June 21, 2018, 04:38:02 PM

Author Topic: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer  (Read 7972 times)

Offline Andyman

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2018, 01:41:30 PM »


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.

Offline CJ

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2018, 02:15:34 PM »


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.

A simple questions for you. Would it be possible of answering it without a "what if" scenario?

Do you think all people of a given sex and race combination are the same or is each person an individual? ie. are all white males are the same? are all black females are the same etc.

If yes, explain how this is so.

If no, explain why we need diversity within a company if people are individuals rather than just being part of a given group.




Offline Andyman

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #82 on: January 15, 2018, 03:58:52 PM »
Sorry, not taking the bait, especially when presented with a choice between a completely illogical position that nobody actually holds, and its foil, which you've clearly set up as being the "correct" answer.

If you're genuinely interested in that motivates diversity policy in the tech industry, why don't you take a look at Google's dedicated diversity page?

https://diversity.google/

Or here, an interview with eBay's diversity officer:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240

Here's a business-focused report from Morgan Stanley on gender diversity and company performance:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies

Here's an opinion piece on the topic that references the Damore case without an accusatory or partisan tone:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

Maybe these are more informative resources than the opinion of someone who has no stake in the matter.

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2018, 04:21:22 PM »


I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers some of your questions.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Great. When a gay Latina, working for a company dominated by gay Latinas, sues that company for discrimination against gay Latinas, I look forward to the outpouring of support she'll get on Fox News and Breitbart.

A simple questions for you. Would it be possible of answering it without a "what if" scenario?

Do you think all people of a given sex and race combination are the same or is each person an individual? ie. are all white males are the same? are all black females are the same etc.

If yes, explain how this is so.

If no, explain why we need diversity within a company if people are individuals rather than just being part of a given group.

I think the answer would be the same from both sides. People are individulas but certain groups share elements of either privilege or discrimination. Where they differ is how to deal with this. Taking direct action to level the numbers or trying to persuade people that being unfairly disciminative is against their better interests.

Offline MayorHaggar

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3355
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #84 on: January 15, 2018, 04:25:58 PM »
Quote
Again, just replace "white" with "black" and "male" with "female", plug those words into the stats above, and now imagine a black woman suing for discrimination, citing race and gender as factors. Would it become a celebrated cause for conservatives? He got the sack. Now he's suing because apparently this wouldn't have happened had he not been a white male conservative.

I think this, from the article CDW posted, answers your question.

Quote
It’s important to remember that American civil-rights law is generally color-blind. In other words, it protects white employees every bit as much as it protects black employees, and conduct that would be unlawful if applied to African Americans or women is also unlawful if applied to whites or males.


Though maybe not about whether it'd be such a 'celebrated' cause for conservatives. When an unarmed white man is shot by the police in the US, is it normally a 'celebrated' cause for BLM? I guess not.

In the US an employer can fire an employee for any reason. But you can't say "I'm firing you because you're old/gay/white/black." Unless there is proof that Google gave "we're firing you because you're a white male" as the reason for firing him, he doesn't have a case. They don't even have to give a reason, because conservatives have fought so hard for so long to give employers 100% control over firings. Usually the issue of "reason for firing" is only an issue in terms of applying for unemployment benefits. If you've been fired for being incompetent or insubordinate, you can't get unemployment. If you're fired because "my boss didn't like my pink shirt," or because of cost-cutting (i.e. laid off), you can get unemployment. But unemployment benefit considerations are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether he was fired against the law.

I'm pretty sure Google can win this case by simply saying "Google did not want to be associated with James Damore's sexist views." "Being sexist" is not a protected class.

Keep in mind all the times you've seen conservatives applauding someone being fired for saying something anti-conservative on Facebook. It's literally the same thing. Damore probably could've gotten away with it if he had done everything on his own time instead of using company resources and time to post his manifesto. And what was he hoping to change anyway? If he doesn't like the way Google does things, why didn't he leave and start his own company to show that sexist men make better techies? Google doesn't owe him anything but a paycheck.

Was his memo sexist? Did he say that men were better than women at any point. Or just different?

It doesn't matter, Google could have fired him for having BO or liking the Philadelphia Eagles. Even if they said it was for being sexist, being sexist is not a protected class. Having ideas that your employer doesn't want to be associated with is not a protected class.

I think all we need to know about whether Damore is sexist is the fact that conservatives, who have always been anti-feminist and supportive of sexism, are suddenly up in arms over Damore. They know he's sexist, and it's why they support him. Kind of like how Trump supporters in general insist Trump isn't racist, yet defend every racist thing he says.

