Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences [W:547]

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

You said he claimed that "women cannot lead well."

That is simply not what he said.

I knew you'd do this dishonest crap.

Like I said, live in denial all you want.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

So you now admit that this comment of yours is wrong?

Good grief. How is that you think those posts contradict each other?

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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."

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

I knew you'd do this dishonest crap.

Like I said, live in denial all you want.

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 external physical form, but that it never touched the human brain and that there are not differences based on gender?

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

It's not "dishonest." It's simply not what he said.

Guess what? Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me "dishonest."

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.​

 

[Visbek]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

First of all - have you even read the memo in question?

Yep

If so, then please quote the most obvious example(s) of the "misogynist piggery" that it contains.

• Blames gender differences primarily on biological conditions
• Places primary blame for the "glass ceiling" in tech on those alleged biological differences
• Proclaims the male gender role is "inflexible" (i.e. don't try to change us dudes)
• 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.

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.

He was definitely addressing management. I don't think he expected to get fired for it, though.

 

[DA60]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

Don't much know what this is about...don't much care either.

But, as I have said before, any private company should be able to fire any employee for any reason...no matter how good or bad that reason is.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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?

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.

 

[OlNate]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

I could totally believe that too. Still not mad at Google for doing what they said they'd do...hehe...

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

Yeah-- but this is the argument that the guy is questioning. Is it possible to question it without being a misogynist, sexist bastard?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

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.

 

[Josie]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

Women aren't in leadership roles because until relatively recently, they haven't much been allowed in the work-force.

LOL What?

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

First off that's largely bs, women have been in the workforce since forever.

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.

They haven't been accepted in more prestigious positions, socially, until more recently.

We are agreeing here more than disagreeing.

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.

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.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

First of all, paraphrasing (summarizing?) is not quoting but nice try at moving the goalposts. Since you moved them I will play along.

1) Gender is a biological condition with well defined differences.

2) Nope, cites math as the primary cause. If the pool of candidates is mostly male then the one selected for hiring, promotion and retention from that pool is more likely to be male.

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).

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/or retention - the very same gender that was not supposed to matter.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

I could totally believe that too. Still not mad at Google for doing what they said they'd do...hehe...

It would be interesting to know the gender of his replacement.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

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.

We are agreeing here more than disagreeing.

Fair enough.

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.

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.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

LOL What?

Please see post 238

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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 was referring more to the corporate world as is what the topic is pretty much about. Other than secretarial work, womens' place in that world has had a MUCH later start. A lot of old-school mentality is a hinderance to progress when they start that late in the game.

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.

Agreed. These "traits" as the guy is commenting on are not internal differences as he seems to be inferring but rather external pressures.

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.

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.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.​

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:

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech3

In the intro of which he said:

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

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:

 

[OlNate]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

I really don't know what you think this does for you. All you're doing is solidifying the fact that you believe something while not caring if you have the actual knowledge necessary to come to the that belief, and what's more, you seem proud of it.

 

[OlNate]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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.

lol...oh please. Again, go back and read what you wrote. I did before posting that because I don't like to be wrong. And Harshaw, please don't confuse my unwillingness to be your punching bag with a need to retreat from debate in general. It simply means that until you raise your standards to the point where you can say your piece without calling me stupid, I'm not interested in talking to you. There are plenty of folks on DP that actually are able to make their points without doing that, and I enjoy talking to them, especially when we disagree. Step up or step out. :shrug:

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

Agreed. These "traits" as the guy is commenting on are not internal differences as he seems to be inferring but rather external pressures.

External pressures being "let off" is what I'm saying is helping contribute to the disparity in representation.
Is anyone keeping men from being veterinarians?
I don't think so, but the field is dominated by Women, approximately 80% of enrollees.

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.

It is for right now.
I think that the whole gender discrimination thing, has been waaaay oversold.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

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

What a crock 'o crap. More dishonest parsing by you. So you are saying he's claiming people shouldn't be reduced to generalities and he does this while he makes wild generalities about genders. :roll:

 

[Visbek]

Re: Google fires employee who penned controversial memo

First of all paraphrasing is not quoting but nice try at moving the goalposts. Since you moved them I will play along.

Errrr.... wha?

Believe it or not, the posting guidelines bar quoting more than 2 paragraphs from a given source. As noted already, I got dinged for this about a week ago. I'm not getting points just to please you. As such, I summarized the problems with the document, which you can read for yourself.

1) Gender is a biological condition with well defined differences.

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.

2) 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.

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 etc

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).

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.

That's not what I'm referring to, though. He explicitly writes that "The male gender role is currently inflexible," and says that the only way to change things is to make women "more masculine" and men "more feminine," which is basically BS.

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.

While I understand your confusion, you're missing a critical piece: The effects of discrimination.

Long story short, women are routinely harassed, discouraged and driven out of STEM professions. That problem won't get fixed by universities and tech companies putting on a blindfold, pretending that nothing is wrong, and treating its employees like interchangeable widgets.

Damore also isn't talking much about hiring. He's focused on Google's attempts to fix its internal culture.