The Atlantic: The Most Common Error in Media Coverage of the Google Memo

[tshile]

Couple of things here...

 

Salon - Google canceled companywide meeting over anti-diversity memo after questions leak

 

Quote

“We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward,” Pichai said in an email sent to Google staff on Thursday. “But our Dory questions appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites, Googlers are now being named personally. Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be ‘outed’ publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall.”

This is what happens when people start 'exposing' things. You lose the ability to have a conversation. It's a shame the original memo was leaked instead of sparking a conversation
The SJWs flipped their **** and got him fired (They're good at that), now the alt-right is harassing the 'other side' (they're good at that)

 

All in all, a good situation we got here.

 

Quote

Dory is Google’s internal online moderator tool that organizes question and answers among company employees. Employees had posted hundreds of questions on Dory before the meeting was canceled. The New York Times reported that the most popular questions centered on Google employees facing harassment for speaking out against Damore’s memo.

 

Employees expressed their concern after the right-wing media site Breitbart News published screenshots from Dory accusing “Google’s social justice warriors” of blacklisting company employees “with different political beliefs.” Other right-leaning sites, including the Federalist, have rallied support for Damore by accusing the mainstream media of distorting his comments made in the memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” Some of Damore’s fans have called to expose the identities of Google employees who criticized his views.

 

 

Quote

“Damore wasn’t fired for his political views; he was fired for how (and where) he applied them,” San Francisco-based writer Anna Wiener said in a piece published in the New Yorker on Thursday.  Damore’s memo, she added, “was a reminder that plenty of tech workers and executives still consider hiring women and people of color ‘lowering the bar.’”

funny how he wasn't fired for his memo in july when he sent it. It took until it leaked, and then was fired for "the way he handled it" whatever, companies do this all the time and people eat it up.

 

Sure thing, Google is right there with you on your views on this, it's just coincidence the firing came after a massive PR backlash

 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Out of curiosity, in this thread who are you directly addressing as a SJW type and directing this post towards?

 

You seem to want to have an argument over ideas not directly related to this thread that I haven't seen being pushed in this thread, while obfuscating the direct topic of this thread.

 

 

That's pretty normal for a message board. The story itself is much bigger than the original post about the article about how it's being covered.

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

I have some questions for you.  35 years ago the percentage of first year female general surgeons was 9%.

 

 

If we were having this conversation 35 years ago when the number was 9%, would you have argued the differences were because of the socially constructed by the sexist patriarchy?

 

Biology? something else (the result of social engineering)?

 

Would you have agreed or disagreed that something should be done about it?  If you would have agreed that something should be done, what would you have expected to be done?
 

 

35 years ago women were just starting to enter the work force on a meaningful level, coming of a culture where women were considered/expected to be "house wives".  Comparing that to an industry that just started blossoming int he last 15 years is silly.

 

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/facts_over_time.htm

 

And when they started flooding into the workforce they didn't all just immediately become surgeons and doctors. It takes time for such a large social change to work it's way through, we're obviously still seeing it. But the conditions that created a 9% then and 40% now are not really similar to the ones of the last 10 years.

 

That's not to say there aren't still barriers and there isn't still sexism. It's just you keep harping back to a time that was much different than this one, and in my different ways. The difference in women in the labor force between 2000 and 20017 is not in any way similar to 1980 to now. It's just not.

 

It's also not shocking that female enrollment in higher education followed a similar path

https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf

(chart on page 7)

And it shouldn't be surprising that there's a lag in the movement where it takes longer for women to gain more representation in fields that require more skill/knowledge. There was a lot of ground to make up there. You can't just flip a switch.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Now, today the number if 41%.  Is it bad, good, or neutral that the number is 41% today?

 

If we continue doing things that we are doing (no significant changes in policies as they stand today) and in 35 years, the representation of women in tech is up 40% will that be a bad or good thing?

 

Does the bulk of the current scientific data support the idea that the current STEM gap in the US is due to natural biological differences or due to issues related to mentors, role models, and (methods of) exposure, etc?

 

Well if we believe that a woman's ability to perform well in the tech field is not biologically related, then we should also believe that women (biologically) don't have anything special to offer to the field.