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #85 on: January 15, 2018, 04:53:56 PM »
Quote
I think all we need to know about whether Damore is sexist is the fact that conservatives, who have always been anti-feminist and supportive of sexism, are suddenly up in arms over Damore. They know he's sexist, and it's why they support him. Kind of like how Trump supporters in general insist Trump isn't racist, yet defend every racist thing he says.

There are a lot of people who aren't conservatives who'd be against the kind of stuff Google are getting up to. You won't hear from them much because they don't write in the media and are afraid to say what they want at work. However if you read a story about Dalmore in the Guardian for example, which is mostly read by people on the left, the comments section would be full of anti Google stuff.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 04:57:21 PM by eggieguffer »

Offline MayorHaggar

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3355
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #86 on: January 15, 2018, 05:09:15 PM »
Not liking google doesn't have anything to do with wanting to employ someone. If you didn't like Google why would you care who they fire?

Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."


I don't have any sympathy for tech companies or their overpaid employees after they gleefully destroyed the Bay Area, but I've worked at enough American employers to know that employees have pretty much zero protections against being fired or any expectation of job security, which again is exactly what conservatives wanted.

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #87 on: January 15, 2018, 05:39:57 PM »
Quote
Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."

The kind of stuff posted on here about feminism from the news is the kind of stuff the majority of people in the UK would complain about. That's why only 7% identify as feminists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

As I mentioned before when the Guardian (very left wing, 'intelligent' broadsheet) posts anything about feminism, there are pages and pages of comments against it. So much so that they  specifically decided to get rid of comments sections after articles about feminism recently. 

The demographic on these boards is mostly young people coming out of US/Canadian universities where this kind of stuff is the only acceptable ideology. Even so, the majority of them don't post anything at all about politics.

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2746
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #88 on: January 15, 2018, 09:03:23 PM »
Quote
Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."

The kind of stuff posted on here about feminism from the news is the kind of stuff the majority of people in the UK would complain about. That's why only 7% identify as feminists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/

As I mentioned before when the Guardian (very left wing, 'intelligent' broadsheet) posts anything about feminism, there are pages and pages of comments against it. So much so that they  specifically decided to get rid of comments sections after articles about feminism recently. 

The demographic on these boards is mostly young people coming out of US/Canadian universities where this kind of stuff is the only acceptable ideology. Even so, the majority of them don't post anything at all about politics.
From the article:
Quote
am Smethers, the charity’s chief executive, said: “The overwhelming majority of the public share our feminist values but don’t identify with the label. However the simple truth is if you want a more equal society for women and men then you are in fact a feminist.
“In our survey we also asked people for their instant reaction to the word ‘feminist’. We found the negative responses clearly in the minority as others saw the word as political, referring to campaigners, or offered explicitly positive

I wouldn't want to rely on the haters who troll comments sections for any kind of assumptions about what the general population thinks.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4635
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #89 on: January 16, 2018, 07:48:09 AM »
Not liking google doesn't have anything to do with wanting to employ someone. If you didn't like Google why would you care who they fire?

Anyone can post anonymously on message boards like this, yet the only people I see posting in support of Damore are the same conservatives who defend everything Trump does and come out to complain about women everytime there's something in the news for or against "feminism."


I don't have any sympathy for tech companies or their overpaid employees after they gleefully destroyed the Bay Area, but I've worked at enough American employers to know that employees have pretty much zero protections against being fired or any expectation of job security, which again is exactly what conservatives wanted.

I support Trump and I don't like the silencing of conservative voices by the anti-free speech left.

That being said, this guy is on shaky ground. If he was just ranting and raving 24-7 on the boards and posting 10 page missives, that gets increasingly hard to defend.

Offline CJ

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #90 on: January 16, 2018, 07:59:48 AM »
Sorry, not taking the bait, especially when presented with a choice between a completely illogical position that nobody actually holds, and its foil, which you've clearly set up as being the "correct" answer.

If you're genuinely interested in that motivates diversity policy in the tech industry, why don't you take a look at Google's dedicated diversity page?

https://diversity.google/

Or here, an interview with eBay's diversity officer:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-key-to-increasing-diversity-in-the-tech-industry-1502676240

Here's a business-focused report from Morgan Stanley on gender diversity and company performance:

https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/gender-diversity-tech-companies

Here's an opinion piece on the topic that references the Damore case without an accusatory or partisan tone:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

Maybe these are more informative resources than the opinion of someone who has no stake in the matter.

I didn't even have to see Google's webpage as I knew what they'd represent as a "progressive" workplace; a picture of a black man, Asian woman and white guy. Typical. I couldn'r read further than 'We know our best work will come when our workforce reflects the world around us. We’re addressing the lack of representation across the company through our talent engagement and community outreach efforts."

