Google's "Anti-Diversity" Screed

Jon said:

do you have a point here?

Click to expand...

3, obviously

TheAccountant said:

3, obviously

Click to expand...

if it was obvious I wouldn't be asking so make it or don't, makes no difference to me

Jon said:

if it was obvious I wouldn't be asking so make it or don't, makes no difference to me

Click to expand...

Bobby Burns said:

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!

Click to expand...

A true libertarian would endorse Damond's idea: "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."

Jon said:

oddly for me I am not particularly interested in the Science of it as I know without question that men and women are different. He may even be largely right on the differences between men and women but it simply doesn't matter as they lead to universal generalizations that are harmful to the individual. Where does he even consider that the women that walk in the door at Google are not a reflection of all women at large (or all men for that matter)? He doesn't and that is a huge problem. He wants to say "women are this way" without noting that the women at Google or Silicon Valley differ from women as a whole. I know several googlers personally, men and women and "to a man" they are largely different that society as a whole. Just as Southerners are different from Americans and Americans are different from People as a whole. Sure most Americans are fat, lazy and stupid, look up the science of it, but that is hardly a reason to discount them as a whole group as he seems to want to with women.

Click to expand...

Not that odd.

Even if the science conclusively proved women were not capable of being as intelligent as men on average I would still want them to have the same opportunities. The same ability of choice, to let their work stand on its merits and receive the same rewards if they were capable.

Displaced Bama Fan said:

I wonder how many people got their feelings hurt after reading his memo and had to find a safe place after he cast micro-aggressions originating from his obvious white privilege and his educational privilege?

Click to expand...

It was reported that several Google employees had to take a sick day yesterday due to the distress it caused them.

Tidewater said:

A true libertarian would endorse Damond's idea: "treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."

Click to expand...

I agree and assume you mean Damore

but even though Damore claims he wants to treat people as individuals he then broad brushes women using over reaching generalizations. See the problem?

TideEngineer08 said:

Not that odd.

Even if the science conclusively proved women were not capable of being as intelligent as men on average I would still want them to have the same opportunities. The same ability of choice, to let their work stand on its merits and receive the same rewards if they were capable.

Click to expand...

it's one of the things that i love about the Tech field it is more of a meritocracy than most other industries, but that doesn't mean there aren't head winds that differ from group to group. It is what it is

Jon said:

I agree and assume you mean Damore

Click to expand...

I did. Thanks.

but even though Damore claims he wants to treat people as individuals he then broad brushes women using over reaching generalizations. See the problem?

Click to expand...

Here is the problem with your thinking (from my perspective). I do not count how many women work in STEM field and neither should you or anybody else. The world is full of individuals who make their own career decisions. He (I think) is advocating judging applicants as individuals (i.e. education, experience, interview, etc.), not looking at people by the group and discovering "Hey, there's not enough women working here!"
Now, show me a place where Damore or anybody else is saying "We do not and should not hire any women because women are less capable than men in STEM fields," then I'll join you in condemning that sentiment. I just don't think he has said anything remotely like that.

That's why I advocate equality of opportunity, but never equality of outcome.

Here is where I think the Left-statists get it wrong. They look at humanity and say, "Hey, 50.1% of humanity is female. But software engineers at Google are only 20% female. There must be some discrimination going on here. Let's have the Federal government step in and fix that discrimination" (or a "voluntary" program run by the company to defend themselves from federal oversight). In fact, the group "software engineers at Google" is at least partially self-selecting. No one can get hired as a software engineer at Google unless he or she volunteers and applies for employment. Google probably hires those applicants that give them the best chance of making money. They probably could not care less about race, gender or country of origin. Anybody counting race and gender groups is looking for a problem where one might not exist at all.

5% of Americans are pudgy white guys in their 50s. That group is grossly under-represented in the NBA, but that is probably not a result of some form of discrimination. It is probably a result of skill, talent, and experience of potential applicants. Would a federal quota system requiring teams to hire pudgy 50 year old white guys improve the play in the NBA?