 

Right? Does that follow logically? I'm honestly not sure, this isn't really my field...

 

So the value of diversity comes from experiences, which some are and some aren't gender related.

 

So whether it's good or bad, to me, should be measured by:

- Are we missing out on diversity from experiences? Do we need equal representation % wise to get that, or is there another way?

- Why the numbers not closer to equal? Is it harassment (even before the work place, like in school)? Or is it something more... benign?

[No Excuses]

tshille are you implying that there aren't structural and social barriers in place that prohibit women from pursuing tech careers?

 

There are less barriers in place than 40-50 years ago. But it's fairly evident that we still have issues in regards to an imbalance between men and women in tech.

 

We are having this conversation because work in science and tech will provide some of the best wages and living standards now and into the future. It is well within our best interest as a society to pursue goals that enable women to gain access to well paying, stable jobs in advanced industries. 

 

I see these initiatives as being no different than those who attempt to increase the number of men in the nursing field. We know that nursing and care work is going to be one of the more stable professions for the next few decades. It's in our best interest that more men pursue these careers. 

 

Yet we don't hear whining from women about initiatives aimed towards male recruitment the way we do from some men when it comes to gender imbalance in tech.

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

tshille are you implying that there aren't structural and social barriers in place that prohibit women from pursuing tech careers?

 

We are having this conversation because work in science and tech will provide some of the best wages and living standards now and into the future. It is well within our best interest as a society to pursue goals that enable women to gain access to well paying, stable jobs in advanced industries. 

 

I see these initiatives as being no different than those who attempt to increase the number of men in the nursing field. We know that nursing and care work is going to be one of the more stable professions for the next few decades. It's in our best interest that more men pursue these careers. 

 

Yet we don't hear whining from women about initiatives aimed towards male recruitment the way we do from some men when it comes to gender imbalance in tech.

 

No... in fact, I'm trying to specifically not imply that... so the fact that you even have to ask concerns me.  I'm trying to have a thoughtful conversation about it, with people who are (apparently) experts in the subjects, while being a know-nothing...

 

I'm trying to say that: what the barriers are matter. If the barriers are harassment, that's a problem. If the barrier is that women in the US just aren't interested, then why do we need to socially engineer a fix for that? Why are they not interested? Do they hate the work environment? Or is society pushing them to "not be interested"? Is it silly to even ask, because it implies biological differences that so many seem to be upset about? (I don't know... this is so far beyond my wheelhouse I don't even know what is considered offensive thought/questions anymore)

 

Showing me studies that management at tech companies harass women doesn't really do much for me because we know it's generally a problem. How does that make tech unique in the concerned topic?

 

There seems to be a lot "women are 50% of the population but they are 20% of the tech field, that's a problem" and I'm trying to get to a more... meaningful discussion on it. Because, that basic thought process seems... well, basic.

 

You say you don't hear the whining, on the flip side I'm not really aware of any initiatives to get while males involved in anything... in fact, from what i've seen, whenever it's brought up the SJW crowd gets quite triggered over it

[Cooked Crack]

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You say you don't hear the whining, on the flip side I'm not really aware of any initiatives to get while males involved in anything... in fact, from what i've seen, whenever it's brought up the SJW crowd gets quite triggered over it

Have you seen the Patriots receiving core?

[tshile]

Also, I seem to remember going through a museum in DC 5ish years ago with my wife that had an entire section on how the brain for women and men behave differently. How there's certain things different genders excel at because of these differences.

 

However, the reaction to this seems to say that anyone who believes that is a sexist idiot.

 

I don't know if it was dated research, or what, but my wife and I had a long conversation about it afterwards. I'm confident I'm not making this up.

[No Excuses]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

There seems to be a lot "women are 50% of the population but they are 20% of the tech field, that's a problem" and I'm trying to get to a more... meaningful discussion on it. Because, that basic thought process seems... well, basic.

 

You say you don't hear the whining, on the flip side I'm not really aware of any initiatives to get while males involved in anything... in fact, from what i've seen, whenever it's brought up the SJW crowd gets quite triggered over it

 

Like I said, a conversation on gender imbalance in tech exists because it is a field that allows the population to pursue perhaps the most stable and high standard of living at a mass scale.

 

We ideally want more and more of the population to have greater access to the economic security that careers in science and tech offer. 

 

There are many initiatives currently working to get men to pursue stable careers that women have generally taken on, like nursing. We've seen efforts from both academia and special interest groups to increase the number of men pursuing nursing jobs:

 

http://www.collegexpress.com/interests/health-medicine/articles/life-health-science-major/man-enough-recruiting-men-nursing/

 

 

 

21 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

However, the reaction to this seems to say that anyone who believes that is a sexist idiot.

 

Says who? I don't think anyone on this board is disputing that there are some behaviors and tendencies that are different between the two sexes. I don't think in general the criticism of this memo has been driven by the belief that there are no innate differences between the behavior of the two sexes.

 

This memo was mostly trash because it attempts to take research that describes say, phenomena X, and stretches the applicability of this phenomena to something completely unrelated and untested.

 

You learn very early on in graduate school to not overstate the conclusions of your research. I think everyone who went through a PhD had an encounter where they presented their work, overstated their conclusions and got shredded by their professors and peers. 

 

If D'Amore presented this work to people who actually study this for a living, he would have been laughed out of the room. I suspect that if you contact any scientist he cited in his memo, none would be willing to confirm the conclusions he is drawing from their work. 

[s0crates]

Peter Singer thinks Google is in the wrong here, but what does he know about ethics anyway? He's probably an alt-right misogynist.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750

 

Why Google was wrong: Did James Damore really deserve to be fired for what he wrote?

 

PETER SINGER  AUG 10, 2017 8:56 AM

 

James Damore, a software engineer at Google, wrote a memo in which he argued that there are differences between men and women that may explain, in part, why there are fewer women than men in his field of work. For this, Google fired him.

 

Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, sent Google employees a memo saying that “much of what was in that memo is fair to debate,” but that portions of it cross a line by advancing “harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

 

Pichai did not specify which sections of the memo discussed issues that are fair to debate, and which portions cross the line. That would have been difficult to do, because the entire memo is about whether certain gender stereotypes have a basis in reality.

 

Damore argues that there is evidence to show that women, when compared to men, tend to:

-be more interested in people

-be less interested in analyzing or constructing systems

-have higher anxiety and lower tolerance of stress

-have a lower drive for status

-be more interested in balancing life and work

 

Damore is careful to point out that the evidence for these claims does not show that all women have these characteristics to a higher degree than men. He says that many of these differences are small, that there is significant overlap between men and women, and that “you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.” He shows this with a graph, too. He says that to reduce people to their group identity is bad.

 

There is scientific research supporting the views Damore expresses. There are also grounds for questioning some of this research. In assessing Google’s action in firing Damore, it isn’t necessary to decide which side is right, but only whether Damore’s view is one that a Google employee should be permitted to express.

 

I think it is. First, as I’ve said, it is not some twisted, crazy view. There are serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting it.

 

Second, it addresses an important issue. Google is rightly troubled by the fact that its workforce is largely male. Sexism in many areas of employment is well-documented. Employers should be alert to the possibility that they are discriminating against women, and should take steps to prevent such discrimination. Some orchestras now conduct blind auditions — the musician plays from behind a screen, so that those making the appointment do not know if they are listening to a man or a woman. That has led to a dramatic increase in the number of women in orchestras. More businesses should look at the possibilities of similarly blinding themselves, when hiring, to the gender of applicants.

 

But once such anti-discrimination measures have been taken, to the greatest extent feasible, does the fact that a workforce in a particular industry is predominantly male prove that there has been discrimination? Not if the kind of work on offer is likely to be attractive to more men than to women.

 

. . .

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

This memo was mostly trash because it attempts to take research that describes say, phenomena X, and stretches the applicability of this phenomena to something completely unrelated and untested.

 

Right, you and Peter (and I'm sure others elsewhere) took that angle. And I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your responses because of it.

 

There's a whole different conversation going on among us peons about it, and trust me it doesn't involve sitting next door to some of the people cited in the article (or studies linked in it) and knowing their shortcomings, or being thoroughly involved in the field

 

Remember, at one point in this thread the main conversation was about a person calling it "sexist garbage" then admitting they haven't even read it.

 

That's a more accurate depiction of the bigger conversation than what you and petermp have been speaking to.

[No Excuses]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Remember, at one point in this thread the main conversation was about a person calling it "sexist garbage" then admitting they haven't even read it.

 

 

That to me is an issue with news consumption in general (commenting without reading and digesting). 

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Like I said, a conversation on gender imbalance in tech exists because it is a field that allows the population to pursue perhaps the most stable and high standard of living at a mass scale.

 

And that's fine, but again to me the "why" is more important than simply looking at the numbers.

 

Are they being kept out? Are they opting out? If they're opting out, why?

 

Is it not entirely possible that the field is not attractive and that it's not attractive for reasons that don't need to be fixed?

 

Maybe to someone who studies this stuff the question itself is stupid. I don't know.

 

You and Peter have cited women % in tech in other countries. What have these studies said about the other opportunities women have in those countries? What about them viewing it as a way to get into this country? Is there no possible explanation that maybe women in the US don't have that strong of a drive because it isn't seen as a way for them to get out of a country (even if just for schooling)?

 

Do women in iran, who have a higher % of women in tech, have an economy where women have as much access to high paying jobs across as many fields as they do here?

[tshile]

Looking into women in other fields in Iran

 

Wikipedia - Women's Education in Iran

Quote

August 2012 Course Ban

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

On 20 August 2012, an announcement was made by Iran's Ministry of Science, Research and Technology that 36 universities in Iran would be cutting 77 fields of study from the female curriculum, making them male-only fields. The fields chosen include most sciences and engineering, among others. The curriculum change was set to be implemented for the 2013 school year and the fields of study limitations for women have been added to the university "leaflets".^[15] Universities like the Oil Industry University have completely barred women from attending, citing the "lack of employer demand".^[16]

The announcement came soon after the release of statistics showing that women were graduating in far higher numbers than men from Iranian universities and were scoring overall better than men, especially in the sciences.^[17]

This reasoning was echoed by Isfahan University, which stated that from those that obtained mining engineering degrees "98 percent of female graduates ended up jobless."^[17] The disciplines related to agriculture were also regarded as "unfit" for female students.^[16] Therefore, as a consequence of this move, women may not become engineers, nuclear physicists, archaeologists, business graduates and computer scientists in Iran.^[16] Additionally, they are also banned from attending the departments of English literature, translation and hotel management.^[16] Another reason given was that because of a shortage of available female dormitories, attendance had to be lowered. A comparison was made, however, to the fact that nursing was made a female-only degree in the same announcement.^[18]

The possibility of fields of study restrictions was first reported by the Mehr News Agency on 6 August 2012. The news followed the release of the year's entrance exam scores, showing that 60 percent of university attendees are women,^[19] along with test scores of the past few years showing women largely outperforming men. This included 52 percent of university graduates and 68 percent of science degree graduates being women.^[20] These results have caused concern among the senior clerics of the country, who became worried about the "social side-effects of rising educational standards among women, including declining birth and marriage rates".^[17]

Amnesty International reported that in April 2012, university security personnel at the Roudehen Branch of Islamic Azad University beat female students who were not complying with hijab (Islamic dress) standards.^[21] They also claimed reports of quotas restricting women’s admission to specific university programs ("designed to reduce women’s access to specific fields of study") implemented by the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology. Such restrictions on women’s educational choices were said to violate the prohibition on discrimination and Iran’s obligations under international law.^[21]

Responses

Seyed Abolfazl Hassani, a senior Iranian education official, stated in defense of the announcement that, "Some fields are not very suitable for women’s nature, such as agricultural machinery or mining, partly because of the hard work involved in them."^[18][19] The policy change was criticized by some Iranian parliamentarians, such as Mohammad-Mehdi Zahedi, head of the Iranian parliament’s education and research committee. However, Kamran Daneshjoo, the science and higher education minister, gave a "guarded response" to the news, saying that the universities would have to state a reason, but also supported the change by explaining that "90 percent of degrees remain open to both sexes and that single-gender courses were needed to create 'balance'." Zahedi said in response that Daneshjoo is "expected to present himself to parliament to explain this policy".^[17][22]

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi wrote to the United Nations in protest of the restrictions, stating that the Iranian government is "trying to limit the active presence of women in society". She has asked for the issue to be added to "Iran's human rights dossier". The letter was then forwarded to UN special rapporteur for Iran Ahmad Shaheed and to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay.^[23] Ebadi also added that the purpose of this policy change is to reduce the number of female university attendees to below 50 percent, down from the current 65 percent .^[17] On 22 September 2012, Human Rights Watch urged Iran to reverse the new policy, claiming that such restrictions are a violation of the international right to education for everyone without discrimination.^[24]

 

eh, do we want to look at Iran for this one?

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Also, I seem to remember going through a museum in DC 5ish years ago with my wife that had an entire section on how the brain for women and men behave differently. How there's certain things different genders excel at because of these differences.

 

However, the reaction to this seems to say that anyone who believes that is a sexist idiot.

 

I don't know if it was dated research, or what, but my wife and I had a long conversation about it afterwards. I'm confident I'm not making this up.

 

There is no doubt that women and men have different traits and so are good at different things.

 

The problem is that most careers aren't based on a single trait or being good at a single thing.  In general, females tend to be better readers than males and that probably has something to do with an early ability to sit still and read, while boys tend to be more active and more physical in play and doing things (building).

 

(And this goes to PockerPackers argument of things earlier- though books are certainly things, and I wonder if the people that counted boys play with things more counted reading as play.)

 

And I was a little odd in this manner.  I didn't like erector sets as a kid and would be much happier reading.

 

But today that's one of the things that makes a good scientist.  Scientists communicate heavily through written text.  I have very good reading comprehension so I'm able to sit down and relatively quickly go through dense scientific papers and pull out the critical ideas.  I'm not as good at the physical/instrumentation part of the job (I worked with a piece of equipment as a grad student, and when it had issues, I used to tell my advisor that I wasn't there to learn to be a mechanic or a plumber, and he'd tell me that I better figure it out or I wasn't going to graduate).

 

I do a decent bit of programming these days (I'm into biological statistics).  I have an older brother that does programming.  He was a more typical male (didn't like reading).  When he needs to learn a new language, he puts it on a machine and starts playing around with it.

 

When I need to learn a new language, I go to the library and get a book on it and sit and read the book (well realistically, today it is normally some web sites).

 

The end result though is the same.  I've taught myself R.  He's taught himself R.  We just took different approaches to get there.

 

And that's true for most careers and most things.

 

(I'll tell you another story.  When I first learned SQL (years ago), I was working in close collaboration with a male computer scientist.  We talked about the project and it became clear it was going to be heavy in SQL (and I didn't know it), I asked him if he had any books on it.  He gave me 2 books.  We met 3 days later.  I'd completed both books and was pretty much ready to start.  He assumed I'd want some time to do what my brother does and play with it on a computer.)

 

But I had read both books, had a good understanding of how to use SQL and what it could do and had a schema in mind had some ideas of how to set up the queries that were going to need to be done and was pretty much ready to go.

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There is no doubt that women and men have different traits and so are good at different things.

 

The problem is that most careers aren't based on a single trait or being good at a single thing. 

 

Right but can they not play a significant factor in how you go through life?

 

If one gender is superior in emotional intelligence and empathy and one is superior is puzzle/building things

(when I say superior I mean inclined to be attracted to it, and it is my understanding that these are two things that are different, i'm not saying they are i'm saying i believe i've been told they are, so i'm wrong just tell me. I do not mean that they are somehow innately better at it simply because of their gender.)

then is it not reasonable to expect that one might dominate fields like nursing, dental hygienist, and occupational therapy, while the other might dominate fields like software development?

 

(R is a great language when used for its purpose   at one time I knew a bit of it)

 

 

[PeterMP]

39 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Right but can they not play a significant factor in how you go through life?

 

If one gender is superior in emotional intelligence and empathy and one is superior is puzzle/building things

(when I say superior I mean inclined to be attracted to it, and it is my understanding that these are two things that are different, i'm not saying they are i'm saying i believe i've been told they are, so i'm wrong just tell me. I do not mean that they are somehow innately better at it simply because of their gender.)

then is it not reasonable to expect that one might dominate fields like nursing, dental hygienist, and occupational therapy, while the other might dominate fields like software development?

