' stance toward them. Just treat them as equals, and they'll beat you in your own game once interested enough. It's that easy.
(And, yes, I'm a married man; a father of a beautiful, independent and ambitious daughter; and a hiring manager, with 100% women applicants being hired so far: for being great engineers, albeit a bit unconfident, hence only applying when absolutely sure they're up for the job).