梦之安魂曲 minisd
This article was inspired by a conversation with fellow Medium user @hollyjahangiri. Big thanks to her insightful comments on this topic.
本文的灵感来自与中型用户 @hollyjahangiri 的对话 。 非常感谢她对这个主题的深刻见解。
科技产业与“科技废物”问题 (The tech industry and the problem of “Tech Waste”)
Almost by definition, technology is designed to improve the human condition.
几乎按照定义，技术旨在改善人类状况。
And, for the most part, it does — or at least tries to. We can debate how healthy social media ultimately is, we can talk about how much screen time we should limit our kids to, and we can discuss whether the burgeoning Zoom culture is going to bring us closer together or drive us further into isolation. But at the end of the day, most technologies were built to fill some hole in the spectrum of human needs.
而且，在大多数情况下，它确实会-或至少会尝试这样做。 我们可以讨论社交媒体最终的健康状况，可以讨论应该限制孩子们使用多少屏幕时间，还可以讨论Swift发展的Zoom文化是否将使我们更加紧密联系或使我们进一步孤立。 但是，归根结底，大多数技术都是为了填补人类需求范围内的某些漏洞而建立的。
The problem is, a lot — I’m going to say most — of tech addresses needs within the cadre of people who are already rich in tech, money, or privilege.
问题是-我要说的是-很多已经满足了技术，金钱或特权的人们的技术需求。
I’ve started calling this category “tech waste,” of which there are a couple of different kinds. Tech waste includes apps that burn through a huge amount of startup capital making small, incremental progress over a competitor or previous version, and result in tech that is mostly redundant, or that has very little large-scale impact (“redundant” or “incremental” tech).
我已经开始将此类别称为“技术废物”，其中有两种不同的类型。 技术浪费包括消耗大量启动资金的应用程序，这些应用程序在竞争者或先前版本的基础上取得了较小的增量进步，导致技术大部分为冗余，或者对规模的影响很小(“冗余”或“增量” ”)。
There’s also “tech for tech” or “tech upon tech,” which is technology designed to make existing technology function in a slightly more efficient way or in concert with other software (think seamless software integrations).
还存在“技术换技术”或“技术对技术”的技术，旨在使现有技术以稍微更有效的方式发挥作用或与其他软件协同工作(请考虑无缝软件集成)。
And there’s the kind of tech waste that results from making already-rich or already-privileged people richer and more privileged, such as fintech and “money maximization” tech.
而且，这种金融浪费是由于使已经富裕或已经有特权的人们变得更加富裕和享有更多特权而产生的，例如金融科技和“金钱最大化”科技。
It’s harder to find tech targeted at the gaping needs of the world, such as mass hunger, climate change, and systemic racism — and their presence in capital markets is limited to contexts in which social values double as marketing value.
很难找到针对诸如世界饥饿，气候变化和系统种族主义等世界迫切需求的技术，而且它们在资本市场中的存在仅限于社会价值两倍于市场价值的情况。
This problem is not really tech’s fault, and it’s not unique to tech — any profitable industry has its share of excess, like financial waste and food waste. The issue goes higher and wider and deeper than the tech industry, which is that tech is situated and cradled firmly in the bosom of capitalism, and is maybe its favorite child, evidenced by the fact that the economy is now run by tech titans, plus Warren Buffet and Walmart.
这个问题并不是真正的技术问题，也不是技术独有的-任何有利可图的行业都有其多余的份额，例如金融浪费和食品浪费。 这个问题比科技行业更广泛，更深，更深，这是科技在资本主义怀抱中牢牢地立于不败之地，也许是它最喜欢的孩子，这一事实证明了经济现在是由科技巨头经营的事实，再加上沃伦·巴菲特(Warren Buffet)和沃尔玛(Walmart)。
Tech, in theory, holds the latent power to fix everything, a shining beacon of socialistic futurism for those of us who focus on its unrealized potential. But because tech is inherently profit-driven, its hands are tied, the problems with which Wendy Liu explores in her new book, “Abolish Silicon Valley.”
从理论上讲，技术拥有修复所有事物的潜能，对于那些专注于未实现潜力的我们这些人来说，这是社会主义未来主义的光辉灯塔。 但是由于技术本质上是由利润驱动的，因此它的双手被束缚住了，Wendy Liu在她的新书《废除硅谷》中探讨了这些问题。
Especially among those who hold an idealistic vision for tech, it gets talked about as something inherently holy and progressive — something that, if we just keep pushing its capabilities forward, will converge on a singularity of egalitarianism and enlightenment. That its culture is exclusionary and its AI swings racist are ancillary issues, mere road bumps along the way.
特别是在那些对技术抱有理想主义眼光的人中，人们谈论它是一种内在的神圣和进步的东西，如果我们继续推动其能力向前发展的话，它将融合于平等主义和启蒙运动的奇异之处。 它的文化是排他性的，它的AI摇摆种族主义是辅助问题，只是一路颠簸。
But to what extent can the tools of digital technology be unentangled from the cultural and developmental factors that produced them? Does tech just need to be liberated from capitalism to realize its potential? Is it superficially and extrinsically constrained by its situation within a profit-dominant economic system? Or do its troubles run deeper, down to its very methodologies?
但是，数字技术工具在多大程度上可以与产生它们的文化和发展因素相融合？ 技术是否仅需要从资本主义中解放出来以实现其潜力？ 它在以利润为主导的经济体系中受到局面的表面和外部束缚吗？ 还是它的麻烦深入到其方法论上？
I’ve started asking these questions specifically in terms of the “Women in Tech” problem. Why are there so few of us women in tech, and why don’t we stay in the industry? Could the reason have something to do with “tech waste” and the self-written loop that dumps increasing amounts of tech resources behind the doors of the already-rich, thereby curtailing tech’s ability to solve the problems that most need attention? Is it a problem with tech’s fiscal inability to solve real-world problems? Or with its cultural lack of desire to?
我已经开始专门针对“科技女性”问题提出这些问题。 为什么我们中从事科技行业的女性人数很少，为什么我们不留在行业中呢？ 原因可能与“技术浪费”和自写循环有关，后者将越来越多的技术资源倾倒在本已丰富的人的门后，从而削弱了技术人员解决最需要关注的问题的能力吗？ 解决实际问题的技术财政能力是否有问题？ 还是对它的文化缺乏渴望？
Historically, explanations for the lack of women in tech have targeted toxic, male-dominated cultures that are unwelcoming to women. But this line of conversation has gone on for so long, with so little change resulting, I’m starting to wonder whether the problem isn’t a more substantive one: What if it’s not the culture that surrounds tech, but its fundamental capabilities, that women find limiting?
