Google Grapples With Fallout After Employee Slams Diversity Efforts (npr.org)

An anonymous reader shares a report from NPR: In a 3,300-word document that has been shared across Google's internal networks, an engineer at the company wrote that "biological causes" are part of the reason women aren't represented equally in its tech departments and leadership. The document also cited "men's higher drive for status." The engineer's criticism of Google's attempts to improve gender and racial diversity has prompted two Google executives to rebut the lengthy post, which accused the company of creating an "ideological echo chamber" and practicing discrimination. Wide sharing of the document has highlighted struggles with gender equality and the wage gap in the tech industry and particularly at Google, which was sued by the federal government earlier this year for refusing to share compensation amounts and other data.

But in contrast, the document's author -- whose identity hasn't been publicly released but who claims to work at the company's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters -- accused Google of having "a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence." Not enough has been done, the engineer said, to encourage a diversity of viewpoints and ideologies at Google. The author also faulted the company for offering mentoring and other opportunities to its employees based on gender or race. The engineer began the document by stating, "I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes." The message ended with a similar sentiment -- but with the added notion, "Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the [company's] training suggests." In addition to the responses made from Google's VP of Diversity, Integrity and Governance, Danielle Brown, former engineer Yonatan Zunger, and Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh, senior developer Sarah Mei wrote: "This guy almost certainly thinks of himself as a 'computer scientist,' but he does exactly what you're not supposed to do as a scientist. He draws a conclusion favorable to his ego, and then works backwards from there, constructing an argument to justify it. [...] This google dude literally works at the company that made it _trivially easy_ to locate relevant social science research."

Comments

One guy

[nwaack]

These are the opinions of a single person, not Google itself. They shouldn't have to deal with fallout because he's got dumb opinions.

Re:One guy

[Anonymous Coward]

They should, instead, deal with the fallout for having a moronic position like a VP of Diversity, Integrity and Governance.

Re:One guy

[Anonymous Coward]

They shouldn't have to deal with fallout because he's got dumb opinions.

Except they opted not to actually argue against what he was saying... instead doubling down on the ideological echo chamber.

It's always been interesting to me the intellectual shallowness I see from many on the left (like this case) where they refuse to debate or discuss those things which they view as settled. Even if true, the exploration of the topic creates insights and a deeper understanding not of the end result, but how it is achieved.

But then... they still don't understand how/why Trump won.

Re:One guy

[cecurry]

Jesus Christ. Can we not have a discussion without blaming something on "the left" or "the right"?

Re:One guy

[penandpaper]

It never said that "women can't do X because biology" but they have different interests and motivations and a gender gap may very well be explained without gender based discrimination. We should treat people as individuals not as groups. It also said that political biases will make it difficult to talk about the issues that diversity programs may cause such as treating individuals as a group.

No one is arguing that women can't do X but rather because of biological differences the average can create a gender gap even when the individual is an exception.

Re: One guy

[desdinova 216]

no one would ever expect that

Re:One guy

[Northdot]

You should read the article more closely, as he is not saying "all women" this or "all men" that. He specifically says that there is significant overlap between the sexes, and is only speaking to the large-number trends of gender percentages.

So in no way is he saying that all women are less suitable/inclined for leadership or for tech.. that would be laughable. He is just saying that when you look at the large trends, that part of the numbers may be in fact due to the biological traits which put the bell curves in different places with respect to success attributes for those professions.

And yes I think he stretches in places, but he is making an argument at least worthy of debate. Unfortunately the whole subject just gets everyone's hackles up, and both sides tend to start labeling rather than discussing particular points..

Re:One guy

[K. S. Van Horn]

"Proceeds to make tons and tons of assumptions and assertions"

The original apparently had links to supporting sources for these assertions. Gizmodo chose to remove those links. I wonder why?

I don't know how accurate in general his assertions of fact are, but when it comes to gender differences in interests -- with men tending to be more "thing"-oriented, and women more people-oriented -- he is on very solid ground. I recommend that you read Scott Alexander's article discussing this:

Gender Imbalances Are Mostly Not Due to Offensive Attitudes.

Pay particular attention to section II where he discusses Richard Lippa's research.

Re: One guy

[TimothyHollins]

Come on mate, are you really going to bring this dead horse up again?

Spot the person who's never heard of pair programming. Or who believes, due to his own inability to work with others, is the wrong way to go.

