Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

Top programs are currently overwhelmingly male - but they weren't to begin with. At the beginning of tech/CS, women were very well represented and many of the initial brilliant computer scientists and coders were women.
And then the bro-culture/gaming culture took over, pushing out women and thereby losing a TON of talent and opportunity for the companies.

Diversity isn't about some philosophical need for equality. It's about getting the best ideas and most perspectives into a process. And to keep recruit and retain the best women and minority engineers, a massive culture shift is needed at google and elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:who cares what the black % at google tech is? I know black employees in google on the marketing side that make 300k-400k a year.

Why would you want to be a code geek when you can work in a more fun part the company and still make bank?

Google is an ad firm - they have tons of non-tech jobs that are highly remunerative that AA's would be great for.

Woman in tech here. Because some people do not like marketing. I like tech and am actually good out it, despite having a vagina.

if you are a chick at google, wouldn't you rather want to be ruth porat than come code nerd?

Tech jobs aren't great - not sure why they are highly sought after.

who cares what the black % at google tech is? I know black employees in google on the marketing side that make 300k-400k a year.

Why would you want to be a code geek when you can work in a more fun part the company and still make bank?

Google is an ad firm - they have tons of non-tech jobs that are highly remunerative that AA's would be great for.

Anonymous wrote:
Women should be hired and promoted less. All the top engineering/CS programs are overwhelmingly male.

Here is what should happen.

1 Diversity hires should be eliminated hiring should be based on resume/talent/interview etc
2. Track women/URM hires using the system in number one and show that they do just as well (I agree that they well)

You do that you show the original manifesto guy he is wrong

3. Have HR do their actual job and get rid of sexual harassment people

4. If conditions are still bad women/URM should start their own companies hire people fairly have positive work environments and crush the compeition

Original manifesto guy didn't even have the strength of his convictions to post using his real name. Why does anyone owe him anything?

Sorry, whiny male engineers can continue to whine while they get left in the dust. Look at the leadership of pretty much all SV companies; the qualified men are doing just fine in tech.

Anonymous wrote:As The Washington Post's Jena McGregor wrote in March, just 1 percent of Google's technology employees are black - a percentage that hasn't moved since 2014.

Indians do not hire African Americans, we have seen this at Infosys, Cognizant, Hexaware, TCS, and Wipro

false - indians do hire AA.

vivek Ranadive's most expensive hires are all AA.

demarcus cousins was making big money under him before he got traded.

vince carter - 8 million US a year

D'arron fox - 19 year old making 5 million

george hill - 20 milllion a year

zach randolph - 12 million a year

Anonymous wrote:
I feel if it wasn't for the diversity programs I would never be given a chance to begin with! The problem isn't with the HR folks, it is with male engineers and developers. The Indian men were just as bad as the white men, btw. I do find if Indian men are second or third generation Americans they are more progressive than the others. But also why would minorities (all foreigners) want to try to assimilate into the predominate culture when there is so much anti-immigration sentiment?! It is really hostile for them right now, so I understand their insular behavior.

Seriously, the diversity people make it possible for me to get an interview. The anti-diversity people want me to shut up and stay home barefoot and pregnant. This manifesto really drives home the hostility in tech, and likely society at large, these days.

This. I'm 10:26 on p1, and I've heard the argument that "diversity" hiring makes me suspect and I shouldn't want it if I'm truly competitive, completely ignoring the fact that without "diversity" hiring practices I would never get the opportunity to prove that I'm truly competitive. What I've found is that most *senior* men understand this...they aren't just paying lip service to it, they get it. My DH was probably luke warm on the extent to which technical women face workplace discrimination, now that he's a very senior manager with a 60 person team, he says he is hyper-aware of it. Everything from noticing that being the only woman in a team can make work dinners and after dinner outings uncomfortable to realizing the impacts unreasonable work demands have on overall morale and commitment...and ways that impacts women worse than men (e.g. a badly managed team that places unnecessary demands on everyone hurts women more than men).

Regardless, I think my second point (and the former Google engineer's rebuttal) is critical. Men seem to think writing code is that makes a good software engineer...which is something like suggesting that being able to write complete sentences makes you a good novelist. They then go on to eschew all of the things that improve product as being some kind of PC nonsense, failing to recognize that their approach leads to bad product.

I don't know the best solution to this. I think it would be helpful for CS programs to shift their focus toward more outcome-based instruction. Stanford (my alma mater) has made changes in this direction, and it seems to increase the number of women in CS programs. And I've seen no indication that they are less competent than men. Harvey Mudd has done something similar.

Ultimately, though, the business argument to me makes the most sense. If women are buying and using products, it's reasonable for anyone who believes that women are inherently different than men to think there would be business value in having them help build those products. Even if, a big if, they are inferior engineers, they would be valuable to a company that is interested in making money rather than just cool things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

You think that at the margins the top 11-20% of women engineers will be outperformed by the bottom 10% of top performing male engineers such that the competition hiring the men will will eat you alive? I think you vastly overvalue the input of people who are rank and file engineers. They're not game changers.

Ugh let me try this. You hire the best engineer period. The race/sex of them is irrelevant. Hiring a less qualified engineer because they are a woman/URM is stupid and is why diversity quotas/targets/initiatives are stupid

Sure. But teh fact is: that doesn't happen. Women get hired less. They get promoted less. And this knuckledragger thinks they shouldn't be there at all.

