Obviously I don't agree what he wrote is "sexist", at least in the conventional discriminatory sense that would warrant being fired (the concepts of "sexism" and "racism" have take on such a broad meaning among some circles sometimes I wonder if a white man breathing in the presence of a woman or minority does not also qualify as sexism/racism in their view, but I digress). At any rate, there's also this to consider: http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...sSRCRL/story.html?event=event25?event=event25 Aside from my moral objections over the firing, I really feel Google shot themselves in the foot in the way they handled this.
I don't think diversity should be an end in itself, but if you do think that, Google has utterly failed. All they care about is throwing money at the problem to signal their virtue by demonstrating an effort. The point of the memo was that the reason for the failure was the false assumption that a lack of diversity is due to sexism/oppression, when in actuality it is because of differences in preferences, interests, and strengths among different groups (on average). The memo offered suggestions on policies that might cater to these differences, to attract members of those groups into the workforce. And then they fired him for this heresy.
Like everyone else has. There is not an easy solution to a cultural problem. Nay. Company throwing money into a solution is to try to have a solution. They may fail, but that doesn't mean their intention was only a fake effort. Not going into the memo anymore - was political, got more political and ultimately useless. People that strive for constructive new ideas and solution do not go that route, but whatever.
I never care to check really and I don't monitor news too much. But perhaps the "left outrage" was all made up, or wasn't at the level that was/is portrayed. Whatever the case, once it's portrayed as such, plus now the dude was fired, then you can predict what the crazies will do. It's not all symmetry. There is one side that is a bit more crazy. Probably the more responsible party should think a few steps ahead - like you mention, don't be so outrage, or allow it to be. But hey, if media (fake or real) start a train of outrage and set it out there, it can easily travel and get over blown in today age of information at everyone tips, and there isn't much anyone can do about that.
The important thing to note is that in the huge swell of negative reaction in the blogosphere and press when this thing went viral, very little of the reaction actually focused on seriously arguing his claims. This may be, in part, because the initial leak from Gizmodo of the document (which referred to it as an "anti-diversity screed") had the links to his sources (to legitimate online articles) excised. It was taken for granted that this was the ravings of a sexist lunatic. It is telling that he had posted the document internally almost a month ago, and in that time he apparently received no response or reprimand from the Google higher ups. It's only when it went viral and the outrage poured in -- overwhelmingly, I'm sure, by people who never read the original document but just the reactions to it -- that he was fired.
you see this as not sexist or having to walk on egg shells. I see it as blatant sexism. It's no different than saying woman belong in the kitchen. He is saying there is a biological basis which explains why women don't rise to the top for a lack of ambition. By Reinforcing this stereotype he is in fact questioning woman's ambition and drive. That's discriminatory and sexist. It's odd that you don't see that saying women are less ambitious is not sexist. I assure you that it was the legal team weighed in heavily on the decision to fire him. Google will not suffer. I assure you talented programmers who are conservative will not turn down a job there because of this. I think any fortune 500 company would have fired him. You can think this is about a liberal echo chamber but I assure you any company that employs women in management would have fired this man regardless of the politics of their board. This isn't a political decision. It was a financial, legal, and brand decision
It is quite different, for all the reasons already discussed. The term "belongs" implies that is where they "should" be. He did not use language like this. You are committing the naturalistic fallacy by claiming this is what his words imply. You've chosen to read into it in this way, because he is, relatively speaking, conservative and your instinct is to presume that conservatives are cavemen.
No. He stated that women are less ambition. This is a an unsubstantiated claim. It is 100% sexist. Ask the women in your life if that a co-worker said women are less ambitious would they see that as sexist.
Can you quote from his document where he said this, so that I know exactly what you are referring to.
Staff writer at the Atlantic finally acknowledges that the document was not an "anti-diversity" memo, contrary how it was almost universally reported in the days after it was released outside of conservatives/libertarian circles (including by a writer at the Atlantic). https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...-error-in-coverage-of-the-google-memo/536181/
You have to understand, that facts are sexist, racist, homophobic, and transphobic if they aren't parroting the talking points the left wants them to. It's the reason why a decent number of people that would otherwise be centrists or lean left are getting red pilled by the knuckle dragging leftists who dabble in identity politics.