Why isn't pair programming the one and only way to do things then? Could it be because he's right? I think so.

But hey, what is programming at all but communication. Communication with the computer. Maybe women are fundamentally better at it. On average.

Wow, quite the assertion. Unfortunately it's completely contrary to reality. But hey, you get SJW virtue points for the signalling. Well done.

Ah, yes, I remember that being a concern once upon a time. However, it's no longer true. There are more girl gamers than boy gamers now.

https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]

Seriously, you think Candy Crush on the smartphone is 'playing games'? It's cute that SJWs try to justify enforcing the "diversity" stupidity in gaming by trotting out these numbers again and again, but when we look at real games that require even the smallest level of investment (PC/consoles) we find that the audiences are largely male. But hey, you are absolutely correct as long as you constrain your propaganda calls to The Sims. But I guess you don't need to as that game, which correctly identified its audience as mostly female years ago, already is catering to that audience. Just like all other games would *if their audiences were actually female to any relevant proportion*.

Your ideology is not supported by the facts.

Re:One guy

[AmiMoJo]

Women sometimes can't do X. For example, it's pretty unlikely that a woman will ever beat the men's 100m sprint world record.

What is being argued is two things:

1) Just because women are different does not mean they are lesser, and in fact having diverse perspectives is beneficial.

2) The gender gap in tech is largely unrelated to biological differences, it's mostly social. There is a very large amount of evidence to support this.

The frustration here is, as ShanghaiBill points out, it's become a lot like climate change. Most people who looked at the evidence seriously came to the same conclusion, but some people keep insisting that we do it all again from scratch and occasionally one of them puts out a well written, reasonable sounding document that people who want to believe those things latch on to.

I suppose this can't really be helped, but it's still frustrating.

Re:One guy

[alvinrod]

Google made a shit-ton of money by offering good products. I don't give two fucks about the skin color, sexual orientation, political leanings, etc. of the software developers at Google as long as their search returns fast and accurate results. Diversity has almost nothing to do with quality of product as far as I can tell, but I can tell you that any company that institutes some kind of quota system is going to alienate and drive away some of those people who were responsible for quality products.

If you're recruiting people at disproportionate rates to the pool of available candidates either you need to pay better (and pay everyone else more as well or people will complain about receiving less if they believe that have equal skill or capability) or hire certain demographics at a lower ability threshhold (this assumes that none of the usual diversity demographics have any bearing on ability, which I'll assume you and most of the other people in favor of this crap would argue in favor of anyway) or disproportionately reject candidates who apply but don't fill any diversity quota. This is not an ideal strategy and opens the company up for competitors to offer a better product because they're either utilizing cheaper labor, not adding less skilled workers, or not passing over potentially higher skilled workers.

It might make good short term marketing, but in the end businesses compete on price. If this weren't true we'd still have all manner of goods being made in the United States because there are just as many people who like to virtue signal over their patriotism as there are those who like to about diversity initiatives. People's actions don't always align with their words, and companies run on dollars, not platitudes.

As an interesting aside, I had an interesting thought. Typically when these types of stories get posted someone invariably trots out an argument that diversity improves team performance. I don't think anyone has linked a study to ever support their claim, and for all I know such a study does exist, but assuming that claim were true, it would necessarily mean that those very same diversity characteristics (race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) mean that the people who possess them are somehow different. If that weren't the case, you shouldn't expect a different outcome. But if those characteristics make them different, then why would it be surprising if those characteristics didn't also result in fewer (or more as for that matter some minority groups are disproportionately more likely to be in computing) members of those demographics getting into software development or any other field for that matter. I suppose you could argue that those characteristics themselves aren't responsible, only that they are more strongly correlated with other factors such as growing up poor or something like that. However, that just strikes me as stereotyping people by assuming that just because they're a member of a certain demographic that they must possess some characteristic that will lead to this magical diversity performance improvement.

And don't just take this as some condemnation of hiring minority demographics or something equally asinine. In some cases you do quite clearly want to discriminate and have members of certain demographics. For example, if I were trying to make a phone I'd want to have some women on the team just because they're going to use the device in a different way than men in a very general sense. I don't necessarily mean in terms of apps or what they do with it, just that many will probably carry it in a purse or handbag and that they'll generally have smaller hands among several other things I probably haven't imagined might be important aspects of how the product should function. Yes, that itself is a contrived example, but it illustrates a point itself.

