Google defends itself as anger over anti-diversity manifesto intensifies

[JamesSWD]

Also I should add that the headline to this piece betrays the fact that the author didn't read the original post. The post was in no way anti-diversity, it was against discriminatory and divisive methods to try and enforce a particular type of diversity ideology. Read it if you're going to report on it.

Did you expect better from this particular author? He's known to skew his stories left, regardless of facts.

 

[JamesSWD]

Wow... a bunch of males, mostly white, defending the leaked article.... aaaaannnndddd that's the problem.

You have magic powers to see the race & gender of those commenting?

 

[JamesSWD]

Don't be trolls, I hired a few developers 9 months ago and I struggled to find a woman, 1 woman in 10 men, but we needed a woman since we wanted a female insight ... after a couple of months we found a woman who is one of our best developers now. I still believe that the whole issue is related with how we raise girls and boys, during the early years.

Yet many studies have shown that even as babies girls tend towards dolls and boys tend towards tools and toy cars.

They're making the silly, pandering excuse and assumption that society/parents somehow gears only boys towards IT and other computer work. Anyone old enough to remember going to school in the 80's knew that schools were teaching boys & girls about computers and programming, without any gender bias. And the boys overwhelmingly gravitated towards the computers, while most girls hated them. I was one of the boys and saw this firsthand. Most parents back then didn't own or understand computers and had no influence on steering their boys or girls into the world of computers. Boys took to it naturally and steered themselves into it.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yet many studies have shown that even as babies girls tend towards dolls and boys tend towards tools and toy cars.

Not according to this - http://www.parentingscience.com/girl-toys-and-parenting.html

Both of us can probably find more links supporting each of our viewpoints. The fact that there is a disparity, IMO, probably indicates that the matter is not entirely settled.

 

[wiyosaya]

They're making the silly, pandering excuse and assumption that society/parents somehow gears only boys towards IT and other computer work. Anyone old enough to remember going to school in the 80's knew that schools were teaching boys & girls about computers and programming, without any gender bias. And the boys overwhelmingly gravitated towards the computers, while most girls hated them. I was one of the boys and saw this firsthand. Most parents back then didn't own or understand computers and had no influence on steering their boys or girls into the world of computers. Boys took to it naturally and steered themselves into it.

And I knew, in the 70s in my High Scool, several girls that were exceptional at math. Just because either one of us observed what we did does not make what we observed the norm. One's own observations are capable of tripping us up unless they are validated by the observations of others. That is what science is all about.

Have a look at this for quite a few women that don't fit your viewpoint. - https://women.nasa.gov/

 

[Abraka]

It's not an biological problem... It's a cultural probleam. Sexism is part of our patriarcal society, we raise boys to "man jobs" and girls to "woman jobs"... The companies need people that work with the tasks needed for the bussiness to run... If there's more man in enginering jobs, it's not companies' faulty, it's our society faulty.
Google can help as any other company (as part of the society) can, helping promoting gender equity in schools, yada yada yada...

It's not a cultural problem. Even in Sweden, Finland and Norway there's much less women in the IT classes than males. Same goes for politics. Start talking about politics, immediately about 99% of women and 50% of men will leave the room. Which explains why is there so many men in politics. Nobody points the gun at the women. They just don't find politics and IT interesting.

When you meet a woman, and you tell her you're IT expert, she looks a lot less interested immediately. Except two types of woman, those rare that actually are into computers and technology, and those who think that you must be having a good salary. But you can see that women don't dig technology.

 

[davislane1]

It is safe to say at this point that Google may have peaked. If recent changes to YouTube (Google-owned) and Twitter (not Google-owned) are any indication, these companies are somewhere in the ballpark of two months away from being competitively Death Stared (jeopardized long-term because of engineered vulnerabilities).

It seems that I jumped the gun with that prediction. In reality, it was mere hours:

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/7/161...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Top talent is now going to second think Google offers and the crimethinkers within its ranks are going to be on the hunt for more secure jobs.

Never hire SJWs, folks. They bring nothing but destruction.

 

[BigMack70]

Main point of the paper was that ideological diversity should be valued (and is not) at least as much if not more than biological diversity (which is). I think that's pretty solid, and the fact that it's being dismissed by google and angry twitter users without the substance of its material being answered sort of proves its point.

 

[psycros]

You gotta love how eager the left are to prove their critics right.

 

[Kotters]

Wow... a bunch of males, mostly white, defending the leaked article.... aaaaannnndddd that's the problem.