Tidewater said:

I did. Thanks.

Here is the problem with your thinking (from my perspective). I do not count how many women work in STEM field and neither should you or anybody else. The world is full of individuals who make their own career decisions. He (I think) is advocating judging applicants as individuals (i.e. education, experience, interview, etc.), not looking at people by the group and discovering "Hey, there's not enough women working here!"
Now, show me a place where Damore or anybody else is saying "We do not and should not hire any women because women are less capable than men in STEM fields," then I'll join you in condemning that sentiment. I just don't think he has said anything remotely like that.

That's why I advocate equality of opportunity, but never equality of outcome.

Click to expand...

sadly I have to run to a meeting so I'll be super brief

He claims to be advocating individualized treatment but is still only provinding stereotypes generalizations as his core claims. That, in a nutshell is my issue. He is in effect saying, we should only judge on the individuals ability but you should know that in general women aren't cut out for this line of work

Jon said:

sadly I have to run to a meeting so I'll be super brief

He claims to be advocating individualized treatment but is still only provinding stereotypes generalizations as his core claims. That, in a nutshell is my issue. He is in effect saying, we should only judge on the individuals ability but you should know that in general women aren't cut out for this line of work

Click to expand...

I appreciate your thought here, but what I take from his open letter is not that women aren't cut out for this line of work. He is offering a critique of those programs (whether private-corporate or federal) that see discrimination where none exists. It could be that women are under-represented because fewer women applied for employment.

A reporter asked Ringo Starr why he received more letters that the other Beatles. He said, "I dunno. Maybe because more people send me letters."

Of course, the fact that "Danielle Brown, Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance" disapproves is hardly surprising. Her employment depends on seeing diversity problems whether they exist or not and ruthlessly crushing those she believes are not toeing the party line.

cbi1972 said:

I am less interested in your opinion than your reason for it.

Because it sounds like the article is pushing "feelings" buttons in a lot of people

Click to expand...

the way i read it, it sounded like the author is butthurt because nobody is listening to his feelings and telling him he is special. but that's just me.

cbi1972 said:

You're entitled to your opinion, but I am still waiting on something in there that supports the specific idea that he is dismissive of all women.

Click to expand...

i have a feeling you will be waiting a while for something that satisfies you.

92tide said:

i have a feeling you will be waiting a while for something that satisfies you.

Click to expand...

it's why I haven't replied as well. I've stated my reasons and read the "Screed" fully

I wonder what it was that provoked him to write the screed in the first place.

if interested, here is a response from a woman in tech

link to vox article

The manifesto’s sleight-of-hand hand delineation between “women, on average” and the actual living, breathing women who have had to work alongside this guy failed to reassure many of those women — and failed to reassure me. That’s because the manifesto’s author overestimated the extent to which women are willing to be turned against their own gender.


Speaking for myself, it doesn’t matter to me how soothingly a man coos that I’m not like most women, when those coos are accompanied by misogyny against most women. I am a woman. I do not stop being one during the parts of the day when I am practicing my craft. There can be no realistic chance of individual comfort for me in an environment where others in my demographic categories (or, really, any protected demographic categories) are subjected to skepticism and condescension.

Click to expand...

and another segment about something that is all too common in discussions such as this

5) The author says he’s open to diversity, yet no real-world diversity-enhancing program meets his standards

Many defenders of the manifesto have eagerly, and, as far as I can tell, earnestly, pointed me to the manifesto writer’s frequent claims to support diversity in the abstract, as if these are supposed to be reassuring. (“I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists. ...”) They are not reassuring. The object of his memo is to end programs at Google that were designed, with input from a great many people who are educated and focused on this issue, to improve diversity. If those programs are killed, absent a commensurate effort to create replacement programs that have plausible ability to be at least as effective, the result is to harm diversity at Google.

Click to expand...

cbi1972 said:

I'm still waiting for something specific that dissatisfies me.

Click to expand...

read the Vox column 92 posted and pay particular attention to Reason 3 and 5 she is a much better writer than me and she nails my thoughts here