In Response To Anti-diversity Memo, YouTube CEO Says Sexism in Tech is 'Pervasive' (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader writes: YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has responded to the Google anti-diversity memo, writing in a column for Fortune that the questioning of women's abilities is "pervasive" in tech and that the memo is "yet another discouraging signal to young women who aspire to study computer science." Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career. "I've had meetings with external leaders where they primarily addressed the more junior male colleagues. I've had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas ignored until they were rephrased by men. No matter how often this all happened, it still hurt," she wrote. In the meanwhile, The Guardian reported on Wednesday that more than 60 current and former Google women employees are considering suing Google on the grounds of sexism and a pay gap.

Comments

her first problem

[ganjadude]

is calling it an "anti diversity" memo... .thats not what it was in the slightest.

Re:her first problem

[Bodhammer]

http://www.strangebeaver.com/w...

Re:her first problem

[Anonymous Coward]

is calling it an "anti diversity" memo... .thats not what it was in the slightest.

Thanks for mansplaining this.

Thanks for an example of sexism.

Re:her first problem

[ganjadude]

mansplaining is nothing but a term sexists use to stifle discussion. please stop being a sexist

Re:her first problem

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

She most certainly DID NOT call it an "anti-diversity" memo, that was the work of some editor (downstream from Fortune) somewhere, trying to get clicks. Try READING what she wrote.

Re:her first problem

[Anonymous Coward]

She doesn't call it that in her actual response - http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/google-diversity-memo-wojcicki/

That title was put on her response via Fortune. Her criticism is a different tone.

Re: her first problem

[saihung]

Yes it was. Sorry you are too blinded by emotion to see reason on this. Maybe if you were a woman you'd be able to think more clearly and be less emotive.

Re:her first problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I did try reading it, but they require javascript just to read some fucking text. Fuck that noise.

Re:her first problem

[serviscope_minor]

First, that's a massive misrepresentation of the article.

Second, all the dads I know seem deeply concerned with their kids welfare, both physical and mental. So in answer to your rhetorical question: all the time.

Re: her first problem

[cyber-vandal]

Really? You're really using that insult?

Re:her first problem

[AmiMoJo]

I find this question particularly interesting:

"For instance, what if we replaced the word âoewomenâ in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles?"

Most debates about that devolve into arguments about skull measurements... But perhaps someone would like to try.

Re:her first problem

[AmiMoJo]

Have you read beyond the first sentence?

It makes some good points. Since you were demanding that people read and respond to the points in the original memo, why not lead by example and do the same here?

Re: her first problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It called for increasing diversity through making the jobs more attractive, rather than through illegal sexually discriminatory quotas.

But hey, keep claiming it's anti-diversity to feel that way. It's just compensating for the fact that you know you didn't earn your job, and you only got it because your company wanted to check off another quota box.

Re:her first problem

[Darinbob]

Thanks for mansplaining the previous comment.

Re:her first problem

[penandpaper]

Is there evidence to suggest that the traits identified in the memo are specific to one race? Or sexual orientation?

She is trying to be clever because she thinks the memo is "perpetuate negative stereotypes about them based on their gender" when it's not. She either didn't read the memo, didn't understand it, or will fulling misrepresenting it. What negative stereotypes are being perpetuated? Are there biological differences between men and women? Can we measure those differences in the population? Are those differences universal across other races? Do those differences change with sexual orientation?

You are acting like the guy wrote the latest publication supporting phrenology. The claims he had are innocuous. He said they are more neurotic, more agreeable, more open toward feelings and aesthetics. Note, neurotic does not mean suffering neurosis but one of the big 5 higher order personality traits in psychology. Even on the Wikipedia article says that women, on average, score higher for neuroticism.

Do you have evidence to refute any of the claims he made? What are you disputing?

Re:her first problem

[mbkennel]

| What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles?"

Are there extensive empirical biological results on those? (very doubtful.)

Is the underrepresentation of orangutangs in tech roles potentially a result of biological causes?

Re:her first problem

[AmiMoJo]

Some people think there is empirical evidence. Skull sizes, theories about evolution and moving out of Africa, IQ test results...

Re:her first problem

[penandpaper]

Because it's about averages. Because it is backup with empirical evidence. Because it isn't negative in and of itself. Because men are neurotic as well because of individual variation. Even stereotypes can be true but what matters is what you do with it. For example the original memos suggestion on how to help google and women in tech. Why do you think it is a negative stereotype and when are stereotypes true?

It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.

Is that a negative stereotype that you are perpetuating? Sexist.

Re:her first problem

[bsolar]

How is saying "women are on average me neurotic" not perpetuating negative stereotypes? It's the sort of thing that leads to men being dismissed as thinking with their dicks.

It's not, at least if you know what the words actually mean.

First of all, "neurotic" in the context used in the memo doesn't mean "affect by neurosis", which most critics wrongly assume, it refers to one of the 5 personality traits, and that women on average score higher on this trait than men is recognized in scentific studies cited in the same article.

Furthermore, a stereotype is not stating that some trait appears more on average in a specific group, a stereotype is generalizing upon such average and treating all members of that group as if the trait is a given. The trait, even if more prominent, is not necessarily ubiquitous.

Back to neuroticism as example: if I state that women on average score more on neuroticism, I'm not creating any stereotype. If from that I generalize and state that all women must score more, or start to assume that all women I encounter must score more on neuroticism, then I'm creating a stereotype.

Note that the memo explicitly stated individuals need to be evaluated as individuals and not according to the tendencies of their groups, which means it's not creating nor promoting any stereotype. The opposite, the memo explicitly warns against drawing generalizations and creating stereotypes from these statistics.

Re:her first problem

[skrot]

How about you learn what is meant by 'neuroticism' in the technical sense before taking offense to it?

Re:her first problem

[DivineKnight]

You must be new here. This is /., RTFA is purely optional.

Re: her first problem

[Reverend Green]

Thanks for bigotsplaining that, broham.

Re: her first problem

[Reverend Green]

Correct, she did not call it an "anti-diversity" memo.

She did speak out against freedom after speech, and thus against free speech. She seems to believe workers ought have no rights.

She did invent a transparently fictional story about her daughter. Presumably to humanize her otherwise unappealing ideas.

She did evince a lot of butthurt about engineers not showing hey the respect she feels she deserves. Of course she ascribes that insufficient respect to sexism, with no supporting evidence.

According to Wikipedia she's a silverspoon marketing person, who's main claim to fame is owning a garage where she allowed Brin & Paige to set up Google's first office. She was financially privileged enough to own property in an expensive area, and to scoff at zoning laws without too much fear of the gestapo. For that "great achievement" she seems to feel engineers out to revere her as a brilliant technologist. Alas, based on her memo, it seems the engineers disagree - at least those who have had the misfortune of working with her.

Re:her first problem

[gweihir]

My take also. Reading things and understanding them seems to be a lot art these days.

Re:her first problem

[gweihir]

Then this would be bunk as there is no scientific data to support that claim. For gender, there is and it is very solid.

Re:her first problem

[gweihir]

Indeed. It is like people try with all of their might to misunderstand what was written in the memo. And many succeed wildly.

Re:her first problem

[gweihir]

There are not. There are statistical differences in education that can usually be traced back to differences in wealth and that does influence IQ scores (not intelligence), but personality-wise you get cultural differences, but not race differences (takes some advanced statistics to separate them though).

Re:her first problem

[gweihir]

Some people do not have a host of peer-reviewed publications in reputed conferences and journals about this either. Just because some people do not understand Science and try to misuse "Science!" as a propaganda tool (see, e.g., creationists) does not mean actual, well verified scientific results are invalid. As much as you obviously would like them to be.

Re:her first problem

[penandpaper]

Well said.

Re:her first problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody feels threatened by women in the workplace. What they feel threatened by are the SJW bullies who feign outrage over everything and try to get them ostracised for voicing facts and opinions. You do not have a right to not be offended, asshole.

Just go die already. The world is better off without bitterness and weakness like you in it.

Re:her first problem

[therealbev]

is calling it an "anti diversity" memo... .thats not what it was in the slightest.

Thanks for mansplaining this.

It was NOT an anti-diversity memo, it was an anti-stupidity memo. Calling that 'mansplaining' was just a cheap shot that missed the mark completely.

Re:her first problem

[david_thornley]

First of all, "neurotic" in the context used in the memo doesn't mean "affect by neurosis", which most critics wrongly assume, it refers to one of the 5 personality traits [wikipedia.org], and that women on average score higher on this trait than men is recognized in scentific studies cited in the same article.

I'm aware of that meaning. However, it has other meanings. It can denote mental illness (I had "neurotic depression" before I had "dysthymic disorder", without changing symptoms). It is sometimes used as an insult, either by calling a person neurotic or a belief or practice as neurotic. It may have been a poor choice of category name (you can refer to someone as open, conscientious, extroverted, or agreeable without it sounding insulting). Unless you're addressing experimental human psychologists, you need to be very careful with that term, because almost everyone else will initially perceive it as derogatory or insulting.

If there was miscommunication, at least part of the blame is on the person who wrote the thing at least for misjudging his audience.

Re:her first problem

[david_thornley]

I use "mansplaining" to mean explaining something to a person you should know understands it much better than you do. I consider it a moderately amusing word for something that really can use a word.

Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[naubol]

As I read the memo, it acknowledge that sexism was an issue. Even in the first paragraph.

I think not rationally responding to someone's point is becoming rampant in tech.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[ganjadude]

exactly. as to her complaining about being talked over and people not listening to her questions until "a guy" said them.... well gues swhat? I AM a guy and ive had the exact same thing happen to me by both men AND women!!! Her sexism is showing

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[SirSlud]

This article explains quite clearly what happened to end up with people like you:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[ganjadude]

lol fair enough point.

point stands its not sexism ;)

Re: Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[x0ra]

no better argument than a petty ad-hominem attack ? Come on, I know you're lazy, but you can do better...

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[serviscope_minor]

And here you are virtue signaling about how much you hate SJWs and virtue signaling.

Kinda ironic really.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[liquid_schwartz]

As I read the memo, it acknowledge that sexism was an issue. Even in the first paragraph.

I think not rationally responding to someone's point is becoming rampant in tech.

To be fair replying to articulate points has never been a strength of the PC crowd. They rely on dogma enforced by mobs. Facts are generally inconvenient for them and are best avoided.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[hey00]

exactly. as to her complaining about being talked over and people not listening to her questions until "a guy" said them.... well gues swhat? I AM a guy and ive had the exact same thing happen to me by both men AND women!!! Her sexism is showing

No, they do all that because you're "ganjadude" and no one can ever understand WTF you're going on about. :-)

That's probably likely the case. But for her, it was obviously sexism, it can't be that she didn't express herself poorly sometimes, right?

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[Darinbob]

Some technical oriented males can't recognize any social cues whatsoever, and some non-technical people are great and putting themselves at the center of the conversation. Being technical or not is irrelevant in what you're saying.

Although some people think the reason that Obama kept his "ummmm...." pauses going so long is so that others wouldn't think he was done and try to interject. Ie, control the conversation. It's a people skill. It's also a people skill to refrain from butting in and be patient, which some people can't help doing.

Most of the people who but in and start objecting are very often people who don't know what they're talking about anyway, they just want to seem important. They may know their tiny corner of the project but not the big picture, or they're defending their turf ("but your idea means more work for me!").

And of course, the "mansplaining" stereotype is there because people do this. Whether by men or not, there are people who seem compelled to paraphrase what someone just said moments before and thus becoming the center of the conversation again.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[asdfman2000]

That is the longest-winded way I've ever seen to say "Republicans and Conservatives are stupid and reject reality".

It's lovely that it acts like it's conservatives that reject facts, but sadly the Right do not hold the monopoly on crazy. For example, in the instance we are talking about right now, it's not conservatives rejecting reality.

When speaking about group averages, and NOT about individuals, there exists different distributions in physical and mental ability. That is what the "Anti-Diversity Memo" stated that caused the leftists / liberals / pro-diversity people / sjws / non-conservatives (whatever you want to call them) to flip out. They are flat out rejecting science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Here is a simple set of questions that will guarantee the asker will be called a racist, sexist nazi:
- Do genetics have any effect on a person's biology?
- Does biology affect physical and/or mental ability?
- Does biology have any bearing on expressed gender or sex?
- Are there any biological components to racial identification (skin color, eye shape, etc)?
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in physical endeavors (running, weight lifting, etc)?
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in mental endeavors (math, science, programming)?
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in physical endeavors?
- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in mental endeavors?