从历史上看，对于缺乏技术的女性的解释是针对男性不欢迎的有毒，男性主导的文化。 但是这种对话进行了很长时间，几乎没有变化，我开始怀疑问题是否不是实质性的问题：如果不是围绕技术的文化，而是其基本能力，该怎么办？女人发现限制？
女性创办科技公司来解决现实世界中的问题 (Women start tech companies to solve real-world problems)
In pursuing the answer to this question, the first thing I wanted to examine was whether there’s a difference in the types of companies founded by each men and women. I took at look at two lists I found recently published:
在寻求这个问题的答案时，我首先要研究的是，每个男女成立的公司类型是否存在差异。 我看了一下最近发现的两个列表：
These top 50 female-run tech companies
这些由女性经营的50强科技公司
And a more general list of top 50 tech startups, 45 of which were run exclusively by men. And here’s what I found:
还有更一般的50家高科技创业公司名单 ，其中45家完全由男性经营。 这是我发现的：
Of the 45 men-run companies I looked at, only 3 of them targeted real-world problems, which fell into the categories of education, auto safety, and health. The other companies made up those “tech-upon-tech” and “money maximization” categories, assorted between fintech, cloud integrations, data science, business solutions, and gaming, to name a few.
在我看过的45家人力公司中，只有3家针对现实世界的问题，这些问题属于教育，汽车安全和健康。 其他公司组成了“高科技”和“金钱最大化”类别，包括金融科技，云集成，数据科学，业务解决方案和游戏，仅举几例。
As for the list of 50 companies run by women: Of these, 43 were geared toward solving real-world problems, ranging in categories from healthcare and public health to the environment, to food and water sustainability and accessibility.
至于由妇女经营的50家公司的名单：其中，有43家致力于解决现实世界的问题，其类别从医疗保健和公共卫生到环境，从食品和水的可持续性和可及性出发。
In this small sample, 7% of men-run companies targeted real-world problems. 86% of the women-run companies did, which suggests that women may have the specific goal of solving “big” problems in starting tech companies. And unfortunately, there’s just not a lot of profit to be found in fixing the world.
在这个小样本中，有7％的人为公司将目标放在现实世界中。 86％的女性经营公司都这样做了，这表明女性可能有解决初创科技公司中“大”问题的特定目标。 不幸的是，在解决这个问题上并没有太多收获。
This qualitative evaluation is not an empirical study — and it is contradicted by other lists of female-run tech companies, of which many are profit-driven and tech-waste-ridden. One explanation for this is that female founders are not, in fact, any more social good-oriented than male founders. Another explanation is that women are more likely than men to found companies “for good” and that these companies do make up the majority of female-run companies — but lists like these only feature the financially successful ones, which make up the minority of women-run tech companies.
这种定性评估不是一项实证研究，它与其他由女性经营的科技公司的名单相矛盾，其中许多是利润驱动型且充满技术浪费的公司。 对此的一种解释是，事实上，女性创始人比男性创始人更不注重社会公益。 另一个解释是，女性比男性更容易“建立良好的公司”，并且这些公司的确构成了女性经营公司的大多数，但这类公司仅以财务上成功的公司为特色，而这些公司仅占女性的少数。经营的科技公司。
The idea that women may be more interested in using tech to solve real-world problems is supported by other evidence. First, female tech startup founders are less interested in profit than men. Second, women focus more on social and environmental issues in corporate governance than do men. Third, women’s numbers are increasing in some STEM fields that are typically viewed as more “applied.” And fourth, women in tech seem to be more concerned with the lack of context or applicability in developing machine learning and AI models, which is discussed further in a later section.
妇女可能对使用技术解决现实世界问题更感兴趣的观点得到了其他证据的支持。 首先，女性科技创业公司创始人对利润的兴趣不如男性。 其次，女性比男性更关注公司治理中的社会和环境问题。 第三，在某些STEM领域中，女性人数正在增加，这些领域通常被认为更“适用”。 第四，技术领域的女性似乎更担心开发机器学习和AI模型时缺乏上下文或适用性，这将在下一部分中进一步讨论。
To the first point, this study shows that, though women and men founders tend to be more similar in their goals than is generally thought, one major difference is their interest in financial gain. 15% of men listed “financial gain” as their top reason to start a company, while only 2% of women did.
首先， 这项研究表明，尽管男女创始人的目标往往比通常认为的更为相似，但主要区别在于她们对财务收益的兴趣。 15％的男性将“财务收益”列为创办公司的首要原因，而只有2％的女性如此。
And the data from “top tech company” lists corroborate that statistic, for the most part. The 8% of companies run by women on GeekWire’s top 200, for example, fall in line with the rest of the (men-run) companies on the list: They’re profitable, and range in type from marketing to software to data science, falling into the “tech waste” categories. This suggests that women, of course, can be as profit-ambitious as men. But their minority on standard “successful company” lists suggests that women’s motivations may tend away from profit and toward social causes.
而且，来自“顶级高科技公司”的数据在很大程度上证实了这一统计数据。 例如，在GeekWire排名前200名中的女性经营的公司中，有8％的公司与名单上的其他(男性经营的)公司保持一致：它们是盈利的，并且类型从营销到软件到数据科学，属于“技术废物”类别。 这表明，女人当然可以和男人一样有雄心壮志。 但是，在标准的“成功公司”名单上的少数族裔表明，女性的动机可能倾向于从利润转向社会事业。
To the second point: Additional evidence for this hypothesis is that female board members tend to prioritize social, environmental, and governance issues more than male board members — and this is good for business because, after all, consumers factor company values into their buying choices. But even the presence of socially-conscious women doesn’t change the bottom line of a company competing within a capitalist ecosystem. Fundamentally, these companies are still profit-driven, which means that social consciousness gets co-opted as investor bait, rather than being leveled at the problems outside of that ecosystem that many women aspire to solve.
第二点：该假设的其他证据是，女性董事会成员比男性董事会成员更倾向于优先考虑社会，环境和治理问题，这对企业而言是有利的，因为毕竟，消费者将公司价值纳入了购买选择。 但是，即使具有社会意识的女性也不会改变在资本主义生态系统中竞争的公司的底线。 从根本上讲，这些公司仍以利润为导向，这意味着社会意识已成为投资者的诱饵，而不是被许多女性渴望解决的生态系统之外的问题所困扰。
This presents a conundrum for women in any entrepreneurship arena, which is that they’re great at raising funding for companies that fit within the capitalism paradigm. But tech prioritizes appeasing investors, which may work against women when they try to use tech to solve real-world problems. There’s just not a lot of profit to be found in, for example, getting poor people clean water to drink.