When will people stop assuming gender and race over the internet? It's problematic behavior and it needs to stop.

 

[Bastiats Ghost]

Embracing diversity would be suicide, Google.

Do it.

 

[Michiel]

Sad to see Techspot post such a biased article on this issue. A headline like "Google-employee diversity-policy manifesto continues to spark intense debate" would have been more accurate and neutral. Now the article's author has clearly picked a side.
Anyone who has read the manifesto without clenching their fists and chanting "burn the white cis-gendered male patriarchy!" to themselves repeatedly can tell that this is not in any way an "anti diversity manifesto" (or "screed" as it was denigratingly called in other "news" outlets).
Almost all the professional psychologists or biologists I've seen respond to the manifesto have vouched for it's scientific accuracy regarding gender differences. Nowhere in the manifesto does it say anything negative about individual women who work in and have a passion and skill for tech. It only speaks about averages based on scientific evidence.
Of course women who want to work in tech should be able to do so in an environment without harassment, and for the same pay as a male employee in the same job. The manifesto never disputed that. Yes society and upbringing may be responsible for holding some women back who would otherwise have been interested in working in tech, but it's not the only, or even the main reason for the over-representation of men. Biological differences have their part to play and trying for an artificial 50/50 balance of men and women in tech may not be a reasonable or desirable goal at all and actually in itself may lead to discriminatory practices.

AFAIK that was the point the document was making, and it was making it in a very fair and measured way.
I recommend everyone to check out this article on Quillette where several scientists (including a woman) respond to the manifesto:
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

 

[erickmendes]

Update: Just finished reading it... It really is well writen and a lot less unbiased than the way the media is threating that matter... Clearly Google fired him just to be on the 'safe side'...

@Michiel totally agree (after reading the manifesto)

 

[Bubbajim]

Came here just to say this and glad to see someone already did. Put another way: the observation of current reality is not a mandate of how things "should be" or that something "is natural". The justification of present gender-based differentiation by looking at biological and psychological factors is post-hoc. People are looking for evidence to fit the conclusion they've already come to. Our culture creates our reality and, if we work consciously to change culture, that means we can change our reality through culture shift.

Sure, it's hard to pursue such big potential changes without knowing whether there truly is a biological basis for the difference in gender participation by career (we don't have baseline "neutral" data, only that from existing cultures), but it should be easy to agree that treating people equally and allowing them to make their own unbiased, uncoerced decisions is the ideal to strive for. Otherwise we're just deciding that we are more comfortable upholding existing cultural norms than actually providing a level playing field.

You talk about culture as though it can be separated from the people who make up a culture. Cultures are made up of people. People who are biological entities. Getting facts about one does not preclude the other being an issue too. It's bonkers that people think "it's not X, it's Y!" without ever considering that it might be X+Y.

Yes, sexism still exists. Yes, it's important to remove barriers and level the playing field. These are points that the original "memo" made, repeatedly. But it also made the points about biological differences. Biological differences feed into, and play out in, cultural differences (at least when it comes to gender roles).

When you have studies that show things like one day old babies - who simply cannot be influenced by "social" or "cultural" factors - show differences between genders in their attention to things, it's hard to surmise that biology doesn't factor in. http://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

We're not slaves to our biology, obviously, we're the best animal on the planet at overcoming the limits of our genes. But to suggest that (and this bit's important) when looking at population-sized samples biological factors won't show themselves is just wrong.

Can't things be more complex than just *one* cause? And if you agree that they can, why is it wrong to acknowledge more than one cause?

 

[Reachable]

Perhaps the major off-putting reason girls don't pursue careers in tech is that they see it as a boys' club. That can be very daunting. It works similarly for the guys not wanting to transgress into the girls' realms. I've noticed in recent years that it seems like almost half the articles you see in various publications covering science and tech are written by women, and they are written every bit as technically. This is because journalism has ceased to be a boys' club.

I read the memo. Some of the author's observations are ignorant to the point of absurdity, but he's entirely well-meaning and not disrespectful of anyone. In fact, it's an altogether meek document that strives for the persuasions of intellect rather than emotion. That he was fired for it should be alarming for everyone.

 

[antiproduct]

You have magic powers to see the race & gender of those commenting?

There's these things called profile pictures, like the one you have. Yeah, you could be misrepresenting yourself, but you really do fit the description of your image. So... yeah. It's pretty amazing really.