To get back on track, I think you and a lot of other posters make this mistake of assuming that you have some kind of morally superior position to base your argument on and that the rest

Re:One guy

[Rockoon]

2) The gender gap in tech is largely unrelated to biological differences, it's mostly social. There is a very large amount of evidence to support this.

Is it so large that nobody has cited any of it because (A) its actually crap, or (B) its too big to fit in the margins

???

Re:One guy

[LeftCoastThinker]

Everyone is an individual and their personal choices should be respected by everyone else. The fact that the fascist progressive left at Google wants to shoehorn more women into STEM jobs "just because" is bullshit and a blatant FU to all of the women who chose to put their children and family first and chose to stay at home while their husbands try to find a job being held hostage by gender politics.

Re:One guy

[penandpaper]

The point is even if the average of women can't do X you don't make it impossible for them to try X. Further, if you have a gender gap of "100m sprints" then it may not be because of systemic sexism in an organization that has "100m sprints".

1) It was never argued that women are lesser for having different interests or motivations. Taking more risks isn't necessarily a good or bad in and of itself but it can lead to higher status or higher probability to land in jail or homeless. Likewise, taking fewer risks isn't good or bad but it can lead to less status and less chance to be homeless or in jail. Yes, you are right. Diverse perspectives are beneficial which is why the original memo pointed out that there is a distinct lack of diversity of thought in google. This lack of diversity causes issues such as shaming into silence and an inability to honestly discuss ideas because some are too sacred (as the responses have shown them to be too sacred).

2) Social behavior is influenced by biology such as the examples listed in the original memo. Again, the point is that systemic sexism may not be adequate in accurately explaining the gender gap and forcing 50/50 gender representation through discrimination is unfair and bad for business.

Most people who looked at the evidence seriously came to the same conclusion, but some people keep insisting that we do it all again from scratch and occasionally one of them puts out a well written, reasonable sounding document that people who want to believe those things latch on to.

I can sympathize with that but the problem is when you reject any criticism and any discussion. The lack of diversity of thought coupled with the moralization of politics makes it impossible to discuss and come to a better understanding. The point of any discussion should never be the end result but the arguments, logic, and facts to get there.

Re:One guy

[alvinrod]

If women are different from men in a way that would result in them having diverse perspectives, then why is it unreasonable to assume that those same diverse perspectives might lead them to other career choices?

As to your second point, the evidence seems to point the other way. I believe it was you who made a post in the previous thread in this topic indicating that Iranian women were more likely to be involved in software jobs as some evidence that it must be socially based. Interestingly enough, you'll see higher rates in other countries too. India is one example where there are significantly more women in computing. What you fail to understand is that this has little to do with cultural differences (and you'd be hard pressed to argue that either India or Iran have better views towards women in general than western democracies) and is the result of economic ones. Computer science jobs are well paying and in high demand, and do potentially afford you the opportunity to immigrate to a western democracy that may be preferable to the type of people who are intelligent enough to excel in the software development field.

When you remove economic pressures (the Scandinavian countries which have among the best social safety nets have the same low numbers of women in CS as the U.S.) and have a society that leaves you essentially free to pursue whatever ambitions you might have, it is hardly unsurprising that any biological tendencies that may predispose people to one field or another are more prevalent. To use an analogy, you can only really see if one strain of plant yields more only after you ensure that they all have sufficient water to thrive. If you somehow created a society that was able to ensure that everyone in life had an equal start, the only possible variance left would come down to biological differences.

There's a substantial amount of evidence to suggest men and women are different. Even at a surface level, we see large differences in things like personality, which has been demonstrated to be highly heritable. I'm not quite sure how you could look at those differences and come to the conclusion that it isn't going to result in differences in vocation selection or other life choices that can impact a person's career. I suppose you could argue that somehow all of these differences are merely a result of society, but that ignores the heritability of personality as well as evidence from studies that examined sex-based behavior difference in infants. See a recent study that examined children roughly one to two and half years of age in nurseries, a similar earlier study which examined infants 1 - 2 years of age , and another study which examined infants as young as three months old. There was another study that examined toy preference in young monkeys that found similar sex-based differences which does suggest that this is something that goes back quite far in our evolutionary history.

