Yes - because the applicant pool already accounts for that. The women who don't want higher wages (huh?) or want to work longer hours don't apply to the jobs that require the longer hours, etc. Basically, women not interested in the tech field don't apply to tech jobs - it's common sense. That might explain why there are fewer applicants - but not why the qualified applicants get less opportunities. And yes, there is plenty of evidence of it - feel free to google it if you're interested. One study, for example, just sent the same exact resumes with white-sounding names and black-sounding names. Guess which ones got more interviews? This wasn't tech related, but it shows that there are biases that have nothing to do with willingness to work or other such nonsense. Except it does - because his whole argument is a fake strawman. Google isn't trying to hire the women who want to work shorter hours or less stressful jobs or whatever else he's arguing. That's not their subset of the job pool. And he proposes no solutions for the actual biases that Google and other tech companies are trying to counter - he just proposes that some women don't want those jobs, which no one has argued against.
That depends on how you define "correction of biases". It sounds like adding a gender-based or race-based quota, or offering special services that are reserved for women or minorities, is what you want. Are you opposed to thinking about other solutions for eliminating bias in the workplace that are not, by nature, based on classifying people according to gender/race and treating them differently? I.e. correcting for bias by introducing what is, if we're being honest about it, a counter-acting discrimination policy? Maybe you don't feel he offered any practical alternative solutions. Fair enough.
This seems completely expected. People get fired all the time for bringing bad PR to their employees, even through actions in their personal life. He actually did it as a representative of their company, which makes it far worse.
Now you're the one just making stuff up and creating strawmen to argue against. I'm for Google evaluating it's workforce and, if they decide they have gender and racial bias in hiring, looking at ways to addressing that, which is what they are doing and what he is arguing they should stop doing. If they find other biases, they should look at ways of addressing that too - it's not an either-or scenario. Can you share with us Google's policy and how it is discriminatory?
The applicant pool does not account for that at all. Not all people applying for a job are willing or able to put in the same amount of hours. Why would you assume such a thing, when there is considerable variation among active employees with comparable roles in the hours they put in, including ability/time to work at night or on weekends or while the kids are sick or when having a newborn, etc. That is my experience, at least. I would be surprised if there was indeed plenty of evidence for it, because the claim you're making is very difficult to prove in a controlled manner without making faulty assumptions like you did above. In any case, I will seek it out. Alright. Without seeing the evidence for bias at Google and comparable tech companies that you are invoking here, I can't say whether his lack of practical solutions to that problem is a serious hole in his overall post or not.
Very well. That is very sensible. I don't see how that conflicts with what he was arguing for, when he more or less said the same (company should seek to remove biases that exist). For one, he wrote that there are "programs, mentoring, classes only for persons of a certain gender or race." I don't personally take issue with that, mind you, but I can understand why some might dislike the practice of categorizing people according to gender/race and offering explicit perks accordingly.
Except that he sent the post on an internal network, and it was undoubtedly leaked to the public by someone who was thin-skinned and took exception to it. And he gets punished for bringing the bad PR. But, yes, it was probably to be expected.
Haven't read the letter and have no interest in doing so, but I'm not surprised he was fired. Had I written something like this I'd have been fired within an hour of clicking Send.
written something like what? you didn't read it. definitely not unexpected from a company like Google. Anyone else find it curious that at no point is it explained what comments perpetuate what stereotypes? Its almost like Google has no idea.
Lol that's true. Just basing my statement off headlines I saw. But really had I sent any email saying anything that even said something like, "ya see the thing about women is...." that would be enough to get me canned. For big, globe straddling companies it's far easier to replace some shmuck than it is to face some PR outrage.
In some fairness to the memo writer, he did NOT say that women are NOT capable of tech. He said biology influences women ambition AWAY FROM tech (even if they ARE capable I suppose) He even said women make just as much once variables are removed. (But that the variables dont get removed, or that women act on them themselves anyway). He never says men PUSH OUT women. He said "This a a Limiting Factor - This is How To Overcome It". He also says men HAVE NO OTHER ROLE expectations BUT to aggressively earn financial STATUS. Thats as true a statement as there is. Every male in here at some point knows the pressure to EARN or DIE. He doesnt even say men are superior to women. He says men have some built-in advantages toward work thats hard to ignore. All his political diatribe makes him look kinda douchey though lol
He posted something that referenced men having higher iq's than women. I think that's unacceptable in a workplace. It's not just public perspection at stake - it's company morale.
Here's a blog post referencing the internal memo by a female senior technical engineer who works at Google. She doesn't go into a point-by-point breakdown of his memo, but here it is for what its worth: https://www.ultrasaurus.com/2017/08/impact-matters-more-than-intent/
He isn't charged with any crime as far as I know. He was fired for comments he made while representing his employer.
Yeah thats irresponsible of news sources misrepresenting the views into being something hateful and mean-spirited. Thats the age we're in now, CLICKBAIT emotional agitation. (Remember way way back when the internet was supposed to BALANCE out the bias and the "sleaze" out of news. Be the objective source of media? But all it did was copy the media PERFECTING the sensationalized headlines even more lol)
He was making a point about how people will deny science that offends their own political sensibilities or values. Isn't the very fact that referencing such studies publicly is unacceptable just making his point for him? The other point he made is that people should be treated as individuals and not merely as members of a demographic population. Once you do that, any fear over looking at statistical differences between demographic populations based on whatever criterion (including even IQ) should, in principle, dissipate. The problem is that most people are unable to completely put aside demographic stereotypes when judging a person. So by referencing such stereotypes, which may be grounded in truth, he is perhaps unwittingly reinforcing it as a negative force in the workplace. I think that's a fair critique.
AGREE that its simply best to keep your mouth shut and dont make ripples. And be in a place that better favors your ideals, dont go where it clashes. BUT, if a company has RULES to against politics talk - What IF the company itself DOES become identifiably POLITICAL in their approach? Its becomes an awkward "Elephant in the Room" issue that the company bans your politics talk while they still practice those banned politics freely in your face. Kinda unfair muzzling. (But yeah, anti-discrimination is universal LAW, its not supposed to be a political-party thing)