这对于任何企业家领域的女性来说都是一个难题，那就是她们非常擅长为符合资本主义范式的公司筹集资金。 但是，技术优先考虑令人满意的投资者，这在女性尝试使用技术解决现实世界中的问题时可能会不利于女性。 例如，让穷人喝干净的水，并没有多少好处。
And to the third point: Women’s numbers are increasing in STEM fields, such as psychology, that are generally viewed as “soft” sciences, and therefore less technical the other, “hard” sciences. But the notion that psychology requires less quantitative rigor than, for example, software engineering, is completely misinformed. Professional success in experimental psychology is hugely dependent upon facility with high-level statistical methodologies and programming ability.
第三点：在心理学等STEM领域中，女性的人数正在增加 ，这些领域通常被视为“软”科学，因此在技术上则相对较弱，而其他“硬”科学却很少。 但是，相对于例如软件工程，心理学需要较少的定量严谨性的观念是完全错误的。 实验心理学的专业成功在很大程度上取决于具有高级统计方法和编程能力的设施。
Other data suggest that women have, or are approaching, equal representation in physical sciences, namely biology. This could be because biology can be appropriated to a number of real-world problems, such as healthcare, public health, the environment, and agriculture. This study shows that women have near-equal representation in the broad field of “biological, agricultural, and environmental life sciences.”
其他数据表明，妇女在物理科学 (即生物学)中具有或正在接近具有平等的代表性。 这可能是因为生物学可以适用于许多现实世界的问题，例如医疗保健，公共卫生，环境和农业。 这项研究表明，妇女在“生物，农业和环境生命科学”的广泛领域中具有几乎相等的代表性。
Additionally, for the first time in history, women are becoming physicians at a higher rate than men. This study shows that while most doctors 45 and older are male, most doctors under the age of 45 are female.
另外，妇女有史以来第一次以比男性高的比率成为医生。 这项研究表明，虽然大多数45岁以上的医生是男性，但大多数45岁以下的医生是女性。
Taken together, these studies suggest a couple of things: 1) Women seem to gravitate toward social causes and solving real-world problems, and 2) Women have no problems adopting the STEM-typed skill sets necessary to tackle these problems.
综上所述，这些研究提出了两点：1)女性似乎倾向于社会原因和解决现实世界中的问题； 2)女性在采用解决这些问题所必需的STEM型技能方面没有问题。
我们如何解决“科技女性”问题 (How we approach the “Women in Tech” problem)
As I mentioned above, my comparison of mostly male-run and all female-run tech company lists is not an empirical study — after all, these two lists were subjectively curated by two different authors. So I set out to find research that examines the relationship between leadership gender and type of tech company, and found that there is surprisingly little research done on the types of companies that women want to run.
正如我上面提到的，我对大多数由男性经营和所有女性经营的科技公司名单的比较不是一项经验研究，毕竟，这两个名单是由两位不同的作者主观策划的。 因此，我着手寻找调查领导性别与科技公司类型之间关系的研究，并且发现几乎没有关于女性想要经营的公司类型的研究。
When searching for this data, the results page reads like a frantic boardroom discussion about diversity quotas: Why aren’t there more women in tech? Where do we get them from? How do we keep them? The current body of literature on gender differences in tech leadership is mostly just stats about women: demographic information, their numbers in tech positions, their numbers in tech leadership, and the amount of money they bring in.
在搜索这些数据时，结果页面看起来像是疯狂的董事会讨论，关于多样性配额：为什么没有更多的女性从事科技行业？ 我们从哪里得到它们？ 我们如何保留它们？ 当前关于技术领导力性别差异的文献大多只是关于女性的统计数据：人口统计信息，其在技术职位上的人数，在技术领导层上的人数以及她们带来的金钱数量。
Even in writing and conversations about retaining women in tech, women are largely commodified. The prevailing assumption seems to be that women want to be in tech — or that they should want to be in tech — but are made to feel unwelcome. And there’s no doubt that women who do want to be there may be discouraged due to toxic culture, stereotyped threat, and the “glass cliff.” But what about the women who just don’t want to be there?
甚至在有关保留女性从事技术的写作和对话中，女性基本上都是商品化的。 普遍的假设似乎是女性想从事科技行业，或者她们应该从事科技行业，但是却让她们感到不受欢迎。 毫无疑问，由于有毒的文化，刻板印象的威胁以及“ 玻璃悬崖 ”，那些想去那里的女性可能会灰心。 但是那些不想在那里的女人呢？
Interestingly, one person who seemed to get it was a man who wrote: “We simply do not have enough women choosing tech careers,” suggesting that, as it stands, the tech industry just isn’t appealing to women — and that it’s not a matter of ability, it’s a matter of choice. Maybe, because the tech industry is failing to provide a solution space for real problems rather than contrived ones, women are finding better places to go. The problem isn’t whether women can make it into the tech industry — it’s whether it it proves a useful tool for them. Many women leave after just a few years.
有趣的是，一个似乎明白这一点的人是一个男人，他写道 ：“我们根本没有足够的女性选择科技职业，”这表明，就目前而言，科技行业对女性没有吸引力，而且它并没有吸引女性。能力问题，选择问题。 也许是因为技术行业无法为实际问题提供解决方案空间，而不是人为的问题，因此女性正在寻找更好的解决之道。 问题不在于妇女是否可以进入科技行业，而是它是否证明对她们有用。 几年后，许多妇女离开。
And the Women in Tech problem has nothing to do with innate ability, either. A recent, replicated study that examined gender differences in high school students’ scores found that girls do not suffer from deficiencies in STEM — just advantages in the humanities. That women have equal skill in science and math and higher demonstrated skill in humanities kind of explains everything. It’s not that they’re not good at STEM. It’s just that, for women who want to use their entire repertoire of skills, the tech industry might be insufficient.
科技界的女性问题也与先天能力无关。 最近的一项重复研究对高中生分数中的性别差异进行了研究 ，结果发现女孩没有遭受STEM不足的困扰，而只是人文学科的优势。 女人在科学和数学上拥有同等的技能，而在人文科学方面表现出更高的技能，可以解释一切。 并不是说他们不擅长STEM。 只是，对于想要使用全部技能的女性，科技行业可能不足。
In many of these conversations, the tech industry is treated like a gift that fell out of the sky like manna from heaven — and since women have equal ability in the requisite skill set, it must just be a matter of convincing them that they belong, right? My biggest point of frustration with this narrative is in how STEM fields are presented as something women should want to enter. Sometimes the rhetoric reads like: “How do we convince them to want this? Is there some way we can trick them into staying?”