It's funny that you bring up global warming, because a lot of the evidence suggests that you are incorrect, yet you continue to act in much the same way as people who contest the science behind global warming. I seriously question how you could reconcile the studies I've presented above with your beliefs that biology plays such a little role in the outcomes we're observing. I suppose you could claim the science is biased, but then how do you know that the scientists publishing articles about climate change aren't biased?

Re:One guy

[runningduck]

I don't care how good one engineer is. If he is an asshat he will likely drive away more talent then he can ever dream of. I have been in companies one might consider a part of the "good ol' boy's network." When HR demanded that the pin-up posters come down the engineers screamed about how much more valuable they were to the company than any whiners. It was a pleasure to watch as over time each one of these "top-notch" engineers was walked out the door. And to add icing on the cake, once these asshats were gone people who were otherwise looked over stood up and did some incredible work.

The moral of the story is that you get what you reward. If you reward people complaining about their personal injustices then you will develop a company full of such people. (purposely ambiguous) If you reward people who work well in diverse groups then you will end up with a company that works well regardless of individual differences.

Shaming...

[Marc_Hawke]

I think it's interesting how this guy is being shamed for posting a controversial opinion. ;) Where did I read about that happening? Oh that's right..it reportedly happens at Google.

I read the manifesto...the whole thing. He makes two spurious and generalizing claims (women are more cooperative, men are driven by status) but everything else in the paper are legitimate concerns about "how" diversity is being enforced. He also gives a lot of suggestions as to how it could be better fostered and/or measured.

The part I dislike the most is how most of the published reactions are couched in damage control and distancing themselves from the author. In reality they needed to be inclusive saying how they want to hear everyone's opinions and how they take those concepts into account when making policy. Basically, the public responses have just reinforced the complaints that the author had with the programs in the first place. (Especially Sarah Mei, who basically just called him names and insulted his intelligence without any sort of direct rebuttal to his claims.)

Re:Shaming...

[hsthompson69]

Mod parent up. I don't think there can be a more damning reaction from the left than a collective freakout and immediate calls for censorship of wrongthink.

If the intent is to debunk the original author's points, screaming "bad, bad, bad thinker!", is literally the most unpersuasive move in the book.

It's almost as if nobody actually has any logical, reasoned response to his critique...

Re:Shaming...

[computational super]

It's funny (not in a haha way, though), how in their desperate attempt not to alienate one demographic, they're so quick to alienate another with no indication that they so much as care. As of now, there's nowhere else for the throwaway straight white men that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft have no use for, but if such an avenue does open up, it'll be interesting to see how many flock to where they're actually welcomed and wanted. And doubly interesting to see if that actually creates a competitive advantage.

Re:Shaming...

[brennz]

Almost all of his post from within Google has been completely altered for posting in the Media. References removed, no support for arguments, etc. I'm not sure we can say what is showing up in the media is even his arguments, since all the support material has been amputated.

This is hardly an open discussion.

Re:Shaming...

[hsthompson69]

Stating that approximately half of the population is by default, choosing more often to do something besides tech work, doesn't create a hostile workplace at all.

The mischaracterization of his opinion (which was about distributions and choice, not inherent inability for all members of a given group), is a willful misreading, and shows the critique of the echo chamber was spot on.

If you want to say that some ideas are off limits, then you should be more cautious with which ideas you put into that category. Like, maybe demanding that gays be killed because Allah would be a good one to put off limits, but "women make different choices than men"...that's a stretch.

Re:Shaming...

[AmiMoJo]

Please, criticize a single one of his arguments.

Okay.

He says women are less inclined to negotiate for higher salaries. Studies show that when they do, they are often punished for being "bossy" or "shrill", rather than it being some biological imperative.

He says women prefer a better work/life balance, but attributes it to biology. There seem to be other reasons though, like the fact that they tend to do more of the unpaid labour (chores, child care etc.) and are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends. And he doesn't seem to think that men would benefit from not working longer hours either, it's implied to be a positive trait that justifiably results in rewards.

He claims that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. In fact we know that women are simply more likely to speak up when they are under heavy stress and seek support for it, rather than bottling it up, rather than being less able to cope.

Three for the price of one.

Re:obligatory pay transparency

[OhPlz]

But two people can have the same job title but have very different performance, and performance is not something that's easily measured and recorded. Simple solutions are part of the problem.

Re:What is google going to do to fix this?

[Kohath]

Free and open debate.

