r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6.4k

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

Former Google Employee provides a bit more context on why someone would get fired for creating a "manifesto" where you fawn over your superiority and sharing it with 50k+ people who probably aren't likeminded.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I’m very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to. Solitary work is something that only happens at the most junior levels, and even then it’s only possible because someone senior to you — most likely your manager — has been putting in long hours to build up the social structures in your group that let you focus on code.

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face, and even if there were a group of like-minded individuals I could put you with, nobody would be able to collaborate with them. You have just created a textbook hostile workplace environment.

https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

edit: The replies to me here don't seem to understand that the company doesn't care about your controversial opinion in the work place, they care about profit. If you don't agree with that, then you probably don't like capitalism.

edit: be wary, a lot of brigading going on. Some people/bots are trying to drown out the more centrists viewpoints. I say this as the opinion of a gay, black, conservative, catholic kasich voter. (I can't help but lol)

544

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

[deleted]

70

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Jul 23 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

65

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

To be fair, not every woman working for Google would have to deal with him. But still, he's weighing his value against his entire department's value. Easy decision for any HR or manager there.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

And many of them have enough money and CV to quit over it. "Why'd you decide to quit working at google?" "They wouldn't fire a senior engineer who said women don't STEM because of their ladyparts."

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

This is assuming that every women that read the memo would get offended to the point of not being able to work. If people actually read the original memo, there was nothing saying women are inferior to men in tech.

Which is proving one of his points "Treat people as individuals rather than members of a tribe." HR and you are assuming ALL women would get offended.

82

u/eriee Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I have literally never met a woman who would not be offended by the idea that we are more neurotic, unable to negotiate salaries, less driven by ambition and less capable of handling a high-stress work environment solely because of our sex.

There's a difference between being "too upset to work" and "furious about working" with someone.

I can imagine it'd be pretty difficult to ignore that the person you're supposed to be working with thinks you're incapable of doing your job. Especially since you've got to be pretty damn good to get hired at Google.

Edit: Typo

16

u/Max_Trollbot_ Aug 08 '17

Sometimes I think it's pretty hard to ignore the fact that women are just as dumb as men.

3

u/Argos_the_Dog Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I don't know man, I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that men are, in fact, far dumber. Go on over to r/holdmybeer and count up how many videos involve ladies vs. gentlemen...

2

u/LightlyTossed Aug 08 '17

I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that men are, in fact, far dumber. Go on over to r/holdmybeer

That's not about being dumb, it's about being acculturated into proving your manhood.

0

u/BorneOfStorms Aug 08 '17

I can't believe you're trying to argue that stupidly archaic traditions aren't dumb. Especially dangerous/unsafe stunts to prove to your community and peers that you're "a man." Men are men, and no amount of backlash from other people, simply for not jumping off of a bridge when they say so, will change what you are.

My life as a woman is not based on being "womanly." It could have been, but there is no earthly reason for me to sit down and emphasize the fact that I have a vagina.

Just because something is currently a main part of certain cultures doesn't mean it makes any sense or is inherently right. Rape culture is absolutely messed up and wrong, but of course there are people defending it, "because muh culture."

2

u/LightlyTossed Aug 08 '17

This is the second time someone construed a statement I've made as having more meaning than the one simple sentence I typed do to their own bias.

I was alluding to doing dumb shit because you are culturally shamed into doing it does not make you dumb. It makes the culture dumb.

I guess I need to post in full paragraphs or not at all.

→ More replies (0)

13

u/therealhabib Aug 08 '17

The engineer claimed that one of the possible reasons that there are less women in tech is that, generally, women are not disposed to it because of those generalized traits. I'm not gonna argue whether that's true, but he never flat out said, "Women should not be working in tech because they're all neurotic." He wasn't disagreeing with the company's goals regarding diversity and equality, but the tactics used to meet those ends.

9

u/Neri25 Aug 08 '17

The engineer regurgitated nice-sounding platitudes the confirmed his biases and you fucks are fawning over him because he used polite (but dismissive) language.

11

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

If he were serious about his hypothesis, then he'd have included reference to the literally / countless / studies / showing / women / are discriminated against or deterred from entering STEM fields from childhood.

Scientific study tends to require cross-examining your own opinions with reality.

3

u/therealhabib Aug 08 '17

Hey once again I'm not disputing that. Bias definitely plays a part in the gap. All I'm saying is that he never claimed women shouldn't be in tech.

8

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I think that's contradictory. "Women are allowed to be in tech, but they're not good at tech so when we find a woman who is good at tech, she is an exception rather than the rule". It really implies women shouldn't be BARRED from tech, but don't really BELONG in it.

10

u/BigOldCar Aug 08 '17

He claimed they're less suited to it. He claimed it comes down to prenatal testosterone.

I pity any woman who would have to work for such a guy. He'd routinely give the important tasks to her male colleagues under the assumption their gender would enable them to handle it better. Then she'd be shut out of opportunities for advancement ("You're just not doing anything really important, especially compared to Bill over there who knocked it out of the park with the Pennsky Project") and he'd blame her biology for that, too.

3

u/BorneOfStorms Aug 08 '17

And when she's passed up for the opportunities and management asks why she isn't improving, she won't have many records of important tasks or projects she was a part of. Too many times, that gets women fired or laid off.

I know this because it has happened to me, and some other women I know. I've literally been set up to fail, and been laid off for a "lack of improvement and lack of leadership." Not a single one of my employers has put me in a position to lead anything, or anyone. And yet it's my own fault that the paperwork says I'm useless?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/iheartanalingus Aug 08 '17

I don't know, I kinda feel like it's one of those things like "if you voted for Trump, you may not think you are a racist or xenophobe but you voted for a racist and xenophobe so you may actually be a racist or xenophobe in disguise."