在许多此类对话中，高科技行业被当作礼物一样，像天上掉下的甘露一样从天上掉下来；而且由于女性在必备技能方面拥有同等能力，因此必须说服她们自己属于自己，对？ 我对这种叙述感到沮丧的最大点在于，STEM领域是如何呈现为女性想要进入的领域。 有时，措辞如下：“我们如何说服他们想要这个？ 我们有什么办法可以欺骗他们留下来？”
But I think this viewpoint underestimates women. If they saw the tech industry as a valuable tool for accomplishing what they wanted, they would have taken it over— just like they’ve started to take over the career of physician, a job to which women were previously thought to be mentally unsuited. But unfortunately, tech is encapsulated in and defined by an economic system that severely limits its ability to solve problems.
但是我认为这种观点低估了女性。 如果他们认为科技行业是实现自己想要的目标的宝贵工具，那么他们将接管它，就像他们开始接管医生的职业一样，以前认为女性在心理上不适合从事这项工作。 但是不幸的是，技术被封装在一个经济体系中，并由其严格限制其解决问题的能力。
To many women, the tech industry may appear as little more than a bloated toy factory for the rich. It’s not the technical work that puts them off, but the brick wall the work eventually leads to. And with all the focus on making the culture of the industry more welcoming to women, I wonder whether anyone stopped to ask whether its very substance is.
对于许多女性而言，高科技行业似乎只是富人的toy肿玩具工厂而已。 推迟完成的并不是技术工作，而是最终导致工作的砖墙。 出于对使行业文化更受女性欢迎的关注，我想知道是否有人停下来询问它的实质。
性别差异：它们来自哪里，如何在Tech中发挥作用？ (Gender differences: Where do they come from, and how do they play out in Tech?)
Studies have shown that gender diversity in leadership leads to higher performance among tech companies — not only in terms of innovation, but also in net profit. This suggests what we already knew: that women bring to the table a unique and equally important, complementary skill set. We know, for example, that teams with women raise more money and are more innovative.
研究表明，领导者中的性别多样性导致科技公司的业绩更高-不仅在创新方面，而且在净利润方面。 这表明了我们已经知道的事情：妇女将独特而同样重要的互补技能带到了餐桌上。 例如，我们知道，与女性合作的团队筹集了更多的钱，并且更具创新性。
And we know that women tend to embrace a transformational leadership style, meaning that they focus on individual process and building relationships with employees, while men tend toward a transactional leadership style that focuses more on results.
而且我们知道 ，女性倾向于采用变革型领导风格，这意味着她们专注于个人过程和与员工建立关系，而男性倾向于采用注重结果的交易型领导风格。
Whether these differences are the result of biological predisposition or experience is unknown, but some claim gender-based differences in leadership styles go back to brain wiring. This paper points to structural brain differences, claiming that because women have more connections between hemispheres, they are more analytical and intuitive, and this may be the result of more distributed wiring. In men, on the other hand, brain wiring is more direct and linear, suggesting that men’s tendency to be action- and results-oriented could be attributed to basic brain physiology.
这些差异究竟是生物学倾向还是经验的结果尚不清楚，但一些人声称，领导风格中基于性别的差异可以追溯到大脑。 本文指出了大脑的结构差异，声称由于女性在半球之间的联系更多，因此她们更具分析性和直觉性，这可能是配线更加分散的结果。 另一方面，在男性中，大脑的连接更为直接和线性，这表明男性倾向于行动和结果导向的趋势可以归因于基本的大脑生理。
The first problem with using brain-based evidence for behavioral differences is that men’s and women’s brains are more fundamentally similar than different, and more similar than our socially defined roles let on. And connecting brain structure to behavior is a sticky wicket to say the least. At this point, it’s pure speculation whether differences in leadership styles — or any kind of behavior — can be directly attributed to brain circuitry differences.
使用基于大脑的证据进行行为差异的第一个问题是，男人和女人的大脑在根本上比不同要相似，并且比我们定义的社会角色更相似。 至少可以说，将大脑结构与行为联系起来是一个棘手的门 。 在这一点上，纯粹是在推测领导风格的差异(或任何形式的行为)是否可以直接归因于大脑电路的差异。
Second, there’s no way to test whether any perceived brain differences are the result of genetics or experience, because we do not have a human society, in which socially-defined gender roles do not exist, to test these differences against. Brain structure can change due to conditioning, as shown in a now-classic study on hippocampus (primary center for spatial reasoning) size in London cab drivers. This study showed that an enlarged hippocampus resulted from drivers navigating London’s idiosyncratic layout, suggesting that experience can change brain structure and wiring.
其次，由于我们没有人类社会(没有社会定义的性别角色)来检验这些差异，因此无法测试任何感知的大脑差异是否是遗传学或经验的结果。 大脑结构可以改变，由于空调，如在现在经典研究海马(用于空间推理主要中心)的尺寸在伦敦的出租车司机。 这项研究表明，驾驶员导航伦敦特有的布局会导致海马增大，这表明体验可以改变大脑的结构和连线。
The primary issue with biology-based explanations for behavioral differences is that they have long been co-opted to justify systemic sexism. Two ways evolutionary biology has been weaponized are the Deterministic Fallacy — which claims that gender differences are hard-wired and immutable — and the Naturalistic Fallacy, which claims that any behaviors predisposed by genetics are therefore justified in how they create unequal outcomes in society. They’re both easy-to-grab weapons for those of us frustrated by gender-driven inequity.
基于生物学的行为差异解释的主要问题是，人们长期以来一直选择使用它们来证明系统性性别歧视。 进化生物学被武器化的两种方式是：确定性谬误-声称性别差异是硬连接的且是不变的-和自然主义谬误-声称遗传所致的任何行为因此都可以证明它们如何在社会中产生不平等的结果。 对于我们中那些因性别驱动的不平等而感到沮丧的人来说，它们都是容易抓住的武器。
We have to acknowledge that testosterone, oxytocin, and serotonin — for all of which we have sexually dimorphic uptake systems — contribute in some way to behavioral variation. But it’s even more important to point out that, to use the case of testosterone, the effects of these hormones have been found highly dependent upon social context. This suggests that the gender divide in tech likely resulted from social pressures that, over time, were layered on top of and subsequently reinforced smaller, biologically-determined behavioral differences.
我们必须承认，睾丸激素， 催产素和5-羟色胺 (我们都具有性双态摄取系统)以某种方式导致行为变异。 但更重要的是要指出，以睾丸激素为例 ，已发现这些激素的作用高度依赖于社会背景。 这表明，技术上的性别鸿沟可能是由于社会压力造成的，随着时间的流逝，这些压力逐渐叠加在由生物学决定的较小行为差异之上，随后又加剧了这种差异。
For example, let’s consider what I’m calling the primary problem with tech and the driver of tech waste: As many technologies are developed, they make piecemeal progress on already existing technologies, and the goal seems to be seeing how far we can push the limits of tech without addressing the question of purpose: The motivation behind developing tech becomes so overwhelmingly competitive, we lose sight of the fact that technologies are supposed to improve the human condition.
