You said he claimed that "women cannot lead well."
That is simply not what he said.
So you now admit that this comment of yours is wrong?
I knew you'd do this dishonest crap.
Like I said, live in denial all you want.
I knew you'd do this dishonest crap.
Like I said, live in denial all you want.
It's not "dishonest." It's simply not what he said.
Guess what? Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me "dishonest."
YepFirst of all - have you even read the memo in question?
• Blames gender differences primarily on biological conditionsIf so, then please quote the most obvious example(s) of the "misogynist piggery" that it contains.
He was definitely addressing management. I don't think he expected to get fired for it, though.I doubt that anyone would compose and circulate a lengthy and detailed memo addressing Google personnel policy among Google employees and not expect it to be discovered by management.
Rob, just think about it for a minute.
Google does analytics on who views what ads and breaks them down by several factors, including gender.
They sell ad space based on these general preferences.
Are we now to believe that gendered preferences/differences only exist within selling ads?
Did the body of both male and female humans evolve only in physical form, but that it never touched the human brain and that there are not differences based on gender?
You make it sound as if the guy fired did not expect (or outright ask for) that reaction. I assume that he knew full well what would happen, that Google would fire him "for cause", and because of the Google AA policy he no longer wanted to work there. What better way to up your odds of being hired in another (better?) job than to get national media attention? Had the guy just quit then he would never have made the national news and be just another nobody looking for a better job.
There can be differences for sure. What this guy was saying seemed to be gearing more towards physiology and not socially. Like how women aren't in leadership positions because of their personalities... or because of a trait characteristic of being a woman. Which is nonsense.
Women aren't in leadership roles because until relatively recently, they haven't much been allowed in the work-force. And their climb into leadership roles are up against idiots like this guy who thinks of women like a Mad Men episode where women get a slap on the ass and are told to go fetch a coffee for him and leave the leadership up to those with the correct gender that gives them some innate leadership abilities.
There can be differences for sure. What this guy was saying seemed to be gearing more towards physiology and not socially. Like how women aren't in leadership positions because of their personalities... or because of a trait characteristic of being a woman. Which is nonsense.
Women aren't in leadership roles because until relatively recently, they haven't much been allowed in the work-force. And their climb into leadership roles are up against idiots like this guy who thinks of women like a Mad Men episode where women get a slap on the ass and are told to go fetch a coffee for him and leave the leadership up to those with the correct gender that gives them some innate leadership abilities.
Women aren't in leadership roles because until relatively recently, they haven't much been allowed in the work-force.
First off that's largely bs, women have been in the workforce since forever.
They haven't been accepted in more prestigious positions, socially, until more recently.
There is a **** ton of science which explains why women and men have job and positional preferences.
Not to mention that, the more a society gets towards egalitarianism and overall gender equality, those preferences increase.
Yep
1) • Blames gender differences primarily on biological conditions
2) • Places primary blame for the "glass ceiling" in tech on those alleged biological differences
3) • Proclaims the male gender role is "inflexible" (i.e. don't try to change us dudes)
4) • Claims that internal anti-discrimination programs are discriminatory
I.e. it's fairly typical MRA nonsense, albeit not as crudely written as your typical Red Piller.
He was definitely addressing management. I don't think he expected to get fired for it, though.
I could totally believe that too. Still not mad at Google for doing what they said they'd do...hehe...
In gender segregated approved roles. Like nurse. Or phone operator. What job roles have they had in the 1800's and into early 1900's? And no, prosititution doesn't count.
We are agreeing here more than disagreeing.
My point is that the differences tend to be geared more towards externalized societal pressures and not internalized hormonal or biological pressures. And that guy seemed to be pushing the opposite.
LOL What?
Factories, coal mines, many things.
Prior to that most people were to some degree or another tenant farmers.
Where all people helped work the farm, including children.
This has been a forever thing.
Fair enough.
I don't think this is the case.
When the social pressures are less, at least what I'm getting from the data, Women and Men tend to start diverging (at least in personality) more than if they live in more socially repressive areas.
As an example.
Computer class participation in the US is about 26%, for women.
In Malaysia it's 51%.
Is Malaysia more egalitarian than the US, with less gender discrimination?
Not a freaking chance.
Instead of you doing your usual sitting back and refuting everything followed up with your dishonest parsing of words down to nothing. How about you explain what it is you think he said then with regards to this quote?
Personality differences
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech3
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story
Dude.
You have no idea what he wrote. You said so, specifically. More than that, you said you don't care.
As such, you cannot possibly come to these conclusions with any intellectual integrity. This is ALL being said by you in complete, voluntary ignorance.
As I said, if that's OK with you, then I guess that's how you roll. I just find it baffling when someone actually insists on doing it.
That's right, and I'll say it again. I don't care. I wouldn't care if the memo was MRA agenda, Left agenda, Right agenda, or My Little Pony fan fiction. If he knowingly violated corporate policy then it is what it is. And if you think a company like Google would allow themselves to be in a position to take it on the chin in a way that would hurt their brand over this, which would happen if they were proven to be in the wrong in any way, well...I'll skip the insults I know you would hurl at me, but will allow the implications to speak for themselves.
At no point did I call you dumb. I called your arguments vapid.
If you're not interested in making intellectually-sound arguments, there's nothing I can do about that, but it's not my fault, either. If you don't like being criticized for it, I suggest you stop doing it.
Agreed. These "traits" as the guy is commenting on are not internal differences as he seems to be inferring but rather external pressures.
That's a huge leap into implying that causality of egalitarinaism is solely based on computer class participation. There's a lot more to it than that.
He didn't say they "cannot lead well." He said there may be certain factors which make it harder for some women than it does for some men -- NOT THAT THEY "CANNOT" DO IT -- and he explained why.
He also said it was "possible," not certainly true. After all, it came in a section with a big header:
In the intro of which he said:
He also bent over backwards to say there's a lot of overlap on these things between men and women, and that the gap is narrow.
In so doing, he said explicitly that people shouldn't be reduced to generalities:
View attachment 67221001
Errrr.... wha?First of all paraphrasing is not quoting but nice try at moving the goalposts. Since you moved them I will play along.
Yeah, not so much. We're not talking about average muscle mass or ratio of fast- and slow-twitch muscles, we're talking about behaviors and cognition. It's incredibly difficult to determine the origin of of those types of conditions, since we know that socialization of gender differences start pretty much on day 1.1) Gender is a biological condition with well defined differences.
Look again. He's talking about claims like women are "more interested in people than things," claims that women are more neurotic/anxious, that women (presumably for biological reasons) are less interested in status etc2) Nope, cites math as the primary cause. If the pool of candidates is mostly male then the one(s) selected for hiring, promotion and retention are more likely to be male.
Biological sex is difficult to change, but certainly not impossible. Gender is a social construction, and can absolutely change over time, both on an individual and social level. E.g. in the early 1960s it was extremely rare and difficult for a woman to become a doctor (based on similar reasoning as Damore advances, of course), whereas today no one doubts that women are just as capable as men in that field.3) Gender is largely immutable - you generally have no trouble deciding which gender a given person is (or claims to be) and the need to re-check is negligible (see their application).
While I understand your confusion, you're missing a critical piece: The effects of discrimination.4) In order to change the current ratio of males to females you must make a conscious effort to do so. That effort includes using gender as a key factor in hiring, promotion and retention - the very same gender that was not supposed to matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?