Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A better predictor is going to be an IQ cutoff for 125 or so for STEM, based solely off average IQ scores for different majors (average IQ for philosophy/economics majors is also quite high I might add). The further you go up that scale, the more the higher IQ scores skew towards a male biased ratio. For example at IQs of 130-150 the male to female ratio is already 2.5:1, this is well in the realm of the IQ for most STEM students/practitioners at elite institutions.

As I said in another post, in 3rd world countries, women tend to choose STEM fields at higher rates, despite their environments being more patriarchal. It is only in wealthy countries that when women have the luxury of choosing a major, rather than economic necessity, that they tend to choose other fields of study. This is quite the oddity isn't that, that in more equal societies, women choose fields that are less "prestigious" or high paying, and thus I would like to hear your thoughts on that in light of "unconscious bias".

So much in education has been changed recently to better suit women, including a renewed focus on coursework, because women don’t perform well in exams. That’s one reason why more women are going to university and more are graduating. But no amount of gerrymandering with educational styles is going to close the gap at the top of the IQ scale: all it does is unfairly disadvantage men further down.

We know gender equality efforts in STEM are foolish, because in a free society women (and men) choose the subjects they are most interested in. The high IQ outliers among women will continue to enter STEM, as they always have. Forcing those who are not elite to compete with those who are is not empowering. It’s just cruel. And lowering the bar to accommodate mediocre talent is just as bad.

It doesn’t matter if women “test poorly” or if IQ doesn’t measure a totality of intelligence or if the test is somehow biased toward men. Because it’s IQ skills that are required to solve the hardest puzzles in mathematics and physics, not verbal communication or any of the other, equally important kinds of intelligence. The work that drives society and technology forward looks a lot like an IQ test, and men simply do better at them.

For someone who probably thinks he has a high IQ, that's a remarkably circular argument with a lot of glaring presumptions. IQ tests measure IQ, not job performance. Google is not looking for the people with the highest IQs. They're looking for a qualified pool of engineers. There's no lowering of the bar or forcing the non-elite to compete with the elite. It's just looking for people who can do the job, rather than being constrained by your prejudices.

What presumptions are you referring to? Have not schools changed their classes to be more group based? Are women not free to study what they wish? Do you not need high math oriented intelligence to comprehend complex mathematics than verbal intelligence?

If you want to graduate with a STEM degree, you have to possess above average intelligence. Above average intelligence heavily skews male. Ergo there are more available males in the talent pool than females with the potential to graduate from such a program. Google is certainly going for the elite of the elite, but does it make sense to allocate more resources to bring women into study STEM if they are more likely to leave it? After all there are only a finite number of seats available in these programs. You could make the same argument with med school as well as increasing female enrollment, and less likelihood to choose surgical professions (be it due to social factors or work balance factors) will lead to a shortage in certain specialties in the coming years.

1) the presumption that hiring the highest IQs available, as opposed to also looking at other factors, is the only consideration in hiring a competent workforce;
2) the presumption that IQ tests are accurate measures of ability, and that the gap is inevitable
3) the presumption that we have a "free society" where people are choosing professions with no reference at all to background social/economic conditions
4) the presumption that all coders are and must be "elite"
5) the presumption that the work of Google engineers is to "solve the hardest puzzles," as opposed to being good engineers
6) the presumption that success as an engineer in the real world does not require verbal intelligence
7) the presumption that women leave stem because they are inferior women, not because they are discriminated against
8) the presumption that "the work that drives society forward" is equivalent to an IQ test (probably the dumbest presumption of them all)

I think you're inserting quite a few biases/presumptions of your own there rather than what was explicitly written, but I would be happy to respond after taking care of dinner, later this evening. Virtually none of what you wrote appears in my text.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A better predictor is going to be an IQ cutoff for 125 or so for STEM, based solely off average IQ scores for different majors (average IQ for philosophy/economics majors is also quite high I might add). The further you go up that scale, the more the higher IQ scores skew towards a male biased ratio. For example at IQs of 130-150 the male to female ratio is already 2.5:1, this is well in the realm of the IQ for most STEM students/practitioners at elite institutions.

As I said in another post, in 3rd world countries, women tend to choose STEM fields at higher rates, despite their environments being more patriarchal. It is only in wealthy countries that when women have the luxury of choosing a major, rather than economic necessity, that they tend to choose other fields of study. This is quite the oddity isn't that, that in more equal societies, women choose fields that are less "prestigious" or high paying, and thus I would like to hear your thoughts on that in light of "unconscious bias".

So much in education has been changed recently to better suit women, including a renewed focus on coursework, because women don’t perform well in exams. That’s one reason why more women are going to university and more are graduating. But no amount of gerrymandering with educational styles is going to close the gap at the top of the IQ scale: all it does is unfairly disadvantage men further down.

We know gender equality efforts in STEM are foolish, because in a free society women (and men) choose the subjects they are most interested in. The high IQ outliers among women will continue to enter STEM, as they always have. Forcing those who are not elite to compete with those who are is not empowering. It’s just cruel. And lowering the bar to accommodate mediocre talent is just as bad.