Women should be hired and promoted less. All the top engineering/CS programs are overwhelmingly male.

Here is what should happen.

1 Diversity hires should be eliminated hiring should be based on resume/talent/interview etc
2. Track women/URM hires using the system in number one and show that they do just as well (I agree that they well)

You do that you show the original manifesto guy he is wrong

3. Have HR do their actual job and get rid of sexual harassment people

4. If conditions are still bad women/URM should start their own companies hire people fairly have positive work environments and crush the compeition

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope this guy is outed and never is employed again by anyone, anywhere.

Because he raised the *FORBIDDEN TOPIC*

The fact that he wrote it all down and circulated it means they have at least one dumb male engineer at Google.

They already know who it is and he's probably submarined his career. He works for Google. Come on. They knew his thoughts before he wrote them down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree. Women can code and be as technical (or more technical) than men and therefore better at it. Working in technology with men is difficult at best. I think many engineers have difficult personalities to begin with, couple that with the constant need to work harder than men "to prove myself" makes for a very horrible work environment. This manifesto is so representative of white and Indian men in tech. There is an outright dismissal of women being technically competent.

Humm

Of course a woman can be be just as good or better. Anyone who makes it through the hiring process belongs there. However when you have HR pushing diversity down your throat people are going to start wondering if a woman/URM really belongs there or is just a "diversity" hire. If I were you I would tell the diversity people to shutup and focus on hiring the best candidates period.

Separately I know there is an issue of women being treated like crap in India. Perhaps some of that is still in place with Indians who have not totally adjusted to American culture. Many Indians (like any other minority group) only hang out with their own minority so culture norms continue to be reinforced.

Lol. I love how you somehow managed to be both sexist and racist in this post. DCUM classic.

Anonymous wrote:I hope this guy is outed and never is employed again by anyone, anywhere.

Because he raised the *FORBIDDEN TOPIC*

I just attended a women's track and a diversity panel at a major tech conference. I can't count the number of times women said that sometimes you have to go find a better place to work and leave a company because they are that hostile. When was the last time a white male in tech had to leave a company because it was hostile to him as a male? Meanwhile tech is incredibly hostile towards women.

Point #2 in the medium article is so spot on. The baby engineers think the "best engineer" is the one writing the best code. That's great for baby engineers, but what really matters is writing the RIGHT code. Then there is also the merit of creating the product that best fits the need. Companies that are more diverse are more profitable for all of these other reasons. I'm just glad I don't work with this bruh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wage gap is a myth (agree)
Diversity for diversities sake is a joke should hire the best (agree)
Women are different than men and are better at certain things (agree)

Anyone not agree with those 3?

I disagree. Women can code and be as technical (or more technical) than men and therefore better at it. Working in technology with men is difficult at best. I think many engineers have difficult personalities to begin with, couple that with the constant need to work harder than men "to prove myself" makes for a very horrible work environment. This manifesto is so representative of white and Indian men in tech. There is an outright dismissal of women being technically competent.

Humm

Of course a woman can be be just as good or better. Anyone who makes it through the hiring process belongs there. However when you have HR pushing diversity down your throat people are going to start wondering if a woman/URM really belongs there or is just a "diversity" hire. If I were you I would tell the diversity people to shutup and focus on hiring the best candidates period.

Separately I know there is an issue of women being treated like crap in India. Perhaps some of that is still in place with Indians who have not totally adjusted to American culture. Many Indians (like any other minority group) only hang out with their own minority so culture norms continue to be reinforced.

I feel if it wasn't for the diversity programs I would never be given a chance to begin with! The problem isn't with the HR folks, it is with male engineers and developers. The Indian men were just as bad as the white men, btw. I do find if Indian men are second or third generation Americans they are more progressive than the others. But also why would minorities (all foreigners) want to try to assimilate into the predominate culture when there is so much anti-immigration sentiment?! It is really hostile for them right now, so I understand their insular behavior.

Seriously, the diversity people make it possible for me to get an interview. The anti-diversity people want me to shut up and stay home barefoot and pregnant. This manifesto really drives home the hostility in tech, and likely society at large, these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought this was a pretty good rebuttal...from a man, and former Google employee

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

And he's not wrong on any account. The whiner who wrote his neck beard-ifesto should have been escorted out of the building for creating a hostile work environment. It's not "non-pc." You just called all your females colleagues special cases who don't deserve to be there.

Absolutely, also the author's section two was a very good rebutal to such a person before they take the irreversible step of publishing a destructive manifesto.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a business perspective, I can't see how it makes any sense to exclude an entire 50% of the workforce from a single job category. Your competitors who figure out how to tap into the talent of women are going to have an advantage.

Top CS/engineering programs are overwhelmingly male. Top companies hiring tech talent would be dumb to not hire the best. I don't think anyone would look at the top 100 engineers who are lets say 90 male and 10 female and not hire the 10 females. What doesn't make sense is why would you hire say 10 more females and only 80 males. Those 10 more qualified/talented males are going to go to a competitor and eat you alive.

You think that at the margins the top 11-20% of women engineers will be outperformed by the bottom 10% of top performing male engineers such that the competition hiring the men will will eat you alive? I think you vastly overvalue the input of people who are rank and file engineers. They're not game changers.

But the above is exactly what men like the one who wrote that memo think. Those "diversity hires" are bringing everyone else down. It's easier to think that then to turn the mirror on yourself.