Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Google demands diversity by forcing everyone to think the same

Google demands diversity by forcing everyone to think the same (Page 2)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Let me ask another open question.

If silicon valley is so left-leaning, why is there such a gender/race gap at all the big companies there? Lefties are even more racist/sexist than the average, or other factors are at play?
It's because nerds.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Precisely this guys point - the approach is clearly wrong.
Having read the blog post, its main point was not to decrease the gender pay gap that seems to be exist at Google, but to explain it away.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Why would it be a blow to Google's PR? If anything, becoming ideologically agnostic would be the best course of action for Google - not doubling down on, as you described above, policies which evaluate your sex, color etc for whatever purpose.
If Google did nothing to curb this type of behavior, it would provide evidence that Google isn't doing enough to improve the conditions for women. That'd obviously be compounding bad PR on that subject.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Science to the rescue!
Except that the document wasn't actually scientific, just an amalgamation of various thoughts.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I just have a hard time applying this line of reasoning to other industries. What's different about tech?
I don't think tech is special, and this is readily applied to other fields where the gender balance heavily tips one way: The fundamental mechanism is relatively easy: people tend to want to live and work in more homogeneous environments even though more diversity is actually beneficial. In male dominated industries such as the one I work in, STEM academia, many people don't interact much with women and often tend to be socially awkward. In view of my computer scientist friends they experience pretty much the same. When they interact with women at work, they talk to secretaries or women in the administration or HR but not to women who are “equals” (programmers in this case). I have had female superiors and colleagues, professors, who were taken to be secretaries. Academia — just like tech — makes a conscious effort to increase diversity, not just out of altruism, but because tech in particular desperately needs talent (famously, the biggest problem Apple, Google et al are facing is talent retention). Increasing the talent pool by making the job more attractive to women seems like an obvious necessary step.

Of course, you can adapt the same arguments to female dominated professions.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It attracts more sexists or are there other factors affecting the distributions? Those two things are not mutually exclusive and there seems to be, relatively speaking, not enough data/science specific to the industry to really identify all the factors and their weight in comparison to the gender gap.
Programming used to be dominated by women (perhaps because typing was seen as something that women do, but that's just my conjecture), something that changed during the “microcomputer revolution” (aka PCs). That's why a lot of extremely fundamental contributions to how we develop software today were made by women (e. g. by Admiral Grace Hopper who invented COBOL, the first modern computer language, and the first compiler). There were a bunch of (in hindsight) funny articles about how female dominated programming is.

In view of the history of computer science, the dominance of men is mostly a sociological phenomenon rather than based on differences in innate interests and talents.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not convinced he was not expecting blowback. To be a Google engineer, you have to be pretty damn smart. I doubt very seriously he did not contemplate the consequences of rocking the boat. I'd bet he either had something else lined up or some other plan in case the obvious happened (which it did).
That is not supported by the timeline: when he learnt that his document went viral, he reportedly hurriedly tried to conceal authorship. I don't think he expected it to show up in national news. But let's say he did expect this degree of blowback, then he must have known that he will lose his job over it. That doesn't seem very smart, all he had to do was publish it on his own website or blog, and that's it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If silicon valley is so left-leaning, why is there such a gender/race gap at all the big companies there? Lefties are even more racist/sexist than the average, or other factors are at play?
I would say it's a combination of “they are not as progressive than they think” and that the lack of interaction with women coupled with the social awkwardness really makes it more difficult for men in tech to be more successful in increasing diversity.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Please don't compare Google to the KKK, that's not helping the discussion.
Why not? They're an organization that wilfully practices discrimination and silences dissent, like the Klan (only Google is more effective and socially accepted).
( Last edited by Cap'n Tightpants; Aug 10, 2017 at 07:42 PM. )
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's because nerds.
I disagree. IMO, it's because men and women prefer different fields. Female nurses and teachers make more than males, and they outnumber males in those fields 9:1 and 8:1 (respectively). Men in most STEM jobs spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations. While female nurses and teachers spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations than their male counterparts.

This is just a hunch, but it seems to me that men and women, in general, prefer different types of jobs, and maybe, just maybe, that reflects on their work, and they get paid more in those fields because their love of that work shines through? I can tell the difference between a person who loves their job, and goes the extra mile, and someone who is just there for a paycheck. It's incredibly easy to distinguish.

Does this mean that no women like working in tech? Hell no. If a woman does she deserves every opportunity to excel. But I fear many are there because they feel it's the "empowering" thing to do, because society is pushing them into proving that they can replace a man in anything, and then they often find they aren't as happy as if they'd chosen a career path more suited to their actual wants and needs.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why not? They're an organization that wilfully practices discrimination and silences dissent, like the Klan (only Google is more effective and socially accepted).
Because the plight of software engineers who make $160k per year is nothing like lynchings and systematic discrimination.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I disagree. IMO, it's because men and women prefer different fields. Female nurses and teachers make more than males, and they outnumber males in those fields 9:1 and 8:1 (respectively). Men in most STEM jobs spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations. While female nurses and teachers spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations than their male counterparts.

This is just a hunch, but it seems to me that men and women, in general, prefer different types of jobs, and maybe, just maybe, that reflects on their work, and they get paid more in those fields because their love of that work shines through? I can tell the difference between a person who loves their job, and goes the extra mile, and someone who is just there for a paycheck. It's incredibly easy to distinguish.