It doesn’t matter if women “test poorly” or if IQ doesn’t measure a totality of intelligence or if the test is somehow biased toward men. Because it’s IQ skills that are required to solve the hardest puzzles in mathematics and physics, not verbal communication or any of the other, equally important kinds of intelligence. The work that drives society and technology forward looks a lot like an IQ test, and men simply do better at them.

For someone who probably thinks he has a high IQ, that's a remarkably circular argument with a lot of glaring presumptions. IQ tests measure IQ, not job performance. Google is not looking for the people with the highest IQs. They're looking for a qualified pool of engineers. There's no lowering of the bar or forcing the non-elite to compete with the elite. It's just looking for people who can do the job, rather than being constrained by your prejudices.

What presumptions are you referring to? Have not schools changed their classes to be more group based? Are women not free to study what they wish? Do you not need high math oriented intelligence to comprehend complex mathematics than verbal intelligence?

If you want to graduate with a STEM degree, you have to possess above average intelligence. Above average intelligence heavily skews male. Ergo there are more available males in the talent pool than females with the potential to graduate from such a program. Google is certainly going for the elite of the elite, but does it make sense to allocate more resources to bring women into study STEM if they are more likely to leave it? After all there are only a finite number of seats available in these programs. You could make the same argument with med school as well as increasing female enrollment, and less likelihood to choose surgical professions (be it due to social factors or work balance factors) will lead to a shortage in certain specialties in the coming years.

1) the presumption that hiring the highest IQs available, as opposed to also looking at other factors, is the only consideration in hiring a competent workforce;
2) the presumption that IQ tests are accurate measures of ability, and that the gap is inevitable
3) the presumption that we have a "free society" where people are choosing professions with no reference at all to background social/economic conditions
4) the presumption that all coders are and must be "elite"
5) the presumption that the work of Google engineers is to "solve the hardest puzzles," as opposed to being good engineers
6) the presumption that success as an engineer in the real world does not require verbal intelligence
7) the presumption that women leave stem because they are inferior women, not because they are discriminated against
8) the presumption that "the work that drives society forward" is equivalent to an IQ test (probably the dumbest presumption of them all)

I think you're inserting quite a few biases/presumptions of your own there rather than what was explicitly written, but I would be happy to respond after taking care of dinner, later this evening. Virtually none of what you wrote appears in my text.

I don't really need to hear any of your blathering anymore. thanks. you might just take to heart that your supposedly high IQ doesn't actually mean you know everything or always have the right argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

Are you sure you read the same document? I would be curious too see which statements you construe as harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

Are you sure you read the same document? I would be curious too see which statements you construe as harassment.

are you kidding? it's a long screed about why women are not good leaders or coders due to biology. It's canonical discrimination on the basis of sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

Are you sure you read the same document? I would be curious too see which statements you construe as harassment.

are you kidding? it's a long screed about why women are not good leaders or coders due to biology. It's canonical discrimination on the basis of sex.

Again, can you point to specifics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

Having a case and winning a case are two different things. But given how quickly he's been able to file a lawsuit, it almost seems like this was an intentional effort to test the legality of diversity policies. Seems like that's the order of the day today. Google is 80% male...even if women are as inferior as this guy seems to think, men are doing just fine at google. It takes a special kind of victim mentality to feel persecuted while in the majority.

But whatever. Brogrammers are a dime a dozen in Silicon Valley. This guy will find another job and many places will reward him for his cowardly "honesty". It won't make him no longer be a jerk, though.

[Anonymous]

Female software engineer here. This guy is an outlier. Yes, institututuonal sexism exists. Yes, I deal with it daily. Yes, it's a male dominated industry. Yes, you have to prove yourself over and over again compared to male peers to gain the same respect given equatable skill sets.

The positive. I've had the pleasure of working with many, many great male software engineers over 20+ years who respect talent without gender bias.

Once you one up these sexist outliers in a public manner a couple of times, they tend to crawl back into their Reddit hole.

You'll still deal with the brogrammer pretending to be an expert in a topic with which they have zero experience, mansplaining, etc... but highly collaborative, agile engineering teams all know everyone's strengths and weaknesses and can pin the tale on the asshole blindfolded with amazing accuracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Female software engineer here. This guy is an outlier. Yes, institututuonal sexism exists. Yes, I deal with it daily. Yes, it's a male dominated industry. Yes, you have to prove yourself over and over again compared to male peers to gain the same respect given equatable skill sets.

The positive. I've had the pleasure of working with many, many great male software engineers over 20+ years who respect talent without gender bias.

Once you one up these sexist outliers in a public manner a couple of times, they tend to crawl back into their Reddit hole.

You'll still deal with the brogrammer pretending to be an expert in a topic with which they have zero experience, mansplaining, etc... but highly collaborative, agile engineering teams all know everyone's strengths and weaknesses and can pin the tale on the asshole blindfolded with amazing accuracy.

Oh you're the "cool girl," right. Got it.

[Anonymous]

If by cool you mean successfully navigating a male dominated industry and eating male chauvinists for dinner, then yes, I'm cool!