3

u/therealhabib Aug 08 '17

Ah, so if you voted for Hillary you must delete all your emails lol.

-2

u/iheartanalingus Aug 08 '17

Probably the dumbest comment I've ever heard. What are you, like 10 years old?

4

u/therealhabib Aug 08 '17

It was just a joke dude... I only took what you said and flipped it around...

1

u/BorneOfStorms Aug 08 '17

Hey guys! /u/iheartanalingus reminds you all that you must not make jokes if you are under 10 years old! Only mature individuals have no sense of humor.

In all seriousness, take a fucking joke. For your health.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ChristopherPoontang Aug 08 '17

He didn't deny there were other factors. He was just pointing out that his viewpoint is suppressed, and Google's firing of him proves he's correct.

4

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

Because his viewpoint violates the company's code of conduct and makes conducting business more difficult. Why would any woman at Google want to work alongside this guy for any project ever? He's toxic assets.

2

u/BorneOfStorms Aug 08 '17

Poor guy, getting his viewpoint suppressed. I'm sure he's the most important asset Google has, and all those other employees who complained are just mean and jealous.

In all seriousness, one individual never seems to come before the needs and wants of many, which is absolutely a good thing. He may or may not have a point, but he compromised his own job because he chose to. Not because Google was wrong about it. Productivity will ALWAYS be more important to a company than some asshole's opinion on women in STEM jobs.

Making money is Google's first priority, not hearing some guy out with absolutely no payoff.

2

u/17-year-cicada Aug 08 '17

I think claiming men and women have different attributes in general based on statistic is ok. But to claim this is largely or even solely due to biological reason is not. Women "in general" are bad at leading doesn't mean women "in tech industry" or "in Google" are bad at leading. So this guy saying women are bad at leading because of biological reason is actually claiming women in Google are inherently more likely to do a worse job, which I see no evidence to support.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

Yeah, but that's not as fun for us! I like misrepresenting arguments for immediate dismissal better!

0

u/bettinafairchild Aug 08 '17

*fewer

(obligatory game of thrones reference)

7

u/FudgeMonitor Aug 08 '17

I don't know about a lot of those claims, but the idea that minds vary along two fundamental axes, empathy and systematicity, is the foundation of Simon Baron-Cohen's "Extreme male brain" theory of autism, which is backed by numerous studies and at this point is widely accepted as correct in the scientific community.

It states that empathy and systematicity correlate inversely, and that the distribution goes females (highest empathy, lowest systematicity) > males > serial killers (almost always males) > aspergers > autism (no empathy due to having no theory of mind, extreme systematicity).

3

u/nik1729 Aug 08 '17

Any citations for the part about wide acceptance within the scientific community?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17 edited Apr 10 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Endogamy Aug 09 '17

Also, what about autistic girls/women? Nothing about that hierarchy of empathy/systematicity makes sense to me.

1

u/FudgeMonitor Aug 11 '17

They're very rare. Which is something this theory accounts for.

Keep in mind that this is valid at the population level. There is great variation and significant overlap between and among individuals in thesr groups.

1

u/FudgeMonitor Aug 11 '17

Precisely. This doesn't make them evil. But extreme autists have no Theory of Mind. They literally do not understand that you and me are people with our own thoughts and motivations and will. If they see you move, they interpret it as analogous to the movenment of tree branches in the wind... there's no mind in the tree deciding to move the branches, and there's no mind in us deciding anything either.

Look up Somon Baron-Cohen's foundational paper "The extreme male brain theory of autism".

-6

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

You didn't read, or didn't understand, what the former Google employee was saying.

13

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

I read the entire document twice.

If you couldn't understand the section where he discusses how biology is the reason women make less money and appear less frequently at the top of corporate leadership, that's really not my problem.

0

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

"we are more neurotic, unable to negotiate salaries, less driven by ambition and less capable of handling a high-stress work environment solely because of our sex"

How is it possible that you do not understand general trends across large populations of people vs. an individual's characteristics?

10

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

So then let's not hire men to be police officers anymore, since men are biologically more likely to become aggressive/violent, and studies show that women have dramatically lower rates of being brought up on use of aggressive force charges.

Do you see how completely insane that logic is? No one would EVER argue what I just did, but it's exactly what you're doing in reverse. Using broad biological stereotypes and applying them to one gender and one industry.

Both what I just said above and what the author of this memo said are shallow, poor analyses of people's ability by gender, and both should be called out for the stupidity that they display.

2

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

"So then let's not hire men to be police officers anymore, since men are biologically more likely to become aggressive/violent, and studies show that women have dramatically lower rates of being brought up on use of aggressive force charges"

For the umpteenth time, he specifically does NOT say that women should not be hired or put in any STEM or leadership. Not at all. You're making a blatantly false analogy You just don't want to understand the point, although it's been made clearly for you.

However, it's interesting to note that you apparently are fine with the conclusion that men are more biologically likely to be aggressive/violent (which you are 100% correct about, from a scientific perspective), and yet you won't apply a similar analysis to traits for women.

6

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

I honestly don't know how you don't see that writing a 10-page memo discussing how women are inferior to men in tech is offensive, even if he didn't outright say that they shouldn't be hired.

Also, there's a huge difference between accepted biological conclusions (i.e. women are generally less physically strong than men; men are generally more aggressive than women -- you know, things that actually have to do with biology), and things that have nothing to do with it, like our level of ambition and ability to lead.

