Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yup what sunk him was actually saying what we all think and know out loud. People should know its never a good idea to say anything at work these days.

Still waiting for the liberal outcry about the lack of diversity efforts to push for more whites in the NBA

You're missing the point. Are there a bunch of white men saying that they are unfairly discriminated against in terms of NBA hiring? Does the NBA (or any particular team) have reason to believe that they would better achieve their objectives through racial diversity?

You keep making strawman arguments that diversity is about equal outcomes, when it's not. Women are actively discriminated against in tech, and one way to counter that is to increase their representation which has been demonstrated to change cultural norms. Maybe women will always be a minority in tech, but that doesn't mean they have to be harassed at work by the likes of manifesto-guy.

Anonymous wrote:

YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. You don't have carte blanch to express your "alternative viewpoint" at work, if that "alternative viewpoint" involves advancing harmful, gender-based stereotypes about women or minorities. You just don't. Under the law there in fact IS one correct viewpoint: advancing harmful stereotypes about women in the workplace, and basing workplace policies on these stereotypes, is unlawful. And that's exactly what Damore did: advanced several negative, gender-based stereotypes, and called for Google to change its policies to conform to those stereotypes. His publication of the essay alone may or may not have constituted actionable gender-based harassment under the law, but Google was certainly justified in terminating him for it, as he had shown himself to be insubordinate and now incapable of working with women.

Anonymous wrote:

What the Google guy was trying to say is that it is not realistic to have outreach to women for STEM because they have traits that make them not good at engineering.

When a woman has to work with a man who says women are biologically not as good at engineering it creates a hostile workplace.

He was not fired for stating a viewpoint, he was fired because his statements (not based in science) is hostile.

James Damore wrote:The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:
Yup what sunk him was actually saying what we all think and know out loud. People should know its never a good idea to say anything at work these days.

Still waiting for the liberal outcry about the lack of diversity efforts to push for more whites in the NBA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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"?

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.

I'm the "logical reasoning" PP you are referring to. Its obvious from online reactions that men and women come with different interpretations of this statement, so I agree with you. I would think that alone would demonstrate that there are different opinions and one can't say one viewpoint is exclusively true or not, since we all have our subjective realities. I think that is part of what the Google guy was trying to get across in his essay, and that leaping to the idea that there is only one correct viewpoint (all other views be dammed) is not good for the workplace.

YOU AREN'T GETTING IT. You don't have carte blanch to express your "alternative viewpoint" at work, if that "alternative viewpoint" involves advancing harmful, gender-based stereotypes about women or minorities. You just don't. Under the law there in fact IS one correct viewpoint: advancing harmful stereotypes about women in the workplace, and basing workplace policies on these stereotypes, is unlawful. And that's exactly what Damore did: advanced several negative, gender-based stereotypes, and called for Google to change its policies to conform to those stereotypes. His publication of the essay alone may or may not have constituted actionable gender-based harassment under the law, but Google was certainly justified in terminating him for it, as he had shown himself to be insubordinate and now incapable of working with women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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"?

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.

I'm the "logical reasoning" PP you are referring to. Its obvious from online reactions that men and women come with different interpretations of this statement, so I agree with you. I would think that alone would demonstrate that there are different opinions and one can't say one viewpoint is exclusively true or not, since we all have our subjective realities. I think that is part of what the Google guy was trying to get across in his essay, and that leaping to the idea that there is only one correct viewpoint (all other views be dammed) is not good for the workplace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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"?

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.

I'm the "logical reasoning" PP you are referring to. Its obvious from online reactions that men and women come with different interpretations of this statement, so I agree with you. I would think that alone would demonstrate that there are different opinions and one can't say one viewpoint is exclusively true or not, since we all have our subjective realities. I think that is part of what the Google guy was trying to get across in his essay, and that leaping to the idea that there is only one correct viewpoint (all other views be dammed) is not good for the workplace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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"?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
i have been doing software development in this area for over 30 years, assembler to fortran to C to java to ruby/rails.

I can count on one hand the number of great woman software developers I have worked with over the years.

I don't know why, but there are very few woman that do coding, and those that did usually had short, 35 hour weeks. very few were the lead developers building a product on the usual crazy development schedule.

I do think it is more to do with intelligence, in that women are smarter!

They see the shit job coding has become, and especially how bad it has become over the last 10 years and moved into careers that had more stability and more career growth and less H1Bs.

I know my daughter is a better programmer than my son, so I really doubt it is because of ability to code, but she said there was no way she was going to be a programmer. Somehow the american kids going into college, have learned how bad a career it is from high school, newspapers and friends. She is focusing on neurology.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.

"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.

Anonymous wrote:Assume most people have seen this by now if not google

Curious on thoughts of individuals

Are there actual differences between males and females?

How much should companies push for diversity (sexual, racial, etc)?

For something like coding does race/sex matter at all shouldn't you just higher the best coders period?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"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?

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.