One of the women in the article addresses that very aptly:
> Assuming that it’s true that women on average are more likely to have trait X, why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women, or that if she IS like other women, that the trait has no bearing on her job performance?
Creating a stereotype generates distrust in the individuals that are part of the group described by the stereotype. You yourself had to delve on the wording of the phrase to explain why you think it's different. Do you think the average person would put as much thought on the wording?
99% of humanity wouldn't get hired at Google, male or female. As long as the hiring bar is kept high enough, there's no reason for Google employees to especially distrust women over men.
And yet, this is my opinion, the software quality could be a lot better at google. For example google docs was broken in Firefox for over a day for me. Google Maps crashes on certain routes preventing me getting a route. Whatever they are doing isn't enough. Also the UX at google is a mess.
Sometimes poor UX seem to be for a reason. Be it Facebook or Google, I feel like extorted product rather than the user. I wish someone created a search engine that I could pay for.
Women, or better, individuals, don't have to overcome any "additional barrier". They have to prove they have the qualifications for the job they want, as everybody else. Each person is a different individual and has to be judged as such, as simple as that.
And yet, stereotypes do play a role in generating prejudice. In a utopic unprejudiced society, where all people are treated exactly the same by everyone and where there's no pre-conceived notion of "gendered careers", then each person would stand for themselves and their choice of career wouldn't be affected by externalities.
As is, this is 2017 and we have white supremacists chanting about Jews and ramming cars into people. Clearly, we are not even close to that Utopia.
That in companies like Google people are not treated the same, and in what measure, is something that is open for debate, not an assumption.
But besides that, if the solution is to dedicate any special effort in hiring from this or that group, then employees from that group will feel they have to prove they really are at the same level as the others. Which is the opposite of what you wanted, and exactly what the female engineers in this interview complain about.
> Assuming that it’s true that women on average are more likely to have trait X, why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women, or that if she IS like other women, that the trait has no bearing on her job performance?
Creating a stereotype generates distrust in the individuals that are part of the group described by the stereotype. You yourself had to delve on the wording of the phrase to explain why you think it's different. Do you think the average person would put as much thought on the wording?