Does this mean that no women like working in tech? Hell no. If a woman does she deserves every opportunity to excel. But I fear many are there because they feel it's the "empowering" thing to do, because society is pushing them into proving that they can replace a man in anything, and then they often find they aren't as happy as if they'd chosen a career path more suited to their actual wants and needs.

I disagree with all of this labeling and generalizing based on your perceptions and/or statistical surveys and/or some combination thereof, and I disagree with the premise of the original employee letter.

Sometimes these generalizations exist because people are put into a box and are not up for proving everybody wrong, while swimming against the tide in the process. So why put people into boxes? Why not just allow people the freedom to pursue whatever professions they want without obstacles, including allowing them to become exceptions to the statistical trends? There is no reason why women can't be outstanding engineers, or why men can't be outstanding nurses.

Nobody likes to be treated as a statistical trend or put into a box. I'm sure you've commented about reverse racism, white privilege, or something along these lines. You are basically objecting to you being put into a box.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Because the plight of software engineers who make $160k per year is nothing like lynchings and systematic discrimination.
No one, not even the god-awful KKK, performs lynchings anymore, but Google's system is actually practicing discrimination, whereas the Klan doesn't have the social power to discriminate against anyone (thank goodness). In some ways, then, Google is now worse, since they have both power and privilege and choose to misuse it (and the Klan is just a pathetic group of losers running around in their mothers' bedsheets).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm sure you've commented about reverse racism
There is no such thing as "reverse racism" it's all just regular racism, no matter the person's sex, color, or ethnicity. If you're being discriminated against for any of those things, it's wrong. Period.

As for the rest, you disagree because it "puts people in boxes". Well, what if they'd actually be happier and more productive in their "boxes"? Does that mean anything to you, or would you rather that women be less happy and unfulfilled, just so long as they work to break millions of years of social evolution and their own inborn inclinations?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I disagree. IMO, it's because men and women prefer different fields. Female nurses and teachers make more than males, and they outnumber males in those fields 9:1 and 8:1 (respectively). Men in most STEM jobs spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations. While female nurses and teachers spend more time at work, take fewer vacations, and have better evaluations than their male counterparts.

This is just a hunch, but it seems to me that men and women, in general, prefer different types of jobs, and maybe, just maybe, that reflects on their work, and they get paid more in those fields because their love of that work shines through? I can tell the difference between a person who loves their job, and goes the extra mile, and someone who is just there for a paycheck. It's incredibly easy to distinguish.

Does this mean that no women like working in tech? Hell no. If a woman does she deserves every opportunity to excel. But I fear many are there because they feel it's the "empowering" thing to do, because society is pushing them into proving that they can replace a man in anything, and then they often find they aren't as happy as if they'd chosen a career path more suited to their actual wants and needs.
I was factoring out the women in STEM issue, but upon rereading the question, that wasn't what was being asked.

Yes. The prime reason for the gender gap is this gap existing in the labor pool.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 08:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There is no such thing as "reverse racism" it's all just regular racism, no matter the person's sex, color, or ethnicity. If you're being discriminated against for any of those things, it's wrong. Period.

As for the rest, you disagree because it "puts people in boxes". Well, what if they'd actually be happier and more productive in their "boxes"? Does that mean anything to you, or would you rather that women be less happy and unfulfilled, just so long as they work to break millions of years of social evolution and their own inborn inclinations?

I think I've figured something out about you.

You like to talk a lot about freedom, but you want the world to work as you think it does because it gives you a sense of order and perhaps power. To you Muslims are put in a box, college campuses in another, climate change scientists in another, liberals in another, etc. You have a lot of factoids relating to stats and survey data, a lot of predictions, and you want to understand the perspectives of others to use this as personal experience to back this need to put everything into a CTP way of order in your brain. You love to generalize.

Sure some people might be happier in their boxes, but why can't they choose for themselves whether they want to be in that box? Do you actually like freedom, or do you mostly just like your freedoms? Real freedom, IMO, is about not having to be confined to all of these little constructs you have created. Anybody can be anything.
     
And.reg
The Mighty
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Well the sports issue was within arm's reach but they closed up shop and kicked me out. And I'm out of toilet paper.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:06 PM
 
Why only Google?

Why not speak out just the same about the entire American educational system? The American educational system, rather, their student body, collectively owes a debt twice the market value of Google.

After all, most of their universities are now required to say "[...] is an equal opportunity employer," and they dare not do so in the name of education, rather business.

Sometimes I wonder if it's more offensive to be straightforward about human nature, or more offensive to hide it, and scale the mask all the way from the individual up to the corporation.
This one time, at Boot Camp, I stuck a flute up my PC.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Having read the blog post, its main point was not to decrease the gender pay gap that seems to be exist at Google, but to explain it away.
Are you sure you read it? Or did you stop on the first page. He has an entire section on non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap.

If Google did nothing to curb this type of behavior, it would provide evidence that Google isn't doing enough to improve the conditions for women. That'd obviously be compounding bad PR on that subject.
They screwed that pooch when they introduced ideology to the culture. They should (and appear to be) in damage control mode. Firing that guy was not a good idea, as it's captured the headlines for 3 days straight.