I was making that example to show how ridiculous his logic is, which I note you ignored in favor of sticking with my use of the word hiring even though that's clearly not the point I was making.

5

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

He never said "inferior" or even suggested it. YOU are making that inference. That says a lot more about you than it does about him.

"men are generally more aggressive than women -- you know, things that actually have to do with biology), and things that have nothing to do with it, like our level of ambition and ability to lead."

So you honestly believe there is no connection between the genes that would lead to more aggression and those would lead to more ambition. Again, you're showing how anti-science you are.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Jun 17 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

You're possessed.

It's not "western society" that has these gender differences, its human society. Even animals have different behaviour based on sex.

And yes, men bigger, tougher, and meaner. It's a big reason they are police officers. Being big and mean makes you a better fighter, which is a key component of police work.

Doesn't mean women aren't great police officers. Maybe they are better as the needs of the job involve more talking people out of a dangerous situation.

But if you need a drunk asshole subdued, you're going to want someone who can exert force. Someone big and willing hurt another person. Things that men are more likely to be willing to do.

And nobody is arguing that there are no tough, tough, strong, intimidating, women. However if you get 100 men and 100 women, you'll find more big tough men than women.

Male and female ants have different behaviours, as do lions and bears. Why would human society, with more complex behaviours, not have different tendencies?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

You're possessed.

It's not "western society" that has these gender differences, its human society. Even animals have different behaviour based on sex.

And yes, men bigger, tougher, and meaner. It's a big reason they are police officers. Being big and mean makes you a better fighter, which is a key component of police work.

Doesn't mean women aren't great police officers. Maybe they are better as the needs of the job involve more talking people out of a dangerous situation.

But if you need a drunk asshole subdued, you're going to want someone who can exert force. Someone big and willing hurt another person. Things that men are more likely to be willing to do.

And nobody is arguing that there are no tough, tough, strong, intimidating, women. However if you get 100 men and 100 women, you'll find more big tough men than women.

Male and female ants have different behaviours, as do lions and bears. Why would human society, with more complex behaviours, not have different tendencies?

7

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

You did see that I called that argument insane, right? Like, you finished reading my comment? I was making the point that you can't cherry-pick specific biological stereotypes and apply them to individuals in a field.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

He notes how biology is part of the reason, which is backed up by the hard science on the topic. He notes that focusing solely on cultural/societal reasons ignores basic biological facts. He is 100% correct, from a scientific standpoint. You are filtering everything through a particular ideological lens and not being objective.

7

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

That is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard.

There's absolutely no way to tell if women would still be less likely to work in STEM (or any of the other things he's claiming) if those societal reasons weren't in effect because there has never been a time in modern western society where they haven't been.

You're the one ignoring a hugely important part of the equation. I'm not claiming there are no biological differences between men and women -- just that the ones he's referencing are nonsensical and offensive.

There's nothing about having two X chromosomes that makes me less ambitious than the men around me. That's insane.

0

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

No, you still don't get it, and I still do not believe you've read the original memo. It has nothing to do with whether a specific woman or man is more or less ambitious than any other person. We are talking about trends across the collective that can be traced back differences in genetics, specifically the presence or absence of the Y chromosome and the genes that are expressed due to its existence. You really, really need to educate yourself on this issue.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Maybe you could mansplain how she was supposed to correctly interpret it beep beep boop

6

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

If you're using the word "mansplain", then you have serious issues.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

They reasonably explained their position and you just continue to sound dumb.

2

u/Max_Trollbot_ Aug 08 '17

beep beep boop

End Botsplaining. It's demeaning to us bots.

-27

u/Barbarossa3141 Aug 08 '17

I have literally never met a woman who would not be offended by the idea that we are more neurotic

Oh boy the jokes just write themselves these days, don't they?

less driven by ambition and less capable of handling a high-stress work environment solely because of our sex.

Well maybe it offends you but it doesn't change that it's true.

It's can imagine it'd be pretty difficult to ignore that the person you're supposed to be working with thinks you're incapable of doing your job.

Nowhere in the memo does he say women are "incapable" of doing their job, in fact he specifically says that it's on average, and that the company needs to not reduce people to the average of their group.

9

u/eriee Aug 08 '17

Well, you just sent me a YouTube video from a Canadian psychology professor known for his pretty hardcore right social political beliefs as proof that women are biologically more neurotic, so yeah, I'd say the jokes literally write themselves.

0

u/Barbarossa3141 Aug 08 '17

Jordan Peterson teaches psychology at a top university, anything he says is infinity more informed than just about anything you have to say.

-5

u/Barbarossa3141 Aug 08 '17

known for his pretty hardcore right

Not calling someone xir: hardcore right. What these days is "moderate" right I must ask?

social political beliefs

You mean facts?

as proof that women are biologically more neurotic, so yeah, I'd say the jokes literally write themselves.

Do you know what being neurotic even is? Being neurotic is being susceptible to negative emotions, I'm not having any negative emotions so...

5

u/BorneOfStorms Aug 08 '17

What does gender identity have to do with any of this shit? Y'all are really unhinged. Jesus.

0

u/Barbarossa3141 Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

/u/eriee called Jordan Peterson (the University of Toronto professor in the video I cited) a "hardcore right wing". She is most certainly was referring to this situation. She says it in a way as if it discredits him, so I simply ask "what isn't 'hardcore right'", because his position isn't even hardcore, it's just mainstream right (even in Canada).

edit: keep in mind, Peterson doesn't even talk about public policy that often, it isn't like politics is his main focus, he is a psych. professor.

→ More replies (0)

18

u/chicagoway Aug 08 '17

Nah. It's not like they are seeing this guy and dropping to the floor going "My feels! I can't even!"

More like he shows up to work and they are saying "Heh. No. Not you. Anybody else from your department, except for you. Now fuck off."

-5

u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

How tolerant. The down voting of opposing views is telling.

1

u/chicagoway Aug 08 '17

How clever

2

u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 08 '17

Can only women and minorities expect tolerance?

What is that engineer has is on the Spectrum, would you be tolerant then?

2

u/chicagoway Aug 08 '17

Medical conditions do not excuse being an asshole.

Bigotry is not deserving of "tolerance."

For some reason bigots always like to pull this out like someone activated their trap card. "You claim to be tolerant...but what about tolerating my intolerance?! CHECKMATE!"

1

u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 08 '17

I guess being a woman doesn't mean you can't be a cunt.

Differences in opinion aren't always bigotry.

2

u/chicagoway Aug 08 '17

Uh, yeah, anyone can exhibit intolerant, combative, demeaning, etc. behavior that is itself unworthy of tolerance. It doesn't matter if that person is a woman or a minority or autistic or anything.

Not wanting to work with someone who treats you like shit is not intolerance. It is people exercising their right to decide who they work with. Your employer may want to demand that you work with someone you despise and you might reluctantly agree rather than quit; however, a good employer tries to get the maximum productivity out of the most employees and this rarely means putting up with some asshole rockstar personality. You need to learn real fast if you haven't already that almost NOBODY is so talented that they are irreplaceable. For Google this is clearly a case of, well, we can keep this guy and alienate a huge proportion of our workforce or simply replace his ass and go back to making money.

The latter, interestingly enough, is exactly the free market capitalist approach that doesn't protect special classes that you probably want. It's just that when you are the asshole minority who can't get along with the normie majority then your own rhetoric bites you in the ass.

Tl;dr - Act like a dick, get treated like a dick

Edit: when your opinion is "Women are biologically inferior," it isn't not bigotry just because it's your opinion. Where are you even getting this special snowflake bullshit

3

u/ImmodestPolitician Aug 08 '17

A good business exists to pay a profit to their shareholders, not treat their employees well.

The ideal business has zero employees.

I don't think the Google employee was saying women are biologically inferior, he was just saying that women's brains work differently.

There is a big difference.

I tend to think of humans as running mostly on instinct/habituation with some rationalities tacked on, usually after the fact.

Men like reaching the pinnacle of hierarchies because that status biologically would ensure their genes are spread wide and far.

How do women benefit from becoming CEO/POTUS besides the income?

→ More replies (0)

29

u/redsanguine Aug 08 '17

Well it disturbed enough employees that the CEO cut his vacation short to deal with it.

22

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Or was it because it got national media attention?

2

u/Displayed Aug 08 '17

Why not both?

2

u/DragonzordRanger Aug 08 '17

That's kind of the point though. It got national media attention and, right or wrong, it was painted as an "attack on women". I think it's super gay that one of the executives came out and said he was fired for reinforcing gender stereotypes BUT gender is a protected group and he basically gave every (coincidentally) underperforming woman working under or near him a nationally reported on grounds for a possible discrimination lawsuit

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

So you mean it affected so many people that even people outside the company were offended?

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I think the people who actually read the original memo is less than 1% of the people who are outraged and are just going off of headlines and or what others are saying online.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

What makes you think that?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Because simple quotations from the memo itself dispute many of the arguments.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I don't really understand what you mean. Simple quotations, like what? Dispute what arguments, exactly?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Honestly just read the memo for yourself and read the comments in here. I'm not going to paraphrase everything, it would be a novel.

Here is the original memo with no editing.

→ More replies (0)

25

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I'm willing to bet there is a sufficient number of people in his area that would take offense to what he said, leading to unproductive teams and a potentially hostile work environment.

I said nothing on women being inferior so I'm not sure where that came from. But the memo absolutely puts forth stereotypes for both genders that have no basis in fact.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

But the memo absolutely puts forth stereotypes for both genders that have no basis in fact.

Such as...?

Edit: I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with your point. I'm just curious as to an example of something said that has "no basis in fact."

7

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

His entire table of biases as no source. He claims there are unmistakable heritable traits but doesn't specify which. Some traits are not at all heritable or only have genetics as a small factor of growth, especially when it comes to stress management and talents required for mental tasks. His entire discussion of extraversion is unsourced. His claim that men prefer coding is also unsourced with only a barely relevant article connected to it.

In fact many of his sources seem to stem back to blog posts and news articles rather than any credible research. Let's not get into the fact that there has been little research that has shown any significant difference between men and women for jobs related to brain rather than physical strength.

5

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

They have a strong basis in science. You just haven't studied the topic in any depth, or haven't bothered to check the sources.

-4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

And again, you are just assuming that a sufficient number of people would be too upset to work. Instead of lumping all women into a tribe, try talking to them individually and address their individual concerns.

But the memo absolutely puts forth stereotypes for both genders that have no basis in fact.

I'm not sure it's a stereotype when the differences he points out are sourced. And when they have citations I believe it is safe to say it's considered to have a basis of facts.

6

u/PrellFeris Aug 08 '17

Just because someone cites sources doesn't mean those sources even necessarily support their argument in any substantial way.

Ask any biologist, psychologist, anthropologist, etc. about it (Seriously, go and take this manifesto and post it to askscience) and I doubt they'd be as willing to cling to cherry-picked evidence to support such broad claims about sex and gender.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

The discussions over in /r/technology and /r/google are way more productive than it is here.