The answer to these questions are obvious and uncomfortable. The only question is "how far" does biology determine ability. However, the side that pretends to worship science is the one rejecting it in this case.

Note: variability within groups is almost(?) always greater than variability between groups, meaning race and sex do not determine an individual's ability. However, when pushing diversity programs that categorize groups of people, it is unscientific to ignore data about group distribution.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[serviscope_minor]

As I read the memo, it acknowledge that sexism was an issue. Even in the first paragraph.

So? Acknowledging a problem doesn't excuse you when you prove to be a part of it.

I think not rationally responding to someone's point is becoming rampant in tech.

The points have been rationally responded to time and time again. The first few pages (all I read) were bunk. There were a few correct bits, some wild extrapolation from small results and some out right falsehoods.

The onus is not on everyone to rationally rebut a set of incredibly poor arguments. The onus on him was to actually make good arguments. He instead made contentious points with very poor argument and has as a result got what's coming to him. If you support rationality you should be against the memo just on the grounds of how poorly it made the arguments.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[gweihir]

Only for some groups. And other people have shut up for fear of the reaction if they question things or have a different take on things. Some nice little fascist-type GroupThink going on there.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[Dread_ed]

Meta meta meta. You keep talking about talking about the paper.

Quote it, reference the reference material that underlies the quoted section, provide your own interpretation of what the actual facts are, and then provide a peer reviewed paper that substantiates your point.

It really is that easy. Unless you don't have anything to say other than your own baseless conclusions to go on. Saying you won't refute the claims because they are baseless is just the /. version of putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALALALAL!!"

His arguments created this discussion. It really is not on him to make any other argument than the one that created this discussion. I am willing to listen to a counter argument, but you haven't made one. If you are trying to convince yourself of the merits of what he wrote, you seem to have succeeded. If you are speaking to the masses of people who haven't read the paper and want to disagree for baseless reasons, you have given them some. If you are trying to convince people who are up for rational discussion based on the facts you are failing miserably.

I am all for a rational discussion of this topic. However, what I have not seen, even once, is what I just pointed to. Break it down, show where it is wrong. If you can't do that then what you have to say is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

In other words, put up or shut up. Thanks!

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[serviscope_minor]

You keep talking about talking about the paper.

Um, yeah? That's what this is all about.

Quote it, reference the reference material that underlies the quoted section,

Not all sections have any references backing them up.

provide your own interpretation of what the actual facts are, and then provide a peer reviewed paper that substantiates your point.

In other words, I now need to do a much more thorough job than he did? If every brain fart from a bigot really justified massively more detailed responses, then I'd be tied up all day tirelessly rebutting junk.

Life is too short, mate.

Break it down, show where it is wrong.

Until you can be bothered to back up the wild, unsourced claims, I don't see why I should put the effort into anything other than simply pointing out how poor the arguments are. IOW if you want to make claims, YOU need to put in the work first.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[TimothyHollins]

Naah, only men can express themselves poorly. Women are biologically better communicators.

Just remember that it's all cultural and social though. Unless it's sexism, then it's biological.
Otherwise someone might think it sexist when you blame a whole gender for your poor communication skills or when someone needs to communicate specifically with the junior members of the team and doesn't give you all the attention you feel you deserve.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[TimothyHollins]

THAT'S DISCRIM..... wait, they're both dudes? Then this won't get me any virtue points. I'm out...

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[TimothyHollins]

As a biologist , I would answer the following -

Here is a simple set of questions that will guarantee the asker will be called a racist, sexist nazi:
- Do genetics have any effect on a person's biology?

Yes

- Does biology affect physical and/or mental ability?

Yes

- Does biology have any bearing on expressed gender or sex?

Yes

- Are there any biological components to racial identification (skin color, eye shape, etc)?

Yes

- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in physical endeavors (running, weight lifting, etc)?

No, but this does not have to be because of biology at the group level. It is only probable.

- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do all races share equal ability in mental endeavors (math, science, programming)?

No, but again, this is not guaranteed to be because of biology. It is only probable that it is.

- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in physical endeavors?

No, and this is because of biology.

- As a group distribution (not at an individual level), do genders share equal ability in mental endeavors?

No. But this is only asserted in subconscious styles, not in complex behaviour.

We can say with certainty that male brains are wired to solve and act quickly, much like we would expect from a creature that lives and dies on the savannah according to reflexes and quick thinking. The brain is after all the "edge" of mankind over the more direct and combat-capable animals.
Female brains are wired to empathize and communicate, making them better suited for fostering children and functioning in a social grouping (such as maintaining the tribe's functions).

But it is very important to note that these are *overall* patterns, and each individual differs in some way from the mean. Thinking in terms of communication or the fastest solution does not make anyone dumber or smarter, just like solving math equations can be done either directly or by dividing the problem via easier subproblems. Because there are so many ways to view and solve problems, we will likely never know which approach is *overall* better, assuming that it's even going to be xor rather than a mix of the various styles.

Everyone here should know a buttload of classic algorithms for solving problems and that these algorithms are useful in different scenarios (exhaustive search and greedy both have their uses). That is why we cannot say if anyone is *overall* better in any given profession - we can only say that women are *more often that not* well suited for communication heavy roles, while men are *more often than not* well suited for timed actions such as quick decision making or management where many decisions are needed per day. This doesn't only apply to board rooms, but quick decisions are also needed in firefighting, policework, military, stock exchange brokering, and first person shooters. Do those sound like areas mostly men *are interested* in?

As for *logic*, I don't think there are any notable differences in gender-based performances. 90% of logic is after all having knowledge of the field and applying what is known. That has nothing at all to do with either subconscious style, and hence there is no benefit for either approach. Or, if there is, it is trivial enough to not matter. IQ tests seem to validate this.

Anyhoo, to sum up the rambling with something practical, if you want to get it right every time you need to evaluate each person according to individual ability, because both men and women can differ significantly from the mold. It is fully possible to find a kickass decision makeress, just like it's possible to find a kickass murse. It's just less likely. As always, statistics mean nothing in the individual case.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[Dread_ed]

Again, talking about, talking about it. Actually now you are: talking about, talking about, talking about it. You have entered that recursive loop that we see in the media where they interview person 1 about what person 0 said, and then interview person 2 about what person 1 said, never mentioning exactly what person 0 said.

It is well sourced. The guy did the work. In fact some of the sourced scientists have given rebuttals. Again with the fingers in the ears and screaming "LALALALALA." Again, if you are looking to convince yourself you are doing a good job. What is obvious to everyone else is that you are scared to even converse about the merits, wait scratch that, the basic contents of the document. You will cast aspersions, you will speak about speaking about them, you will create false impressions about them, but to actually look at the peer reviewed science behind what he said? No. You just say the science is wrong.

Here is a link to 4 of the scientists that he linked to in his paper. They break down what he said. They are in full defense mode for their careers here. You should at least take a look at this, even if you haven't read what he originally wrote.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[david_thornley]

To be fair replying to articulate points has never been a strength of the PC crowd.

To be fair, that's not only true of people who program on PCs. It's just as true of mainframe programmers and was just as true of minicomputer programmers. If you want good responses to points brought up, try a philosopher.

Re:Is that mutually exclusive with the memo?

[serviscope_minor]

It is well sourced

Repeatedly claiming something and wishing really hard doesn't make it true.

And er you might wanna read that link you posted.

The first scientist had nothing much to say about the correctness and stuck instead mostly to the comments.

The second person actually broadly disagreed.

The third person broadly agreed

The fourth person had a very short comment with some generalities and the whole thing seemed kinda unrelated to the memo.

So yeah they don't really support your point either.

Woman dominated professions?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the fact that women dominate nursing, teaching and other critically important jobs that rely on caring and empathy along with intelligence and logic surprises no one and is not sexist but the fact that males tend to dominate a purely math and logic driven field is somehow sexist? Someone please help me understand how to be a good open minded liberal when faced with this reality!

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

nursing don't really make 6 figures income while jerking off all day. The same way, no batshit crazy SJW will advocate to have more women lumberjack, welder or truck driver.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Daemonik]

When you decide to get a career in nursing, teaching or other "critically important jobs..." and women tell you that you're not "biologically suited to the job", or you go into meetings with women and the senior women ignore you, talk over you and when you do get to make a comment, only accept it when another woman parrots it back, THEN you can whine about how you've been mistreated.

The problem with Tech isn't that men dominate it, it's that men do so by passively aggressively forcing women out. Discouraging someone every step of the way and then declaring "biological differences" keeps them out is a pathetic echo chamber tactic.

The FACT is that women ruled tech jobs, until men decided they were too profitable for the little ladies and took over. Women were the first computers, calculating endless numbers for a multitude of businesses and government offices. When businesses decided they needed PC's, women where the ones expected to learn how to use them and print off the bosses emails for him. The first programming language was written by a woman.

The fact is that all of this "biological differences" nonsense is rehashed psuedo-science by white brogrammers who feel their self-centered superiority being threatened.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[mbkennel]

> The FACT is that women ruled tech jobs, until men decided they were too profitable for the little ladies and took over. Women were the first computers, calculating endless numbers for a multitude of businesses and government offices.

That isn't a tech job, that was an accounting job.

Did women rule Edison's laboratories and the radar labs in WW2?

There are more women in technical jobs today, than in 1900.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[ganjadude]

and NONE of that has anything to do with anything. you obviously didnt read the memo.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[CastrTroy]

No, but teachers get about 3 months vacation a year. Which is more than just about any other profession I can think of. Also, Nurses (In Canada) earn $65,000 â" $75,000 a year, which is a pretty decent wage. The average RN salary in the US is $67,930. Also, those are just base salaries, and nurses actually get plenty of overtime if they choose to work for it and can often end up making over 100k a year.

If you ask me, the people who are the suckers are the guys working IT jobs 60 hours a week and not getting any compensation for the extra hours.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Bueller_007]

Industrial welders can make six-figures easily. (Work on an oil rig.) Truck drivers and heavy machinery operators also.

And PS, so can nurses (at least in much of Canada), with just a bit of overtime.

Are you that white-collar that you have no idea that blue-collar people can actually earn quite well?

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Major Blud]

Someone please mod this up. Parent is confusing STEM with Information Technology....the two aren't synonymous.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

The problem with Tech isn't that men dominate it, it's that men do so by passively aggressively forcing women out. Discouraging someone every step of the way and then declaring "biological differences" keeps them out is a pathetic echo chamber tactic.

No, that's basic male behavior to weed out competition, which is not intrinsically bad. The only approach women have found to fight this is to whine and go into daddy's pant (ie. governments, "code of conduct") asking him to beat the shit out of the bully instead of finding a way to "man up" and fight back on their own. This is *proving* women's weakness, as in their inability to be responsible *on their own* without crying for help.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Daemonik]

Did women rule Edison's laboratories? No, because Edison was a massive misogynist prick, and a thief. What does that or radar labs in WW2 have to do with what I wrote or Google, other than reinforcing my point. Women weren't in those jobs not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't allowed.

And I'm sorry, no, calculating launch trajectories for NASA and programming the ENIAC was not "an accounting job".

As for your last comment, yeah, there are more women in technical jobs today, because a lot of us quit believing the nonsense in that douche's memo and accepted that women are quite capable of doing the same jobs.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

[...and yes, I was asocial and bullied at school. I found my answer in code. Now I make a 6 figures income while my former bullies pay alimony on unwanted kids. I didn't need any SJW to help me out. Worst, I figured that trying to seek authority figures generally make you end up in worst problem than you started with.]

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

but that's irrelevant, feminazi don't differentiate on the vacation time, but on the $$ amount.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[brennz]

...and women tell you that you're not "biologically suited to the job", or you go into meetings with women and the senior women ignore you, talk over you and when you do get to make a comment, only accept it when another woman parrots it back, THEN you can whine about how you've been mistreated.

My wife and her friends already do this to me.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

True, but no women will accept to work by -40C in winter, or +40C in summer. Also, welding machine / cables can be super heavy. My gf friend is an electrician and need men's help to carry some wire spools because she's too weak to carry these. And more importantly, don't you imagine working in such condition, it would ruin their manicure !

