Reply to Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
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.[/quote]
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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

Again, can you point to specifics? [/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

It's the conclusions he makes based on that (flawed) science, on top of the central fact that women are an insular minority suffering discrimination under the lad.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics