A Thread About Women

[Cratylus]

Most of you know that I'm a right-leaning libertarian. So you know I'm not saying this to promote some sort of "PC" narrative.

I am truly stunned that some of you see nothing wrong with what this guy did. Whether the guy has the science to back up his claims or not is irrelevant. Whether he was trying to encourage conversation about diversity to make the company better is irrelevant. What he did created a hostile work environment, plain and simple. And for that reason alone he was rightfully fired.

 

[gourimoko]

'He' quite obviously means @The Oi . It was a response to your response to him. I'm pretty sure you knew that though,

Actually, I didn't know that... I read you post and had no idea WTF you were talking about.

Also, why wouldn't someone want to read another Google employee and engineer and executives opinion on the topic? Wouldn't it have equal value to that of the Google employee who just got fired... or nah?

but yes, multi-quote for the win.

Out of curiosity, do you feel your opinion on this is unshakable?

 

[TyGuy]

Actually, I didn't know that... I read you post and had no idea WTF you were talking about.

Also, why wouldn't someone want to read another Google employee and engineer and executives opinion on the topic? Wouldn't it have equal value to that of the Google employee who just got fired... or nah?



Out of curiosity, do you feel your opinion on this is unshakable?

Anybody that sides with him publicly is endangered of getting the axe:

"Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change."

 

[Hydroponic3385]

I just find it kinda funny that the guy aimed to promote thought diversity & treating everyone as individuals, then goes on to spew out a bunch of huge stereotypes (some lacking convincing data, some lacking relevance regardless of data)

 

[gourimoko]

Most of you know that I'm a right-leaning libertarian. So you know I'm not saying this to promote some sort of "PC" narrative.

I am truly stunned that some of you see nothing wrong with what this guy did. Whether the guy has the science to back up his claims or not is irrelevant. Whether he was trying to encourage conversation about diversity to make the company better is irrelevant. What he did created a hostile work environment, plain and simple. And for that reason alone he was rightfully fired.

This is what I do not get....

I work with conservative clients all the time.. Lot of guys in the finance industry in particular.. These folks do not know my political leanings and frankly, so long as they're not Nazis, I don't care about theirs... It's business.. They're the client, and my company is doing work for their business, to which, we are responsible.

In a work environment, as an employee, you have even less (far less) ability to platform like this using the company as a springboard for your pet theories -- right or wrong.

He knew what he was doing was wrong; he had to have.. No one working at Google or in any company like it would think this was appropriate.

And yet, people "disagree" that he should've been fired.

Simply put, there is no way to continue with this person as an employee in a team of developers and designers, administrators, co-workers, subordinates, etc. He's expressed some very contentious views that make for a hostile workplace environment, and he did so without any prompting by the company for his opinion.

For those that are having a hard time understanding this, simply replace "women" with "Jews" and ask yourself if he should be fired.

Try it...

i.e.: Ashkenazi Jews have a specific biology more suited to finance and law, and not the more logical and analytical requirements of ... software development? (lol) .. Now I've said something contentious and outrageous, you can't fire me, time for "open discussion."

No bro, that's not how this works... Adios.

 

[gourimoko]

Anybody that sides with him publicly is endangered of getting the axe:

"Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change."

I'm.. not sure how this is a response to what I said in the quote but... Yes, anyone who speaks out against the company they work for is endangered of getting the axe...

I mean... Welcome to adulthood, right?

You do not get to publicly shit on the company that signs your checks... In this case, you should be 100% apprehensive of getting fired if you publicly make claims of support for someone who published a political manifesto and got fired and is now talking about suing Google.

..SMH.. Jesus Christ...

 

[gourimoko]

I just find it kinda funny that the guy aimed to promote thought diversity & treating everyone as individuals, then goes on to spew out a bunch of huge stereotypes (some lacking convincing data, some lacking relevance regardless of data)

The manifesto literally opens up with the line that it's against stereotypes, then goes on in an attempt to reinforce and even circularly rely on those stereotypes...

 

[David.]

I just find it kinda funny that the guy aimed to promote thought diversity & treating everyone as individuals, then goes on to spew out a bunch of huge stereotypes (some lacking convincing data, some lacking relevance regardless of data)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/behind-online-behavior/201507/men-systemize-women-empathize?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation

Simon baron Cohen, Jon haidt and Jordan Peterson are hardly. HARDLY. People that lack credibility, and their studies are significantly cited. 145,000, 44,000, and 8500 references respectively.

 

[gourimoko]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/behind-online-behavior/201507/men-systemize-women-empathize?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2003/apr/17/research.highereducation

Simon baron Cohen, Jon haidt and Jordan Peterson are hardly. HARDLY. People that lack credibility, and their studies are significantly cited.

Yeah, men and women viewing the world differently is one thing (I don't think anyone disagrees with this); however, implying that women are less capable software engineers is another.

It isn't that men and women share the exact same personality traits or are 1-to-1 mirror images of each other - but instead - it's the notion that women are somehow less capable of men in this specific field (i.e., the fields of work at Google, particularly development and design) which is at question.

 

[Huber.]

It's me manifesto!

 

[TyGuy]

Yeah, men and women viewing the world differently is one thing (I don't think anyone disagrees with this); however, implying that women are less capable software engineers is another.

It isn't that men and women share the exact same personality traits or are 1-to-1 mirror images of each other - but instead - it's the notion that women are somehow less capable of men in this specific field (i.e., the fields of work at Google, particularly development and design) which is at question.

Can you post an exact quote from the manifesto where he stated that women engineers are less capable?

 

[gourimoko]

Can you post an exact quote from the manifesto where he stated that women engineers are less capable?

"Imply" -Gourimoko, 5 seconds ago.

Like.. literally, I said this:

"implying that women are less capable software engineers is another."

And you respond with this:

"Can you post an exact quote from the manifesto where he stated that women engineers are less capable?"

For your edification:

im·ply
imˈplī/
verb

1. strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
   "the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge"
   synonyms:insinuate, suggest, hint (at), intimate, say indirectly, indicate, give someone to understand, convey the impression, signal
   "are you implying he is mad?"
   • (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence.
     "the forecasted traffic increase implied more roads and more air pollution"
     synonyms:involve, entail; More

p.s.
Again, I ask, do you think your opinion is pretty unmovable on this topic? Are you at all open to changing your mind on this?

 

[MediumBaller]

This is what I do not get....

I work with conservative clients all the time.. Lot of guys in the finance industry in particular.. These folks do not know my political leanings and frankly, so long as they're not Nazis, I don't care about theirs... It's business.. They're the client, and my company is doing work for their business, to which, we are responsible.

In a work environment, as an employee, you have even less (far less) ability to platform like this using the company as a springboard for your pet theories -- right or wrong.

He knew what he was doing was wrong; he had to have.. No one working at Google or in any company like it would think this was appropriate.

And yet, people "disagree" that he should've been fired.

Simply put, there is no way to continue with this person as an employee in a team of developers and designers, administrators, co-workers, subordinates, etc. He's expressed some very contentious views that make for a hostile workplace environment, and he did so without any prompting by the company for his opinion.

For those that are having a hard time understanding this, simply replace "women" with "Jews" and ask yourself if he should be fired.

Try it...

i.e.: Ashkenazi Jews have a specific biology more suited to finance and law, and not the more logical and analytical requirements of ... software development? (lol) .. Now I've said something contentious and outrageous, you can't fire me, time for "open discussion."

No bro, that's not how this works... Adios.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17400/google-hiring-less-white-men-progress-robert-kraychik

Simply replace "white men" with "black women" and ask yourself if it's okay.

Try it...

"Hiring fewer black women and pursuing hiring more whites and men is moving in the right direction."

 

[TyGuy]

"Imply" -Gourimoko, 5 seconds ago.

Like.. literally, I said this:

"implying that women are less capable software engineers is another."

And you respond with this:

"Can you post an exact quote from the manifesto where he stated that women engineers are less capable?"

For your edification:

im·ply
imˈplī/
verb

1. strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).
   "the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge"
   synonyms:insinuate, suggest, hint (at), intimate, say indirectly, indicate, give someone to understand, convey the impression, signal
   "are you implying he is mad?"
   • (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence.
     "the forecasted traffic increase implied more roads and more air pollution"
     synonyms:involve, entail; More

p.s.
Again, I ask, do you think your opinion is pretty unmovable on this topic? Are you at all open to changing your mind on this?

Can you provide the quote where he implied that women are less capable engineers? Thanks for the definition though. Otherwise I'd have gone the rest of my life looking like a moron.

So when I said I hadn't read the entire document you inaccurately 'implied' that I hadn't read it at all several times. Is that how that word works?

 

[David.]

Don't think he said all women were less capable, at all.

I think he was specifically talking about the differences in average and why synthetically manufacturing parity between sexes was illogical and superfluous. If men are more suited (based on personality and temperament and inherent capabilities. And interests) you'll naturally get three qualified male candidates for every one qualified female candidate

The Atlantic on misrepresentation of his position.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/536181/


Hes not claiming we should make this a science experiment and social statement. He's showing why the science doesn't equate with the apparent agenda and discrepancies in hiring preferences.

I haven't read the damned thing (only snippets) and I can't find it anywhere so if someone wants to link it, it'd be helpful


There are countless data that show differences between the average temperament and interest between men and women. This isn't a eugenics project of people that aknowledge natural differences, it's an experiment of people who try to manufacture an unnatural outcome.