Except that the document wasn't actually scientific, just an amalgamation of various thoughts.
Which advocated for using more science. He wasn't trying to explain away the gender gap, but to start conversations on explaining it since the current definitions are obviously wrong, and obviously not working (by your own post).
I don't think tech is special, and this is readily applied to other fields where the gender balance heavily tips one way:
Really? It does?

Show me how this works for Registered Nurses. Infact, according to my quick google, just 9.1% of nurses are men.


How is this readily applied?
The fundamental mechanism is relatively easy: people tend to want to live and work in more homogeneous environments even though more diversity is actually beneficial. In male dominated industries such as the one I work in, STEM academia, many people don't interact much with women and often tend to be socially awkward. In view of my computer scientist friends they experience pretty much the same.
But this isn't backed by science. It's a narrative that attempts to use logic but fails to consider other possibilities, assigns causative factors to supposition (that people are only driven to hire based on homogeneity), and does not explain industries that don't experience a gender gap or why different industries have different gender gaps.

It's a blind echo chamber.

When they interact with women at work, they talk to secretaries or women in the administration or HR but not to women who are “equals” (programmers in this case). I have had female superiors and colleagues, professors, who were taken to be secretaries. Academia — just like tech — makes a conscious effort to increase diversity, not just out of altruism, but because tech in particular desperately needs talent (famously, the biggest problem Apple, Google et al are facing is talent retention). Increasing the talent pool by making the job more attractive to women seems like an obvious necessary step.
I mean great story and everything, but where's the data that proves this is actually what's causing the gender gap?

Of course, you can adapt the same arguments to female dominated professions.
I mean, you can make stuff up about whatever you want - it applies universally because there are no bounds. It's ideology, pure and simple.

Programming used to be dominated by women (perhaps because typing was seen as something that women do, but that's just my conjecture), something that changed during the “microcomputer revolution” (aka PCs). That's why a lot of extremely fundamental contributions to how we develop software today were made by women (e. g. by Admiral Grace Hopper who invented COBOL, the first modern computer language, and the first compiler). There were a bunch of (in hindsight) funny articles about how female dominated programming is.
So you're saying that changed why? If it was all women and everyone wants to be homogeneous, why did it flip to men?
In view of the history of computer science, the dominance of men is mostly a sociological phenomenon rather than based on differences in innate interests and talents.
What? Which sociological phenomenon are you talking about? (I went to college for sociology).

Difference in innate interests and talents would be the sociological phenomenon.

Are you just saying "sociological phenomenon" as a blanket "we're not really sure, but...phenomenon!"

The entire point is we should try to understand the phenomenon instead of trying to fit ideology in where our understanding lacks.

That is not supported by the timeline: when he learnt that his document went viral, he reportedly hurriedly tried to conceal authorship. I don't think he expected it to show up in national news. But let's say he did expect this degree of blowback, then he must have known that he will lose his job over it. That doesn't seem very smart, all he had to do was publish it on his own website or blog, and that's it.
I'll be honest - I heard the guy give an interview and he did sound young and naive. I think you are right on this one.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 10, 2017 at 09:45 PM. )
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 09:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would say it's a combination of “they are not as progressive than they think”
Oh ok, they are not ideological enough. Really? Like how much farther than the left can they get? This whole thing is because they've gone too far to the left. Severals members have posted how notoriously left-wing Silicon Valley is, and the gender gap is there because they aren't leftist enough?

We can do better than that.

If leftist culture is not producing the results we want to see, the answer is decidedly not even more leftist culture. The answer lies in science - something this guys memo repeatedly pointed out.
and that the lack of interaction with women coupled with the social awkwardness really makes it more difficult for men in tech to be more successful in increasing diversity.
Social awkwardness is not a valid or empirically back cause of the gender gap. I'm sorry, but again you're filling in the gaps with supposition.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think I've figured something out about you.
Probably not.

*deflection with projection*
Not sure how you've deflected this to me, but moving right along...

Sure some people might be happier in their boxes, but why can't they choose for themselves whether they want to be in that box? Do you actually like freedom, or do you mostly just like your freedoms? Real freedom, IMO, is about not having to be confined to all of these little constructs you have created. Anybody can be anything.
So the answer is, yes, you would rather that women be less happy and unfulfilled, just so long as they work to break millions of years of social evolution and their own inborn inclinations. I didn't say they couldn't be anything, you're being obtuse. Some women will like working in STEM, but 10s of 1000s of generations of evolution are pulling them towards fields that are more nurturing and people-oriented (or even staying at home and being a full-time mother). What you're calling "boxes" are hard-coded dispositions, and they're not going to go away with you, or anyone else, announcing that women can be anything.

I am flattered that you think I created this, though. Your opinion of my capabilities is gratifying.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you sure you read it? Or did you stop on the first page. He has an entire section on non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap.
That's really the whole point, isn't it? I'd guess that <1% of the people being critical didn't read the whole memo. In fact, I'd say most haven't read the actual memo at all, they've only seen it through the lens of their favorite news filter.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Probably not.



Not sure how you've deflected this to me, but moving right along...



So the answer is, yes, you would rather that women be less happy and unfulfilled, just so long as they work to break millions of years of social evolution and their own inborn inclinations. I didn't say they couldn't be anything, you're being obtuse. Some women will like working in STEM, but 10s of 1000s of generations of evolution are pulling them towards fields that are more nurturing and people-oriented (or even staying at home and being a full-time mother). What you're calling "boxes" are hard-coded dispositions, and they're not going to go away with you, or anyone else, announcing that women can be anything.

