In Response to "Community Post #1: Exposing Hidden Biases at Google to Improve Diversity"

Frankly, the gender of an employee, or anybody for that matter, shouldn't matter because a person should be hired based on their skill, not on some prerequisites they may or may not have. This can justify men's dominance in the tech world, simply because they are more skilled in tech than women. However, that reasoning is flawed because of gender bias. Women aren't given the same opportunities to be as skilled as men in the tech world and in other parts of society (Manjoo). Subtle prejudice plays a huge role in this. We may not notice it, but we are all victims and culprits of some kind of bias. 

For example, José Zamora used to send in online résumés that probably contained similar qualifications as other people trying for the same job. Yet, he didn't get any results for months or any callbacks from employers until he changed his name from José to Joe. It's thought that sending résumés online should prevent bias because the employer doesn't see the potential employee's skin color. Yet, the difference of a couple letters changed or dropped meant life-changing difference to "Joe." If all it takes is a name to characterize a person, too many people are already at a disadvantage.(Carrasquillo). 

I don't mind that the tech field, or any other fields, are dominated by males as long as there are no other better qualified people—either male or female—available. For this reason, I believe having significantly more than half of a workplace being male or white or Asian isn't, or at least shouldn't be, a problem. There is a problem, however, when a person is subjected to unfair bias and doesn't have the chance to succeed in a field they want to work in. Why shouldn't Tina be a techie and Tommy a teacher? Because of their genders, a person's potential is limited by prejudice they can't control starting from the day that they are born.