 

So a few things.  First, there is a historical troubling component to this type of argument in the context of it is extremely similar to arguments that were used to explain the lack of women in the work force in general initially and then out of STEM in general even once they entered the work force.

 

Which is why I keep going back to 35 years ago.  You are correct in that the work force has changed significantly, but the argument now being advanced with respect to tech today is an old argument that now instead of being advanced for entering the work force in general (50/60 years ago) and then to STEM in general (30/20 years ago) is now being applied specifically to tech.

 

The argument was advanced that women didn't do well in STEM in general because they weren't as interested in it.  They weren't interested in it, they didn't focus on it, they didn't take class in it, and so they didn't achieve in it.

 

That the general gap in STEM in women was due to lack of interest.

 

To a significant degree that argument seems to be incorrect.  Women being interested and excelling in STEM in general seems much more tied to things like having role models, mentoring, early exposure, how they exposed, peer pressure, etc.

 

Women seem to have a lot more interest in STEM in general than a lot of people would have believed 35 years ago.

 

The second component to it is you are assuming that things like software design don't have an emotional intelligence or empathetic component to them.  Is it possible that they seem that way because the jobs have been traditionally filled by males?  I certainly see as much emotional intelligence and empathy in programming as being a dental hygienist.  Cleaning teeth doesn't seem like it takes a lot of emotional intelligence or is fulfilling from an emotional intelligence stand point.

 

Whoever's link it was that talked about jobs listed surgeons as an example of field that females have relatively low numbers in due to their interest in because a lack of interactions with people, but the number of females over the last 35 years in surgery is actually way up.

 

Cars have changed a lot over the last few decades, but if my car has the same problem that the first car I owned has, I'm guessing the cause is the same.

 

If my car won't start, I'm essentially worried about the same things I was with the first car I bought (battery, starter, etc).

 

We know all sorts of things have contributed women to not have high numbers in certain fields in the past (lack of role models etc.) (and again, not just women).  

 

Why would you ignore those things and jump to some other answer for an explanation for low numbers of women in tech?

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

You say you don't hear the whining, on the flip side I'm not really aware of any initiatives to get while males involved in anything... in fact, from what i've seen, whenever it's brought up the SJW crowd gets quite triggered over it

 

I want to point out that I posted a link to a thesis on the results of a mentoring program for male nurses in this thread.

 

The recruitment and retention of male nurses is actually a pretty big thing in the nursing field.

 

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1256&bih=568&q=recruiting+more+men+to+nursing&oq=recruiting+more+men+to+nursing&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3570178.3577970.0.3578180.42.34.5.0.0.0.266.3335.2j21j2.25.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..12.28.3030...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1.MkbkBZbqtls

 

There's also some effort with respect to male teachers.

 

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1256&bih=568&q=recruiting+more+men+elementary+school+teachers&oq=recruiting+more+men+elementary+school+teachers&gs_l=psy-ab.3...327994.333653.0.333837.28.25.1.0.0.0.256.2059.5j11j1.17.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..10.0.0.a5PuVLtcIS4

 

(Though the focus there is more male minorities.)

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

So a few things.  First, there is a historical troubling component to this type of argument in the context of it is extremely similar to arguments that were used to explain the lack of women in the work force in general initially and then out of STEM in general even once they entered the work force.

 

I think it's ridiculously unfair to equate a person asking, in 2017, if maybe there's an issue with a certain gender/race/class being interested in a field, to people asking those questions in the 60's.

 

I'm aware sexism, racism, and bigotry in general is alive and well, but I find that ridiculous.

 

I'm not going to apologize or back down just because some sexists from 50 years ago used the same wording to ask a similar question with completely different motives.

 

11 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The second component to it is you are assuming that things like software design don't have an emotional intelligence or empathetic component to them.  Is it possible that they seem that way because the jobs have been traditionally filled by males?  I certainly see as much emotional intelligence and empathy in programming as being a dental hygienist.  Cleaning teeth doesn't seem like it takes a lot of emotional intelligence.