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[bsdaddict]

"women ruled tech jobs" when smaller hands (biological difference anyone?) which were assumed to be more nimble were advantageous. Add they were expected to learn the computer only because that's what was replacing what they currently used, a typewriter.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[x0ra]

[and btw, you don't really make a 20+ year career in the old field, even men generally last 5 to 10 years before being fed up of the working condition ]

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[danbert8]

This may be true for a lot of individuals, but is not the norm. Most of the oil businesses around people started in their 20s (or earlier) and keep right on welding through retirement. Some of them burn out and become project inspectors which is less labor intensive, but still subject to the travel and weather conditions.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[phantomfive]

The problem with Tech isn't that men dominate it, it's that men do so by passively aggressively forcing women out.

A woman is more likely to be backstabbed by another woman at work than another man.
A man who actually tries to help a woman can get accused of mansplaining.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Rockoon]

The average RN salary in the US is $67,930. Also, those are just base salaries

I really want to support those against this PC bullshit, but these two things do not jive together. Is it an average, or a base? Pick one. Can't have both.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Major Blud]

The FACT is that women ruled tech jobs, until men decided they were too profitable for the little ladies and took over.

When did this occur? When did women stop dominating architecture or civil engineering? When did they stop being the majority of mathematicians and chemist?

I'm not making the argument that they didn't rule these fields because of biological differences, and it very well could be because of misogyny or sexism; but making shit up doesn't make you right.

What does that or radar labs in WW2 have to do with what I wrote or Google, other than reinforcing my point. Women weren't in those jobs not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't allowed.

Plenty. It also directly contradicts what you wrote in that first sentence.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Women don't need to tell me I'm not biologically suited to nursing. I already know it.

And as a man "in tech", I can state that I do not force women or anyone else out. Maybe you're thinking of management, which frequently seems disproportionately concerned with stereotypical appearances, usually in a negative way. "In tech", we generally take a merit-based view of things. Can you do the job? If so, good. Can you be trained to do the job? If so, train well, and you're on board. Could you do the job or be trained to do the job, but want things handed to you because of some stereotype you think holds you back and so the world owes you? Get. The. Fuck. Out. I don't want you. I don't care if you have a hole or a pole, you're a useless pile of meat that isn't pulling its own weight.

The main problem I see is that the inmates at Google started running the asylum. And when a meritocratic ideology begins to take hold and someone dares to call the SJW's out for being what they are (entitled with a victim complex), they cry like babies in the most public possible forums until they get their way.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Dixie_Flatline]

Thumbs up. I have no mod points left, but you nailed it.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Strider-]

Also, welding machine / cables can be super heavy. My gf friend is an electrician and need men's help to carry some wire spools because she's too weak to carry these.

A good friend of mine is a female journeyman industrial electrician. She's fully cognicent that she doesn't have the strength to do certain tasks, but has advantages in other ways. On the job, she basically makes a deal with the guys. They do the heavy work, she squeezes into the stupid nooks and crannies where they have to do work, or climbs up on the wire platform, or whatever, where it would be impossible for the guys to get to.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago I knew a young woman who was in the US Air Force doing maintenance on C-130's. They would fly her around the world because she was tiny and could do repairs inside the wing that other-wise would require some two-three day disassembly of the wing.
I also knew a couple of guys who worked with her and they respected her skills highly.
She was an all-around cool person as well, totally lacking in negative attitudes but had strong self-respect.

OTOH, one place where I worked as a sysadmin for some years had in their job requirements "ability to lift 80 pounds". They did not actually test this at the job interview, BTW.
I was talking to our department HR guy one day, and asked him about this. I mentioned that I had noticed that the two women we had were far more competent than most of the guys and it would be to our advantage to have more like that. Why did we have such a requirement when we needed smart people every day and only one person to (rarely) lift anything. And we had Facilities whose job was to move things. And we only had a few antique servers that weighed that much anyway.
He went HR full retard on me (well that's the policy. It's Our policy, so why not fix it? Well that's the policy. and so on) So I didn't get any kind of answer.

And you know the weird thing? We had a couple of admins who were gay guys, quite smart, quite buff, and half my age. They would simply would not do anything like manual labor such as unloading a truck of small servers or components, or moving boxes. But the women would pitch in. So it's not like it's a solely male thing.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[liquid_schwartz]

I really want to support those against this PC bullshit, but these two things do not jive together. Is it an average, or a base? Pick one. Can't have both.

Logic doesn't apply to PC dogma, never has and never will. An example is that while white people are a minority in certain areas they still won't get minority status. Along the same lines, the more numerous latinos will get minority status despite not being a minority.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[computational super]

You should take a look at Scott Alexander's analysis: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017... He says it better than I think any of us could.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Billly Gates]

I got involved in a female dominated career as a teacher in the last great recession when I.T. jobs dried up. I never recalled women saying I was biologically unit to work in the classroom. It seems it is only the other way around.

Plenty of men also work nursing in todays age as the job pays well and is more technical and challenging than it was in the 1950s.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Billly Gates]

The FACT is that women ruled tech jobs, until men decided they were too profitable for the little ladies and took over.

When did this occur? When did women stop dominating architecture or civil engineering? When did they stop being the majority of mathematicians and chemist?

I'm not making the argument that they didn't rule these fields because of biological differences, and it very well could be because of misogyny or sexism; but making shit up doesn't make you right.

What does that or radar labs in WW2 have to do with what I wrote or Google, other than reinforcing my point. Women weren't in those jobs not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't allowed.

Plenty. It also directly contradicts what you wrote in that first sentence.

Let's see.
1. Lady Lovelace ADA invented her own analytical machine after reading about Babbage and has a language named after her.
2. COBOL the first programming language was invented by a woman named Grace Hopper.
3. Katherine Johnson was a famous mathematician who pioneered early space flight at NASA with celestial navigation on the early primitive mainframes,
4.Kay McNulty Mauchly Antonelli was on the Univac project during World War II for the first electronic computers.

Lady Lovelace, Katherine Johnson, and Grace Hopper were not in wartime. There is also no evidence they were forced into the field either.

Here are is my citation? Different or not, biological unfit my ass!

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[blindseer]

At that point they've made something like a half million dollars, and biology compels them to go somewhere they can have a family. Women do this too, they'll go to college, work for 5 to 10 years, then decide that they'd rather move to a more sedate occupation, or just make raising children their full time occupation.

Some will find a way to have a family and the high stress life, or not have children. What also tends to happen with both men and women is once the child rearing is done they tend to want to go back to work, sometimes doing it on an oil rig for big bucks so they can make another half million or so and retire on a boat somewhere.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[blindseer]

Yep, I remember working on the farm and every summer once I was old enough to manage I'd have to crawl through this hole next to the corn mill and clean out the corn dust and rat droppings that piled up behind it.

Then one summer, I was in high school then, Dad told me to climb behind the mill. I looked down at him and told him to do it. We stared at each other, and the hole, for a few seconds before I decided to try crawling through that hole. I did it but it was a real tight fit. That was the last time Dad asked me to do that. My sister cleaned behind the mill after that.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Mashiki]

When you decide to get a career in nursing, teaching or other "critically important jobs..." and women tell you that you're not "biologically suited to the job", or you go into meetings with women and the senior women ignore you, talk over you and when you do get to make a comment, only accept it when another woman parrots it back, THEN you can whine about how you've been mistreated.

Women have been doing this for years in those areas. Hell it was women who pushed the male-teacher "pedo danger" in the 1980's which saw a massive decline of male teachers, because they were driven out of k-12 by harassment organized by feminists and other groups.

The FACT is that women ruled tech jobs, until men decided they were too profitable for the little ladies and took over. Women were the first computers, calculating endless numbers for a multitude of businesses and government offices. When businesses decided they needed PC's, women where the ones expected to learn how to use them and print off the bosses emails for him. The first programming language was written by a woman.

No, sorry that's not a fact, some really good misunderstanding and failure to understand the basics of the early era.

The fact is that all of this "biological differences" nonsense is rehashed psuedo-science by white brogrammers who feel their self-centered superiority being threatened.

And that's what bigotry looks like. You probably don't even realize it.

Re:Woman dominated professions?

[Dread_ed]

"Biological difference" has zero to do with programming ability. Any discussion of this guy's post has to have that as a fundamental understood fact before going further. If you don't accept that part of the underpinnings and landscape of this discussion you need to go back and read what this guy wrote. Keep reading it until all of the stupid regurgitated shit in your head is gone and replaced by what the issue is.

You put your thumb on the issue at hand, just as the guy at Google did. The social constructs that society and corporations create around nursing and programming are an unnatural barrier to people of both genders participating in these careers. The spectrum of ancillary traits that go along with "maleness" and "femaleness" will, on average, fare poorly in reaction to these artificial social constructs that corporations and society allow in tech and nursing, as well as many other careers.

Discussing the conflict between these social constructs and the spectrum of ancillary (to the professional exercise of programming or nursing) traits that leads to an apparent lack of sex parity in these careers is in no way a diminution or accusation of unfitness.

Re:It is

[layabout]

Older white males doubly so because we are also hated by younger white males who hate everybody else who is not like them

boo hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

She was ignored and talked over until she became the CEO, what a sad story. :(

Why would a Google subsidiary say differently

[Anonymous Coward]

Does YouTube, a Google(tm) company, NOT have the same standards as Google(tm) an Alphabet(tm) company?

Google is in REAL trouble here and they're circling the wagons.

The solution is obvious...

[Nutria]

women who want their voices heard should be in "corporate IT" instead of "high tech". Lots of women crank out boring-but-necessary code all day, then move up to become team leads and higher, or DBAs, etc. (I've not seen any female SysAdmins, though.)

Next on True News...

[x0ra]

"Virtue signaling at its peak in SV ivory tower."

Re:Next on True News...

[Areyoukiddingme]

"Virtue signaling at its peak in SV ivory tower."

At its peak? What makes you think it can't get worse?

Re:Next on True News...

[MightyYar]

It's a great phrase, and perfectly describes what is happening. It's so great that people are already misusing it, just like Susan Wojcicki is misusing "anti-diversity" and "sexism".

Re:Next on True News...

[x0ra]

I have no master.

Re:Next on True News...

[x0ra]

do you mean the one around my gf's neck ?

Re:Next on True News...

[Rakarra]

It's a great phrase, and perfectly describes what is happening. It's so great that people are already misusing it,

Is "virtue signalling" the next phrase to be absolutely ruined by overuse, just like SJW was?

Re:Next on True News...

[k6mfw]

I was thinking while everyone argues about sexism in tech, the anti-diversity memo... meanwhile I see people with huge incomes and fancy cars, houses, yachts. Go across the freeway and find huge amounts of people living in tents and cars. All this within walking distance.

Re: Next on True News...

[Reverend Green]

Try SJH - "Social Justice" Hypocrite - instead. It's rather more fitting, and not yet tired.

Re:Next on True News...

[gweihir]

A peak is a peak until time progresses and it gets worse ;-)

Re:Next on True News...

[MightyYar]

There is a slight difference. SJW is basically a slur, like "racist" or "sexist". You label a person with that in order to shut down discussion. You can politely point out that someone's "Hate Has No Home" sign is really just a form of "virtue signalling" and then still have a reasonable discussion about whether or not this is a reasonable viewpoint.

Re:Next on True News...

[gweihir]

Yep, and that would be an actually serious problem.

Re: Next on True News...

[Rakarra]

Try SJH - "Social Justice" Hypocrite - instead. It's rather more fitting, and not yet tired.

I'd like to think so, and it's a more targeted attack at least. But I fear it's the "social justice" part that is the ruined/overused section of the term.

Re:Next on True News...

[Rakarra]

It is mostly one side who disable comments on their videos

These days I can't blame anyone for doing this. Youtube comments sections are absolute shit -- they sure make Slashdot look like classical enlightenment in comparison.

Re:Next on True News...

[MightyYar]

While I agree with your assessment of what passes for the "left" today, I think you are ignoring the same tendencies on the right. You have a similar schism between the establishment and the Tea Party types. You have name calling and demonization rather than discussion (e.g. libtard, snowflake, feminazi, SJW, socialist, etc.)

None of those things are good, and both left and right really need to check their behavior if we want to make any claim to be upholding America's founding ideals.

Re:Next on True News...

[MightyYar]

Are there times when the right don't have discussions. Sure, but again, it's a much less severe degree than on the left.

Maybe. But whether or not its worse or better on one side or the other, the loud, toxic discussion overwhelms all else.