I am flattered that you think I created this, though. Your opinion of my capabilities is gratifying.



So, I gotta ask, are you just playing devil's advocate here, or do you really think that people are simple enough that they can just be summed by hard-coded dispositions enough that we should just treat everybody like they are the same based on whatever these hard-coded dispositions are?
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:27 PM
 
I didn't read much of the memo or this thread but here are my observations anyway:

Firstly, its long. Its not a memo, its a manifesto.
Secondly, was his job anything to do with hiring policies and practices? If a janitor spent a whole day writing political essays for the HR department instead of mopping floors, he'd be fired too;
Third, I hear this guy is now hanging out with white supremacists and MRAs. No idea if its true but sounds about right;
Fourth, I'm guessing from the bits I did read that he left out because he fails to understand or simply chooses to acknowledge that some part of the gender gaps in male-dominated fields are due to centuries/millennia of gender stereotyping inflicted on women by men as well as by circumstance. Thats what the compensation is for, to counter that where the effects have been negative or unfair;
Lastly, if you take into account the previous point, there is still a very good chance that some part of the gaps, be it a few percentage points, or enough to explain most of the gap away, can be explained by perfectly natural statistical biological or psychological differences between men and women and it should be ok to believe this and ok to say it under appropriate context. If you say it as part of your response to questions about how your day is going, you likely have a problem, and if these beliefs make you so angry that you feel inclined to speak out about policies intended to redress gender gaps, you're probably some kind of asshole.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:32 PM
 
No DA here. I believe that social evolution is a very real thing; we've adapted over millions of years for certain roles, and most of the time we'd be happier fulfilling those roles.

Are you purposely misrepresenting what I said? As I stated before, this isn't 100%, I'm sure there are some women who are very happy in tech, and there are some men who make excellent caregivers, but they're the exceptions. Trying to force diversity and gender hiring quotas isn't going to change this, no more than pressuring girls into STEM will. There should be latitude to allow people to break out of what the sexes typically do best, while at the same time not shying away from recognizing that differences do exist. I believe that social happiness will only come when there's balance there.

The most dire problem, IMO, is that certain jobs and roles are looked down upon as inferior, when there's nothing inferior about being a great nurse, teacher, counselor, or full-time mother. They're all very important jobs that deserve more respect, from everyone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post


So the answer is, yes, you would rather that women be less happy and unfulfilled, just so long as they work to break millions of years of social evolution and their own inborn inclinations. I didn't say they couldn't be anything, you're being obtuse. Some women will like working in STEM, but 10s of 1000s of generations of evolution are pulling them towards fields that are more nurturing and people-oriented (or even staying at home and being a full-time mother). What you're calling "boxes" are hard-coded dispositions, and they're not going to go away with you, or anyone else, announcing that women can be anything.

It reflects rather poorly that you understand why the gender gaps are there but instead of helping the efforts to redress the balance, your choice is to maintain the status quo instead. I genuinely hate using the term as much as I bet you hate hearing it, but this is a textbook example of someone looking to protect their own privilege.

No-one is forcing women into jobs that will make them miserable. Its possible some will end up in a job they don't like because they wanted to further the cause of equality, but society is already perfectly accepting of women quitting their jobs to start families etc so this argument that making an effort to undo generations of forcing gender roles will cause millions of poor helpless women to be unfulfilled and unhappy is as daft is it is awful. As if anyone could be more fulfilled washing dishes and picking up after kids than by furthering human knowledge and making scientific breakthroughs. Doing household chores is a sacrifice people make to experience the fulfilment of raising children. Pretty much no-one can enjoy doing that crap 18 hours a day for 25 years with zero days off.

The fact is that women already can be anything they want to be, but its still important that we make sure they know this because there are people who still think the way you do, who want to protect their male privilege, who raise their daughters to believe the same things, having chosen wives whose fathers raised them to think the same way. These women need other people to tell them and encourage them at every opportunity that they don't have to listen to their old fashioned male relatives or ministers in the hope they will break that brainwashing and live a more fulfilling life should they so wish.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2017, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No DA here. I believe that social evolution is a very real thing; we've adapted over millions of years for certain roles, and most of the time we'd be happier fulfilling those roles.

Are you purposely misrepresenting what I said? As I stated before, this isn't 100%, I'm sure there are some women who are very happy in tech, and there are some men who make excellent caregivers, but they're the exceptions. Trying to force diversity and gender hiring quotas isn't going to change this, no more than pressuring girls into STEM will. There should be latitude to allow people to break out of what the sexes typically do best, while at the same time not shying away from recognizing that differences do exist. I believe that social happiness will only come when there's balance there.

The most dire problem, IMO, is that certain jobs and roles are looked down upon as inferior, when there's nothing inferior about being a great nurse, teacher, counselor, or full-time mother. They're all very important jobs that deserve more respect, from everyone.

So what would you say to a brilliant women in tech who, for example, had the same abilities but not equal pay to her male counterparts? Just suck it up, because roles in society and stuff?

I'm not suggesting affirmative action, but to purposefully put people into boxes like this is cruel and unfair. It's also easy for you to say as a wealthy white male.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 05:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No DA here. I believe that social evolution is a very real thing; we've adapted over millions of years for certain roles, and most of the time we'd be happier fulfilling those roles.