 

 

No... I think they seem that way because you spend majority of you time working on a computer. As opposed to having a person sitting in front of you that you're physically engaged with.

 

Yes, I sit in meetings and talk on the phone and communicate over email and those, by definition, have emotional intelligence and empathy related. But majority of my time is spent pounding away on a keyboard and drawing on boards/paper in my office.

 

There are certainly jobs in my field have have incredibly less time spent talking with other people than mine.

 

I'm not assuming they don't have a component - I'm saying that a nurse uses that component way more than I do. The people in my field who use it on the level of a nurse, aren't actually in my field. They're in sales and marketing, and they happen to work for a tech company.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

We all have different ways of learning and working, and it's not necessarily related to sex except for socialization of the sexes, which still follows patriarchal dictates of masculine/feminine where masculine is dominant and feminine is subordinate.

 

And these are artificial social constructs, and the reason I am a radical feminist because I don't subscribe to these artificial constructs. Humans can be however they want.

 

This memo is filled with these artificial constructs ascribed to females. And apparently they are antithetical to what Google's established as it's standards of nondiscrimination and a heterogeneous employee group. Google had every right to fire him. First Amendment rights to free speech don't apply in a corporation when such speech is against corporate policy.

 

Speaking as a woman who once worked for the second largest computer manufacturer, Digital Equipment Corporation, and served on my area's Diversity Committee, our goal was to widen the applicant pool to persons of color and women and lesbigays beyond white males so that the best human would be hired based on their skills and abilities. We weren't looking for quotas, just a chance to advance our careers on an equal footing. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

If white males are so insecure in their own skills/abilities to succeed that they have to find specious excuses to limit their competitors, I posit that the problem is with that thinking and practice. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Well if we believe that a woman's ability to perform well in the tech field is not biologically related, then we should also believe that women (biologically) don't have anything special to offer to the field.

 

Right? Does that follow logically? I'm honestly not sure, this isn't really my field...

 

So the value of diversity comes from experiences, which some are and some aren't gender related.

 

So whether it's good or bad, to me, should be measured by:

- Are we missing out on diversity from experiences? Do we need equal representation % wise to get that, or is there another way?

- Why the numbers not closer to equal? Is it harassment (even before the work place, like in school)? Or is it something more... benign?

 

What you get is the best people in the best place.  If you say that men and women are equal with respect to tech jobs, what you end up saying is that something like 35% of tech jobs are not held by the best people.  That creates a general societal drag, especially if you then start spreading that across other fields and other jobs (e.g. would some of the men that hold those tech jobs then be forced to find other jobs that they'd actually be better at (compared to the people currently) doing them.

 

We as a society have an interest in getting the best people into the best places for them.

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

What you get is the best people in the best place.  If you say that men and women are equal with respect to tech jobs, what you end up saying is that something like 35% of tech jobs are not held by the best people.  That creates a general societal drag, especially if you then start spreading that across other fields and other jobs (e.g. would some of the men that hold those tech jobs then be forced to find other jobs that they'd actually be better at (compared to the people currently) doing them.

 

We as a society have an interest in getting the best people into the best places for them.

 

That seems like a stretch.

 

Me saying that women and men are biologically equal in terms of being able to perform in the tech field, leads to a logical conclusion that the gender gap means we don't have the "best people" in the field?

 

Isn't one about potential and another about current ability?

 

The best people in society, in any given measurement, are demographically a perfect representation of the general population (or close to it)?

(assuming the measurement doesn't favor a group biologically, like say, working in the tech sector)

[SkinsHokieFan]

Is it wrong to ask what on earth do white 20 something men have to complain about in America

 

I think that is my biggest issue with this. 28 year old white male google engineer, at a company dominated by men, is complaining about going to some diversity classes.

 

I am playing the world's tiniest violin

[Destino]

1 hour ago, SkinsHokieFan said:

Is it wrong to ask what on earth do white 20 something men have to complain about in America

 

All of the same issues as everyone else that are unrelated to race and gender... Well unless they get their whiteness membership.  If they manage to gain access into that club then they can never have any problems.  Life is a breeze.  Their kids always respect them, their relationships will work out, they'll feel no insecurities at all, and they'll never know what being poor is like.  Whiteness takes care of everything. 

