The now-infamous Google diversity memo

[jdshock]

I think that he did give a clear answer but you didn't like his answer.

I meant where the topic has a clear answer. It drives me crazy when people act like they've come up with an incredibly simple logical solution that proves they're right about a topic which actually is complex and doesn't have a clear answer.

I may have taken your "driving me crazy" and "gotcha" comments outside of the context you intended for them. It sounded to me like you didn't accept his opinion as differing from yours, but still a reasonable view to be taken that isn't "intentional sexism" (I don't share that it was sexism but accept your opinion that it was). But whatever, your opinion, I still don't see why you or anyone else who supports diversity of opinion would support Google for firing this employee.

I'll show you my first response on the subject because I'm still not sure if you've seen it.

... could Google have done a better job making this guy's point for him? I mean, it'd be like me calling shockernet an echo chamber for only having conservative viewpoints and then getting banned for it.

Anyway.

The proper response of anyone who wants to have opinions expressed (even opinions of which they disagree), would be that Google had the legal right to fire this employee because they are a private company.

again

His statement was absolutely protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment just doesn't protect you from a private company firing you.

I'm on board.

However, they shouldn't have fired him because they support reasonable differences of opinion.

I'm not going to go any further than my previous comment where I said they proved his point. Google is one of the largest and most successful companies in the world and they're being investigated at a federal level for sex discrimination. I'm not sure I even knew about the investigation prior to the memo. Once the memo leaked, there were tens of thousands of words written on the subject of discrimination at Google. It seems to me that those might be circumstances in which you have to put a fire out, but I don't know.

[MoValley John]

I think people misunderstood this post. The author of that youtube video believed he had come up with a logical proof suggesting Google supporters were contradicting themselves. I provided 3 reasons that his logic failed.

I just wonder if in this politically correct environment that we may be thinking too hard. Maybe women will never be drawn into the field in large numbers. In an environment where one sex dominates, there will almost certainly be an uncomfortable feeling by the minority sex. The private school that my youngest two boys attend has two male teachers K-8. I've talked to them, they feel awkward and unwelcome. But there really isn't anything at play, they are simply vastly outnumbered and very few men ever apply at that school. And no females are singling them out or discriminating, but don't tell them that.

I really wonder if there is nothing going on outside of a gender disposition that makes the field undesirable. If so, it's a lot of energy being spent on nothing, followed up by an idiot that didn't know when not to share his feelings on a company email.

[wufan]

My argument isn't that there isn't predisposition, nor that there aren't conscious decisions responsible for some of the employment difference(it's absolutely not all), my point is that he has been quite reductionist, and pointlessly simplified the issue in his view that we should just treat people like people. While that is true, it ignores that there is bias in tech, and the culture is driving women away(the rate of women seeking employment in the tech industry has actually decreased in the past 15 years, which is not the case in other STEM fields), until these things are removed from the culture through the types of programs that Google has instituted, we can't just treat people like people, because those that make decisions don't actually just treat people like people. So while what he said wasn't inherently wrong, it also completely ignores the entire purpose of the programs, why they exist, and why they remain necessary.

Also I read most of the studies on predisposition I could find, most indicate while predisposition does it exist, it does not account for the large disparity we see in these industries.

I agree that predisposition does not tell the whole story. Neither does categorizing STEM fields as computer sciences alone (not that that was your assertion). Engineering and CS are heavily male dominated, but the rest of STEM is 50/50. Are CS people more asshats than chemists and doctors?

[wufan]

Off the top of my head, I remember he specifically states that women, in the aggregate, or more prone to higher levels of stress and anxiety, they have a harder time leading, and they have a higher value for work life balance. All of those things would make you a "worse" coder to the extent such a job requires those traits.

Which, he believes those jobs do require those traits, since he is saying women avoid these jobs because of the traits. At least in regards to these traits, he is saying women self-select out of a profession that they, in the aggregate, would be worse at than men.

He did say that (or something similar) but also went on to say that there were ways to make coding not require those traits. If you want those traits, then you should select for them regardless of sex. If you want women, then you should change the job duties.

