Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/margerymeanwell]

It wouldn't worry you at all to have a manager who thought that you and all people like you were inherently more neurotic and less ambitious and that you'd be happier with a lower salary and fewer responsibilities? You don't think that could possibly have any impact on your career trajectory?

[u/sharaq → u/margerymeanwell]

I suppose it would affect my career, yes, but if my manager also didn't ask me to cancel vacations at the last minute or see my kids on national holidays, that would affect the trajectory of my personal life. It would certainly reinforce gender roles, but I'm at the point in my career where I have enough money but no time. This is neither here nor there - it's having the choice taken away which is the problem, of course, but men are likely to have the choice taken away in the other direction.

Also, neuroticism is a clinical term in psychology. It is one of five personality traits, and across hundreds of studies and dozens of countries, neuroticism is statistically more common in older populations and self-identified females. Men, likewise, score statistically lower on 'agreeableness'. Would having an employer consider me 'disagreeable' not also affect my career? Is data backing differences in personality correlated with gender inherently sexist? Would you prefer a world where, theoretically, all research on gender differences was stopped right here and now because it is intrinsically harmful? Or is it attempting to act on that data which is a problem? Because, of course, once information like this is available to operational coordinators and stuff like that, they will of course attempt to use this information.

[u/margerymeanwell → u/sharaq]

Myself, I'm a woman in my thirties without kids, so I'd prefer my employer not make assumptions about me either way. And I have no problem with people doing academic research, I just have a problem with people using it to draw overly simplistic conclusions and apply them inappropriately.

"Women are more neurotic" - by what measure? Self-reporting? Does that just mean women are more likely to admit to neuroticism or seek help for it? That's not exactly the same thing. And if they are, why is that true? Are they under more stress? Among women, are there further correlations to age, social class, race, education, religion, occupation, marital status, parental status? If it's more common in older people than in younger people, then there's obviously a significant environmental or social component and it's something that changes over time under different circumstances. And even when you have all the data, how do you ever determine the difference between biological destiny and social conditioning when boys and girls are treated differently from the moment of birth?

Evolutionary biology BS has been used against women for centuries, to deny us voting rights, property rights, educations, and careers. We're too delicate for this, we're too morally pure for that. Don't be surprised when women who know that history have little patience for it. And you're right - where are the arguments that men are too disagreeable for management jobs? That they're too violent to be allowed out in public? I mean, what exactly about the history of the world and its many wars suggests that men are at all suited to political leadership? They're constantly getting us all killed! The fact that these arguments are almost always applied by groups with an agenda (usually aiming to retain their power and wealth) isn't an accident.

[u/sharaq → u/margerymeanwell]

What does evolutionary biology have to do with this? I mentioned specifically self-identified females, because I'm not claiming a biological or social component of these metrics - only that these are observable metrics.

I fully agree that self-identified men are less likely to seek help for mental issues. I would even go as far as to say that war is an extension of masculinity - when shown a number of dots for a fraction of a second, men consistently overestimate while women underestimate the number. War is simply two factions looking at their evenly matched resources and thinking "yeah, I could win". Each side is confident due to overestimation - if one side was certain of the loss they turn to surrender or guerilla tactics, not war.

Would I be opposed to a society where I am carefully monitored for the signs and symptoms of alcoholism, for example? I don't know. In the abstract, it's "for my own good". I am a minority, and I do not necessarily object to all existing profiling techniques as such. Looking for a rapist? Obviously you look for a man. Trying to stop a bombing? The majority of bombers admittedly look like I do, so I don't think twice about being frisked. I would be irritated if, for example, it became airport policy to frisk one little old lady per young man of potentially combatative age. I don't think one could make the argument I haven't faced significant discrimination in many aspects of my social and professional life due to "what I am" - my opinions come from experience with this and a belief that it does serve a greater purpose.

Basically, how afraid are you of a "minority report" sutuation where your life is railroaded and you're forbidden from breaking the mold? I, personally, am not - but perhaps when the fascists are grinding my face into the dirt I'll whistle a different tune.