例如，让我们考虑一下我所说的技术的主要问题和技术浪费的驱动因素：随着许多技术的发展，它们在已经存在的技术上取得了零碎的进步，而目标似乎是看我们可以将技术推向多远。技术的局限性没有解决目的问题：开发技术的动机变得如此具有压倒性的竞争性，我们看不到技术应该改善人类状况的事实。
If we wanted to use biology to explain the Women in Tech problem, we could argue that such a competitive, profit-driven approach can be explained by testosterone. A hormone-fueled tendency toward competition certainly looks like the reason tech solutions veer off on these iterative tangents, sometimes appearing as though the only goal is to one-up something already on the market.
如果我们想用生物学来解释科技界的女性问题，我们可以说睾丸激素可以解释这种竞争性，利润驱动的方法。 激素推动的竞争趋势肯定看起来像技术解决方案偏向于这些迭代切线的原因，有时似乎似乎唯一的目标是对已经在市场上出售的东西进行升级。
However, the “hormone” view neglects the harmful effects of men being programmed by a patriarchal society to uphold the role of breadwinner. It ignores that men are instilled with the belief that their lives are valuable only insofar as they can procure sustenance for a family.
但是，“激素”观点忽视了父权制社会为维护维持家务者的角色而对男子的有害影响。 它无视男人被认为自己的生命只有在能够为家庭谋生的过程中才有价值的信念。
And we could hearken back to oxytocin to explain why women have a stronger social orientation in tech leadership, but that ignores that women have been programmed to believe that their value lies in childrearing, homemaking, and social networking.
我们可以回听催产素来解释为什么女性在技术领导中具有更强的社会定位，但是这忽略了女性已经被编程为认为自己的价值在于育儿，做家和社交网络。
It’s unfair to reduce men down to their androgens, just like it’s unfair to reduce women down to their uteruses. The overriding point here is not that tech needs to undergo a castration — because if tech were modified to foster gender-equal leadership and enable “tech for good,” we’d see many men jumping onboard such projects. I know these people exist because they’ve been my friends and colleagues: mindful, practical men who care about the world’s problems, and are doing their best to become part of the solution. Vivek Wadhwa, for example, is a tech ex-pat who said everything I’m saying here — only he said it first.
缩小男人的雄激素数量是不公平的，就像缩小女人的子宫数量是不公平的。 这里最重要的一点不是技术需要a割-因为如果对技术进行修改以培养两性平等的领导能力并实现“永远造好技术”，我们会看到很多人跳入此类项目。 我知道这些人之所以存在，是因为他们一直是我的朋友和同事：那些关心世界问题，并竭尽所能成为解决方案一部分的谨慎，务实的人。 例如，维韦克·瓦德瓦(Vivek Wadhwa)是一名技术专家，他说了我在这里所说的一切 ，只有他先说了。
“The Patriarchy” is generally accepted as a term for a society in which men hold the majority of power. And in recently updated versions, this definition includes the caveat that the patriarchy is as harmful to men as it is to women, especially when men want to go against the grain of practices that were helpful to men only in now-antiquated contexts — if they were ever truly helpful to men! And that’s the definition of The Patriarchy I’ll use going forward: the system of harmful practices in tech, constructed and dominated by men that, sometimes to their chagrin, work in their favor.
“父权制”通常被认为是男人拥有多数权力的社会的术语。 并且在最近更新的版本中，该定义包括一个警告，即父权制对男人和女人都同样有害，尤其是当男人想违背仅在现在陈旧的环境中(如果他们愿意的话)对男人有帮助的种种做法时对男人真正有帮助！ 这就是我今后将使用的父权制的定义：技术上的有害实践系统，由男人构造和控制，有时甚至使他们感到cha恼，并为他们服务。
Damaging cultural factors illustrate why it’s important to understand the problem of Women in Tech not as a problem with men, but with the patriarchy. The inextricable bond between the patriarchy and capitalism means that tech incubated in a system that prioritizes the survival of financial interests. Ergo, due to the programming of their “provider” social role, men might be more comfortable than women using tech as a vehicle with which to chase profit.
有害的文化因素说明了为什么重要的是要了解科技女性的问题，而不是男性的问题，而是父权制的问题。 父权制与资本主义之间有着千丝万缕的联系，这意味着技术孵化在优先考虑金融利益生存的系统中。 因此，由于对“提供者”社会角色的编程，男性可能比女性更喜欢使用科技作为追求利润的手段。
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that men want to solve real-world problems as much as women do. Let’s say there’s an equal number of men and women who want to fix the world with tech — but of those people, there is simply a larger proportion of men than women willing to continue to exploit it for profit. What if they’re able to stomach the current state of tech only because they’ve been conditioned to hunt money and to sacrifice their ideals for paternalism? What if, because women have been conditioned to nurture and foster social (rather than fiscal) currency, they drop out? What if, in some socio-economic Darwinism sense, men’s programming enables tech to survive as-is — and women’s is insufficient to destroy it?
为了争辩，让我们假设男人想要像女人一样解决现实世界中的问题。 假设有相同数量的男人和女人想要用技术来解决这个问题，但是在这些人中，只有比愿意为获取利润而继续利用它的女人更多的男人。 如果他们仅仅因为已经习惯于赚钱和牺牲家长式理想而能够忍受当前的技术状况，那该怎么办？ 如果因为妇女已经具备了养育和促进社会(而不是财政)货币的条件，怎么办呢？ 如果从某种社会经济达尔文主义的意义上说，男人的编程使技术能够按原样生存，而女人的技术不足以摧毁它呢？
科技行业中的性别定型观念 (Gender stereotypes in the tech industry)
Probably the most insidious aspect of biology-based arguments for sex differences is in how they support stereotypes. Men tend to be stereotyped as practical, logical, and resolute in their drive to get results. Women are stereotyped as flailing and unfocused, over-emotional and slaves to their hormones. But in the tech world (and entrepreneurship in general), women maximize profits and seem to tackle real-world problems — a far deviation from the stereotype of women as hyper-emotional and impractical.
基于生物学的关于性别差异的争论最阴险的方面是他们如何支持刻板印象。 人们倾向于将成见定型为务实，合乎逻辑且坚决地追求结果。 妇女被定型为虚弱，注意力不集中，情绪过高和荷尔蒙的奴隶。 但是在科技界(通常是企业家精神)中，女性最大程度地提高了利润并似乎解决了现实世界中的问题，这与对女性的刻板印象相去甚远。
Women have an integrative, transformational approach to leadership that some may interpret as “nurturing.” Do we tend to read this approach as warm and fluffy, making the workplace feel a little more like home? Because to me, it looks like straight-up resource maximization: extracting the best work from your employees, a cherished and limited resource. It looks like a cutthroat take on profit margins. Women aren’t baking proverbial cookies with transformational leadership, they’re meeting the bottom line in the most efficient way possible.