And to better to do that, we should honestly judge each side on its own. and not falsely equate the two, pretending that is "fair and balanced"

Yeah, my left-leaning friends accuse me of false equivalency all the time. Getting it from both sides is how I know I'm on the right track.

Re:Next on True News...

[MightyYar]

If they did, Trump wouldn't have won the election

I fail to see the progression in logic here. Someone had to win the election. The degree of toxicity cannot be measured by whether or not someone won the election, because someone must win the election.

What I will grant you is that, despite his demagoguery, Trump was in fact talking about actual issues (as were Jill Stein and Gary Johnson). He didn't simply beat up on Mexicans and Muslims, he also had a positive message "Make America Great Again" - and he spoke a lot about bringing back jobs and ending people's despair. Hillary gave people nothing to grasp on to, diverting any question into a negative comment about how terrible Trump was. She also personified the establishment in an election cycle when people hated the establishment.

But having said that, even Trump's positive messages were full-on bullshit - and the discussion surrounding them was simply people shouting past one another.

do realize Congress is still slowly pushing the Republican agenda.

They've been remarkably ineffective thus far. They'd better hurry up or their own base is going to punish them in the midterms.

what has the left done lately?

Haha, well, nothing. They can't even decide what they all stand for in unison. Actually, now the Republicans are headed down that same road. Obamacare seemed to be a unifying theme, but they can't even agree on repealing that. Anyway, the left chose to follow Republicans down the "chase the money" rabbit hole, and so they lost any ability to stand out from Republicans on any issue that requires moral high ground on the relationship between big money and government. They decided to pursue an identity politics strategy, and so they lost moral high ground on what used to be something that happened mostly with extremist groups like the KKK or the Black Panthers. They have been slaughtered on the grass roots level, losing control of a majority of state houses and governorships. They lost the US legislature, Supreme Court, and now Presidency. Some of this stuff is pendulum swinging, and the right is currently melting down as well so it will be interesting to see what comes out of the midterms. I'd love to see a third party, but I think that is not happening.

This is, again, Fox News style "fair and balanced".

No, it's pointing out that there is no bad guy/good guy. Both sides have an extreme wing that is drowning out any real discussion. Both sides call each other (and even themselves) names. You'll hear "RINO" on the right just like on the left they'll force out a liberal university professor who doesn't jump on the identity politics bandwagon. I'm anti-extremist far more than I am anti-left or anti-right. I think the more moderate left and moderate right have very similar goals, just very different ideas of how to implement these goals.

Now where I'll agree with you is that the extreme right tends to still be focused on goals. The goals might be retarded, but they are at least goals. Wishy washy as they might be, the Tea Party at least has a common set of goals listed on their website. The mirror Occupy movement has nothing, just meaningless platitudes. This is a common problem on the extreme left, where they seem a lot more focused on protesting and shaming themselves and other than on any coherent endgame. As long as this is the case, the right will win the elections as people need to know what they are voting for. Masked people breaking stuff, assaulting people, and burning shit is not it an issue that can be voted for. And that's what I mean by drowning out. The left is being portrayed by violent extremists and PC run amok. The right is being portrayed by mouth-breathing Trump supporters, Milo supporters, and people protesting the tearing down of Confederate statues. The truth is that most people aren't like that. Except at Google, apparently.

Re:Next on True News...

[Rakarra]

I don't think you bothered to think about my point at all.

Re:It is

[x0ra]

Your comment is both racist *and* sexist. Congratulation !

Oh puhlease!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know why she isn't respected? Because she is whiny!

As a man I know I have been beat down a zillion times at work. And I've dished it out as well.

If she can't take the way men treat her then so be it. Because guess what, that's exactly how men treat other men. So in effect she has proven she is the weaker sex. And quite frankly I am not gonna be pussified down to her level of whiny.

Re:Oh puhlease!

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube CEO Susan is now whining about her feelings being hurt by all the boys. This happens on playgrounds everyday and the boys are scolded by (mostly female) adults to be nice to the girls, and from then on they are viewed and treated differently. It all starts quite young.

Re:Oh puhlease!

[PPH]

As a man I know I have been beat down a zillion times at work. And I've dished it out as well.

And so have I. But that working environment descended from blue collar, agricultural, non intellectual jobs which were prevalent a hundred years ago. Where physical strength equaled leadership. But that isn't necessary in STEM fields. In fact, it cripples the organization. Just look at how badly Microsoft did under Ballmer (throwing chairs around and yelling at people) compared to the company under Nadella.

I've worked with people that resorted to talking over others, monopolizing meetings and other aggressive tactics in engineering groups. And I've also worked in the utility industry with linemen. If some fat sperglords think that they are 'tough guys' in software development meetings, just come out and try that bullshit with a line crew.

Re:Oh puhlease!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't take this shit serious when some white chick who had an allowance in college starts crying about the microaggressions she gets at her high paid office job in a top company.

Bitch do you know that I had bosses who tried to not pay me whole paychecks? Has your boss ever hit you? I had one boss who called me "stupid fucking NAME" instead of just NAME every single time he talked to me.
Before that my parents got me an adhd label and as a result I was denied access to a real education. I think they liked how quiet I was from living with perpetual stimulant anxiety, I think my mom liked the the attention it got her, I think they liked to imagine that I was getting lots of tutoring or something. This meant I was going to spend the first part of my adult years working shit jobs while struggling to get my life back on track and get my CS degree. I saw a bunch of other fucked up shit along the way that I won't even get into but......

I just don't understand rich princess problems. I happen to know that there are lots of people living just like I was and nobody cares or says anything about it. I'm so happy my shit turned out ok.. but you can imagine how triggered I get hearing about people stupid fucking microaggressions after shit like that.

Well, not always sexism..

[Junta]

I've had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas ignored until they were rephrased by

While this may be sexism at work and there certainly is sexism in the field, pretty much everyone experiences having their thoughts interrupted and ignored until rephrased by someone else, with someone else getting the credit for those thoughts.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Areyoukiddingme]

I've had my comments frequently interrupted and my ideas ignored until they were rephrased by men.

I've seen this happen to a female developer at my last job. Superficially it looked like sexism. In actuality, it was merit-based. She would regularly, even frequently, make comments or ask questions that revealed a profound lack of understanding of the language we were all developing in, and she was not new to the language. On the rare occasions when her comment or question had merit, it required a man to rephrase it before anyone would listen to it seriously because she had trained everyone around her to ignore her or discount her input or answer her only to correct her.

There were half a dozen female developers on the floor. Two of them, including the aforementioned one, were obvious diversity hires who would have been laid off if they were men. The second one didn't even have a technology related degree. Her degree was in English composition, and she did not have an additional one, yet she wrote code all day. It was blatant sexism—in favor of women. The two of them made the lives of the other female developers miserable, just from suspicion and spillover, though they were good developers. It took extra time for new hires to separate their reactions appropriately simply because of those two.

Having said that, everybody did separate their reactions. No one talked over, ignored, rephrased, or repeated the questions and comments of the female developers who were actually good at their jobs. Merit matters in tech. A lot. Sexist policies that are retaining and promoting women out of proportion to their merit are hurting the cause of women in tech far more than anyone is willing to acknowledge. It needs to stop.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[gerf]

Sometimes I'm terrible at describing my thoughts and when they're re-worded, more people agree. Then they assume the re-phraser (through no fault of their own) is the source of the idea. I need to work on my communication skills.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[serviscope_minor]

. Two of them, including the aforementioned one, were obvious diversity hires

Yeah because shit male developers never get hired apart from all the fucking time. I love how only the bad female developers are separated out for comment.

The two of them made the lives of the other female developers miserable, just from suspicion and spillover,

  That's literally sexism in action. No one seems to ever consider "that guy" (you know the one) to some how cast doubt and suspicion on all male developers, yet when you get bad female developers there's suspicion and spillover.

What the fuck ever happened to merit over gender?

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[w1tebear]

I (female) have been in the software industry since the 80's. My first job was with a small company that made custom printer interface cards. I constituted the entire tech support and software maintenance department (as I said, small company!).

I would sometimes get calls from customers having problems who would simply not accept what I was telling them. In cases like these I would go down the hall to a male coworker's office and tell him that I had a customer that "needed a deeper voice". He (manager - no technical knowledge) would take the call with me on the extension at the back of the room mouthing the answers to the customer's questions which he would then speak into the phone. The customer would then be quite satisfied with the answers and we would have a good laugh.

I suspect that things have improved some since then but still run into people who seem to "need a deeper voice".

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Anonymous Coward]

That happened to me at least 5 times last week. I'm a white male, and the lead on the project I'm working on. It's how men treat people. In fact, having men stop interrupting women would literally be treating women differently. I thought we were supposed to be going for equality here.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[AmiMoJo]

Yeah, I knew this guy too, real moron, obviously hired by his bro manager... He got promoted over more deserving people, of course.

See how this works? Anecdotes are worthless because they are unverifiable and because one example does not disprove a more general trend.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[alvinrod]

Bad developers aren't going to be liked no matter who they are. Bad developers who were specifically hired because of diversity policies are going to be despised more because it's possible that had they not been hired due to some characteristic that has nothing to do with ability a better developer may have been hired instead. There's no guarantee that one would have, but that's not how people tend to think.

Furthermore, affirmative action policies only further serve to feed notions of racism, because when you try to meet a quota system that requires you to hire candidates in excess of their availability, then you need to do one of the following: 1) Hire candidates from the target demographic with lower skill levels than candidates not of that demographic. 2) Pay higher salaries for quota system candidates in order to lure the most capable away from other offers. 3) Accept lower skill levels across the board and turn away highly skilled applicants who are not in the target demographic.

The first is going to result in a perception that a demographic is less skilled, the second will result in a perception of inequality based on demographic lines assuming anyone finds out about the pay difference, and the third is just a poor business decision. Never mind that it's not a great feeling if your peers are more skillful than you are because you were hired for characteristics beyond your control and not for your ability. If you have a corporate policy that mandates some kind of quota system or preference towards one, people are going to tend to assume that the people favored in that process are not as good. This sucks even more for the demographic candidates who are highly skilled, because natural human tendency is going to lead people to judge them as being less capable or undeserving.

All that aside, one would expect female developers to be anecdotally singled out more often due to out-group bias and because in smaller companies, minority individuals stand out more for good and bad. In the case of the first pick any group in any context and if you are a member of it you're less likely to notice poor behavior of people who you identify as being in the same group as you and more likely to identify and remember the poor behavior of the people who you identify as being outside of that group. In the second case, exceptions just stand out more and if you only have a few examples of some mental category you've constructed, you're more likely to draw on those limited observations for future reference and the small number of data points makes it more difficult to have the same broader picture as you would with groups from which there are numerous examples.

Putting it down to sexism in every instance is just a failure to understand the underlying causes and is just going to piss off everyone else who you invariably lump into the sexism category as part of your brains natural tendency to categorize and generalize.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because shit male developers never get hired apart from all the fucking time. I love how only the bad female developers are separated out for comment.

Yep, horrible male developers get hired all the time. And fired. Horrible female developers get hired. And retained to keep the diversity numbers from dropping. After seeing this happen at 3 companies I have worked at over the past eight years... it is blatantly obvious that "diversity" policies are sexist (among other -ists.) It is extremely discouraging to be talked at constantly by HR, the media, and every wanna-be activist and told that I'm the one being sexist while I watch my employer literally announce clearly sexist hiring goals.

Even trying to discuss this with other people often leads to them dismissing my thoughts/concerns/opinions and criticizing me for being part of the problem. Any mention of numerous studies showing that men and women are different, that they want different things, that they value different things, that they have different tolerances of risk, that they might have different social behaviors... are all immediately condemned as sexist.

There is obviously a place for females in the tech industry. In all roles and positions. But it is ultimately disingenuous and outright sexist to try and force females to be exactly like males or the other way around.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[HornWumpus]

Never mind that it's not a great feeling if your peers are more skillful than you are because you were hired for characteristics beyond your control and not for your ability.

Ego comes first. What you describe never happens. It's not 'more skillful', it's knowitallmansplainingasshole...

Strangely, you have to be pretty good at something, just to accept someone is better at anything. The people that can't do shit, are shit at recognizing skill. They project their incompetence far and wide.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[HornWumpus]

The flip side of interruptions is the soliloquy.

How long should you let someone lecture? What if the lecture is based on an _obviously_ false premise?

Running meetings isn't easy. But implementing a strict 'talking stick' policy isn't the solution. Especially when dealing with a long winded incompetent, at the end of the day, work needs to get done.

