Lol, so fitting.To add to what I just said: Damore didn't actually get a PhD. He has a Master's in Systems Biology.
Sort of says it all, really... a man making bogus, sexist claims doesn't even have the degree his cheerleaders think he does.
Did you read the actual doc? If so, what part do you think was the part that got him fired.
Reading the articles that talk about this, seem very different than what I read on the actual doc.
Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
So, did I read his screed?You can definitely tell the people that have read his document and those that haven't. The discussion on HN is much better, not surprising.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=g...nMjVAhXhIMAKHUZFDi0Q_AUICigB&biw=1536&bih=760Why is this a big story to you?
Cool. How do you think they should affect an American workplace that operates with legal protections for employees and candidates against discrimination based on sex?
To add to this, you are asserting that his post is all good, yeah? Why do you think that?
If you read the link in the OP, Google's Danielle Brown explains it thusly-
The guy uses Gamergate logic, which isn't logic at all.
not less capable - less propense. because of scientific reasons that are beyond doubt. ergo expecting a 50% workforce distribution is unscientific and his observation is that this isn't being motivated by revenue but by politics.His "science" that women are "genetically less capable" of software development as a group
For those who haven't read the memo, he doesn't say that women are inferior, less intelligent, or less able to do the work of software engineering. He says that they are less driven to pursue this kind of occupation, and that there are ways to make it more appealing to women without engaging in reverse discrimination.
I don't know if everything he says is accurate or consistent with research, but what I do know is that science has recognized differences in gender which go beyond the obvious differences in genitalia and body morphology.
I think the reaction to this memo is overstated.
You can definitely tell the people that have read his document and those that haven't. The discussion on HN is much better, not surprising.
You obviously haven't read that thread either.HN is a lot of goog employees and friends circling the wagons to protect one of their own, replete with the casual sexism endemic to the boys' club.
Exactly. It's not that he has an opinion, it's that he shares a 10 page opinion internally.They can fire him for nearly any reason they want. Unless being a misogynist is a protected class where they have to let him use company resources to spread his idiotic views, then he's done.
the very post above yours has a study that says he is right and you are wrong. also, truth doesn't care about fairness or hostility. and he does't call for exclusion of females from google, but for honest meritocracy. For example, the mostly male scientists who have created the studies he references know that your internet female friends are wrong and they are right.even if you buy Damore's bullshit (the pseudoscience comes from him, not Google) it's still true that his attitude is hostile to female coworkers. [..]he would be perfectly happy if Google never hired another woman. [..]
Every woman I know or have seen online who knows about this document has objected to it.
Exactly. It's not that he has an opinion, it's that he shares a 10 page opinion internally.
Share on your own time, outside the workplace.
You obviously haven't read that thread either.
There's a simple truth here: even if you buy Damore's bullshit (the pseudoscience comes from him, not Google), it's still true that his attitude is hostile to female coworkers. Imagine if you're a woman stuck on a programming team with him; would you want to work with him knowing he believes your vagina puts you at an inherent disadvantage? That he would be perfectly happy if Google never hired another woman for your team? If he tries for a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, he's going to lose; you're allowed to have opinions, but not if they're actively harmful to your coworkers.
Because the doc was about how to effectively increase the amount of women in the work place.
See, this is what is confusing. It seems like nobody actually read the doc, just the articles people wrote about it.
What the guy said is that to expect a 50/50 split is flawed because women and men have different interests. Its correct to make sure that women are not excluded for being women if they can do the job, but its also unrealistic to expect a 50/50 split if there are not 50/50 applying.
I did not see anywhere in the doc where the guy advocated for excluding women if they are able to do the job. He did say some things that might explain why there are fewer women in the field.
I read the entire 10 page doc, and nothing that I saw really stood out as something that went against what we see in studies.
Tell me, do you think all people are naturally inclined to want, and would excel in all types of jobs? Or would you admit the simple truth that there are innate, natural, differences between individual people? Then extrapolate it out, there will be similar differences between groups - especially when genders have underlying physical and hormonal differences.
Are we to be ignorant and pretend all people are the same? Let's end gender specific sports and see how well that works out. Ignorance is not how we properly handle inclusion and open mindedness. Censoring any discussion itself is ludicrous for anyone calling themselves Liberal. There will be a backlash to draconian and discriminatory practices that ignore basic truths in favor of meeting quotas for imaginary reasons.
Saying men and women are not inclined towards specific types of work is FAR REMOVED from saying they are inferior, or unwanted. Daughters will not grow up to be NFL Lineman. Difference is not inferior, it is not inherently bad or wrong. Nor is speaking of it wrong, especially if it ends up being true. If we're willing to be honest and face such truths then maybe we won't be lead around by bad policies seeking to right wrongs that don't exist.
If not many women are inclined to code, why should we care? There will still be outliers ready to fill the positions, there just won't be as many signing up as some trumped up quota is going to demand. The expectations are fake, the differences are real, and people should just be happy. Instead we get a mob wanting to tar and feather over the slightest mention of the way things are.
No, I just don't think people playing dumb for their cause makes for great discussion.
He argues that women are inherently more neurotic, not attuned to ideas and generally not leaders. His 'solution' is that Google would have to restructure itself to be more accommodating to women, but that it could probably only do so much to help, so tough luck ladies. It's a modern equivalent to the excuses men gave why women shouldn't vote at the turn of the 20th century. "Oh, women are prone to hysterics and better suited to domesticity! Only men are cool, calm and politically-minded to vote."
I've seen the study that many people cite when trying to justify Damore's crap, and there's conveniently no explanation for why these traits skew to one gender or another, or whether or not they're serious enough that they'd affect a woman's ability to work efficiently. Basically, he takes a study and extrapolates all kinds of tenous claims from it.