Are you purposely misrepresenting what I said? As I stated before, this isn't 100%, I'm sure there are some women who are very happy in tech, and there are some men who make excellent caregivers, but they're the exceptions. Trying to force diversity and gender hiring quotas isn't going to change this, no more than pressuring girls into STEM will.
Its not pressure, its encouragement or empowerment. The net social pressure is still against women doing these jobs and having hiring policies and grants and advertising campaigns will help to change that pressure differential faster than doing nothing at all.

Hardly anyone looks down on nurses or teachers, they just aren't as highly valued as they should be and need to be paid better.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So what would you say to a brilliant women in tech who, for example, had the same abilities but not equal pay to her male counterparts? Just suck it up, because roles in society and stuff?
Nope, I tell them to put in as much overtime, and as many years, into their work and they'll make as much as men. Work to polish up those skills, based on what they read in their evaluations, instead of just looking at them as hurdles that they think are trying to hold them back.

I'm not suggesting affirmative action, but to purposefully put people into boxes like this is cruel and unfair. It's also easy for you to say as a wealthy white male.
I've placed no one in these "boxes", men and women, in general, are already in them through ages of evolution. What's "cruel and unfair" is to try and force people into careers that it's likely they'll be less happy with (as my previous link shows).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Nope, I tell them to put in as much overtime, and as many years, into their work and they'll make as much as men. Work to polish up those skills, based on what they read in their evaluations, instead of just looking at them as hurdles that they think are trying to hold them back.
Well I say that while forcing equality with programs like affirmative action and the like may not make sense, when this sort of inequality is found it needs to be called out aggressively, and not just blown off like you seem to be inclined to do. Appeal to (hopefully) the better nature of people in positions and power and stimulate the movement among people in positions out of power in order to apply pressure to that power.

Sometimes that pressure might result in the forced equality thing, that might be what I'd consider an overcompensation, but I see nothing in the world wrong with expecting that this women won't have unfair obstacles to deal with. Eventually my hope is that power will result in our finding that sweet spot where we don't gravitate towards being unfair, and where the artificial stuff is unnecessary.

I also think that ultimately your opinion on this doesn't matter a ton, as you are affected by this the very least as a rich white male.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 09:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Let me ask another open question.

If silicon valley is so left-leaning, why is there such a gender/race gap at all the big companies there? Lefties are even more racist/sexist than the average, or other factors are at play?
Because Silicon Valley is not left it's librotarian. And it's more racist/sexist than average because it's been created and run by a bunch or rich white men with no social skills.

Ex: Steve Jobs was an amazing tech guy. He was a pretty poor person.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If anything, becoming ideologically agnostic would be the best course of action for Google
Why? If, as they believe, embracing an ideology makes them more productive, increases the potential talent pool, produces better results, and makes them more attractive to their potential customers, then why wouldn't they embrace that ideology?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
According to what I've seen, dudeman's memo had about as much support as it did opposition according to a purported internal google survey. FWIW.
[citation needed]
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well I say that while forcing equality with programs like affirmative action and the like may not make sense, when this sort of inequality is found it needs to be called out aggressively, and not just blown off like you seem to be inclined to do. Appeal to (hopefully) the better nature of people in positions and power and stimulate the movement among people in positions out of power in order to apply pressure to that power.

Sometimes that pressure might result in the forced equality thing, that might be what I'd consider an overcompensation, but I see nothing in the world wrong with expecting that this women won't have unfair obstacles to deal with. Eventually my hope is that power will result in our finding that sweet spot where we don't gravitate towards being unfair, and where the artificial stuff is unnecessary.

I also think that ultimately your opinion on this doesn't matter a ton, as you are affected by this the very least as a rich white male.
I've not "blown off inequality". On the contrary, I've shown how situations can be seen as inequality when they really aren't. In tech jobs women more often work less overtime, take more vacations, and have been working these jobs for less time. Obviously they're going to make less $$. But the root issue is, why are women in STEM choosing to put in fewer hours in the first place? Studies show it's because they aren't as happy in their tech jobs as men are. Why aren't they happy? Because over a very, very long time they've evolved to excel in activities that aren't as well integrated into STEM.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've not "blown off inequality". On the contrary, I've shown how situations can be seen as inequality when they really aren't. In tech jobs women more often work less overtime, take more vacations, and have been working these jobs for less time. Obviously they're going to make less $$. But the root issue is, why are women in STEM choosing to put in fewer hours in the first place? Studies show it's because they aren't as happy in their tech jobs as men are. Why aren't they happy? Because over a very, very long time they've evolved to excel in activities that aren't as well integrated into STEM.

The root issue is that you are putting women into a box with what you are saying here. Do you not see this?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I disagree. IMO, it's because men and women prefer different fields. Female nurses and teachers make more than males, and they outnumber males in those fields 9:1 and 8:1 (respectively).
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/03/12...e-counterparts

http://scrubsmag.com/do-male-nurses-...female-nurses/

https://www.nurse.com/blog/2015/08/1...ender-pay-gap/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sing/70419356/

https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...-get-paid-more

No matter the actual reason, no, female nurses do not get paid more.

Also, glass escalator.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The root issue is that you are putting women into a box with what you are saying here. Do you not see this?
I've already shown that I've not placed them in any "box". They already had preferences to begin with, due to ancient social dynamics, and evolutionary adaptations, that are millions of years old. Do you not see that?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2015/03/12...e-counterparts

No matter the actual reason, no, female nurses do not get paid more.