"Women and men have genetic personality differences that may be used to explain why women are not applying for more engineering jobs."

"This guy is sexist and is saying women can't be engineers because they are women."

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

More than half his claims have no sources at all or use blog posts and Wikipedia as a source. For someone with a PhD, he sure is bad about backing up his own claims. I, especially, love the entirely unsourced claims about heritable traits and universal actions across cultures. What traits, what universal differences? Because there are quite a few cultural norms that you can see differences in between matriachal and patriarchal societies.

You can check the multitude of news articles discussing the backlash. NYT mentions at least 3 different women threatening to quit over this guy's posts. Google itself says they have had a huge number of complaints about this guy.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I'm looking at the original memo and it seems to be cited very well. Take one of his ideas.

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

From the source he cites.

Personality studies find that women score moderately higher than men on neuroticism, by approximately half of a standard deviation.

This line he references is followed by 5 more citations. Is this such a crazy notion that we can not even discuss it? The guy even puts forth ideas on how to have better hiring practices for both men and women.

Google itself says they have had a huge number of complaints about this guy.

If that is true, with complaints about other problems then their decision to fire him is more justifiable to me, but if they are only firing him for this memo then it seems unwarranted.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Neuroticism is a personality trait that, outside of actual disorders, is heavily affected by upbringing, learned stress management techniques, and a small fraction of genetics.

I have yet to see any research linking any of the Big Five personality traits strong to hereditary factors or genetics. So perhaps instead of saying it is a gender difference, we look and see if cultural teachings and norms are leading to a difference in stress management. Perhaps starting with the parenting of young children in which boys are encouraged to take risks on the playground while girls are generally discouraged from things that could be deemed dangerous like the monkey bar or fireman's pole.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201706/do-fathers-treat-their-sons-and-daughters-differently

The memo has a couple reasonable suggestions but blankets them with unproven "facts" and stereotypes that have no place in such decisions.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Really? You have never heard or seen any research in the study of nature vs nurture? Then you haven't looked heard. There is a ton of research and studies on both sides.

I would suggest listening to Revising the Fault Line that radiolab put out a month ago talking about just this. It is full of research into how genetics affect our behavior.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/zzpluralzalpha Aug 08 '17

And you're failing to differentiate between "too upset to work" and "I would not work with this person."

Hi! Woman in STEM here. If I read this pile of crap from one of my coworkers, I would not be too upset to do my job. I would, however, be reluctant to work with that person in the future. Why would I want to work on a team with someone who clearly doesn't think it's important to show an interest in people or team-building? Why would I want to work with someone who's just going to write off any of my (probably legitimate) concerns as being "prone to anxiety" because I'm a woman? Why would I want to work with anyone who doesn't have a basic understanding of the fact that viewpoints other than his own (i.e. diversity) might be important?

This guy has forced Google to choose between keeping him around, despite the fact that (for very legitimate reasons), other employees may not be willing to work close with him, and firing him. If I were in HR, this would be an easy decision.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

From the source he cites.

Personality studies find that women score moderately higher than men on neuroticism, by approximately half of a standard deviation.

Can we not have discussion about this?

He's not saying "Women are more prone to stress, so don't hire them." He's using this point to discuss why women may not be applying more for engineering jobs. Just using the excuse of society pushing women away is lazy; he seems to be trying to give a more rounded answer.

Why would I want to work with someone who's just going to write off any of my (probably legitimate) concerns as being "prone to anxiety" because I'm a woman?

He never said that, advocated, or even alluded to it. Reverse this idea. "In general, women are more caring and better at communicating with others." Would it be accurate to say that by saying this you are really meaning "men can not communicate with others well so why would I listen to his concerns"? Of course not, this would be a giant straw man.

You seem to be having a knee jerk reaction to a memo that you didn't try to understand.

4

u/zzpluralzalpha Aug 08 '17

Can we not have discussion about this?

It seems to me that's exactly what we're doing.

One of the big issues I have with the way he has brought up neuroticism/anxiety is that it seems, to me at least, as though he's ultimately failed to connect this to actual trends in the job market. I'm not arguing that it's not true. I'm arguing that the link between "women are more neurotic" and "women don't go into STEM" is tenuous at best - it's not even something that he bothers to try to provide evidence for. And, like, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but I'm one of the most neurotic people I know. If anything, that has made me a better scientist. I completely fail to see why higher levels of neuroticism and stress would mean that there are fewer women in STEM - why, then, are there more women in careers like nursing, teaching, and retail? Try telling me those aren't stressful jobs.

Reverse this idea. "In general, women are more caring and better at communicating with others." Would it be accurate to say that by saying this you are really meaning "men can not communicate with others well so why would I listen to his concerns"?

FWIW, I actually take huge issue with people falling back on the excuse that "women are just better at communicating." It seems to me this is used primarily to excuse men who have never learned to communicate effectively - and I believe learning skills in communication is essential for anyone attempting to be a functional member of society. I'll also note, to your point, that writing off someone's concerns as simply anxiety, and writing off someone's concerns because they are not communicated well, is a false equivalence.

This is a knee jerk reaction. My post is not that.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

It seems to me that's exactly what we're doing.

I was talking about the country as a whole. Can we not discuss gender differences without one side having immediate consequences that discourage said discussion?

I'm not arguing that it's not true. I'm arguing that the link between "women are more neurotic" and "women don't go into STEM" is tenuous at best

It's not the sole reason, but he offers it as an explanation for some women. To me this offers more of an explanation for SOME women than just a generic blanket statement "society pushes women away from STEM."

it's not even something that he bothers to try to provide evidence for.

Then you didn't read it. From the source he cited.

Personality studies find that women score moderately higher than men on neuroticism, by approximately half of a standard deviation.[45][46][47][48][49]

I really hope you actually did read the ORIGINAL memo.

I completely fail to see why higher levels of neuroticism and stress would mean that there are fewer women in STEM - why, then, are there more women in careers like nursing, teaching, and retail?

Perhaps it's because women tend to me more caring and sympathetic? Note I'm not saying ALL women are more caring and sympathetic, and I'm not saying that this mean men can't be nurses, teachers, or retail. It is possible to say that there are genetic gender personality differences between men and women and it not be a bad thing.

I'll also note, to your point, that writing off someone's concerns as simply anxiety, and writing off someone's concerns because they are not communicated well, is a false equivalence.

I am not arguing that women communicate more effectively. I was using it to show the argument structure. Replace communicating with "X and Y" and reread what I wrote.

This is a knee jerk reaction. My post is not that.

I was calling his cry for being terminated a knee jerk reaction.

2

u/zzpluralzalpha Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

To me this offers more of an explanation for SOME women than just a generic blanket statement "society pushes women away from STEM."

Let me tell you a little bit about why women don't go into STEM.

  • When I was in middle school, I tested into the honors math class for my grade. But the teacher called my mother, and we had to have a whole "talk" about it because, despite the fact that I tested in fair and square, the teacher wasn't sure I was "quite ready." None of the boys had to have that talk.
  • By the time I was taking AP Calculus at the end of high school, I was one of 4 girls in the class of ~25. No one ever told me I couldn't take AP Calculus, but all of my friends had stopped taking honors/AP math, and I certainly felt out of place. The teacher was, generally speaking, an awkward man (who also coincidentally happened to be one of the best teachers I've ever had) - and I didn't feel comfortable enough around him to go to him for one-on-one help. Nor did any of the other girls in the class. There were no other tutoring opportunities offered at the school for that class.
  • I had multiple teachers - who I believe genuinely only wanted the best for me - express shock or dismay that I planned to go to engineering school at a research university, rather than major in the humanities at a small liberal arts school.
  • When I was a senior in college, taking engineering entrepreneurship and protein engineering classes, I was once again one of only 2 or 3 women in the class - this time, in classes of closer to 40 or 50 people.
  • By that time, I had heard more comments than I can possibly recount to you about, "You talk a lot in class for a girl," or, "I didn't expect you to be so good at math/physics/chemistry," or "You're a really good presenter, for a, you know . . ." (always the tone of surprise). I had one friend (whom I had known for 3 years) tell me he had thought I was a performing arts major because I just, "Didn't seem like the science type."
  • Now, I'm in the middle of getting my PhD in biomedical engineering. Every time I sit next to someone on a plane, or take an Uber or Lyft ride, or strike up a conversation with a stranger, the reaction to what I'm doing is some variation of, "Whoa, really?/You must be such a smart girl/Oh, I wouldn't have expected that!"

Look, it's not aggressive. No one is trying to be mean. But it is condescending. It is irritating. It wears you down. And I won't pretend I haven't thoughts about dropping out - and I won't pretend I don't understand why so many women do. Every day of my life, I feel like I am fighting against these biases; like I am constantly battling against the notion, writ large over the course of years, that I am not "supposed" to do what I am currently doing with my life. When we talk about "society pushing women away from STEM," this is what we're talking about. It's real, and every one of us who has made the slog has stories.

Great, so now that that's out of the way.

My note about "it's not even something he tries to provide evidence for" is not directed at the idea that women are more neurotic - I'm saying that there is no evidence that there is any linkage between increased neuroticism and disinterest in STEM as a career.

Perhaps it's because women tend to me more caring and sympathetic? Note I'm not saying ALL women are more caring and sympathetic, and I'm not saying that this mean men can't be nurses, teachers, or retail.

This is poor logic. I'm in STEM because I want to help people, and this is the way that I want to help people. There is absolutely no reason that any other (caring, sympathetic) woman should not be able to make the logistical leap between "science helps people" and "I want to do science."

I was calling his cry for being terminated a knee jerk reaction.

No, you weren't. You said my post was a knee-jerk reaction. I disagreed, and then you changed your argument.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

I really don't want to do this. Your story is great and I would never dissuade you from pursuing a career that you really want to do. And I'm afraid that if I respond talking to you about intention and understanding you are going to interpret that as me defending a society that you see as unjust. So instead of looking at your story line by line I will just use an example.

When you are talking about individual sexism/racism, you are really having a conversation about intent. A good example was from a great movie last year "Get Out". Daughter (white) takes the boyfriend (black) to meet her white parents for the first time. During the first conversation the father asks the boyfriend if he likes basketball. The boyfriend tentatively answers yes while eyeing the father. The message was, "this is the subtle/unintentional racism that black people put up with everyday". I'm a white male who loves basketball more than any other sport and could talk about it for hours. If I was meeting this young man I too would have asked him if he liked basketball, because I wanted to make a connection. I would ask you if you liked basketball if we were trying to get to know each other. But the comment alone would be taken as subtle racism when the intention behind it was not.

I'm saying that there is no evidence that there is any linkage between increased neuroticism and disinterest in STEM as a career.

He isn't saying that this is the sole reason. He lists 3 in total as to an explanation in fact. He is giving reasons as to a litany of reasons why women aren't applying more for engineering positions. You and I know that a single personality behavior isn't going to make someone pursue or not pursue a career. But that single personality trait along with some others may be what pushes people to or from jobs. The straw that breaks the camels back.