I don't like meetings for technical arguments, until there has been a day+ long email discussion and the meeting is just to make the decision. Let the technical points be 'on the record' going in.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Areyoukiddingme]

Yeah because shit male developers never get hired apart from all the fucking time. I love how only the bad female developers are separated out for comment.

There were two shit male developers. Both of them were even on the same team as the shit female developers. One of them was in charge of the build system. What he created was a clusterfuck of epic proportions. I taught myself CMake in an afternoon just so I could at least partially unfuck it. He got fired as part of a mass layoff six months later. The other one was one of those guys who tried to make himself indispensable by hiding his code, never checking it in to source control. He was in charge of the installation system. He too created a clusterfuck of epic proportions. He got fired as part of a different mass layoff. When we finally got a look at his code after he was gone and some of us had to salvage his shit off his hard drive, it basically wasn't worth saving. Meanwhile she stayed on through four layoff cycles, never really improving in skill.

The sexism in favor of women gets really fucking blatant when there are four shit developers on the same team, and the two males are fired and the two females are retained.

No one seems to ever consider "that guy" (you know the one) to some how cast doubt and suspicion on all male developers, yet when you get bad female developers there's suspicion and spillover.

Wanna bet? The rest of that team were two men and a third woman. They were competent, but everyone was suspicious of everything that came out of that team, for years. And for good reason. Nine times out of ten when something broke, it was collectively their shit code at the heart of it. After the two incompetent men were fired, it took two years for the rest of them to start to dig out from under the stigma, and they still lived under a permanent pall even then, because everyone knew damn well the two incompetent women were still on the team.

Ultimately it was a bad team because of an incompetent manager who could neither assure quality nor get his team to improve without simply getting rid of part of his team. Their seats were never filled, either. The other managers didn't want the guy hiring more idiots.

What the fuck ever happened to merit over gender?

It got burned to the ground by third wave feminism.

Re: Well, not always sexism..

[Evtim]

I seem to recall study that shows both genders trust males for fixing things/give advice more than females.
I think this will change and is changing already.
Congrats for having a laugh at this...good attitude.

Re: Well, not always sexism..

[Reverend Green]

Thanks for bigotsplaining that, broham!

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Raenex]

What you describe never happens.

Uh huh. And nobody ever got hired because of a friend or relative. Everybody is hired exactly on merit, and quota systems never change that standard.

Got any other fairy tales you would like to tell?

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[gweihir]

Anecdotes are not worthless. They are not useful to establish and verify initial hypotheses, but they do serve as plausibility checks if used right. Well known in the sciences as "anecdotal evidence". This means they do not establish or disprove facts, but they are useful in determining where to focus the actual scientific efforts.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[gweihir]

Yea, there are quite a few idiots of that type out there, no argument.

Re: Well, not always sexism..

[gweihir]

Actually, if you pick a random female and a random male, this will be true (although in most cases both will be incompetent, so very low trust is advisable in both cases). If you pick a random engineer or scientist, then gender will not matter at all.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Rakarra]

The second one didn't even have a technology related degree. Her degree was in English composition, and she did not have an additional one, yet she wrote code all day

Huh? That's hardly unusual in the valley, I don't think I've ever seen another non-labor industry where a college degree means less. The place is full of the self-taught. Why hold that against them?

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[HornWumpus]

It's not that more skilled people don't exist. It's that ego driven twits _can't_ recognize it. See for example, your sib poster.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Raenex]

The question is whether diversity hires happen, not your presumed master detective ability to discern the technical capability of people you ideologically disagree with.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[HornWumpus]

Which thread have you been reading?

The question on _this_ thread is: Are weak employees capable of recognizing their own weakness (and feeling bad about being hired for their pigment or gender). My position is no, ego prevents it.

Re:Well, not always sexism..

[Raenex]

Sorry, I misread your original post.

Google is addressing a necessary problem

[Wuhao]

I think a lot of us have wondered, how will the next generation of innovators possibly upset titans like Google? They have unthinkable amounts of money and resources, along with an impressive portfolio of talent, patents and subsidiaries. The answer is that they will voluntarily commit suicide by eroding all trust in their brand, and driving off their most productive people in favor of shit-stirrers, and stifling the creativity and independence of employees who might be able to invent the next big thing -- or avoid the next big disaster.

Good work, Google. Thanks for clearing the way for the next batch.

Re:Google is addressing a necessary problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure why you wondered about it. This happens at nearly every large company over time. Kodak was once a Dow stock, 60K employees, a technology leader, top of the market iconic company. Now less than 20K employees, lost nearly all of its markets, kicked off the Dow, etc.

"A" people start these companies and hire A people at first. Then A's hire B's to run the grunt work, and the original A's move on to start other companies. The B's move into leadership positions and hire C's to do the grunt work. Google has a lot of C people now who apparently have lots of time to complain and bitch about their situation.

I give them 10 years. Maybe 20.

Re:Google is addressing a necessary problem

[gweihir]

The other thing is that smart people have been leaving Google for a while now. They are just a huge, soulless corporation with lost of bureaucracy, cover-your-ass and anti-progress stance. A friend struggled for a year, because they pay really well, but he is much, much happier now.

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

I've worked for 20+ years in tech and never had that problem as a white male.

Re:Women and IT donâ(TM)t mix

[bluefoxlucid]

I've had useless coworkers in several fields, races, and genders. Most of the time I encounter a girl programmer, she's not very good--probably because about 95% of all programmers I encounter are not very good. Pigeon hole principle.

So, to recap: I've encountered about 12-15 male programmers who weren't very good and 2 female programmers who weren't very good in the past 10 years. I've encountered 1 non-shitty male programmer and 0 non-shitty female programmers. Jeff Attwood doesn't count because I haven't worked directly with him or had to support his development team. Statistically, there's a huge problem with sample size here.

As for leadership positions? The field of project management is strangely full of men who function as mindless bureaucrats and women with star performance. I don't know why. Tres Roeder spearheaded the inclusion of project stakeholder management in the latest edition of the PMBOK; maybe women are pretty good at that and men are generally fucking terrible. We can make guesses all day, and most of them will probably be wrong.

Let's try not to draw conclusions from low-quality information, or make simple conclusions about vastly-complex topics.

Misses the point yet again

[wbtittle]

Women should not be discouraged from studying CS, Engineering, Math any science. If they are being discouraged, it is their own damn fault. The next time they think they have been discriminated against, they need to turn around and look at the males that are being discriminated against right behind them.

The males aren't being discriminated against by women. They are being discriminated against by MEN!

Life is unfair folks. WAKE UP, Suck it up, and step up to the plate again. You might strike out. If you whine about how the pitchers were unfair, we know you aren't up to the task. Guess what, they are unfair for all of us. Is your ego hurt? Join the club.

I am not afraid of women who are better than me. They are resources to learn from. I am afraid of the masses of folks who can't quite grasp the definition of value.

Re:Misses the point yet again

[computational super]

Women should not be discouraged from studying CS, Engineering, Math any science

On the contrary. They're encouraged with much more passion than any man ever has been. And they're still not very interested.

Re:Misses the point yet again

[Mashiki]

There were no less then 14 "girl-only" coding/IT events at the local high schools in my area. There was 1 for boys. They have so many more "positive" opportunities and the return rate is disastrously low. This isn't any different then when the Ontario Liberal Government, decided to push through a new metric for teaching which focused solely on girls, and a decade later sure the girls are doing great. The boys on the other hand? They've dropped around 50% and the drop-out rate has increased to boot. There's systemic sexism going on in many places, and it's very easy to see who's benefiting from it.

Re:Misses the point yet again

[gweihir]

Maximum non-PC, but you have a point.

emotional therapy

[Idisagree]

She says her feelings were hurt due to her experiences...

coincidentally this vaguely reminds me of a someone who once wrote up a memo about how men and woman can react differently due to biological differences.

I cant quite remember where or who said it, oh well, I'm sure someone can google it for me.

Re:It is

[alvinrod]

Pick any group and you can find some other group that hates them for existing. You can make the same claim of pretty much any group, but it's not universally true. What people forget it to qualify it, probably for victim points which any group is capable of trying to garner.

Jews are fucking hated for existing (by antisemitic idiots).

Blacks are fucking hated for existing (by race-based nationalist idiots).

Atheists are fucking hated for existing (by religious zealots all many creeds).

While males are fucking hated for existing (by moronic new-aged Marxists).

New York Yankee fans are fucking hated for existing (because they're pricks).

Re:So 18th Century

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the one word to describe women who can't handle the idea that men may be better than them at [fill in the blank]?

And is that one word equally pejorative and dismissive?

Why is it so hard to admit?

[HangingChad]

Why is it so hard to admit there is rampant sexism in tech? It's been true for at least 20 years, probably longer. It was definitely true during my time in the industry.

Just start by admitting there's a problem.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it so hard to admit there is rampant sexism in tech?

Because it isn't true and it's not what you really want us to admit. The narrative you want to prevail is that we're all latent rapists is need of supervision by authorities, that we have been actively ruining the prospects of women et al. and that this is the sole reason there aren't far more women inhabiting the tech world. You want this view to be unquestioned and any thought criminals that question it to be punished. You're a hate filled grievance monger and we're not acceding to your irrational demands.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[brennz]

Lack of equality of outcome (50% or higher females in STEM) does not rampant sexism in technology make.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[gerf]

Thinking rationally would require you to first prove that there is a problem. Not only to determine if a problem exists (looks likely), but the determine the nature of the problem. Making up-front statements as concrete facts skews any kind of conversation or research toward that "given" fact.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[serviscope_minor]

Boom headshot! That straw man is going doooooown!

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[GonzoPhysicist]

It also doesn't mean it's absent either. You're exemplifying OP's exact point in denying that it even *might* be the problem

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[brennz]

I have to consider the possibility of both positive and negative discrimination relating to female %s in STEM. Last I read though, women were the beneficiaries of hiring bias, and not penalized by it.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[AmiMoJo]

Because people think it means they personally are sexists, or that increased competition might hurt their prospects, or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[TuringTest]

No, but rampant sexism in technology makes lack of equality of outcome.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[djinn6]

Because people think it means they personally are sexists

Don't assume what other people think. The real sexists don't give a fuck, and the non-sexists are only worried of being falsely labeled.

or that increased competition might hurt their prospects

It's not a competition when your opponent is constantly given the upper hand by the referee.

or because blaming diversity is a great way to excuse their own failure to succeed as much as they want to.

And yet, blaming "patriarchy" and "sexism" is the exact same thing. Going up against a diversity candidate is just as big of a disadvantage as being female, if not worse.

Re:Why is it so hard to admit?

[gweihir]

Because while there are some counter-examples, it seems pretty likely that it is not true in general? Otherwise, you know, those companies where it _is_ true would not make the news.

white washing the news

[Dlin]

Google management is now actively white washing the news never addressing what was in the memo and spreading pure BS, people have to read themselves the memo and compare what Google management is saying, things don't add up at all.

Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

The fact that so many men line up to express outrage and hysteria over every single Slashdot story like this is the best proof that there is a serious need for more women in tech jobs.

Re:Modest proposal

[Baron_Yam]

Or... it's annoying and rage-inducing to rational people and we're letting off steam.

You're not drawing a logical conclusion from the evidence you cite. You're assuming a link without proof because it supports your assumptions, and that's weak thinking.

Re:Modest proposal

[serviscope_minor]

I love how the social injustice warriors attempt to pick apart any study that shows sexism in tech, but when citations are made to opposite sources (see the anti diversity memo) no one of the SIW s here treat them as anything but gospel.

Double standards.

Re:Modest proposal

[alvinrod]

Just like the fact that so many people line up to express outrage and hysteria over every single Slashdot story about climate change is the best proof that it's overblown fear mongering? Or just like the disdain towards people who post inane crap about 9/11 being an inside job, vaccines causing autism, etc. are just proof that there really is something being covered up.

You're using circular reasoning and assuming that your beliefs are correct and then using disagreement to validate those beliefs. I think you can see from the examples above why this is a bad approach. That is unless you deny climate change and are a conspiracy theory nutter.

Re:Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

Or... it's annoying and rage-inducing to rational people and we're letting off steam.

So, what you're saying is that men faced with a growing number of women in the workplace, will become enraged whiny ass titty babies and "let off steam" by sniveling?

