Sex tech in, skimpy outfits out as CES show seeks diversity


The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

 after a debacle over a robotic personal massager for women.

Personal massager? Don't be ridiculous, call the things the way they are, the product is a robotic devise for hands-free blended orgasms. Or is that difficult for you to even mention woman orgasm?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So they're saying its ok to have sex with a computer, just don't look sexy while you're doing it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Electronic Hypocrisy, it was inevitable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

CES reflects the gender diversity problems in the tech industry as a whole. Women and people of color are underrepresented in the tech industry, especially in leadership and technical roles . For example, less than a third of Google's employees are women and less than a quarter of its tech employees, such as engineers, are female. The numbers are similar at other big tech companies.

When we put out job advertisements, we get about 10:1 male:female ratio of applicants.

Women who want to work in tech have lots of opportunity. Companies are literally jumping to hire women to deal with this 'problem'. But the idea that we should have equality of outcome is the problem. We should have equality of opportunity. And at the moment, it's a female-employment market when it comes to tech. Women have significantly more opportunity in the same market as men. I'm not saying this is a problem, what I'm saying is that the 'problem' outlined in this paragraph is not a problem. An inequality of outcome is the natural outcome of an environment of equal opportunity.

A forced equality of outcome is by definition a discriminatory environment, as it is NOT an equality of opportunity. Filling positions to an equal balance requires ranking candidates first by trait (gender, ethnicity, sexuality) then by skill. This means that people of a higher skill, with less minority points will lose out to people with more minority points and less skill. Equality of outcome requires ranking people by the same traits which we are supposed to protect people being ranked on - gender, ethnicity, sexuality. So equality of outcome should NOT be the goal. Equality of opportunity must be the goal.

Now that all said, an environment of equality of opportunity also needs to be fostered. If we see that an industry is heavily weighted in one direction, for example tech being nearly all male, or all white, then an environment of equal opportunity can be fostered through the following:

1) Creating more educational opportunity - grants for minorities to help them become qualified to enter the industry.

2) Providing benefits to companies who take on some of these minorities.

In a binary mindset, where it must be either equality of opportunity, or equality of outcome, and there is no grey, I've contradicted myself in the above. I've said equality of outcome should not be the goal, then gone on to say we should provide some assistance to achieve a degree of equality of outcome.

In a nuanced world however, this the balanced approach. Don't aim for equality of outcome, but provide assistance to ensure equality of opportunity until it exists. When the above assistance provided to minorities achieves a degree of success, then it is not required anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Enforced diversity: everyone must dress the same?

Dress as we say, or else...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites