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]

"you are probably dumb because you are black, but maybe it's just because your mom is dumb too."

does that sound like overt discrimination?

[/quote]

I would agree with that statement, because the intent is more apparent in the second clause. I don't see the same fact pattern from the Googler's manifesto.[/quote]

"you probably are not a good coder because you are a woman and women are on average not as smart as men, and are more neurotic."

not any different. certainly not any different in how they'd make a woman feel.[/quote]

I can see from that statement you made, how women may find that insulting, but that is not the way I interpreted the original statement.

I took it as "Women are less likely to have traits that lead to success in technology and leadership, which in part explains why there are fewer women in technology and leadership.", followed by supporting evidence.

I see it much the same as "Women are less likely to have traits associated with criminality, which in part explains why there are fewer women in prison.", followed by supporting evidence.

The evidence does appear to support that there are differences between male and female intelligence, and that women experience higher levels of anxiety and depression than men (and are taking drugs to treat them at higher rates).  One can certainly debate if those differences are statistically significant or not (I would not say so when looking at mean scores, but have a possibility in terms of percentage of population who pass the 120 point threshold. As for someone else who mentioned the discontinuity between m/f ratio's of intelligence and presence in STEM, I think they raised an interesting point), or if someone with diagnosed neurosis would have an easier or harder time in the workplace or getting promoted.

Essentially when it comes to the facts presented in the googler's essay, its the old nature/nurture type debate (though he provides many possible solutions).  Some posters here feel the societal conditions are hurting women far more so than any possible biological factors (or there aren't any biological factors), while others take the opposite viewpoint.  I don't think anyone is going to persuade anyone else one way or the other.  [/quote]

again, this is not a logic puzzle. the statement communicates an open, negative stereotype about women in the workplace. It's fine to make on your own time, but say that crap in the office to your female coworker, and you will get in trouble.

do you really not see that there is little effective difference in telling a woman: "you MIGHT be incapable of doing this job because you are a woman" vs "you ARE incapable because you are a woman"?[/quote]

DP. No PP, the person you are responding to doesn't see the difference. This is how we end up with men thinking the manifesto is ok and not controversial --just a statement. You're wasting your time with PP. [/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