If you're "letting off steam" by whining and clutching your pearls, you probably aren't really the alpha males you think yourself to be.

Re:Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

I could care less what an employee does on the internet as long as they're getting their job done

If you're using company time and resources to write a 10 page manifesto about why women can't write code, you're probably not getting your job done unless your job is to write for 4chan.

Re:Modest proposal

[Billly Gates]

I love how the social injustice warriors attempt to pick apart any study that shows sexism in tech, but when citations are made to opposite sources (see the anti diversity memo) no one of the SIW s here treat them as anything but gospel.

Double standards.

No quotation "...women are unfit for jobs in technology ..". It is not the work but the conclusion that is offensive. THe fact so many were upset at this bothers me greatly.

My exgf ran out of IT and got a job in nursing. Not because she is biologically inferior to us males and loves nurturing, but because her team were assholes and her boss said she was never going to be promoted because she was a girl. Fuck that and I do not blame her for giving the finger and leaving. She had the best stats on her team and a male got promoted instead.

My exwife has a degree in mathematics and loves calculus. She is more than capable of having a job in engineering or technology. I have former coworkers who were in I.T. and female who told the shit they went through. One now owns her own company as she got tired of politics and this was her only way out.

I read also in artstechnica that bell labs back in the 1980s hired very smart people. True. Computer scientists got invited to work on Unix, C, AI, or with telecom switching technologies. The women with the PHDs? They were hired as the secretaries and assistants to the real boys etc. If Dennis Ritchie was born a girl she would be serving coffee and answering calls for Ken Thompson. Not co-writting C. Insulting? You bet.

I have no problem at all with the writings. Just the conclusion. Woman and men are more alike in lots of ways. Transgendered women after taking estrogen for several months can grow the exact same brain structures as biological women as well according to MRI. So emotional, needs, communication, and also eye hand cordination are the really only differences. As evident with hormone therapy.

Re:Modest proposal

[Billly Gates]

Why are you letting off steam? Did a woman run over your dog?

Re: Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

Sorry mate, at best you're a middle manager, not God.

I have to disagree. I am a retired university professor, so I am almost certainly God.

Re: Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

I hope to fruitlessly wail into the darkness in my twilight years as well.

It's actually much nicer than it sounds. And I'm not quite in my twilight years yet. I retired at 50 to run a martial arts school.

Re:Modest proposal

[gweihir]

And you, what, want to force them in? Because that is what it would take....

Re:Modest proposal

[PopeRatzo]

And you, what, want to force them in? Because that is what it would take.

Is that the only alternative you can think of? Really?

Re:Modest proposal

[gweihir]

That is the only known-to-work way. It was used, for example, in the GDR. It does equalize the numbers, but as soon as the coercion goes away, the numbers slowly revert to what it was before.

im just gonna leave this here....

[koreanbabykilla]

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[Rockoon]

And here is Jordan Peterson's interview with James Damore the poor guy that just got fucked by this bullshit.

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[AmiMoJo]

It's funny how psychology and sociology are bunk, soft sciences with no reproducible results and the kind of thing only SJWs study... Until they agree with the rationals.

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[Rakarra]

It's funny you object to other people using the term "SJW", saying things like how the term has no meaning other than "people I don't like"... until you use it yourself.

It should be patently obvious that he's paraphrasing the opposing argument.

Re: im just gonna leave this here....

[Brockmire]

You confused me. The last author was female. You seem to have meant the 3rd author as he was male with shitloads of experience.

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[rtb61]

The succinct version of the memo, men and women are on average psychologically different and if you really want a diverse workplace than you have to take that into account and provide a more inclusive work place that takes into account that difference and provides for it. I can provide proof of exactly that and I will not make the slightest effort to justify or explain it, as I see it to be self evident, on average women are much shorter than men and there is no psychological reasons why, just psychological reasons why ;). Google rabid self serving feminist response (not that they give one crap about other women, just themselves), go die of starvation on the streets, they are just getting worse and worse and more and more delusionally out of touch.

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[gweihir]

Psychology and Sociology are not "bunk", that is just an obvious attempt by you to derail the conversation. They have, however, "soft" and "hard" results. The gender-based statistical differences in the "big five" characteristics are in the "hard" class, i.e. there really is no sane reason to assume they are wrong. They are also _statistical_ differences, i.e. do not tell you much about individuals. And ignoring them is a really bad idea, because it makes all actions in that direction far less effective and may even be counter-productive.

I do have a nasty suspicion by now though: All those claims that women are prevented from going into IT by "toxic work environments" and other invalid claims may well have the effect of preventing countless women from going into that field. That would be the ultimate irony: Those claiming to be for equal outcome actually causing a major part of the issue. Would not surprise me one bit. (Of course, "equal outcome" is bunk as well, as you have to assume all people go in in the same state. The actual thing to be for is "equal opportunity" and let people decide what they want, because people _are_ different.)

Re:im just gonna leave this here....

[Rakarra]

Furthermore, what "opposing argument"? Who made the "psychology and sociology are bunk" argument?

I can't be arsed to look it up now, but it's not an uncommon opinion in these discussions to find people who find the social studies degrees/classes to be politically-driven bullshit. I might actually agree to an extent with that myself, but I have seen that the opinion corresponds fairly well with a dislike for 'SJWs,' and vice versa.

Or she's just wrong

[alvinrod]

Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.

Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away.

I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing.

And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth.

I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.

Re:Or she's just wrong

[Rockoon]

Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away.

I was going to say something similar about the very same statement. While it may be correct for her to lie to her child, its still a lie. Hundreds of studies go into this very thing, even showing that as a society gets more egalitarian that gender differences in occupations increase rather than decrease.

When people are completely free to choose their occupation, gender differences maximize. People are MORE likely to choose what interests them in an egalitarian society, and the evidence is indisputable at this point that what interests the genders on average is different.

Re:Or she's just wrong

[Imazalil]

How many of those choices are real choices, not just entrenched gender norms and/or real-or-imagined peer pressure.

Not trying to contradict you, just pointing out that there is a lot 'behind the scenes' of free choice.

Re:Or she's just wrong

[m00sh]

Wojcicki opens by saying her daughter asked her, "Is it true that there are biological reasons why there are fewer women in tech and leadership?" Wojcicki says no, it's not true, but the question has still plagued her throughout her career.

Or she's just wrong. Choosing not to believe in something doesn't make it go away. I'm sure there are plenty of parents telling their children that climate change isn't real, but that isn't going to stop global temperatures from increasing. And really it comes down to about the same thing. There are some people who have built their world view around a belief that isn't true, and even when presented with large amounts of evidence to suggest otherwise they will continue to dismiss it. I've found that there are very few people who are scientifically minded and rational and even if they did accept the reality of both climate change and sex-based biological differences, there're just as likely to be off the reservation in some other area like the link between vaccination and autism, GMO food, or even something as laughable as the age of the earth. I don't think anyone's really immune and humans have some terrible cognitive inclinations that make us unwilling to let go of view points once we've latched on to them. I was recently at a family reunion and watched some of my relatives get into an argument over some idiotic event in the past for almost five hours. Even after someone got annoyed enough to dig up an old photo on Facebook to prove their point, the other person still wouldn't admit they were wrong and started inventing all kinds of fanciful reasons to explain away the photo. It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.

So you're saying that the CEO of Youtube has a cognitive bias that prevents her from believing that sex-based biological differences leads to less women in tech leadership. Hmm.

Maybe you should consider that she might be a little more qualified to give opinions on that matter.

Re:Or she's just wrong

[gweihir]

A CEO of a large company qualified an anything except backstabbing and climbing the ladder? Unlikely.

Re:Or she's just wrong

[grasshoppa]

It was kind of surreal, but I've done the same plenty of times myself. I think there should be a class in school about being wrong about whatever and learning to accept new data that challenges our original assumptions.

We already have those classes, and no they're not in the philosophy dept. It's the STEM classes.

Real science isn't forgiving of mistakes. It's either right or wrong, and if it's wrong it's obvious. In order to progress, you must learn to acknowledge your faults.

To that end, I would *love* for more people to take STEM classes. We could use a few more folks around here that have learned how to be wrong.

I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[t0qer]

When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft.
When she was 6, we assembled her first PC.
When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.

She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"

She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[Myrdos]

I'm sure this same scenario is true for someone with a son, so how is gender the determining factor?

XKCD said it well.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[HornWumpus]

Med schools love 4.0 engineering students. They have to get radiologists somewhere.

On the further upside, if she's one of the about 50% of doctors that drop out of that field, she has a backup plan.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[HornWumpus]

That's just a childish dream. It will most likely die on it's own. Make sure she knows she's welcome back if the music industry doesn't workout.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[rahvin112]

You cannot separate your daughter from the culture you both live in. From the day she was born she's been bombarded with the stereotypes that she's expected to comply with. Everything your daughter encounters every day conditions her to believe that she should avoid math and sciences. You go along with this, both unconsciously or consciously. Think for a minute, if you had an eleven year old son would you take his career choice at 11 as a statement about any of his capabilities or even a valid predictor of his final occupation? Why are doing it with your daughter?

Every single time in history people have tried to use genetics or body types or differences between people to predict those people's capabilities they've been wrong and they were using those "findings" as reinforcement to their own bigotry and cultural predilections.

There is no difference in the capabilities of women and men in intellectual pursuits. If you daughter seeks certain careers you should be asking yourself what part of culture taught her that the other things you've shown her aren't interesting. But above all you should realize that no 11 year old knows anything about what they want to be when they grow up.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[Billly Gates]

I did the same with a stepson. He too wants to be an artist or musician

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[AmiMoJo]

What makes you think the reason is biological?

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[Mashiki]

You do realize that there's plenty of studies out there showing that's not the case right? Even in cultures that are matriarchies. It's inherently biological. You can pretend that it doesn't exist all you want, but the science is out there waiting for you to read it.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[m00sh]

When she was 3-4 she started playing minecraft. When she was 6, we assembled her first PC. When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.

She's 11 now. She understands underlying components, she understands basic TCP/IP networking. She understands partitions, how to install an OS. She knows what to not click, and how to keep her computer free of crap. At 11, she's got an equal understanding of tech from when I started at 20. Yet she doesn't want to do it. She wants to be an artist. She thinks all babies are super cute. People call her "Mini-me" because she looks like me, and is good with computers like me. There's nothing wrong with saying, "She's biologically predisposed to not go into an engineering role"

She never played with dolls or barbies. Always computers, her choice. Yet she does not want to go into an engineering role like her mom and dad. (Actually, her mom moved onto management years ago)

Don't worry she'll become an engineer.

If we became what we wanted to as a kid, we'd be astronauts and we'd have a 100 million astronauts in the US.

Re:I tried raising my daughter to be an engineer

[Agent0013]

It is even true in animals. The sexes end up choosing toys similarly to the way human babies do.

the cult

[brennz]

The cult of Equality of Outcome for STEM occupations and various high paying jobs, irrespective of ability, interest, desire to work, or other factors, is a noxious beast. Just like the cult of Identity Politics Victimhood

We're getting wise to you though. Each time you push a regressive campaign against science, or discriminate against merit in favor of identity, we see evidence. When you push Feelz not Realz speech codes and protest again truth, we see machinations.

Please, keep it up.

Who are the scientists?

[NecroPuppy]

So, in the previous threads on this one, quite a few people were saying things like, "A number of scientists have come out and said, 'No, he's right about the things in his letter'", or words to that effect.

So... Who are these scientists?

Anyone have some names? And fields of science for those names?

Re:Who are the scientists?

[Rockoon]

Here is a scientist interviewing the evil sexist James Damore

The credentials of Jordan Peterson is very significant.

Re:It is

[computational super]

So - "it doesn't happen to me, therefore it doesn't happen?"

Re:It is

[computational super]

But there's only one group of people that it's ok to fire because you hate them for existing. Only one.

Re:I'm sure in California it is...

[NecroPuppy]

It's not isolated to California & New York.

I worked as a programmer for several years in South Carolina. And sexism was rampant in tech there.

Now, you could argue "well, yeah, but it's South Carolina... sexism is rampant everywhere there", and I wouldn't entirely disagree. But it is more prevalent than just NY/Cali.

You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[SuperKendall]

Four seconds later...

Weak dude. No wonder your mind cannot handle advanced concepts like "biological differences are different".

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[NecroPuppy]

Quilette is blocked at work, 'dude'.

I've no idea why. The blocker says "games", but I have to think that's a mis-classification.

