|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 10 2017 23:59 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 23:48 a_flayer wrote:
Not fit. Willing. There are fewer women who are willing to [learn the skills to] take up leadership positions and work in tech jobs. Most of the skills are learned skills, and women are more inclined to prefer to take another skillset with them. This is something that has been very slowly changing over the generations, but there is still a significant divide between the genders.
That is not to say there is no sexism or misogyny. That's a very broad statement that women "are more inclined to prefer to take another skillset with them". How does that apply to tech and leadership but not the million different other roles that women are in? Women learn one skillset and then are inclined to stick with that for the rest of their career? Where's the science saying that because women are inclined to not learn new skills, they are not willing to be in tech or leadership roles?
You are wildly misinterpreting what I tried to say. Women are perfectly capable of learning new skills, just as men are. Men choose to favor one skillset, women favor another skillset. When women make a decision to learn the same skillset as men, they are just as capable at this as men. And vice-versa.
I don't think they "stick with one" for their entire careers any more or less than men do. That has nothing to do with what I tried to say. I also don't know what you're talking about with regard to "million different other roles".
|
On August 11 2017 00:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 23:59 Doodsmack wrote:On August 10 2017 23:48 a_flayer wrote:
Not fit. Willing. There are fewer women who are willing to [learn the skills to] take up leadership positions and work in tech jobs. Most of the skills are learned skills, and women are more inclined to prefer to take another skillset with them. This is something that has been very slowly changing over the generations, but there is still a significant divide between the genders.
That is not to say there is no sexism or misogyny. That's a very broad statement that women "are more inclined to prefer to take another skillset with them". How does that apply to tech and leadership but not the million different other roles that women are in? Women learn one skillset and then are inclined to stick with that for the rest of their career? Where's the science saying that because women are inclined to not learn new skills, they are not willing to be in tech or leadership roles? You are wildly misinterpreting what I tried to say. Women are perfectly capable of learning new skills, just as men are. Men choose to favor one skillset, women favor another skillset. When women make a decision to learn the same skillset as men, they are just as capable at this as men. And vice-versa. I don't think they "stick with one" for their entire careers any more or less than men do. That has nothing to do with what I tried to say. I also don't know what you're talking about with regard to "million different other roles".
I see, I misunderstood, but I still don't see the science saying that the skillset women do prefer makes them not willing to pursue tech or leadership jobs. Why is their preferred skillset not compatible with tech or leadership?
|
Why is their preferred skillset not compatible with tech or leadership?
Why can't my diesel run on petrol?
This is a rather weird question. The skillset (whichever it is) is not compatible because it's not needed for tech/leadership.
|
We went over this before, and it's largely aligned with what that Google guy said. They prefer more nurturing skillsets and so on, working with people rather than lording over them or something along those lines. The things you need for tech versus the things you need for being able to interact with people (nerd things vs anti-nerd things). Some people have learned to do both. Some have talent for both. Some have talent for one and learn another. Some can't do either (me!).
Don't take my very short and loose interpretations of this too literally. If you want to argue, argue against the more detailed and precise interpretations that are given in links posted by various people a few pages back.
|
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen.
|
|
|
On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen.
He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job.
|
On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen.
He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology.
In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked.
People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it.
EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear.
|
Debating the memo on its contents seems incredibly dumb anyways. The problem is sending a memo like that is wildly inappropriate regardless of if the empirical portions of the memo are accurately recited.
|
On August 11 2017 00:33 a_flayer wrote:
We went over this before, and it's largely aligned with what that Google guy said. They prefer more nurturing skillsets and so on, working with people rather than lording over them or something along those lines. The things you need for tech versus the things you need for being able to interact with people (nerd things vs anti-nerd things). Some people have learned to do both. Some have talent for both. Some have talent for one and learn another. Some can't do either (me!).
Don't take my very short and loose interpretations of this too literally. If you want to argue, argue against the more detailed and precise interpretations that are given in links posted by various people a few pages back.
Well, you're making this claim again that science = women not in tech and leadership, and I think people are overlooking that the science doesn't actually say that - it's an extrapolation from the science. If women prefer nurturing skill sets, for example, I don't see how that wouldn't work for a leadership role. It's merely a non scientific assumption that leadership roles don't favor nurturing skillsets.
|
On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women.
Yeah. At work. In an enormous writing that clearly took an insane amount of effort on his part. At a big tech company known for being progressive. This was an extremely obvious martyr attempt.
At.
Work.
I don't think there is anyone on this board who would feel safe posting something like that at work. That is such an obvious can of worms.
|
On August 11 2017 00:33 a_flayer wrote:
We went over this before, and it's largely aligned with what that Google guy said. They prefer more nurturing skillsets and so on, working with people rather than lording over them or something along those lines. The things you need for tech versus the things you need for being able to interact with people (nerd things vs anti-nerd things). Some people have learned to do both. Some have talent for both. Some have talent for one and learn another. Some can't do either (me!).
Don't take my very short and loose interpretations of this too literally. If you want to argue, argue against the more detailed and precise interpretations that are given in links posted by various people a few pages back.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding
Not really. Women in other technical and science fields continue to rise over the years, despite being mostly the same or similar skill sets but its really just computer/tech where women dipped out.
|
On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear.
So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women?
Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers.
|
On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers.
I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc.
|
On August 11 2017 01:13 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 00:33 a_flayer wrote:
We went over this before, and it's largely aligned with what that Google guy said. They prefer more nurturing skillsets and so on, working with people rather than lording over them or something along those lines. The things you need for tech versus the things you need for being able to interact with people (nerd things vs anti-nerd things). Some people have learned to do both. Some have talent for both. Some have talent for one and learn another. Some can't do either (me!).
Don't take my very short and loose interpretations of this too literally. If you want to argue, argue against the more detailed and precise interpretations that are given in links posted by various people a few pages back. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-codingNot really. Women in other technical and science fields continue to rise over the years, despite being mostly the same or similar skill sets but its really just computer/tech where women dipped out.
I'm not even sure that the gender gap exists to the same extent in other countries, but it's hard to find a good solid set of information on the matter. This https://www.wired.com/2014/08/silicon-valley-sexism/ for example cites India at 30% female programmers compared to 21% in the US.
|
On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc.
AT WILL EMPLOYMENT
|
On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women."
I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate.
And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own.
|
United States43968 Posts
Almost all of his suggestions amounted to him deciding that discrimination against him is the worst kind of discrimination. It's literally (not literally) a parody of white privilege. He feels like he can't discuss politics in the office without being outnumbered, clearly it's time to add political orientation to the list of protected classes. How could we ever expect anyone to work under those conditions? It's made all the more laughable by the fact that he did it in an explicit response to other people getting protection from discrimination. He wasn't allying with minorities and saying "yeah, you shouldn't be discriminated against based on sex or race, and nor should I on the basis of religion". He was dismissing their issues and insisting that the real issue is that nobody wants to join his Ayn Rand book club.
Take his point about how when you offend people around you in the workplace your intention should be what counts and that judging it by the outcome, and not the intention, will lead to censorship. Is there any world in which he's not an asshole? Of course you're expected to self censor your offensive behaviour around your professional colleagues. That's right up there with showering regularly as the bare minimum expectations. This is an individual who genuinely believes he is being oppressed, censored, and discriminated against because of completely normal social responses to his own personal failings.
|
On August 11 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." I live in reality. We don’t live in a perfect world where you are allowed to have debates on company run forums if your co-workers are genetically pre-disposed not do their jobs well. If we replaced “women” with “black” in that little novel he wrote, this wouldn’t even be a debate. And frankly, after that thing gets out there in the world, I don’t know how anyone expects google to keep that guy on their team. They can never put in him a management position and not worry about a discrimination case. The man made himself a liability and a shitty co-worker all on his own.
If you replace all mentions of "Whites" in headlines on Salon.com with "Jews", they'd also be considered way out of line without discussion. However, they don't. And he didn't. Some reality you live in.
I guess I've also ruined my chances at ever getting a job like that, then, by posting things in support of his observations. No, wait, there are legal protections in place to prevent me from getting fired without just cause.
Land of the free, indeed. Free to oppress if you have wealth and be oppressed if you are poor.
Was he a shitty co-worker? Did he interact poorly with women and did they file complaints against him?
|
On August 11 2017 01:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. Yeah. At work. In an enormous writing that clearly took an insane amount of effort on his part. At a big tech company known for being progressive. This was an extremely obvious martyr attempt. At. Work. I don't think there is anyone on this board who would feel safe posting something like that at work. That is such an obvious can of worms.
So umm maybe exercise a little more charity in who you call a martyr, chief. He went through the effort and got widely positive reception internally at the company. They pride themselves on inclusiveness, even their chief diversity officer VP declares they welcome alternative views. It's a little obvious if you're an ideologue or know really what progressive means (like yourself), but if you're not one and just maybe an engineer and coder, you don't know some thoughts can get you fired.
You need way more charity in your life if you think the effort involved and knowledge of "progressive" means he should know they'd be intolerant and fire him. Like seriously, man. You hold his own stupidity as a whip to beat him and call him martyr.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