Also, glass escalator.
I stand corrected on that one, good job. Why is that the case, though? Because they work fewer hours.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/Down...?id=6442458302

In nursing, already a female-dominated profession, increases in the proportion working part
time are driven by increases in the propensity of females to work fewer hours.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes, and maternity leave, and work life balance, and periods, and blah blah blah. Everyone knows that.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 11:49 AM
 
http://iwf.org/news/2804528/Google-i...hat&#39;s-okay

"Google it: men and women are different, and that's okay."

Women earn less than men do (on average): The wage gap is about 20 cents on the dollar. Men congregate in higher-paying jobs like engineering. Women congregate in nursing, teaching, and social work. Women comprise about 20 percent of Congress. Women are 97 percent of early childhood education majors; men are 97 percent of naval architecture majors.

Damore is right to point out that these different outcomes are largely the result of choice. Economists have studied the wage gap and attributed the bulk of it to profession, hours, experience, and other factors – not discrimination. Even the left-leaning American Association of University Women analyzed the wage gap and found that after considering work-related factors, it shrunk to 6 cents on the dollar.

Women choose, less frequently than men, to enter certain careers. When women express their preferences about work, fewer mothers than fathers say they want to work full-time hours. Female students cite different priorities when choosing a college major than those cited by their male counterparts.

None of this is controversial. After all, why would we call it a "diversity" policy if we didn't accept the premise that women and men are "diverse" or different?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Everyone knows that.
Then they need to stop acting like they don't whenever the "wage gap" comes up. We know they won't, however, because it's misinformation that's simply too useful to let go.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Where does IWF fall on the ideological spectrum? Here are a sampling of their recent headlines:

STUDY: MD COUNTY TO LOSE 47,000 JOBS BECAUSE OF $15 MINIMUM WAGE

ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THE BLAME GAME

A SNOBBISH TWEET ABOUT WEST VIRGINIA REVEALS WHAT ELITES REALLY THINK ABOUT REGULAR PEOPLE

COLLEGE STEM WOMEN CLAIM TO BE SEXISM VICTIMS: They are light on evidence but heavy on victim rhetoric.

WAR ON WORK: A CLOSER LOOK AT PROPOSALS FOR A UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME

They seem to have picked a specific political platform, and it's not one that I'd expect to see promoting women's equality.

Women choose, less frequently than men, to enter certain careers. When women express their preferences about work, fewer mothers than fathers say they want to work full-time hours. Female students cite different priorities when choosing a college major than those cited by their male counterparts.
"Women choose" is the crux of that paragraph. Again, no reasonable person is claiming that women aren't making choices, but those choices aren't made in a vacuum. Given fewer options and fewer opportunities, their "choices" aren't made among the full range of options offered to men.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've already shown that I've not placed them in any "box". They already had preferences to begin with, due to ancient social dynamics, and evolutionary adaptations, that are millions of years old. Do you not see that?
Except for the ones that don't have these preferences. Why is this so hard to understand?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Where does IWF fall on the ideological spectrum?
Yet in this story they actually have detailed sources that you can actually visit and read for yourself, unlike say, most of Snopes' supposed debunkery.

Given fewer options and fewer opportunities, their "choices" aren't made among the full range of options offered to men.
They don't have fewer opportunities, if you can prove that they do, esp based on any form of sexism, go ahead.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Except for the ones that don't have these preferences. Why is this so hard to understand?
Then as long as they work as diligently, putting in the same hours for the same amount of time, they'll make as much money (as the sources I presented show). Most don't, however, which is connected to them not being as happy in what they're doing, because due to millions of years of evolution, they've taken to preferring a different type of work. Why is that so hard to understand?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 01:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then as long as they work as diligently, putting in the same hours for the same amount of time, they'll make as much money (as the sources I presented show). Most don't, however, which is connected to them not being as happy in what they're doing, because due to millions of years of evolution, they've taken to preferring a different type of work. Why is that so hard to understand?
I would love to watch you have this conversation with a woman or minority affected by some sort of inequality in their life. They would love to hear about their built in limitations based on historical/sociological trends, discounting any potential for individuality and exceptions.

You do realize that you have about the shittiest possible vantage point to any of this imaginable?
( Last edited by besson3c; Aug 11, 2017 at 01:40 PM. )
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Why? If, as they believe, embracing an ideology makes them more productive, increases the potential talent pool, produces better results, and makes them more attractive to their potential customers, then why wouldn't they embrace that ideology?
Because they have been proven wrong.

The gender gap is still a huge problem there. Infact, they are under federal investigation for their practices.

[citation needed]
Not sure how you haven't seen this, but ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.businessinsider.com/many-...n-fired-2017-8
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would love to watch you have this conversation with a woman or minority affected by some sort of inequality in their life. They would love to hear about their built in limitations based on historical/sociological trends, discounting any potential for individuality and exceptions.
I literally said the opposite of this. We should always allow for exceptions, as I said before. If they work the same hours, for the same amount of years, and perform the same quality of work, they should make the same $$, and the links I've provided say they do. The problem is, most women who work STEM careers don't put in as many hours, take more vacations, and rate as being less happy than those who don't (which is what no doubt makes them want to work less hours). Why make this crap up? Are you fishing for things to disagree about?

