women are underrepresented in tech because of inherent psychological differences

[MineKraftCheese]

http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320

This is horrendous! I don't know where to start but I'm boiling with rage.

So many awful gender stereotypes and weird lies and biological "truths".

Jordan Peterson is alt right now?

I don't think he's "alt right" in the sense of in bed with the likes of Steve Bannon, but certainly far right libertarian and deliberate contrarian/iconoclast. I don't think that should come as any surprise.

I think he's right about free speech and not policing people's language, but I'd make a distinction he doesn't: free speech applies in the public sphere (and carries with it the acceptance of consequences), not the private/semi private sphere. So women should IMO be able to go into their workplace without being subjected to 11 page memos saying they're biologically incapable of doing their jobs. He can stand on a soap box at Speakers' Corner if he wants to do that sort of thing).

(Though freedom to do your job unharrassed also applies to employers - fair enough to require a code of behaviour that requires one to treat all customers and colleagues equally, not right to demand public protestations of faith along the lines of the recent LGBT lanyard fiasco at the National Trust).

Wait, wait... is this guy coming from the angle that men are just naturally better at developing code?

Did he miss the minor historical snippet that computer coding was invented by (wait for it) a woman?

I haven't read the post but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that more women tend to pick creative careers over engineering and tech. That could be down to differences in the ways girls and boys are raised or it could be down to inherent psychological differences. But either way there's a gender issue there and I think it's a really interesting point to raise and to discuss why women don't go for these types of careers and/or why they aren't as rewarded or nurtured in these areas as much as men.

I've not read the post but I'd say it sounds like he raised some valid points and it was wrong to sack him.

Then I suggest you try reading both the post and the thread before posting and making yourself look like an uniformed idiot - which I'm sure was not your intention.

"Uninformed" - bloody autocorrect on phone.

Only in the rarefied world of Google-Apple-Facebook-whatever would Mr Google Memo get any attention.
Anywhere else he'd just be the person noone wants on their team. The person given solo projects because everyone finds them too tedious to work with.

And of course its reasonable to be fired for circulating a memo on your personal opinions to work colleagues, at work. Its work ffs.

I've had a read of the text this morning and I've got a better understanding of it now. You know, the nugget of his issue with the rise of the authoritarian left is not wrong. I'm with him on that. I also think he shouldn't necessarily have been sacked, because I'm not a fan of no platforming. In fact, a better response might have been to try to seek out the extent to which his view is a commonly held one in the company - because, sadly, I think he may be right in his sense of persecution that "it's only what everyone else is too scared to say".

I'm not saying that anything he's said is anything other than MRA-lite, evo psych just so stories, because it very much is, and it'snot anything like as "objective" as he thinks it is. But I'm uneasy with the scapegoating because I think that might just drive the views further underground, when they need to be highlighted and challenged for the sexist drivel they are.

I was originally, "Yeah, he should get sacked for thinking it's OK to circulate this, because that's not what work comms are for", but I don't think he actually personally did that, so less sure on the rectitude of his sacking now. Do we want to be able to fire people for being assholes? (maybe ) I guess he's in a fire at will state, though, so the answer to that is probably yes!

If you apply for a job at a well-known liberal company with a published diversity policy, then why should you expect to have a platform for views that challenge that policy? Other jobs are available.

Did he miss the minor historical snippet that computer coding wasinventedby (wait for it) a woman?

Probably. Most people in IT are woefully unaware of the history of their industry. Luckily for them, I can bang on about it for hours. My colleagues love me, I'm sure.

I'd say it sounds like he raised some valid points

But it's not like Google et al don't know that there's a problem with gender (and other) diversity in IT and that programmes to encourage more women don't seem to be working. There's a whole range of issues, but biology isn't one of them. It's definitely cultural - it's mostly only the USA, Canada, western Europe, Australia, NZ which experience this gender split.

And there are ways and ways of making your opinion known and getting it discussed. Sending a memo round like that is not the way, not in your average big corporate environment.

twitter.com/Mc_Heckin_Duff/status/894820551960776708 this thread was good, but I think this tweet is probably a good response to "just an opinion":
The reason this stuff isn't just "another opinion" or worth debating in the marketplace of ideas is the threat of violence that underpins it

Re: whether Google should have sacked the author of an international HR incident that has caused the responses to their recruiters to flip from "OMG you're asking me to WORK AT GOOGLE!" to "Yeah - um, not now that I know what kind of douchebags you grow there" - this is the kind of almight shitfest that gets even C-level men pushed to resign. Why the hell would they even consider hanging on to some entirely replaceable toxic engineer?

Don't know who that guy is, slightly but that twitter thread nailed it.

'So people basically invented this fake oppression where other people asking to be treated like people for a change ruined their lives.
Men create this persona around their entirely generic, entirely boring reactionary politics that lets them cosplay being rebels.
But they aren't. Their contributions are entirely unnecessary.
Every woman alive could have written that Google Bronifesto from the brief "imagine what every sexist dullard you work with would write."
...N O T H I N G they have to say is new. If we give them the time to expound their beliefs, we will learn nothing, we will be bored.
Nobody is going to listen to the 346th Jason arsedribble about why he's naturally better than you on the offchance this one has a good point"

It's depressing that I'm surprised it's a man writing that.

I think I might have come across like I was defending him - god I hope not as I think he's a grade-A bellend, and that twitter thread totally nails it.

