I have some doubts about women empowerment, let's take 1 example to illustrate the problem:

  • a group of women organized a free computer programming class or lesson ONLY for women, by the intention to get more women involved in the tech industry. (I have seen some of them admit that this is what they aim). They are now quite an influential NGO and still doing that, only for women. And there are many more similar examples I have seen in LinkedIn.

My doubt is, I don't see why it is so important to get more women involved in tech industry and other industries as well, except for particular jobs that do need women expertise/strength such as Fashion for women etc.

If the number of woman and men in any industry are equal, then what problem does it actually solve??

I see that it creates 2 problems instead:

  1. Unfairness. Why women? Why not just boost the education system without looking at the gender. Also, Empowering the POOR and UNLUCKY ones (who can't afford proper education) seems to be much more important, and accurate. Empowering women does not seem accurate and it is of no importance.

  2. Sacrificing Integrity and Objectivity. The ones who are more skillful and knowledgeable should be the ones who fill in the position, without looking at gender. I have seen that some world leaders chose women to become some of their ministers, for the sake of "gender equality" (they admit it publicly), not because they have the best capacity.

The reason why more men are at labour is because some women prefer to take care of their babies or kids, and nothing is wrong with that. Universities and companies generally don't discriminate women when taking students and employees (unless if there is some corrupt practice by some people).

To solve world problems, the important things are skills and knowledge.

A final thought: the scarcity of resources means that if the UN put an effort to Women Empowerement, then it would waste the potential amount of effort for POOR/Unlucky people Empowerement and world hunger problems.

If we want to solve Discrimination against Women, which is actually rarely happens these days in well developed countries, then the solution is to boost fairness and eradicate corruptive behavior. NOT by creating more unfairness and inaccurate solution.

  • 7
    I've flagged this question for this close reason: "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." Commented Nov 15, 2022 at 16:06
  • 4
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – JJJ
    Commented Nov 15, 2022 at 22:00

1 Answer 1


I, firstly, believe that you are taking two different concepts (fair and equal) and using them interchangeably. To illustrate the difference: consider a fair coin. By definition of fair coin, the opportunity to land heads and tails are equal. If I flip the coin 11 times and get 10 heads, the number of heads and tails are not equal, but that does not mean the coin was not fair.

I believe the objective of the programs is not equality, but fairness. The coin has to be equally balanced before it is flipped. Attempting to cook the books afterwards is not going to work. Instead of trying to get unqualified women in jobs that are filled by men, they are trying to qualify more women based on the assumption that the lack of equality stems from unfairness in preparation (the veracity of such a statement is irrelevant).

Do note that such actions are not neutral and do not aim to achieve parity in the workforce across the board. For example, there are more women nurses than men but there isn't a push to get more men at the expense of women into nursing. There are more men in construction and underwater welding (jobs with hazard pay) but there is not a push to get more women into hazardous jobs at the expense of men. The objective is to get women into wealthy jobs to close the wealth gap in order to solve social problems that may (or may not) stem from women having lower purchasing power than men.

In other words, they are tackling a social problem by the root instead of attempting to change laws or such. It will be difficult to go about it in a political or legal way because ultimately the laws and cultures of different countries are considered inviolable and people will not get on board if their "culture" (proxy for religion in general but also applies to east Asia) places people in castes based on things like gender.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .