Some fields have very few women in them. So, there are initiatives to get more women involved. But, there are also some fields where there are few men in them where no one bothers to highlight this disparity through any initiatives. Eventhough, initiatives may have the right positive intent, they often are flawed by overlooking interests and create very limited impact. Maybe, the reason why women are in so few in number in a certain field is because they find the area of occupation a bit boring. For example, there are virtually no female bricklayers in construction industry, whereas the field of psychology is dominated by women. This would imply that opportunities are there but the distribution of where women prefer to work is based on their own choices and interests. In a society where women have significant rights they can choose to be in whatever field they want - nothing is holding them back. So, such initiatives in long-run will not create any dramatic change in the statistical distribution of women in AI. In fact, ten years from now women will still be guided by whatever they find interesting. There are no significant initiatives to get more men in women dominated fields either like in the nursing profession. In many cases, the choices in what field to study is often guided by the opportunities of financial rewards and their environmental circumstances. It is up to the individual to decide between interests and financial rewards of any given occupation as an opportunity cost. Perhaps, one reason why women are so few in certain fields is because they tend to think with their emotions and have preference for the easiest way out like choosing softer subjects instead of hard sciences. And, as one knows emotions are explained in evolutionary theory. Whatever it may be, the gender disparity may just be down to the different needs and wants of individuals that tends to create the statistical distribution of a collective in society and any form of initiative will not necessarily change that mindset.
Recruiters and HR representatives are one of the most clueless people in any organization. When it comes to hiring processes they don't appear to know the most fundamental aspect of reviewing applications: knowing how to read a CV. This is a big issue as perfectly good candidates get rejected. And, the ones that do come through the filters are normally not a good match for the role. The primary reasons for this are highlighted below:
The english language is flawed and inherently embedded in historical racism and sexism. This often stems from the cultural normalization of words and phrases that don't quite work in the modern day society. In some cases, the words have evolved in the pronunciation and spelling. While in other cases they have been linguistically defined and created over time. It is surprising how feminists don't take issue with changing significant aspects of the language. The following are some examples of words, phrases, and their usage that should really change and provide some uniqueness to genders as well as the ways in which race is contextualized as part of every day speech.
Words like mankind, manipulate, mansplaining, etc - that have the word man in them
Words like womansplaining - that have the word man in them
Female and Woman - that have the word male and man embedded in them
Blacklist and Whitelist - that make it obvious that black is bad, white is good
This story is about a victim and an abuser. For some odd reason, society expects the man to always play the role of abuser, while the woman is expected to play the role of the victim. However, in modern day society women neither want to be seen as victims nor do they want men to be chivalrous. They want the legal system to always side with women whether it were wrong or right - to throw away the burden of proof. Whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a typical question one asks when the biased media is seen jumping to conclusions. Since when has the "metoo" movement just been about women? The clash of genders seems like women are all too confused about the definition of equality. Or, is it the fact they want to play the victim card when it suits them? Is the "metoo" movement more about "metoohatemen" movement? Equality is when one sees things beyond the biases of gender stereotypes. However, with equality of opportunity also comes equal levels of consequences for punishment and responsibility for actions. There should be no cause of special treatment for women just because they are women. There should be no drum down special treatment for abusers just because they are women and have softer hands or that they are smaller in stature than men. In the trial for Depp vs Heard, we see what society would define as a type of anomaly of reversed gender roles between victim and abuser. In fact, this trial gives a confident voice to male victims of domestic violence who are often laughed off by women. And, here in lies the truth. To seek the truth one must look beyond the biases and through the spectrum of evidence. Only then can one seek justice and equality. Women should acknowledge when they are wrong and learn to take responsibility for their actions just like men. When one takes an oath, they should uphold that oath to their testimony. Over the years we have seen a shift in the legal system that has gradually sided with women over men in matters of divorce, domestic violence, harassment, abuse, abortion, child custody, and discrimination. But, this only implies that no justice is truly blind. Are our legal courts becoming increasingly biased in their sentences and accountability for justice? Perhaps, it begs one to ponder on the philosophical question of whether justice is a vice or a virtue.