妇女在领导方面采取综合，变革性的方法，有些人可能将其解释为“培育”。 我们是否倾向于将这种方法理解为温暖而蓬松的方式，从而使工作场所更像家？ 因为对我而言，这看起来像是直截了当的资源最大化：从您的员工那里提取最好的工作，一种珍贵且有限的资源。 看起来像是对利润率的残酷对待。 女人们不是在变革型领导下烘烤众所周知的饼干，而是以最有效的方式达到了底线。
And, if we consider that this list represents women’s goals in starting tech companies: Why is it that when women run tech, they’re able to look outside the “tech waste” box of what’s already been done and tackle novel problems? Rather than getting siloed in the vertical iteration vacuum, women’s propensity to target technology toward real-world problems reads as highly pragmatic. Doesn’t it speak to a remarkable clear-headedness that women are constantly stepping back to evaluate the big picture?
而且，如果我们认为这份清单代表了女性创办科技公司的目标：为什么当女性经营科技时，她们能够在已经做过的“技术浪费”框外寻找新的问题？ 妇女没有将技术瞄准现实世界问题的倾向，而是沉迷于垂直迭代真空中，这是高度务实的。 妇女们不断退缩以评估总体情况，这是否代表着一个明显的头脑清醒？
Both the Naturalistic and Deterministic Fallacies have been co-opted to claim that women do not belong in the tech world: that they are fundamentally, or genetically unsuited to the technical work, as though the technical work was all there is to Tech. But what if, instead, they’re genetically unsuited to the Tech construct? Or they’re culturally unsuited to the Tech construct?
自然主义和确定性谬论都被认为女性不属于科技界：她们从根本上或基因上都不适合技术工作，就好像技术工作是技术的全部。 但是，如果它们在基因上不适合Tech结构，该怎么办？ 还是他们在文化上不适合Tech架构？
Women have historically been dismissed as “unfit” for tech — and the onus therefore falls on them to reformulate themselves to be more suited to it. The most glaring problem with this viewpoint is its inherent presumption that tech is flawless and ideal the way it is, and that women’s inability to fit in must therefore be due to a deficit. But maybe women’s “deficit” is that they’re unable to reconcile the potential of technical tools with the fact that they often lead to nowhere.
从历史上看，妇女被认为不适合科技，因此，妇女有责任重新制定自己的技术以适应科技。 这种观点最明显的问题是它固有的推定，即技术是完美无瑕的，并且是理想的方式，因此，女性无法适应一定是由于赤字造成的。 但是，也许女性的“赤字”是她们无法调和技术工具的潜力，而事实却是她们往往无能为力。
As an example of the “deficiency” theory of women not in tech, men have smugly claimed that women “just aren’t interested in nerdery,” as though endlessly tinkering down a rabbit hole is the only way to do nerdery. Unfortunately, in a society that implicitly regards all things men do as positive and all things women do as negative, language supporting how superior the male-dominated way of going about nerdery is inevitable. Even the Eastern mystic tradition, the cornerstone on which Big Sur-to-Silicon Valley pseudo-spirituality rests, regards the Yang, or masculine energy as “positive”: outwardly expansive, explorative, and manifest, while the Yin, or feminine energy is “negative”: inwardly contracting, withholding, and constrictive.
作为女性不从事技术的“不足”理论的一个例子，男人自鸣得意地宣称女性“对书呆子不感兴趣”，好像无休止地修补兔子洞是做书呆子的唯一方法。 不幸的是，在一个隐含地认为男人所做的一切都是积极的事情而女人所做出的一切都是消极事情的社会中，不可避免的语言支持着男性主导的方式导致的书呆子。 甚至是东方神秘传统，也就是大苏尔至硅谷假灵性赖以生存的基石，也将阳或阳能视为“正能量”：向外扩张，探究和显现，而阴阳或女性能量为“阳”。 “负面”：向内收缩，扣留和收缩。
But how is it that women, in seeking to exit the box of established technologies, to address the area under the curve where the societal error term is the greatest, are the “negative” force, where the male-dominated wing of tech, which seeks to squeeze itself into an ever-diminishing cost function, is the “positive” force? Why are women seeking out novel solution space, while male tech drives toward collapse on a singularity? For those motivated by challenges and competition, shouldn’t the ills of the world provide the greatest challenge of all? Why is male-dominated tech iterating toward a global minimum, rather than a global maximum?
但是，在寻求摆脱既有技术框框的过程中，妇女如何解决社会误差项最大的曲线下区域时，则是“消极”力量，而男性主导的技术部门正是这种“消极”力量。试图将自己压缩到一个不断减小的成本函数中，是“正”力吗？ 为什么女性要寻找新颖的解决方案空间，而男性技术却以奇异的方式走向崩溃？ 对于那些受挑战和竞争驱动的人，难道世界上的祸害不是所有挑战中最大的吗？ 为什么男性主导的技术会朝着全局最小值而不是全局最大值迭代？
The (male-invented and -dominated) Space Race is maybe the quintessential case of a contrived problem, continuing to drive tech down the rabbit hole of “just to see if we can.” I can hear some male-dominated wing of tech booing me now, calling my assessment “unimaginative,” or maybe even “nagging,” and it’s the language of people who have lived a life unbeholden to the rest of society — who do not see the problems with a social structure that elevates them above and holds them unaccountable to their fellow humans.
(男性发明和主导)的太空竞赛可能是人为问题的典型案例，继续推动技术走入“只是看看我们能否做到”的困境。 我现在可以听到一些男性支配的科技之翼在哄我，称我的评估“缺乏想象力”，甚至““”，这是那些过着对社会其他人不了解的生活的人的语言，他们看不到社会结构的问题使这些问题凌驾于人们之上，并使他们对同胞不负责任。
When we revere personalities like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs as “radical free thinkers,” despite evidence of abusive and megalomaniacal behavior, we implicitly validate the toxic male-centric standard of greatness. Since men, per The Patriarchy, are by default correct, we cast antisocial behavior as “boundless imagination and vision” rather than scrutinize the damage it causes. We support the idea that interpersonal relationships and community care are inconveniences that hold us back from greatness.
当我们崇敬像埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)和史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)这样的“激进自由思想家”之类的人物时，尽管有虐待和大妄想行为的证据，我们隐含地验证了以男性为中心的有毒的高标准。 由于按照父权制，男人在默认情况下是正确的，因此我们将反社会行为视为“无限的想象力和视野”，而不是仔细检查其造成的损害。 我们支持以下观点：人际关系和社区照顾给我们带来了不便，这使我们从伟大中退缩了。
To illustrate our tendency to use male behavior as the standard for greatness, I’m going to propose the following: If women came up with Space Wars on their own, they would be cast as frivolous and irrational. Maybe a little hysterical. Maybe a little emotional or hormonal, their competitiveness among each other referred to as a “catfight.”