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[NecroPuppy]

Oh, and my request about wanting to know who was saying this wasn't, as you suppose because my mind can't handle certain things.

It's because I wanted to make sure it wasn't like you see so often in other debates where someone with a PhD in a completely unrelated field (i.e., an electrical engineer PhD talking about climate change) is saying you should believe them because they've got a PhD.

Because, lord knows, we've ~never~ had that sort of thing happen on Slashdot before.

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[Rockoon]

You can add Jordan Peterson to the list, Phd'd professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto or whatever.

(they tried to label him a sexist once too, didn't stick)

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[Rockoon]

If only there was a site on the internet that archived the contents of web pages such that even if the site is "blocked", "down", "DoS'd", or even "Hacked and defaced" that its unaltered unedited pages could still be viewed.....

One might want to call it a "time machine" or something... but Apple's got that name... so maybe something like "Wayback Machine" or simply "Archive"

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[NecroPuppy]

Did you ever think that the content blockers would have thought of that, too?

Yes, the Wayback Machine is blocked here, too. I honestly continue to be surprised that Slashdot isn't.

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[NecroPuppy]

Thanks man; found an article with his thoughts on this on Business Insider... which I have to say is not flattering to Peterson, but I'll look around for more.

Thanks for the name.

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[XxtraLarGe]

Four seconds later...
Weak dude. No wonder your mind cannot handle advanced concepts like "biological differences are different".

Yeah, but only one of those "scientists" was a woman, who is obviously a tool of The Patriarch, therefore it's obviously all invalid!

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[SuperKendall]

the original manifesto implies that women avoid careers in computer programming because they are more susceptible to stress and anxiety...Well, in Botswana and Indonesia men actually report more stress

You could chose to believe that... or you could choose to believe science.

I've been to Botswana, life there has very different stresses so I don't doubt what you say is so, but I doubt very much it applies in any first world countries.

I was skeptical of that point as well (to the point I thought it was complete bullshit when I read his article) but the more studies I read the more it seemed a valid point - just one a lot of people hate to admit is true. But if you can't trust an organization built to help people with anxiety (along with countless other studies), who can you trust?

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[HornWumpus]

You seem to think this is somebody else's problem...

Re:You seriously cannot use Google??????????

[HornWumpus]

And you're an asshole...

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

You're a diversity hire.

That could explain why I'm the only white male in the department.

The trolls on Slashdot assumes you're mentally disabled.

FTFY

They won't admit it to your face, but behind your back they check the box that says they hired you for your disability.

The only accommodation that I ever requested under the American Disability Act was a phone headset since I have hearing loss in one ear. Fortunately, phone headsets are so cheap that everyone gets one.

maybe I should be a woman

[nha]

Many of my ideas are also ignored until they are rephrased by (other) men. Of course, that could also mean that I didn't make a very persuasive argument. Or it could be the fact that a second person is also stating the idea now gives it momentum. In the rush to claim victimhood, sometimes the obvious innocent explanation gets ignored.

Re:maybe I should be a woman

[Baron_Yam]

And sometimes you just don't have the social standing of the person co-opting your idea, so you're ignored and they get away with improving their position on someone else's effort.

Which sucks, but has nothing to do with your genitals.

Re:maybe I should be a woman

[Rockoon]

My genitals take full credit for your ideas.

Re:maybe I should be a woman

[david_thornley]

I caught myself sometimes not really listening to a competent colleague's ideas because she was short, cute, blonde, and female. I know this is anecdotal, but it suggests to me that some people may listen more to a man, or at least a taller brunette (who was also competent).

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

So - "it doesn't happen to me, therefore it doesn't happen?"

Not quite. Some other white male would do something stupid to get the rest of us sent to sensitivity training so HR can avoid singling out the individual white male who thinks he's special snowflake. That was just the 1990's.

Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.

But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.

It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.

Re:Why lie?

[superwiz]

Unless the memo is right. In which case, this is a witch hunt that the memo itself predicted.

Re:Why lie?

[Rockoon]

But why lie about the contents of the memo?

Because there isnt a single legitimate criticism. Everything in it has citations to relevant scientific literature.

A bunch of really loud people dont need a legitimate criticism to silence all dissent of their non-factual non-scientific world-view. They just need to be legion, and loud.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

It could be right. I don't think we have enough evidence to say conclusively which psychological features are caused by which biological sources, and which are caused by societal norms. I think it is maybe a bit irresponsible to present them as fact rather than a plausible hypothesis.

You can also be right, but for the wrong reasons. For example, it could be the case that women do prefer non-tech jobs, but that this preference is from social conditioning rather than biology.

I read an article (the article that actually lead me to the memo in the first place) a couple days ago that I think summed it up best. I honestly can;t remember the source (it was from facebook). It said something like "If you read this memo and agreed with everything in it or nothing in it, you probably aren't good at thinking.

Re:Why lie?

[Yosho]

But why lie about the contents of the memo?

Discrediting your opposition is much easier than refuting them, especially if they actually have a valid point. The vast majority of people aren't going to read that memo; if you can just convince them that the author is a far-right misogynist who hates diversity, then there are many, many people who will jump on the bandwagon against him without doing any research. This is basically the same thing that happened with GamerGate, if you recall that.

Re:Why lie?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're a sexually dimorphic species. On average, women have larger breasts than men, on average, men are stronger than women. On average, etc. Nobody questions these statements. Why is it so hard to accept that our predispositions are different on average as well?

Here's a thing: Nobody doubts the Maternal Instinct that women have. That right there is a clear example of a mental trait that women have on average more than men. This is not rocket science.

Our bodies are different, and the brain is part of the body. Occam's razor suggests that the truth is the simplest explanation: Our predispositions (which are a product of the brain), are different.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Discrediting your opposition is much easier than refuting them

I suppose it depends on your measure of success. If you measure of success is that most people agree without ever having read the memo, that's one thing. If your measure of success is avoiding a bunch of liberal intellectuals pointing out the dishonesty of people on their own side (e.g. like me), then maybe it's not such a great strategy afterall. And you don't have to be that much of an intellectual to read an 8 page paper.

I do recall gamergate. And it seemed to me that there was a lot of nonsense going on on both sides. Maybe one side was more dishonest and the other side was more obnoxious, but it was hard to sort it all out by the end.

My take away, is don't pick a side. Or at least don't be loyal to any side. You can work with people on issues you agree about, and abandon them on issues you disagree on.

I agree with this author that diversity of thought is more significant than physical diversity, but I also believe you don't shouldn't have a right to employment. I think employers should be allowed to make little ideological echo chambers, and fire those who make them uncomfortable. I supported Mozilla's right to fire Brendon Eich for his anti-gay marriage beliefs.

I guess I disagree with the author that diversity of thought is always beneficial. I think it is sometimes detrimental. I think it is important to have the right to your thoughts/speech (immunity to legal consequences), which is different than the right to express those thoughts with immunity from all social consequences. Maybe being anti-diversity (at the level of a team) when it comes to ideas is a good thing in some circumstances, because those differences are *so* significant, and be pro-diversity when it comes to race and gender *because* those differences are insignificant.

Maybe that's a criticism I would offer for the liberals... It's ok to be non-inclusive in certain circumstances, but be honest about it. Let's not resort to changing definitions of words to get the outcome we want.

Re:Why lie?

[ljw1004]

It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity.

If someone pours boiling water down an ant-hill while saying "we must save ants and it is wrong to kill ants and no one should kill ants" -- would you say they are anti-ants or pro-ants?

I approached the memo with just a careful logical pedantic mind. There were a lot of logical flaws in it. It read like a string of presumably true citations strung together with false implications. In the face of this, every reader has to piece together from subtext and guesses what the underlying reasoning, logic, motivation is. And if you arrive at contradictory answers? at places where your best guess at the underlying reasons which explain one part of the argument contradict some sentences elsewhere in the document?

It's not surprising that so many people come away with different impressions of the document and of the author. It permits and *invites* so many different impressions. Like so many other influential texts...

For instance: it's quite believable that some of his arguments if carried to their logical conclusion would lead to less diversity, and it's quite believable that his proposals would lead to less diversity; if you have those beliefs then you'd naturally think that his other sentences which claim to support diversity come across as insincere lip-service. He would be the ant-man I mentioned.

Personally I can't tell. I honestly tried to read the document carefully and meticulously to see what exactly his words said, no more no less, without no assumptions on my part. But without at least some assumptions there just isn't a coherent logical argument in it.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Even if it were the case that the author is actually incredibly misogynistic, and this memo was carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to misogyny (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but I didn't read it that way), it is still intellectually dishonest to call this memo anti-diversity. You can present your case for why you think the subtext is anti-diversity and misogynistic, but you don't get to present the subtext as text and still claim to be playing by the rules of honest discourse.

Re:Why lie?

[ljw1004]

Even if it were the case that the author is actually incredibly misogynistic, and this memo was carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to misogyny (and I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but I didn't read it that way), it is still intellectually dishonest to call this memo anti-diversity.

Really? And what if the author is actually incredibly anti-diversity, and the memo were carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to less diversity, would it still be intellectually dishonest to call the memo anti-diversity? I think in that case, calling it anti-diversity would be the MOST intellectually honest description in under 10 words. You'd be accurately describing the nature and roll of the memo as a cultural artefact. (even though that intellectually honest description doesn't jibe with the face-value text).

You can present your case for why you think the subtext is anti-diversity and misogynistic, but you don't get to present the subtext as text and still claim to be playing by the rules of honest discourse.

I'm not sure what are the goalposts here. Is the memo's cultural role more or less important than the face-value of its words? If you believe the cultural role is more important, then you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that. If the face value of its words is more important, you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that.

When Breitbart describes it as a "manifesto defending viewpoint diversity" they've got a description that represents some fraction of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and half of its received cultural role. When Slate describes it as an "anti-diversity memo" they've got a description that represents none of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and the other half of its received cultural role.

I think your "subtext as text" criticism presumes that headline writers should pick a description that matches the face value of the words. I agree that's fair for literary or textual analysis. I'm not sure in other contexts. Personally I think the face value of the words was pretty rubbish in terms of their logical strength, so I've been referring to it as "the stupid Google memo" -- which clearly isn't an attempt to describe either its text or its subtext.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

We're a sexually dimorphic species. On average, women have larger breasts than men, on average, men are stronger than women. On average, etc. Nobody questions these statements. Why is it so hard to accept that our predispositions are different on average as well?

It's not hard to accept that they *could* be different on average. In fact it is very unlikely for them to be exactly equal among any 2 populations that are not selected randomly. But you need to actually do science. Some people have done some of this science, and offered some evidence to suggest that some conclusions are more probable than others. This is far from conclusive scientific proof of anything beyond a correlation.

Also, simply saying that we expect men and women to be different just because the odds they are the same on average at anything is incredibly low, does not actually give you any insight into the level of the effect of biological gender on psychology, or even whether men or women in general will have more or less of any given trait.

Our bodies are different, and the brain is part of the body. Occam's razor suggests that the truth is the simplest explanation: Our predispositions (which are a product of the brain), are different.

Our bodies are indeed different. It's easy to use Occam's razor. But Occam's razor is not science. Occam's razor is often right, but science is about figuring out what is true in a way that doesn't fall into the pitfalls (i.e. cognitive bias, logical fallacies, etc), that common sense does. Science is what we use to (to paraphrase Feynman) to prevent us from lying to ourselves.

Saying something could be true is different than saying something is true.

Here's a thing: Nobody doubts the Maternal Instinct that women have. That right there is a clear example of a mental trait that women have on average more than men. This is not rocket science.

Yeah, noticing a correlation is not rocket science. Measuring something like the affect of gender on height is hard enough when you try to account for confounding factors like race, differences in level of nutrition, societal effects like body shaming, etc. And these are the difficulties you run into when measuring a trait that is easy to measure (height). Now you switch to something that is hard to measure (i.e. psychological traits), and this task becomes orders of magnitude harder.

Maybe it was common sense that smoking caused lung cancer. It took science 50 years to prove it. The people who thought smoking caused cancer in 1950 were right in some sense, but I would argue that this was just due to luck, rather than any sort of scientific knowledge.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think if you do further research, you will find out that social science has a different level of rigor from actual science. Finding tons of research suggesting that "women are more nurturing by nature" or that "conservatives are more motivated by fear" or "too much television makes you dumber" is not the same as finding tons of research showing gravitational waves exist.