[wufan]

Off the top of my head, I remember he specifically states that women, in the aggregate, or more prone to higher levels of stress and anxiety, they have a harder time leading, and they have a higher value for work life balance. All of those things would make you a "worse" coder to the extent such a job requires those traits.

Which, he believes those jobs do require those traits, since he is saying women avoid these jobs because of the traits. At least in regards to these traits, he is saying women self-select out of a profession that they, in the aggregate, would be worse at than men.

I reread this and he does not say that those traits are necessary for coding. Ever. Nor does he say that not having those traits would make you a worse coder. Ever.

[jdshock]

I reread this and he does not say that those traits are necessary for coding. Ever. Nor does he say that not having those traits would make you a worse coder. Ever.

So he just wrote an unrelated memo with a bunch of traits he thinks women struggle with?

[wufan]

So he just wrote an unrelated memo with a bunch of traits he thinks women struggle with?

No. He wrote a memo about the exclusionary policies of google. Then he covered all the relevant scientific literature that says that googles policies are wrong. Then he stated that non-discriminatory policies are important and how to help push for greater inclusion. He listed all the traits (none of which are inherently good or inherently bad) that both men and women have and that leftists and righests have.

[Kung Wu]

Why aren't there more female morticians? Do we need to fix that?

C'mon y'all, that's funny right there!!

[wufan]

C'mon y'all, that's funny right there!!

100% of brick layers are men. Is this due to societal biases?

[ShockCrazy]

I agree that predisposition does not tell the whole story. Neither does categorizing STEM fields as computer sciences alone (not that that was your assertion). Engineering and CS are heavily male dominated, but the rest of STEM is 50/50. Are CS people more asshats than chemists and doctors?

I absolutely did not simplify STEM to cs and engineering. That was explicitly my point. Re-read, my point was that his logic was stupid and tone deaf to the culture and environment he works in.

[wufan]

I absolutely did not simplify STEM to cs and engineering. That was explicitly my point. Re-read, my point was that his logic was stupid and tone deaf to the culture and environment he works in.

Reread mine. I explicitly stated that was not your point.

[jdshock]

No. He wrote a memo about the exclusionary policies of google. Then he covered all the relevant scientific literature that says that googles policies are wrong. Then he stated that non-discriminatory policies are important and how to help push for greater inclusion. He listed all the traits (none of which are inherently good or inherently bad) that both men and women have and that leftists and righests have.

Either the traits are related to job performance or they're just unrelated traits that have nothing to do with anything. I think it's the former, but I'm interested to hear why you think he'd just include a random list of differences.

He says women are more "directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas ... [and] people rather than things." Women have "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance." And he states men have a greater drive for status. (though, sidenote: his argument about status is specifically that status "is the primary metric that men are judged on." This is absolutely a product of socialization.) He states that "these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

He is specifically arguing that women have X, Y, and Z traits which explains "why we don't see equal representation." I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying that he believes women are self-selecting out of the tech industry, but even under such an assumption they're self-selecting out because they would be worse at it. If the jobs were not high stress, if the jobs didn't require you to be less "directed towards ... ideas" or if the jobs didn't require you to be a good leader, then women--under his argument--would have no reason to self-select out of the profession.

He literally says one of the solutions is part-time work since that's what women want. If you work 20 hours a week, you're going to be worse at your job than someone who is putting in 60 hours a week.

[shockmonster]

100% of brick layers are men. Is this due to societal biases?

Morticians, brick layers?

Here are some questions that we could answer to get closer to societal biases.

More serial killers are men than women and Men are more likely to abuse women than women abuse men.

Why? Socialization or predisposition?

I hope my employer doesn't find out that I raised these questions.

[MoValley John]

Morticians, brick layers?

Here are some questions that we could answer to get closer to societal biases.

More serial killers are men than women and Men are more likely to abuse women than women abuse men.

Why? Socialization or predisposition?

I hope my employer doesn't find out that I raised these questions.

We need more female serial killers.

[Walker]

Hopefully we can share more of this male privilege with women as well...