为了说明我们倾向于将男性行为作为追求卓越的标准的趋势，我将提出以下建议：如果女性独自提出太空战争，那么她们将被视为轻浮而无理性。 也许有点歇斯底里。 也许有些情绪激动或荷尔蒙，他们彼此之间的竞争力被称为“斗牛”。
However, if, in an alternate scenario, women jumped on board Space Wars after it had been established by its current male leadership, they might be lauded and applauded for getting on board with “greatness.” But I’m going to additionally propose that they’d never be viewed as successful as Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk. And here’s why: The majority of “successes” in this country have been by men, because they designed the climate and standards for success. So because men necessarily predict “success,” success has become almost exclusively defined by their actions.
但是，如果在另一种情况下，妇女在其现任男性领导者成立太空大战后跳入太空大战，他们可能会因“伟大”登上太空而受到赞扬和称赞。 但我还要提出一个建议，即永远不会像杰夫·贝索斯(Jeff Bezos)或伊隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)那样将它们视为成功。 这就是为什么：在这个国家，大多数“成功”都是由男人完成的，因为他们设计了成功的氛围和标准。 因此，因为人们必然预言“成功”，所以成功几乎完全取决于他们的行动。
And herein lies the conundrum of Female Greatness: It is rarely realized on its own merits, because our societally-agreed-upon concept of greatness is, by definition, the male way. A woman’s only hope for success is to fight her way up within constructs she finds inefficient or unintuitive, and in which she is less likely to succeed than a man.
这就是女性伟人的难题：这很少有其自身的价值，因为我们的社会公认的伟人概念在定义上是男性。 女人唯一的成功希望是在自己发现自己效率低下或缺乏直觉的构架中奋斗，而在男人中，成功的可能性要小于男人。
And this is the problem with assuming that the way to success for women and girls is to go into tech: Rather than step back and question why we place so much emphasis on participation in these industries, we accept that the path to success lies in carving out space for ourselves in fundamentally patriarchal constructs.
这就是假设女性和女孩的成功之路要进入科技领域的问题：我们没有退后一步，而是质疑为什么我们如此重视参与这些行业，我们接受了成功之路在于雕刻在基本的父权制结构中为自己腾出空间。
But questioning our cultural paradigms requires nothing short of a cognitive leap. How are we supposed to challenge a line of thinking that has become the default? When a cognitive model of male supremacy has become so deeply ingrained, how are we supposed to step outside of it to view it objectively?
但是质疑我们的文化范式只需要认知上的飞跃。 我们应该如何挑战已经成为默认的思维方式？ 当男性至上的认知模型变得根深蒂固时，我们应该如何走出它来客观地看待它呢？
科技界女性撰写有关“现实世界问题”的文章 (Women in tech write about the “real world problem” problem)
Two women have questioned these accepted definitions of success within the Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) fields.
两名女性对人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML)领域中这些公认的成功定义提出了质疑。
Kiri Wagstaff, in a seminal paper on the importance of developing ML models for real-world problems, calls the current problem “machine learning for machine learning’s sake.” In asking us, “what is the field’s objective function?” she points out that when we develop algorithms with the sole intention of meeting benchmark performance measures, we are rewarded for computational success, but risk having solved a problem with no real-world applicability.
Kiri Wagstaff在关于开发针对实际问题的ML模型的重要性的开创性论文中 ，将当前问题称为“为了机器学习而进行的机器学习”。 问我们“该领域的目标功能是什么？” 她指出，当我们仅出于满足基准性能指标的目的而开发算法时，就会因计算上的成功而获得回报，但是却冒着解决无法在现实世界中应用的问题的风险。
And more recently, Hannah Kerner has expounded on the problem with decontexualized algorithm optimization, saying “If the community feels that aiming to solve high-impact real-world problems with machine learning is of limited significance, then what are we trying to achieve?” She echoes my issue with “incremental tech” in the context of machine learning, pointing out that too often, success in ML is measured by an algorithm’s incremental improvement on benchmark data sets: That “while researchers try to outdo one another on contrived benchmarks, one in every nine people in the world is starving. Earth is warming and sea level is rising at an alarming rate.”
最近 ，汉娜·克纳(Hannah Kerner)阐述了去量化算法优化的问题，他说：“如果社区认为以机器学习解决高影响力的现实世界问题的意义有限，那么我们要实现什么目标？” 她在机器学习的背景下回应了我关于“增量技术”的问题，并指出，ML的成功往往是通过算法对基准数据集的增量改进来衡量的：“虽然研究人员试图在人为的基准上超越对手，世界上每九个人中就有一个挨饿 。 地球正在变暖 ， 海平面正在以惊人的速度上升。”
The problem with benchmark datasets, Wagstaff and Kerner point out, is that while they’re useful for comparing algorithm performance, they don’t represent how these algorithms might handle data from an inherently unstable world. Also, they don’t ensure that an algorithm’s performance can generalize from the “lab” to the real world, as many “evaluate a model’s performance using metrics that don’t translate to real-world impact.” Moreover, many ML researchers deliberately avoid targeting real-world problems because applicability is — get this — frowned upon in the world of ML research.
Wagstaff和Kerner指出，基准数据集的问题在于，尽管它们可用于比较算法性能，但它们并不能代表这些算法如何处理来自固有不稳定世界的数据。 而且，他们不能确保算法的性能可以从“实验室”推广到现实世界，因为许多人“使用不会转化为现实影响的指标来评估模型的性能”。 此外，许多机器学习研究人员有意避免针对现实世界的问题，因为在机器学习研究的世界中，实用性不被认可。
The neurocognitive model of embodiment states that brains are inextricable from the environments in which they developed. This principle can extend to ML algorithms by analogy, and to technologies in general. And just as we can’t isolate brains or algorithms from the environmental pressures that shaped and defined them, we can’t decouple technologies from the problematic cultures that produced them and in which they reside.
实施方案的神经认知模型指出，大脑与其发育环境密不可分。 该原理可以通过类推扩展到ML算法，也可以扩展到一般技术。 正如我们无法将大脑或算法与塑造和定义它们的环境压力隔离开来一样，我们也无法将技术与产生它们或存在于其中的问题文化脱钩。
我们做技术的方式根本上是错误的 (The way we’re doing tech is fundamentally wrong)
Women get a lot of pressure to enter and succeed in the tech world. In many cases, we wedge ourselves uncomfortably into positions built by men in order to feel like we’re fulfilling our duty to womankind by establishing and defending our presence there.
