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]
No, you have this backwards.

James Damore was nothing but respectful (at least in that memo), even though some of his reasoning was flawed.
[/quote]
Calling someone a "sphincter" instead of an "a$$h0l3", while less crass and more scientific-sounding, is not not respectful. Sometimes the content more than the form matters.

Damore didn't just call into question the skills of his colleagues, he asserted that his leadership had no idea what they were doing and they were harming the company. If he wanted to open a dialogue, he would have asked whether there was evidence for the benefits of the policies that Google had implemented or suggested that maybe they had missed the way those policies negatively affected him and should also take those into account in their assessments. Instead, he asserted that Google's engineering teams were weak because of things like "pair-programming" whereas independent coding was the true measure of ability. While his point was to call into question Google's diversity policies, he was effectively dismissing the entire way Google has structured its working teams and calling them ineffective. I know people, men and women, who have been fired from "at-will employment" jobs for simply hinting at that, let alone writing a 10 page manifesto, because it's so destructive to team morale. This happened to a female friend of mine at a SV tech company recently, and she along with everyone else who knows about what happened agree that her being asked to leave was reasonable because her attitude *was* hurting team morale.[/quote]

Damore likely knew that he was protected from dismissal by California state law, which prohibits a firm from firing an employee for his political beliefs. I would say the complaint to NLRB was more an insurance policy to that same end. For a company to fire someone who had filed a NLRB complaint is considered illegal retaliation. That gave Damore two good reasons to believe he would not be nailed to the cross for the memo. That is why he was surprised that they ignored these legal protections in favor of summary virtue signaling. Damore anticipated he was dealing with a rational organization and he actually proved the opposite is true.[/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