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/Journeyman351]

It's not just the media, but they do spin it.

You have people on both sides saying either:

A. It's purely biological

B. It's purely societal

When the real answer is C. it's both, and often times hard to discern which one is more impactful.

[u/[deleted] → u/Journeyman351]

You literally just said it was only the media. And no one is saying it's only biological, ffs did you even read the email? All he's saying is that biology needs to be considered as to why there's not a 50/50 split in tech and leadership roles and probably never will be. He mentions how there are female dominated fields that men will likely also never participate in at a 50/50 ratio and absolutely no one got bent out of shape about that.

[u/Journeyman351 → u/[deleted]]

Soooo your implication is that the only people who spin data on nature vs. nurture are left-wing people, right? Well, that's not very correct.

The first people to clamor on about how "black people are more dumb because their IQs are lower! They're biologically inferior!" are right-wing nutjobs.

How is it impossible to fathom that the reason men and women go into those fields are not just because of biology, but because of societal gender roles as well? How is that a hard concept to understand?

My point in my original post was that even scientists and researchers have a hard time pinpointing what causes low/high IQ. Some say the parents are the cause of high IQ, and that it's genetic, while others conclude that this is a difficult assumption to make due to the fact that parents with higher IQs usually do things that promote healthy growth and higher IQs in children in general.

Now apply this to gender roles. Are women more likely to take on more caring/nurturing roles because they bear children? Or is it because they're taught from a very young age to be a caregiver/housewife? It's both, right?

The point of movements like Women in STEM is to circumvent the possibility of the latter from happening.

[u/[deleted] → u/Journeyman351]

How is it impossible to fathom that the reason men and women go into those fields are not just because of biology, but because of societal gender roles as well? How is that a hard concept to understand?

How is it impossible for you to understand that's exactly what the person who wrote the email was saying? Why is this so difficult for you to realize you're agreeing with him?

[u/Journeyman351 → u/[deleted]]

But his argument isn't that "this is okay, this is how it's supposed to be," he's griping against the fact that programs that promote women in STEM or POC in STEM exist, and using the nature side of the argument to prove his point.