Just an FYI . Opinion article on what Science thinks of the claims .... https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/op....com&cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe&service=mobile
Colleges Have Increased Women Computer Science Majors: What Can Google Learn? Harvey Mudd's intro computer class became among the school's most popular. And now, instead of 10 percent in any given year, the number of women computer science majors ranges between 40 percent and 50 percent. Harvey Mudd isn't the only school seeing success in this effort. Carnegie Mellon has also significantly raised the number of women who major in computer science. Jane Margolis, an education researcher at UCLA began a four-year study of Carnegie Mellon in 1994. At the time, only 7 percent of computer science majors were women. "It was not a question of capacity or ability" Margolis says. "It was a question of women feeling that they weren't welcome or that their existence was suspect." For example, Margolis says there was a computer science club in which the men put the women down if they didn't think about coding all day and night. And yet, when Margolis interviewed the men, she found they had other interests too. "Many of them would say I like to do other things besides computing. I like to hike or I like to bike. But they never felt like their presence was being scrutinized." Carnegie Mellon instituted a series of reforms. The school created a women's computer club. The school made it harder to become a computer science major — as always applicants had to be good at math and science but now they also had to show they had leadership qualities. Today, instead of 7 percent, over 40 percent of the computer science majors at Carnegie Mellon are women. Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing But employers aren’t the only ones making this mistake. Stereotypes and biases affect women’s beliefs about their own abilities and the choices they make about their own futures as well. Girls with stronger implicit biases linking math and science with boys spend less time studying math and are less likely to pursue a career in a STEM field. Harvey Mudd College has dramatically increased the number of women computer science graduates at the school with three simple interventions designed to welcome beginning students into the curriculum rather than weed them out. The college Revised its required introductory computer science course to emphasize broad applications of computer science and accommodate different levels of experience. Provides students with early research opportunities. Sends women students to the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing. In just five years, the percentage of women Harvey Mudd computer science graduates grew from a historical average of 12 to around 40 percent, while the national average stalled at 18 percent. What if we took the lessons from these efforts and applied them to businesses and K–12 education?
I'm not denying Google doesn't have a right to fire an employee and I'm not going to criticize Google if they felt this situation had become such a distraction that the engineer and other employees couldn't adequately do their jobs. What I'm uneasy about is the idea that an employee who held political, cultural, and scientific views that conflicted with the majority of the company expressed those views in a format that was accepted and even encouraged by the company then get's fired for those views. If Google honestly wants employees to express personal views on a variety of subjects there is always going to be the possibility that those views won't match with company leadership. If this employee had otherwise been able to do the work I find it troubling that then he would lose his job for honestly expressing himself in a format that Google wanted. While I disagree with many parts of the engineer's argument I agree with Durvasa that Google's behavior is actually proving his argument that the company doesn't tolerate differing political opinions.
I mean, it's his whole argument! You agree he is saying that gender differences are based on science right? That's not in dispute, right? Then he goes on to show gender differences such as this one: Ok so men have higher status and he is saying that explains why more men are in management positions (men are more ambitious than women) - and this isn't a diversity issue but a biological one. Business Insider did a great job of showing the fallacy of this: http://www.businessinsider.com/jame...esto-science-logical-fallacy-2017-8?r=UK&IR=T He's saying that somehow these biological differences explain why men are in positions of power. That's exactly his argument he's making. It's blatantly sexist and not even logical.
No, he was making a sexist argument and that's why he got fired. (see post above) But people get fired all the time for holding views that are not in line with the rest of a company's culture. That's why it's called a COMPANY CULTURE.
Well, you have to understand that the knuckle draggers on the left who dabble in identity politics see just about any situation where there is disproportionate representation of any kind of minority group as being the result of some kind of bigotry. It's beyond their comprehension that there could be natural causes for such things. Essentially any ill of society is a direct result of the bigotry of white men and if science doesn't agree with that narrative, science is bigoted for not going along with the program.
Thanks appreciate it. This is exactly what my concern is. If Google is encouraging employees to express themselves in this manner it is troubling then to punish them for honestly expressing those opinions. That I have no idea. This is cleary a sensitive subject and one, at least from what limited reading I have had of his memo, that I disagree with his argument. Without knowing the inside workings of Google, what this person's relationship was with his coworkers and management I don't know how better he could've made his argument or even broached the subject. My own view is that if Google though did encourage this it is up to management to manage it rather than to punish the employee. This is why I stated if I was management I might've encouraged him to do more research on the matter including looking at information and opinions that contadicted his own and also given him sensitivity training so he could deal better with coworkers.
I think this is a good point and even more important really is to note how little of what he wrote that was opinion to begin with. Most all of what was written was scientific fact, there was very little opinion involved. I think that if what he wrote was merely opinion not backed by anything solid, and it was actually something hateful or bigoted, then that would change things. According to the guy himself, he posted this in a forum that was supposed to be sort of a skeptics society within the company in the hopes that someone would point out where he had it all wrong. What ended up happening, again according to the guy himself, was that he got no responses from anyone who read it within that group and instead they just passed it on to others and it went viral. He posted what he wrote a month before there was any response from the company at all, basically they didn't notice or care till it went viral.....and in many ways their response proved a lot of if not all of the parts that were strictly opinion (that Google operated inside of an ideological echo chamber that did not tolerate diversity of opinion) to be valid.