 

I'm having a bit of fun but honestly, a male 20 something Harvard grad making six figures isn't a sympathetic figure in my opinion.  I feel bad for the poor, no matter what they look like.  I have a harder getting my heart to bleed for some 20 something big brain that probably already has more in his savings account than the net worth of 70% of Americans.  

[PeterMP]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think it's ridiculously unfair to equate a person asking, in 2017, if maybe there's an issue with a certain gender/race/class being interested in a field, to people asking those questions in the 60's.

 

I agree.  The people in the 60s didn't have decades of research that told them things not related to natural biology like the presence of role models and mentors were important for opening up opportunities for traditionally under represented groups into those areas..

 

I'm guessing they didn't know things like exposing females to coding in middle school increases their interest in coding (or the comparable topic for the 1960s).

 

Reaching for an explanation in obvious biological differences was actually pretty reasonable.  It would be unfair to judge them and their motivations based on the knowledge we have today.

 

Today, ignoring reports of sexism in the tech industry and the decades of research on the importance of things like role models, mentors, and exposure just seems desperate.

 

That's why I said before, if ALL they were doing was making a jump from women being biologically different to they aren't interested in tech, I'd actually be somewhat okay with it.

[s0crates]

6 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

All of the same issues as everyone else that are unrelated to race and gender.  

 

well i I mean unless they get their whiteness membership in which case never having any problems in life at all is a membership benefit.  Their kids always love them, their relationship work out, they feel no insecurity, and they are never poor as the debts pay themselves.  A perfectly carefree life, thanks to whiteness.

 

Apparently white male privilege doesn't protect you from getting fired for expressing opinions contrary to SJW groupthink.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

 

I think it's ridiculously unfair to equate a person asking, in 2017, if maybe there's an issue with a certain gender/race/class being interested in a field, to people asking those questions in the 60's.

 

I'm aware sexism, racism, and bigotry in general is alive and well, but I find that ridiculous.

 

I'm not going to apologize or back down just because some sexists from 50 years ago used the same wording to ask a similar question with completely different motives.

 

 

No... I think they seem that way because you spend majority of you time working on a computer. As opposed to having a person sitting in front of you that you're physically engaged with.

 

Yes, I sit in meetings and talk on the phone and communicate over email and those, by definition, have emotional intelligence and empathy related. But majority of my time is spent pounding away on a keyboard and drawing on boards/paper in my office.

 

There are certainly jobs in my field have have incredibly less time spent talking with other people than mine.

 

I'm not assuming they don't have a component - I'm saying that a nurse uses that component way more than I do. The people in my field who use it on the level of a nurse, aren't actually in my field. They're in sales and marketing, and they happen to work for a tech company.

 

 

Physical engagement does not equal or require emotional intelligence, and I don't think is emotionally satisfying in many cases.  I think you are making assumptions on how emotional intelligence can be fulfilled in the work place.  I know the thing that makes my wife happiest is not the actual day-to-day interactions she has with students. She actually finds them relatively frustrating.   It is the longer term affects she has on out comes that in many cases are the results of relatively solitary activity.

 

My wife enjoys reviewing undergraduate research grants.  Itself is a solitary activity though, but it has a longer term impact (and she makes copious written feedback to the students).

 

Have you ever asked a female software designer?

 

**EDIT**

Even my mom and she's a nurse and was an aide before that.  She worked in a hospital for a lot of years.  I never go the impression she actually like working with the patients.  It always seemed to a lot of complaining and whining (same thing with students, they don't like their grade, their schedule, the rate at research is going, etc).  Patients didn't feel well, they wanted more medication, they wanted to know when the doctor was coming to see them, they didn't like the food, etc.

 

She certainly didn't like cleaning and turning people that couldn't do it for themselves, which required a lot of physical interaction.

 

She liked interactions  with the other nurses, and she became friends with them, but it seems like to me in tech in most jobs there must be interactions with co-workers.

 

I think you are over simplifying here again, just like most jobs aren't dependent on a single trait and people with different traits can get the same job done well due to using different traits.  Interest aren't based on a single trait either and most jobs don't just fulfill one interest and people that have different traits and interest can fulfill their interest at the same job through different paths in the same job.