I've had numerous conversations with women, and "minorities" over this, dozens, and none of them have been as defensive as you (ironically enough). Once I present this information, they get it, they (unlike some here) understand. It's not their fault, it's not anyone's fault, ultimately, it's how we've evolved as a species. A relative few are different, but men and women tend to prefer different types of work, and that's okay.

You do realize that you have about the shittiest possible vantage point to any of this imaginable?
You realize you've fabricated this outrage, right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I literally said the opposite of this. We should always allow for exceptions, as I said before. If they work the same hours, for the same amount of years, and perform the same quality of work, they should make the same $$, and the links I've provided say they do. The problem is, most women who work STEM careers don't put in as many hours, take more vacations, and rate as being less happy than those who don't (which is what no doubt makes them want to work less hours). Why make this read up? Are you fishing for things to disagree about?

I've had numerous conversations with women, and "minorities" over this, dozens, and none of them have been as defensive as you (ironically enough). Once I present this information, they get it, they (unlike some here) understand. It's not their fault, it's not anyone's fault, ultimately, it's how we've evolved as a species. A relative few are different, but men and women tend to prefer different types of work, and that's okay.



You realize you've fabricated this outrage, right?

I apologize for misreading you. I'm still unclear as to why your statistical data points are particularly relevant if we agree that women and other minorities shouldn't be put in boxes and held back from being potential exceptions to norms, this was what was confusing to me. This seems entirely irrelevant (unless it is attached as a counter to an argument pro affirmative action and the like), but I do apologize for my misunderstanding.

I might have even misread/misunderstand your positions on muslims, liberals, educators, and other people you have seemed to try to generalize about in the past.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
They don't have fewer opportunities, if you can prove that they do, esp based on any form of sexism, go ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in...as-gender-bias

There's a bajiillion articles on this phenomenon. Women and men are judged differently in interviews and job evaluations.

"If everyone was just judged fairly and based on merit alone, we wouldn't need to have affirmative action and other discriminatory practices!"

Yes, that'd be great. But over and over again we see that people for some reason can't just hire and promote based on merit alone.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then as long as they work as diligently, putting in the same hours for the same amount of time, they'll make as much money (as the sources I presented show).
No, the weird right wing blog you just posted cited research stating that once all factors are accounted for, the wage gap is still 6 cents on the dollar. Aka exists.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because they have been proven wrong.
[citation needed]

Not sure how you haven't seen this, but ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.businessinsider.com/many-...n-fired-2017-8
You said:
According to what I've seen, dudeman's memo had about as much support as it did opposition
The article you're linking says:

Perhaps most pertinently, 441 Google employees responded. Of them, more than half – 56% to be precise– said they didn't think it was right for the company to fire Damore.
They didn't think he should have been fired. They didn't say they agreed with his views.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 04:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Because they have been proven wrong.

The gender gap is still a huge problem there. Infact, they are under federal investigation for their practices.


Not sure how you haven't seen this, but ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.businessinsider.com/many-...n-fired-2017-8
I probably don't even need to say it, but... small, seemingly self-selecting sample of employees who may not be working at the same campus.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
They didn't think he should have been fired. They didn't say they agreed with his views.
And if it was, are these STEM people or management?

Let's have the STEM folks manage, and have managers design the turbo-encabulators. What could go wrong?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 05:05 PM
 
https://www.theguardian.com/women-in...as-gender-bias

There's a bajiillion articles on this phenomenon. Women and men are judged differently in interviews and job evaluations.
I don't know the intricacies at play within the live music scene, so I can only assume that's different than tech with many other factors at play.

Yes, that'd be great. But over and over again we see that people for some reason can't just hire and promote based on merit alone.
Then it's good we have such a robust legal system for the fringe cases where you might be correct. The type of discrimination you're positing is illegal. However, since it IS based on hours worked and evaluations, much more often than not, the standard is that it's based on merit. Does real discrimination in STEM happen? Yes. Is it common? No. We've come a long way.

No, the weird right wing blog you just posted cited research stating that once all factors are accounted for, the wage gap is still 6 cents on the dollar. Aka exists.
Doubtful. It's likely another work-related factor that wasn't accounted for in the survey. (Probably due to men asking for raises more often than women, would be my guess. Something easily fixed by not giving raises except after review periods, which is becoming standard practice.) It's funny that you take issue with that conservative women's site but then readily throw out the Left-wing rag The Guardian as your source. Made me snicker.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I apologize for misreading you. I'm still unclear as to why your statistical data points are particularly relevant if we agree that women and other minorities shouldn't be put in boxes and held back from being potential exceptions to norms, this was what was confusing to me. This seems entirely irrelevant (unless it is attached as a counter to an argument pro affirmative action and the like), but I do apologize for my misunderstanding.

I might have even misread/misunderstand your positions on muslims, liberals, educators, and other people you have seemed to try to generalize about in the past.
I don't think we're that far apart on this, we're just accustomed to fighting each other.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then it's good we have such a robust legal system for the fringe cases where you might be correct.
Explain for me, if you will, the impact on a person's future career prospects if that person is to file a discrimination lawsuit against a current or former employer.

How often is "keep your head down and don't cause trouble" drilled into people's heads?

The type of discrimination you're positing is illegal.
Yes, illegal stuff happens all of the time. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and just because it doesn't get prosecuted doesn't mean it wasn't illegal.