Re:Hey - here's an idea

[thegreatbob]

Purple people would tend to be a target for the Purple People Eater, making them quite the liability... just sayin'

Every rebuttal confirms him

[sciengin]

So far every single "rebuttal" from google and outside, every autistic screeching, every angry tweet and call for his firing and public outing simply confirms what he said.

Instead to tackling the deep issues of PC culture they are trying to kill the messenger.
The very existence of a VP for diversity at an engineering company should be a wake up call.
And lets not even get to her asinine "arguments" that are anything but. Sara Meis response is even worse actually (not that I thought it could be possible). Instead of citing data that disproves his arguments (protip: does not exist, neither does the wage gap) she puts words in his mouth ("conclusions that favor his ego") and implies that he did not arrive to those conclusions by observation but apparently HAD to work backwards.

Re:Hey - here's an idea

[computational super]

The funny thing there is, they ARE hiring the most qualified people for each job - that's why they have 35% asian representation when Asians represent about 5% of the U.S. population. Funny that this so-called "diversity" coordinator doesn't see any problem with this. In fact, the numbers are probably even more skewed - Google lumps "asian" into a single category but I'd be shocked if Indian/Pakistani didn't dominate that 35% in spite of being only one single percent of the U.S. population.

One SMART guy

[mi]

They shouldn't have to deal with fallout because he's got dumb opinions.

Had they really been "dumb" opinions, they would've been easy to dismiss. The very problem for Google — and the "progressives" everywhere — is that the man's opinions are perfectly reasonable and well-argued.

The particular point I appreciated was that any "gap" between sexes, races, etc. is not automatically evidence of an evil bias, contrary to what Social Justice Warriors would like us to believe. Such a bias may be responsible for a gap — entirely or partially — but it also may not. And, obviously, any efforts to fight the suspected discrimination, the very existence of which is "proven" by nothing else, with actual and deliberate discrimination is patently unfair — and bad for business.

Re:One SMART guy

[penandpaper]

Further what I appreciated in the original was that any political bias will make it difficult to discuss the subject honestly. Since google is very left leaning any left leaning topic is difficult to discuss because of their political bias. The responses so far is what you would expect if his opinion was based in reality. Looks like it was.

Re:One SMART guy

[mi]

comprehensively refuted before

Citations?

we have studied it in great detail

Citations?

Re:One SMART guy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all old, tired arguments that have been comprehensively refuted before. For example, he states that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. We know that isn't true, because we have studied it in great detail.

Wrong! According to

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/know-your-mind/201306/the-stressed-sex-1

women have higher rates of anxiety and depression than men. The article does not claim that claims that women are "less able to deal with stress", but it does claim that women are generally more "stressed" than men.

Your claim that these are "old, tired arguments that have been comprehensively refuted" is a bald-faced lie.

Re:First Be Evil

[brennz]

It isn't like Google is:

Conspiring with autocratic nation's Great Firewalls
Doxxing internal critics
Fighting against free speech
Hiding important content
Getting in bed with corrupt political candidates
Trying to subvert the political process
Enforcing ThoughtCrime
Demonetizing any Youtube performers on the Right
Rewriting queries to favor their own services
Manipulated searches to hide politicians' dark deeds
Coming up with exotic Tax avoidance schemes
Supporting Terrorists' information sharing

Do no evil, right?

the system always wins

[epine]

I glanced through Sarah Mei's Twitter page, and she's full of shit. She seems not to get why women in tech might not be evenly distributed.

* Suppose you have a culture that hires based on personal referral. (It's usually one of the best ways to go.)
* Suppose your culture starts out with a male nucleus.
* Suppose your male nucleus mostly has male contacts.

You're gonna get a mainly male culture.

Companies don't hire the best candidate available. Companies hire the candidate for whom they have the most confidence of strong performance, meaning that the route into the door matters a lot. Applicants at large will not be given equal shrift to applicants with a strong, internal referral.

From that starting point, the organization is subject to network effects, none of which need to be intrinsically biased in order to lead to a biased outcome (as determined by simple headcount).

One can argue that the sorry state of women in technology justifies taking active measures against the default behaviour of your (potentially) gender-neutral starting point. One can't argue that failing to take active measures automatically incriminates your starting point as gender discriminatory.

In Sarah's world where water isn't wet, and laudable corporations seek the best candidate while paying no attention to existing network effects, you can draw these conclusions, loudly and with no nuance, should it serve your purpose.

I'm not saying that innocent bias doesn't coexist with toxic bias. I am saying that presumptive guilt is an extremely dangerous tool as wielded by a small, angry imagination.

Shakespeare

[Tailhook]

What an amazing exhibition of group-think. Google has accumulated thousands of Sarah Meis and by extension the Valley etc. has accrued a couple million rigorously orthodox malcontents. We're now into day three of that monoculture's collective apoplexy because one powerless nobody had the temerity to question the dogma.

Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

Too bad google doesn't have "blind auditions"

[Tim2]

Prior to 1970 most symphony orchestra musicians were men. Then around 1970 blind auditions (when you don't know who is playing or their gender) started to become common, and are now nearly universal. As a result, symphony musicians today are nearly evenly split between genders. See: http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/orc...

I have interviewed prospective software developers in my career, and know that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to counteract my own prejudices even when I wanted to be fair. To be a woman interviewed for a job by someone with the views of the Google employee who believed women are genetically inferior for engineering would be devastating. Even someone with more even handed views undoubtedly harbors some bias.

I don't know if "blind interviews" for engineers will ever be practical, so maybe we are stuck with perpetuating our prejudices on hiring decisions indefinitely.

Re:What is google going to do to fix this?

[Jodka]

He wasn't doxxed

Yes he was. For obvious reasons, I am not going to link that.

he didn't lose his job

His critics are demanding that he be fired.

and there is a healthy debate over his document.

He is enduring brutal, public, ad-hominem attacks by Google management ridiculing his competence as a programmer.

In fact the only people not taking about the content of the document are the conservatives complaining that people aren't taking about the content of the document.

Horseshit.

Oh, please ...

[Qbertino]

Instead of you know, all the female, queer, non white, or disenfranchised employees / potential employees and other people who are actually speaking up about the discrimination they face. Not some whining man baby who feels threatened now that others are getting their chance.

Oh, Jebus H.B. Christ, give me an effing break already, will ya?

There is *NOTHING* preventing any women or team of women getting together and building the next Apple. There is *NOTHING* at all preventing any lady from getting a refurbished ThinkPad for 250 bucks, sitting down at her desk and coding the foundation of the next Oracle. There is no obstacle what-so-freakin-ever preventing any girl or woman of picking up a book on C and joining the kernel team. Or Gnome. Or getting into C++ and joining KDE. You can become a project lead and no one will even know that you're a woman. No one freakin' cares. It's the F*CKING internet! Know one knows who you are.

Why isn't it happening? For the very same reason that musical innovation of the last 200 years in the US didn't come from well educated, musically trained and compareativly priviliged and free white women of the middle and upper class but from BLACK MALE SLAVES. Why? Well, I'll take a wild guess here: There is a strong incentive for men to prove their worth to society. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO! A young woman has already proven her worth: She has a womb and tits that give milk. Men are disposable women are not. Men have to fight to prove their worth. They have to pull way more than their own weight to prove worthy as a mate. The criminal justice system is biased against them and in favour of women ALL AROUND THE WORLD throughout history until today. Be young, beautiful, female and an asshole and get away with it. Be a male asshole and you better be a strong one capable of defending the tribe, otherwise you're kicked out or into jail faster that you can think.

I got some freakin news for you, you dunce: Tech innovation is driven by unattractive MALE SOCIETY DROPOUTS! They have nothing else to do but code.

And now cry me a river about gender inequality in tech. NOBODY is stopping any women of joining. ... Gawd how I'd love to have some neat sex and discuss the pros and cons of Rust vs. Go afterwards while lying in bed and chilling. ... Won't happen, no matter how much we wish for it BECAUSE *NEWFLASH* on average WOMEN AREN'T ALL THAT INTERESTED IN CODING!

Did you FINALLY get the message?

Re:What is google going to do to fix this?

[ArylAkamov]

Spoke a little too soon. He's been fired, dox'd and blacklisted along with threats against his personal safety.
I've yet to see anyone upset by this document discuss it in a calm and reasonable way, mainly useless gender studies graduates getting angry on twitter and refusing to discuss it, because "discussing it validates it" and "muh bigots". The irony of that last one is pretty sad.
Unless you completely ignore all forms of social media, this guy is getting completely shit on with very little "healthy" debate.
The man has a PhD in Biology from Harvard for fucks sake, and he's called the ignorant one for stating scientific facts.