My point was simple. Yes, there is sexism, but not all men in the industry share such biased gender views as the Google douche sinking in his douche canoe. I wouldn't have climbed the ladder without the support and mentoring of some very great women AND men in my field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Female software engineer here. This guy is an outlier. Yes, institututuonal sexism exists. Yes, I deal with it daily. Yes, it's a male dominated industry. Yes, you have to prove yourself over and over again compared to male peers to gain the same respect given equatable skill sets.

The positive. I've had the pleasure of working with many, many great male software engineers over 20+ years who respect talent without gender bias.

Once you one up these sexist outliers in a public manner a couple of times, they tend to crawl back into their Reddit hole.

You'll still deal with the brogrammer pretending to be an expert in a topic with which they have zero experience, mansplaining, etc... but highly collaborative, agile engineering teams all know everyone's strengths and weaknesses and can pin the tale on the asshole blindfolded with amazing accuracy.

Oh you're the "cool girl," right. Got it.

What's that supposed to mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

Are you sure you read the same document? I would be curious too see which statements you construe as harassment.

are you kidding? it's a long screed about why women are not good leaders or coders due to biology. It's canonical discrimination on the basis of sex.

Again, can you point to specifics?

Everything he says about "distribution of traits," women being neurotic, and therefor they should be presumed to be inferior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Top Engineering/CS programs are still overwhelmingly male so I am going to view Females with suspicion

You fix the issue by getting rid of the diversity program, its a similar issue for African Americans if you want me to not judge you get rid of Affirmative Action. Otherwise, I have ever right to assume you are a diversity/affirmative action hire and not as qualified.

You have every right to assume whatever you want. And your employer still has every right to fire you if circulating your assumptions in a 10 page manifesto violates its company code of conduct. It also has every right not to hire you at all. That's the free market that you love so much.

Regardless, it's funny that AA makes you predisposed to judge all women and minorities as unqualified unless proven otherwise. In my experience, most women and URMs in tech are top performers, since they would have dropped out long ago if they weren't. While white men exist at all rungs of the ladder, sheer numbers and basic stats tells me that the majority are mediocre. As a result, I assume all men I meet in tech are mediocre until proven otherwise. I have every right to make that assumption, and I can back mine up with math

-- Woman in Tech whom you can assume is unqualified if you want, but my paycheck and industry recognition allows me to not GAF what you assume about me

The code of conduct defense might not work actually. Google has also most likely violated the political viewpoint retaliation and whistleblower retaliation provisions of the California Labor Code. There are now screenshots Googles internal network showing managers refusing to employ/take on people for projects who hold specific political viewpoints. Likewise these same managers have claimed to have blackballed these same googlers for positions outside of google. It is interesting to note that the author of the 10 page essay already filed with the NLRB regarding googles conduct and all this dirty laundry will certainly help him for that filing as well as any other wrongful termination lawsuit filed against google for retailiation (due to the NRLB compliant) after the google CEO's comments.

California Labor Code § 1102 requires that “no employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.” Furthermore, the “whistleblower” provisions at §1102.5 prohibit employers from adopting rules preventing disclosure of, or retaliating against an employee for having disclosed, “information … to a person with authority over the employee, or another employee who has authority to investigate, discover or correct the violation … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.”

The memo in question quite plausibly falls into both statutory sections — advocating that someone “stop alienating conservatives” sure sounds like political activity, and warning of corporate policies and procedures “which can incentivize illegal discrimination,” and asking that the employer cease “restricting [certain] programs and classes to certain genders or races” sure sounds like information which an employee would have “reasonable cause to believe” concerns noncompliance with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Even better: Somebody could go to jail for this.

Section 1103 provides: “An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or both that fine and imprisonment, or, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

Seeing Google CEO Sundar Pichai, or Google Chief Diversity Officer Danielle Brown led away to the pokey in cuffs would be poetic justice indeed. Not that such a thing is at all likely in the People’s Republic of California, of course.

lol, no. you can't hide gender harassment behind political viewpoints. Also Google has a bona fide reason to fire him - he manifestly cannot work with women anymore.

Are you sure you read the same document? I would be curious too see which statements you construe as harassment.

are you kidding? it's a long screed about why women are not good leaders or coders due to biology. It's canonical discrimination on the basis of sex.

Again, can you point to specifics?

Everything he says about "distribution of traits," women being neurotic, and therefor they should be presumed to be inferior.

So the distribution of traits is not backed by science? The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity appears to get nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right (note his time spent in PhD studies in Biology at Harvard). In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. Among commentators on DCUrbanMom who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who appeared understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research. From what I understand of the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men; when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preference are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate. Even wikipedia, which is far from biased to the right, notes the same exact things, if one cares to peruse it.

Furthermore, women appear to seek treatment for anxiety at a higher rate than men. An analysis of prescription claims data from 2.5 million insured Americans from 2001 to 2010, by a major medical insurer disclosed that one in four women is dispensed medication for a mental health condition, compared to just 15 percent of men. Now is that due to women consuming more health care (a trait by the way) or are women inherently more subject to anxiety? I would hope it is the former more so than the later.