Does real discrimination in STEM happen? Yes. Is it common? No.
[citation needed]

t then readily throw out the Left-wing rag The Guardian as your source. Made me snicker.
I literally posted the first Google result discussing an extremely well known phenomenon, and even acknowledged that it is a very well known example that stands alone from whatever editorializing the article may have done. If you can't see the difference between that and what you did, then I don't know what to tell you.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2017, 10:20 PM
 
The liberal hypocrites who claim no minority or woman should be fired without perfectly liberal justification, will try to sound reasonable now about how this guy should be fired but only because he's against their ideology.

However, as a true non-biased conservative who must remain straight with what I've said before... I must side with Google, but only as far as firing him. A business is a possession. If you own it you (should) get to hire & fire anyone you please, woman, minority, or conservative white male - for any reason or without explanation. It's your utopia you've built, regardless of whether your employees agree with it; regardless of whether your employees are the hardest workers. Goog has chosen diversity over skill. Google has no obligation to listen to his advise about running a business better. There is more to a business than just 'business'. A company has the right to set the culture of people they want to be around 40 hrs a week.

I have always told the snarling liberals if they dont like conservative business practices, then instead of trying to work for someone else, they should start their own business and do things their way. Thats what the people of Google are trying to do. It doesnt matter if they have no understanding of human psychology or if their diversity crusade is being proven a completely failed concept.

The only real problem I can see is if government gets too involved in labor practices and allows discrimination against conservatives but not any other group. This is the thing we really need to be vigilant of. If conservatives play their cards wrong by siding with this fake conservative engineer, it wont work in their favor.

In a way he won a workplace Darwin award. He should have known one doesnt just say things that discomfort big feminism. This is a female chauvinist society. Look how fast all this pro-feminist outrage occurred across society. That is testament to the brainwashing power big white-woman holds. If you're going to say this stuff you do it anonymously on the internet, only once you've hidden yourself 3 or 4 proxy servers deep. If you're going to say this in person to people, you should first draw an arc in the dirt with your foot upon meeting... It's like a black man 120 years ago saying "Doesn't anybody see this!? Whats happening isn't fair!". He's going to be looked at like he's crazy, and then crucified. What he got wrong was thinking google was the liberal echo chamber; the reality is our whole modern society has become a Marxist echo chamber as a result of several very spoiled inexperienced generations. This is what happens to a country whos kids didnt have to work for anything they have.
c
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2017, 12:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ex: Steve Jobs was an amazing tech guy. He was a pretty poor person.
Steve Jobs was a notorious asshole but not a notoriously sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory asshole. He was an equal opportunities asshole.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I've not "blown off inequality". On the contrary, I've shown how situations can be seen as inequality when they really aren't.
I don't think you've shown what you think you've shown. You've explained why the inequalities exist, then used the fact they can be explained to somehow justify not trying to redress them which it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
In tech jobs women more often work less overtime, take more vacations, and have been working these jobs for less time. Obviously they're going to make less $$. But the root issue is, why are women in STEM choosing to put in fewer hours in the first place? Studies show it's because they aren't as happy in their tech jobs as men are. Why aren't they happy? Because over a very, very long time they've evolved to excel in activities that aren't as well integrated into STEM.

First, if it means you can pay them less to fill the same job, thats not necessarily a reason to not hire them in the first place. If they were evolved to not be happy working in STEM, then they won't stay working in STEM. I don't see why working less hours means you must be less happy. Maybe you just enjoy doing other stuff too. Have you referenced these studies?


Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The root issue is that you are putting women into a box with what you are saying here. Do you not see this?
He's not putting them in the box, just trying to keep them there. Rather he's saying that the box exists for a reason, so we shouldn't try to help them out of it. Which is wrong.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Most don't, however, which is connected to them not being as happy in what they're doing, because due to millions of years of evolution, they've taken to preferring a different type of work. Why is that so hard to understand?
The women I know who study and work in STEM are passionate and skilled at what they do. They work less hours because they like doing other things too and are less likely to blow off spending time with their kids than male workers are. This is probably about half due to evolution that they have a stronger urge to nurture and half social pressure because they will be seen to be neglecting their children (and often accused to their faces by family members as well as friends and strangers) while the men are patted on the back for supporting their families by working so hard.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I literally said the opposite of this. We should always allow for exceptions
Yes you said this, but ever since you did you've been arguing that even the exceptions are really miserable in their jobs because they aren't really exceptions after all and deep down they just want to have babies and clean stuff like they're supposed to. Yes, I'm putting a few extra words in your mouth. But thats because it looks like that whats you really think. Probably due to millions of years of evolution so its fine, don't feel bad.


[QUOTE=el chupacabra;4386564]The liberal hypocrites who claim no minority or woman should be fired without perfectly liberal justification, will try to sound reasonable now about how this guy should be fired but only because he's against their ideology.

I don't think this guy was fired for his views. I think he was fired because he shared them. If he had stuck to expressing them in more intimate conversations, he might have just been warned when he eventually offended someone and got complained about. As it is, he wrote a whole manifesto, shared it with everyone and in doing so simultaneously harassed and offended every single woman in the company, plus the men who support gender diversity programs, policies and ideals. Thats way more counts of harassment than it takes to justify firing anyone. He might as well have sent a dick pic to everyone@google.com.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,