Do you actually buy into this crap? Why on earth does a company's best work have to come via having a workforce that represents the world around us? Does that mean a medical clinic has to stop employing so many Asians and more blacks as that doesn't represent the world around us? Where are the dwarfs and midgets at Google? Where is the representation for them?

Offline CJ

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #91 on: January 16, 2018, 08:10:31 AM »
So Damore had the temerity to say that men and women are different and that makes him sexist? Right, got it. I suppose the author of "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" should also be called out for being sexist. I mean, men and women are the same, right? Or perhaps the scientists who discovered that the male and female brains are different which explains differences behaviour are also sexist, or the fact that males have more testosterone which might make them....dare I say it, close your eyes everyone, trigger warning trigger warning...different!

Offline CJ

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #92 on: January 16, 2018, 08:48:32 AM »
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


   

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #93 on: January 16, 2018, 08:57:32 AM »
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. Which points to the likelihood that social justice is really just another form of Marxism. They want everyone to be equal financially. They don't give a crap about women being denied the life enhancing experience of being a bricklayer. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid. Probably the latter as that reinforces the idea of the oppressed class.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 09:09:24 AM by eggieguffer »

Offline CJ

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #94 on: January 16, 2018, 09:12:19 AM »
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #95 on: January 16, 2018, 09:27:17 AM »
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 

It's considered a 'problem' because tech is well paid. The first line references this when it says 'the idea that biological differences drive social inequality is considered fairly offensive.' Thus women are deemed to be socially unequal to men because overall they get paid less. I'm not sure if the writer actually believes that biological differences have nothing to do with more women going into childcare, for example, or that their biological differences do lead them into fields like childcare, which men then ensure are badly paid.

Yes, that's probably the very epicentre of the Left's issues; men earn more than women which is naturally an injustice. Women are then seen as victims so we have to fix this problem. Blacks, Asians and other minorities are also underrepresented, so we have to even things up to represent the world around us and thus make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

I wonder if more women would be encouraged into tech if tech was poorly paid; I think we all know the answer to that one.  ;D

Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #96 on: January 16, 2018, 09:41:30 AM »
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Online JNM

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3065
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #97 on: January 16, 2018, 09:45:01 AM »
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!

Offline eggieguffer

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4014
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #98 on: January 16, 2018, 09:48:05 AM »
Quote
Underrepresented based on merit and ability? Or underrepresented based on discriminatory hiring practices?

You know it could be that they're underrepresented based on the number of applications the company gets.

Quote
Social care and nursing is underpaid and the majority of those workers are women. Your last flippant comment reeks of James Damore.

So do you think social care and nursing are underpaid because they're fields dominated by women. Or because they're mostly public sector, non wealth producing fields that women happen to be drawn to?

Veterinarians make mega-bucks!

True, though I guess now that the majority of vets are women, the patriarchy will get together and  somehow conspire to ensure the field as a whole becomes less lucrative.

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2746
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google’s Firing of Anti-Diversity Memo Writer
« Reply #99 on: January 16, 2018, 09:49:21 AM »
@Andyman. Your article's title is a bit perplexing "Science doesn't explain tech's diversity problem".  My immediate question is: why is it a problem? Why is the lack of females in tech a problem? Who is it a problem for? I don't see articles about the lack of female bricklayers or sewage workers. There's a lack of diversity in those fields doesn't seem to be a problem.  I don't see the lack of male childcare workers or nurses a problem, either.

The article then states "women earn the majority of bachelor’s degrees in biology, half the bachelor’s degrees in chemistry, and a little under half the bachelor’s degrees in math. " Why does this mean that women instantly want a career in tech? There are dozens of careers that require the hard sciences as a basis for employment. Women in science gravitate to their interests which are in the medical and health fields. That's a poorly laid out argument by the writer that, just because a large amount of women like science, that means a large proportion want to be a tech geek and code all day.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/16/16153740/tech-diversity-problem-science-history-explainer-inequality

The fact is, women in the West have a 100% ability to make their own decisions in their lives. There's no patriarchy, there is absolutely ZERO barrier to stop women getting into tech if they want to.

If you take a look at the figures below, you'll see women dominate education, speech pathology, nursing, childcare, nutrition, social work, vet science and a host of other occupations. Is this all a social construct? Or are women doing what I hope they can do; making their own life choices?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html


 



Stereotype much?

I hope you're not one of those dudes who complain when jobs posted in Korea call for females.

 



Learn new things. Meet new people. Be inspired.
Check out a KOTESOL chapter event near you!
koreatesol.org/nc2018