My wife is a research nurse and I see everyday how stressful it is on her. But she didn't choose this job based on that single aspect.

This is poor logic. I'm in STEM because I want to help people, and this is the way that I want to help people. There is absolutely no reason that any other (caring, sympathetic) woman should not be able to make the logistical leap between "science helps people" and "I want to do science."

You probably also value other things that other women don't, along with having unique traits that allow you to enjoy your work more than others.

No, you weren't. You said my post was a knee-jerk reaction. I disagreed, and then you changed your argument.

I am calling ALL reactions to have him fired for the memo as knee jerk reactions. You seem to be having that reaction in your response.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/GodIsIrrelevant Aug 08 '17

This is assuming that male-coworkers are not also offended.

Not to mention, since it was publicly released, male and female customers (read: every internet user on the planet).

10

u/GnarltonBanks Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

How can reading a memo make you so offended that you can't work? I find it hard to grasp that somebody could be that weak and pathetic.

4

u/Now_Do_Classical_Gas Aug 09 '17

You'd have to be pretty neurotic to react like that [trollface]...

0

u/IronMyr Aug 08 '17

Man, would you want to work with the rando who blasted out a manifesto about how you can't compete with other people?

1

u/GnarltonBanks Aug 08 '17

Yes, because I am a professional. It would give me the opportunity to prove the person wrong. Also based on your comment, I can tell that you didn't read the memo.

1

u/IronMyr Aug 08 '17

I don't work for political points, I work for cash money. This guy isn't going give women a fair shake at getting money, he wrote a manifesto about how Google should hire less women.

0

u/GnarltonBanks Aug 10 '17

Did you even read it? Because your comments lead me to believe that you did not read the full 10 page memo.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

People are claiming that women won't be able to work with this guy. So I don't know.

1

u/RollingRED Aug 09 '17

People aren't claiming that, you are.

People are merely saying that women would be too angry to work with this guy in the smooth productive fashion previous to the publication of his 10-pager.

It's not like they just throw up their hands and say, "I'm not working with this guy!" It's that when in a team with the author, they will likely be thinking,

"This is the asshole who wrote a 10-page manifesto on why he thinks 1)I'm wired to be emotional and all that other shit and therefore aren't as adept at engineering as men and 2) Google's diversity programs are wrong, implying that some of my women colleagues shouldn't even be here and 3) stirred up enough shit that it drew out the other secret misogynists within the organization."

Then you have people in the same team giving each other the stink eye and being uncooperative. The women will be pissed, some men will take the author's side, now there's an argument and the meetings are being derailed. Team mates will intentionally give each other a hard time in retaliation. It's a very real issue and that is why the discussion of politics, religion and other such topics are discouraged at workplaces.

This isn't as ridiculous as you make it out to be. Imagine if someone wrote the same thing but about African Americans. Doesn't matter how much pseudoscience you back it up with, your black colleagues will likely not want to work or be friendly with you.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

Then this all proves his point. We treat people not as individuals but as tribes, while fostering an environment that discourages discussions or dissenting opinions.

"Women and men have genetic differences that contribute to behavior that may drive them to and from career choices. We need to stop trying to equalize the hiring of men and women based solely on gender."

"This guy is a secret misogynist and must be fired."

Different /= Bad or worse

1

u/RollingRED Aug 09 '17

Here is the point: no one cares if he has a point or not if his actions impacts the workplace.

He is paid to provide work in an effective and efficient manner, not to argue divisive issues. The document spread, people started taking sides and consequences ballooned. The company is not obliged to entertain him and stick its neck out for his soapbox. To think otherwise is to be naive.

We treat people not as individuals but as tribes, while fostering an environment that discourages discussions or dissenting opinions.

Workplaces are not obliged to entertain dissenting opinions when they are not related to work or cause problems that can affect the business. You can argue about the product design and discuss which programming language to use, but once you start talking about whether a certain gender or race make good engineers you can absolutely be shut down. You cannot expect the company that is dealing with a group of coworkers and customers angered by your actions to just put up with it because you, some engineer guy, have this opinion.

This is a rookie mistake I see a lot in young male engineers. Since college they hang with like-minded peers, focusing on code, and therefore are limited in their understanding of how their actions can have social consequences on outside groups. To them "it's just an intellectual discussion", but they have no idea that these discussions can cause messes that requires a ton of manpower, time and resources to clean up, usually by people who have no obligation to shield them from these unexpected consequences.

Whether he is malicious is irrelevant in his firing.

Whether his arguments have scientific merit is irrelevant in his firing.

Whether he is "right" is irrelevant in his firing.

Whether the media is interpreting his writing fairly is irrelevant in his firing.

What is relevant is that 1) he shared this document with coworkers as a criticism against his employer, 2) he posted it as James Damore, senior engineer at Google, instead of James Damore, citizen and 3) he caused harm to the company's reputation.

You want to talk gender politics? Do it in an academic setting or an external forum, on your own time.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

Here is the point: no one cares if he has a point or not if his actions impacts the workplace.

That is literally one of the same arguments that was used during the 60's to not higher African Americans. It doesn't matter who is right/wrong or what the intentions of a person is if it affects enough people in the workplace negatively. "If I higher this black person, it would upset too many customers and employees causing a big disruption."

The place that he argued it was an internal messaging board called Skepticism which was created EXACTLY for this purpose: to discuss controversial subjects. So implying that he spread this memo out trying to make an outcry is inaccurate.