BUT - I'm also coming at it from a Jon Ronson-esque "So you've been publicly shamed" angle, in that responding to a twitter storm by sacking an asshat may not be the last word in addressing systemic misogyny in STEM. That was all.

It has been a useful exercise in flushing out fellow asshats, and while
Google haven't seen fit to debate him as such, with sacking being the appropriate and stronger message, many other people on the internet have done a good job of pointing out the inadequacies of his missive.

I didn't assume the sacking was a response to the story going public, I think the memo went public quite early on, so Google were responding to him sharing a document that criticises their policies rather than following proper procedure for any internal issues.

@SophoclesTheFox Yeah, I think there's an interesting debate to be had about when companies should fire people for stuff that gets a lot of attention and when they shouldn't. Look at SendGrid and Adria Richards for example - my association now whenever I see SendGrid is "oh, they fired her for speaking up". Whether they had cause or not, it wasn't well handled for anyone concerned.

EBearhug "It's definitely cultural - it's mostly only the USA, Canada, western Europe, Australia, NZ which experience this gender split. "

Interesting to see the supposed developed countries where according to many a man "wimmin have same rights, if they cared about wimmin and not themselves they would campaign for women's rights in africa/3rd world" this is happening. Makes you wonder. Or not ;)

Wawawaa What valid points? Besides stating the fact that women are underrepresented what "point" did he make? That men have traits making them (biologically/naturally) better at tech? What did you read that made you conclude he has "valid points"?

@noblegiraffe As the challenge of my last question showed no-one could find a quote where he says any of his female colleagues are are not able to do their jobs or are less good at their jobs?

It strikes me that what so many of his critics, including so many in this thread, are confusing here are the terms "less" and "fewer". He claimed that fewer women might either want to, or be suitable to, work in the roles. In general objections (including Yonatan's) have been that he said women were less able.

There is a world of difference. One, the "less" point, is an attack on his colleagues. There is no doubt that this would be completely wrong and a dismissible offence. The other, the "fewer" point, is an academic discussion. Why is it academic? Because fewer women qualify in the US with the entry qualifications to become coders than men. He could well be wrong in his theories as to why but surely a better approach to dealing with a different opinion would be discourse not dismissal.

@MrGHardy Thank you so much for making your point here as it has probably cleared up why his critics are attacking him incorrectly; he very precisely did not say "Men and women have different traits." as you put here. He said "Differences in distributions of traits between men and women". A difference in distribution means that women DO have the same traits but that a different number of women would have a given set of them. In plain language, and this being his point not mine, that women are just as capable and just as interested but in smaller numbers.

I suspect now having seen your explanation here that while for him these mathematical concepts are very easy to separate, for many of his critics this has caused confusion (including it seems perhaps for Yonatan which says a lot).

@MrGHardy I don't think if you alter the conversation from women and men to skin colour it changes anything except that there is research to say we do inherit predisposition by gender (circuit racing as I mentioned in my first post being one example) but I am not aware of any research to say we inherit it by race.

@Thoth I have no idea what is acceptable or what is not within Google. I note that in their reply they invited everyone to respond suggesting that they do welcome wide and open participation in discussion. When I have worked in California with tech companies they have such a wide range of cultures I would never try and predict what any other one was like. You use the word "send". I am not so familiar with the internals of Google (maybe you have worked there) was this not posted rather than sent?

Well, MeRichard, that is semantic bullshit. If you wanna go technical, let's do it Mr. Maths Boy.

Any given human has a subset of characteristics, A, of the set of all characteristics, U. He is saying that in general this set A of men is strictly preferred than this set A of women.

"Oh no, he didn't say they don't have them, he just said they have less of the good ones". Yea, you really stopped digging, did you?

So now you are saying as long as we can scientifically show that blacks are inferior, which we haven't, then we whites can go around being superior? You sounds like a quality human being.

@MrGHardy That was an unnecessary post. You had already demonstrated that you don't understand probability distribution.

"no-one could find a quote where he says any of his female colleagues are are not able to do their jobs or are less good at their jobs?"

You are correct, Mr Damore is very careful to repeatedly state he is referring to populations not individuals and that he definitely believes in diversity and is not anti-woman, no not at all.

What I would like to do is detail exactly all the issues I have with this manifesto, to point out what is problematic with it in it's entirety. However, I suspect that you, @MeRichard, would not be interested in discussing any of the points I might raise, plus I don't have the time to research and reference my points as thoroughly as I'd need to. Perhaps if it continues to piss me off as much as it does, I may find the time somewhere.

What is it that you wanted to say about sexism, discrimination and equality with regards to this manifesto, MeRichard?

The question to ask is

"Why do women not want to work in the tech industry?"

and the answer, amazingly, is

"BECAUSE OF SMUG, ENTITLED, BELLENDS LIKE HIM DEMANDING WE JUSTIFY OUR VERY EXISTENCE IN HIS WORKSPACE WITHOUT A VACUUM CLEANER IN OUR HANDS!"

Because of the sexist abuse female students get.

Because of the disingenuous "just saying"s, the "only asking"s, the "just say, for a minute"s that are constantly undermining our roles and forcing us to justify ourselves.

Sexist behaviour and attitudes are ingrained from an early age and are borne subconsciously.

Yes quite ginger
Add on the "oh your people skills are great, you would be much better working as a project manager/BA/change manager than a coder/data scientist, oh look you are a generalist and not proper tech so we will pay you less than the coding superstar you joined with"
Why the fuck would a woman work in tech? not bitter at all