妇女在进入科技界并获得成功方面承受着很大的压力。 在许多情况下，我们感到不自在地陷入男人所建立的位置，以感觉自己通过建立并捍卫我们的存在来履行对女性的责任。
And we don’t have any problems getting hired at tech firms. Lord knows they’re all scrambling to fill their diversity quotas, and women have the skills to easily qualify for these positions. But filling engineering jobs, “Chief People Officer,” and general counsel positions with women is an easy fix that doesn’t change anything.
而且，在科技公司聘用我们没有任何问题。 洛德(Lord)知道她们都在争先恐后地填补自己的多元化配额，而且女性具有轻松胜任这些职位的技能。 But filling engineering jobs, “Chief People Officer,” and general counsel positions with women is an easy fix that doesn't change anything.
The notion of equality within an industry like tech is self-contradictory. The tech industry can’t foster real change unless it fundamentally self-destructs. And this is why male-led talks about diversity place so much emphasis on bringing women into tech’s established structure. Such a strategy affords the tech patriarchy the image of change while preserving the sanctity of tech’s problematic fundamental structure.
The notion of equality within an industry like tech is self-contradictory. The tech industry can't foster real change unless it fundamentally self-destructs. And this is why male-led talks about diversity place so much emphasis on bringing women into tech's established structure. Such a strategy affords the tech patriarchy the image of change while preserving the sanctity of tech's problematic fundamental structure.
An industry that parades as bettering humanity but is inherently profit-driven is not the right platform for real, systemic change. And an industry that is built to self-reinforce can’t be easily appropriated for other purposes.
An industry that parades as bettering humanity but is inherently profit-driven is not the right platform for real, systemic change. And an industry that is built to self-reinforce can't be easily appropriated for other purposes.
I used to think that rather than talk about being a woman in tech, it was more important for me to be a woman in tech, effecting change simply by being present in the room. But I’m realizing more and more that the Women in Tech problem isn’t just about the wage gap, or our representation in numbers. It’s that the way we’re doing tech is fundamentally wrong.
I used to think that rather than talk about being a woman in tech, it was more important for me to be a woman in tech, effecting change simply by being present in the room. But I'm realizing more and more that the Women in Tech problem isn't just about the wage gap, or our representation in numbers. It's that the way we're doing tech is fundamentally wrong.
现在怎么办？ (What now?)
The more time I spend analyzing the Women in Tech problem, the less I believe that the answer is to forklift women into tech jobs and lock the gate to keep them inside. Women need to be running tech, not working for the tech patriarchy. And if they’re going to be able to found the kinds of companies they want to, we have to replace our existing economic system with one that values human life over profit.
The more time I spend analyzing the Women in Tech problem, the less I believe that the answer is to forklift women into tech jobs and lock the gate to keep them inside. Women need to be running tech, not working for the tech patriarchy. And if they're going to be able to found the kinds of companies they want to, we have to replace our existing economic system with one that values human life over profit.
We need to be advocating and voting for politicians in the vein of Elizabeth Warren (who has proposed her own antitrust legislation for the tech industry), people who want to restructure the economic system to be more just and equitable.
We need to be advocating and voting for politicians in the vein of Elizabeth Warren (who has proposed her own antitrust legislation for the tech industry), people who want to restructure the economic system to be more just and equitable.
We need to convince our elected representatives that technology needs to become deprivatized and government-funded the way that science is. Entire funding institutions, like the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, need to be established for the development of digital technologies.
We need to convince our elected representatives that technology needs to become deprivatized and government-funded the way that science is. Entire funding institutions, like the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation, need to be established for the development of digital technologies.
If we’re in a position where we’re able to, we need to start putting pressure on tech magnates to stop funding superfluous projects like Blue Origin and divert that funding into projects to benefit the environment and human rights. And because tech will remain profit-driven for the foreseeable future, we need to use language in these conversations that points to the shareholder value in investing in social causes. We need to emphasize the weight that social and environmental issues — the code of corporate ethics — carry in attracting customers and returning financial investments.
If we're in a position where we're able to, we need to start putting pressure on tech magnates to stop funding superfluous projects like Blue Origin and divert that funding into projects to benefit the environment and human rights. And because tech will remain profit-driven for the foreseeable future, we need to use language in these conversations that points to the shareholder value in investing in social causes. We need to emphasize the weight that social and environmental issues — the code of corporate ethics — carry in attracting customers and returning financial investments.
And yes, we need to keep encouraging women to acquire tech skills, but not to appease the conscience of the patriarchy that runs tech — to understand their potential and to be ready to use them if and when the system shifts to a more egalitarian model. We need to keep having this conversation, so women know they’re not crazy or weak for wanting to leave an industry that offers them very little and in which their presence is commodified, either as a item in a diversity quota or as live investor bait for the tech patriarchy.
And yes, we need to keep encouraging women to acquire tech skills, but not to appease the conscience of the patriarchy that runs tech — to understand their potential and to be ready to use them if and when the system shifts to a more egalitarian model. We need to keep having this conversation, so women know they're not crazy or weak for wanting to leave an industry that offers them very little and in which their presence is commodified, either as a item in a diversity quota or as live investor bait for the tech patriarchy.
We need to keep teaching girls STEM skills and embracing classroom practices that instill confidence in their abilities. But we need to teach tech to all kids within the context of the problems it has the potential to solve. We need to reinforce that tech’s value lies not in the money it has the potential to make, but in the change it has the power to effect.
We need to keep teaching girls STEM skills and embracing classroom practices that instill confidence in their abilities. But we need to teach tech to all kids within the context of the problems it has the potential to solve. We need to reinforce that tech's value lies not in the money it has the potential to make, but in the change it has the power to effect.
We need to do all these things, we need to keep talking, and we need to keep pushing. But personally, I’m over the idea that Diversity and Inclusion is the answer to the Women in Tech Problem. I’m done trying to convince women that they need to go into tech because it’s their duty to womankind, or to themselves. Just getting women into tech jobs isn’t the answer, because it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the tech industry. The problem is not that there are too few women in tech. The problem is that tech suffers from a fundamental disease, and a lack of women is its primary symptom.
We need to do all these things, we need to keep talking, and we need to keep pushing. But personally, I'm over the idea that Diversity and Inclusion is the answer to the Women in Tech Problem. I'm done trying to convince women that they need to go into tech because it's their duty to womankind, or to themselves. Just getting women into tech jobs isn't the answer, because it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the tech industry. The problem is not that there are too few women in tech. The problem is that tech suffers from a fundamental disease, and a lack of women is its primary symptom.
翻译自: https://medium.com/the-science-of-human/a-requiem-for-the-women-in-tech-movement-58d874fed971
梦之安魂曲 minisd