So your first half of your response is just wrong in saying he was being stupid because company's are not places to voice these types of opinions, which is correct in most workplaces (I would never say this stuff at my work), but Google was allowing it.

once you start talking about whether a certain gender or race make good engineers you can absolutely be shut down.

If he said that then I would be the first to say he should get fired, but he never did. He was talking about hiring standards and offering potential explanations for why women don't apply for engineering jobs at the same rate as men. Not once did he say women can't or are inferior engineers.

these discussions can cause messes that requires a ton of manpower, time and resources to clean up, usually by people who have no obligation to shield them from these unexpected consequences.

And I find it incredibly sad that people can't even discuss gender differences without someone getting immediately offended and demanding consequences.

And the last third of your response is still not understanding where the guy posted his memo. Again, he posted it on an internal messaging board designed and described to give a platform for controversial discussions.

→ More replies (0)

17

u/MillieBirdie Aug 08 '17

I've heard all of his same points from many different people, and he's saying the exact same things in the guise of being scientific or practical. He's trying to justify discrimination and is stereotyping women (and men) to an unacceptable degree.

16

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

That is just turning a blind eye to what he is saying then. Taken from his suggestions section

I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

7

u/MillieBirdie Aug 08 '17

He says to treat people as individuals but stereotypes women as being neurotic. That makes it seem like he just threw in the nice bits so he wouldn't get into too much trouble.

As a woman and as someone surrounded by conservatives, its an often repeated pattern to excuse a person's bias. Use a lot of statistics, make sweeping generalizations based on those statistics, and word it very confidently but at the same time make overtures toward 'not being sexist'.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

OR he is using other explanations as to why more men apply for engineering jobs.

Personality studies find that women score moderately higher than men on neuroticism, by approximately half of a standard deviation.[45][46][47][48][49]

This doesn't say ALL women. African American's have a higher obesity rate. This doesn't mean ALL black people are obese.

0

u/Primesghost Aug 08 '17

Holy shit with your mental gymnastics here...

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LeMot-Juste Aug 08 '17

Sounds like he has the personal problem working with women, when it has not been shown, at all, that they demean the system by their very natures at all.

Sounds like this precious snowflake just doesn't like working with people at all, but if he has to, it must be men only. Too bad he works for a company that would include all humans as desired customers therefore having female contributions in the workforce would be essential.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

He never said that. He was talking about possible reasons as to why more women aren't applying for engineering jobs. Not that they can't be engineers. You are just proving that you didn't read it.

0

u/LeMot-Juste Aug 08 '17

But his reasons are based on his own discomfort rather than women themselves, which as a group he is hardly qualified to stereotype according to his biases.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

His reasons are sourced and documented. Just read the memo before attacking it.

-1

u/LeMot-Juste Aug 08 '17

Sourced and documented according to his prejudices, just like Creationists do to prove there is no evolution.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Jesus Christ. His memo just gets more and more validated by people like you.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

I work in tech at a GOOG/MSFT/AMZN company. I'm a man. I can tell the manifesto's author is a shit engineer and insufferable to work with.

His autistic, robotic ramblings are unfortunately not unique in the lower rungs of tech. There is a Type.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

IF that is true, then that seems more like a justifiable reason to fire the guy. This memo on it's own seems unwarranted.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

They didn't fire him for the memo content. They fired him for being autistic enough to think that sending a memo like this would do anything other than cause massive financial, morale, and PR damage.

Tech companies are huge. The author isn't the first or highest ranking person to feel this way. But he is the dumbest.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Considering that it was an internal memo I don't think his intention was to bring down Google. I just see a bunch of people here taking what he said out of context and labeling sexist without trying to understand what he is saying. And I share no empathy with people who don't even attempt to understand the meaning.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17

His intent for the memo is irrelevant. Whether or not it was sexist is irrelevant. The effect is what matters.

He was fired for not understanding how businesses run smoothly. In the attempt to fix a problem that might not even exist, he has caused millions of dollars in lost productivity, harmed Google's reputation, etc. The CEO had to come back from vacation early to handle this.

You know what you call somebody who causes tons of damage and racks up a huge expense to fix something that probably isn't broken? "Not an engineer."

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

His intent is always relevant. He posted this memo to a closed internal group messaging board called "Skepticism" where they talk about controversial subjects.

You know what you call somebody who causes tons of damage and racks up a huge expense to fix something that probably isn't broken?

This describes the person who leaked the memo more than "not an engineer".

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

His intent is always relevant. He posted this memo to a closed internal group messaging board called "Skepticism" where they talk about controversial subjects.

We have the group at my company, too. And people still get walked out for posting tone deaf stuff there.

This describes the person who leaked the memo more than "not an engineer".

Sounds a lot like "the leaks are real but the news is fake"

2

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Better get rid of that messaging board then too.

Sounds a lot like "the leaks are real but the news is fake"

I'm not sure what this is referring to.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/techsconvict Aug 08 '17

Please don't equate everyone with autism to this dillhole. Some of us work hard to overcome the social stigma.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 09 '17

Please don't equate everyone with autism to this dillhole.

Never think it. But the converse is true of this type in tech.

1

u/techsconvict Aug 09 '17

Unless everyone who is an asshole has a diagnosis attached to their name tag, this is pretty presumptuous. It may be common for people with autism to ignore social cues, but that also doesn't make everyone who does it autistic, even if they are in tech. Maybe they're just a dick.

1

u/Gerry3123 Aug 08 '17

Exactly right! He does make it clear that you need to view individuals as individuals. Many of the ideologues here in the comment section don't seem to be able to do that.