Measuring correlation is not the same thing as proving causation.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Really? And what if the author is actually incredibly anti-diversity, and the memo were carefully designed to be a trojan horse to normalize views that naturally lead to less diversity, would it still be intellectually dishonest to call the memo anti-diversity?

Yes. For a few reasons. In the theoretical, a claim's merit is not dependent on who presented it or why. In a practical sense, you don't know what their true intentions are anyway.

I think in that case, calling it anti-diversity would be the MOST intellectually honest description in under 10 words. You'd be accurately describing the nature and roll of the memo as a cultural artefact. (even though that intellectually honest description doesn't jibe with the face-value text).

I don't get the arbitrary 10 word limit. But "Memo with misogynist subtext" is only 4 words. Maybe there are some situations where you just don't have enough words to honestly convey the objective truth as best as you can in the length limit of a headline. But I don't think that's what is going on here.

I'm not sure what are the goalposts here. Is the memo's cultural role more or less important than the face-value of its words?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's not hard to do both. Omitting certain important facts is intellectually dishonest even if those facts are less important than other facts you did not omit. And I would say that the intent of the author and the cultural role are arguably not even "facts" as they are undoubtedly more subjective in nature than what is literally written. That's not to say that they are not important.

If you believe the cultural role is more important, then you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that. If the face value of its words is more important, you'd pick a description that fits your understanding of that.

I don't know how this discussion shifted to be about only the title of a hypothetical article, but I was referring to people presenting their sense of the subtext and intent someone else's claims as if it were literally presented that way.

When Breitbart describes it as a "manifesto defending viewpoint diversity" they've got a description that represents some fraction of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and half of its received cultural role. When Slate describes it as an "anti-diversity memo" they've got a description that represents none of the words, somewhere between 0 and 100% of the subtext, and the other half of its received cultural role

No-one is precluded them from making it clear in the actual article that the text of the memo is not anti-diversity. I am not talking about just the headline. If this were the trojan horse memo example, and breitbart knowingly presents it as a pro-diversity memo, that is also intellectual dishonesty even if it is literally accurate.

I think your "subtext as text" criticism presumes that headline writers should pick a description that matches the face value of the words.

My criticism is not about headlines. It is about people presenting this article as anti-diversity without mentioning anywhere in the body of their statement that the text itself is not anti-diversity, but rather the subtext.

Here is my point. If you feel that the subtext, or the intent, or the "cultural role" of the memo is anti-diversity, then say that. Omitting this and simply referring to it as a anti-diversity memo, and allowing me to infer that the literal contents of the memo were anti-diversity, is intellectually dishonest, even if the I would have hypothetically come to that conclusion anyway.

And I should point out that I want to hear reasonable an legitimate criticisms of this memo. The fact that so many seem unwilling to criticize this memo on it's merit is very troubling to me. I don't want to see the left resorting to winning argu

Re:Why lie?

[superwiz]

Oh, I don't think there is a question about whether he should sue. California has made political affiliation a protected class and justice only works if it's universally applied. Otherwise, it's the very definition of injustice. He said at multiple points that this was not a statement about any one particular woman. There is no question that the ignorance of the fact that he was making a statistical rather than causal argument is willful ignorance. Google threw him under the bus because they thought it was safer. They miscalculated. Which means their actions were worse than a crime. They were a mistake.

Re:Why lie?

[m00sh]

I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.

But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.

It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.

What? That memo is all over the place.

Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.

Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.

There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.

The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.

Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.

Re:Why lie?

[m00sh]

I think there are probably some very good and legitimate criticisms that can be made of this memo. I am not even necessarily opposed to this engineer being fired.

But why lie about the contents of the memo? I am very sympathetic to the idea that diversity is a good thing (as apparently the author of the memo was as well), but I am completely turned off by the fact that the strategy utilized by "the other side" (not the other side from me... yet) is to lie about what's in it.

It is not anti-diversity. Maybe it's wrong. But it being wrong doesn't make it automatically anti-diversity. Redistributing this falsehood is intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to be on a side that's wrong. I also don't want to be on a side that's dishonest.

Read the memo.

He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."

The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...

Re:Why lie?

[gweihir]

Unfortunately, that seems exactly what is going on here: A game of "we scream louder, so we must be right!"

The differences between the memo and the claims about it is truly staggering.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Read the memo.

I did, in it's entirety

He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."

How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?

The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...

Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

What? That memo is all over the place.

Which is why I don't understand the rationale for lying about it. The lie is transparent for all to see.

Women are more neurotic and male gender roles are inflexible in the same list about ways to reduce the gender discrimination.

I didn't say the memo wasn't sexist. I said it wasn't anti-diversity. You can be both sexist and pro-diversity. In fact, being a sexist affords some opportunities to be even more pro-diversity than someone who does not believe in as many innate gender differences, if the sexist welcomes these differences.

Then there is a huge dose of semi-political rants like PC-authoritarians, alienating conservatives etc.

There sure is

There is even a footnote that says, "men are judged on status and women on beauty" for why women do not go for leadership positions as only men seek status.

I have actually heard many feminists say nearly the exact same thing, though they would probably attribute the causes of this observation to the patriarchy rather than biology

The memo is a terrible rant in a PDF. It makes it look like those scientific papers. If it was in e-mail text format, everyone would think it is a sexist rant.

I thought it was a sexist rant even in it's fancy pdf format.

Now, all we need is a biological racial differences memo. Feel like all this heading to saying white males are biologically superior.

He actually seemed to be saying the exact opposite of this. He was criticizing the existing diversity metrics for focusing only on superficial diversity like race (i.e. implying he did not believe there are any non-superficial differences in race).

I am not criticizing the critics of this memo as a conservative who is on the same team as the memo writer. I am criticizing the people on my own team who I do not think are playing the game fairly, and I think it is destroying our reputation as honest players.

The left for my entire adult life has had a near monopoly on intellectual honesty. The right basically decided they didn't want to play the game of intellectual honesty. They decided lying, and pretending to be intellectually honest, was a better strategy to winning. Now part of the right has gone one step further and decided that they don't even need to pretend to be honest anymore. I am disappointed that the left, rather than taking this opportunity to be a shining alternative counter-example, seems to have decided to try to beat the right at their own game and race to the bottom.

I hope this is not a sign of a lasting trend, and people on the left eventually come to their senses.

Re:Why lie?

[m00sh]

Read the memo.

I did, in it's entirety

He even starts with "I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity", the typical "I'm not racist but ..."

How do *you* frame a statement that you think is true, but you think might be misinterpreted?

The harm of Google's biases: A high priority queue and special treatment of "diversity" candidates, hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative ratio ...

Disagreeing with the method by which Google is trying to achieve diversity is not anti-diversity. Offering alternate methods of achieving diversity (even if they turn out not to work) is not anti-diversity.

He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.

He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.

If that is not anti-diversity, what is?

Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

He's basically saying "diversity" candidates are dumber without giving any proof.

He is saying that. I don't think it is that much of a stretch to say that lower standards will lead to lower results. Is that proof? No, but it doesn't seem like an unreasonable hypothesis. Students at community college aren't as strong as students from Ivy league schools. This is basically a result of their higher admissions requirements. If they lowered requirements for white men, they would get dumber white men.

Does Google actually lower requirements for women and minorities? I don't know. If Google doesn't, then showing this assumption to be false would be a good way to refute his conclusions.

He's also implying that some of his colleagues are there in Google because of lower standards and not merit.

Seems like a pretty logical conclusion based on his premise. A pro-diversity argument would be that the benefits of diversity outweigh the disadvantages of having minor deficit in proficiency.

If that is not anti-diversity, what is?

Well for one thing, you could say "Diversity is bad for social cohesion. Teams are more efficient and successful if the individuals that comprise them are homogeneous. Studies show that homogeneous groups have more empathy for each other. Etc" I'm not even presenting these as inherently bad arguments.

I think a very good case can be made for homogeneity. I think the author of the memo is right that the diversity of ideology is more significant than the superficial diversity of skin color. But maybe that's what makes diversity of skin color so easy for a team to overcome. Maybe diversity of ideology is not a viable model for a team. Maybe the Google team works better if everyone holds a progressive ideology.

Unless he produces statistical proof that this is the case at Google, then this is an anti-diversity opinion.

That's not true either. You can still be right even with no proof. You can also be wrong and not still not be anti-diversity.

An American general with a completely terrible idea for defeating ISIS that would just get a bunch of US soldiers killed is not pro-ISIS or anti-American. He/she is just wrong.

Re:Why lie?

[TsuruchiBrian]

yep that's the one. Thanks for filling in my citation for me.

Applies to men as well

[sinequonon]

Many men are not suitable for a career in tech either. The requirement for an education and background in the field acts as a selection bias effect, which applies (or at least should apply) equally to both men and women. At that point, generalized opinions about the suitability of women in the field tech should be tossed, since logically those can't be applied to the selected group.

Re:Applies to men as well

[NecroPuppy]

Many men are not suitable for a career in tech either.

I see you've met my former boss...

Re:Sooo, here's the question no one asked

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't, and she didn't ask mommy that question.
Mommy wanted to use her daughter as a shitty literary device to introduce her lie (about there not being biological reasons that influence what people choose to do).

Sexism is indeed pervasive

[Iamthecheese]

Man-hating post-modernists are doing their level best to destroy any business or entity that doesn't elevate women to the point of female supremacy and doesn't toe the line. Any entity that even questions their claims, or doesn't kow-tow to their claims. They despise any attempt to curb their sadly growing power and their institutionalization of blatant, open sexism. This group tells blatant lies and relies on round tables of repeated misinformation through media outlets to spread their insidious philosophy.

Sexism is pervasive and we need to halt it now.

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

You said you work with old white beards and you're the youngest.

Everyone has white beards.

Were you lying then or are you lying now liar?

Why would I lie about people having white beards? Even at 48, I have a white beard.

Re:Once again conservatives show their hypocricy

[sexconker]

Hypocrisy? That's you.

You're claiming conservatives want to not hire/serve certain people despite what the law says, then you're mocking them for expecting the law to be upheld.
What's next - you're going to laugh at people who are against certain taxes for using the things funded by those taxes after being forced to pay those taxes?

Get a brain, moran.

you'd know

[vel-ex-tech]

And you'd know, wouldn't you, seeing as how it's ALWAYS one of you gaslighting asshole managers or a fucker in a CxO position who is DOING the sexual harassment!

Youtube is owned by Google.

[snarfies]

You need to pick a less obvious mouthpiece. Nice try, though, Google.

Re:There ARE biological reasons...

[superwiz]

Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers.

And men have evolved to be hunters and warriors? But how is that related to tech? Channeling natural tendencies into higher-brain-function endeavors requires abstracting away from our basic predispositions.

Re:I'm sure in California it is...

[Rockoon]

What I have concluded is that there is a problem with sexism in tech - but it's pretty much isolated to California, and perhaps New York.

No, the sexism is real, but its mainly from people that want to blame the opposite gender as a group for their own individual shortcomings.

Sexism being pervasive in tech...

[e_pluribus_funk]

is not the same thing as Damore being responsible for sexism or writing a sexist screed. He's being punished for the collective sins of the industry.

Re:Sexism being pervasive in tech...

[f00zbll]

Did someone hold a gun to his head and force him to write that idiotic opinion piece? Why anyone feels a need to defend his mistake is beyond me. If Damore shot his foot with a shotgun in google office, would you defend him? What he did was inappropriate and he was too egotistic and stupid to realize it. How he did it is the problem. If he was more constructive and eloquent, he "could" have made the discussion fruitful. Instead, he chose the wrong words and then decided to publish it internally. Let it go already, he made his bed and now he has to suck it up and deal with the consequences.

Re:Sexism being pervasive in tech...

[grasshoppa]

As I understand it, he already has at least 1 high profile job offer. To say nothing of the inevitable discrimination suit payout he's very likely looking at.

His bed will be quite comfy indeed.

However, of more interest to me is his bravery. He predicted this witch-hunt behavior in his essay, and decided to go through with it anyway thus kicking off a nationwide conversation that we've needed to have for years/decades now. On top of that, he's exposed the idiotic behavior of the media, to say nothing of all the ignorant execs jumping on the bandwagon.

I haven't had this much fun since the election.

Re:Sexism being pervasive in tech...

[david_thornley]

His bed will be quite comfy indeed....However, of more interest to me is his bravery.

How brave, to change jobs and also get to go for the gold in the form of a lawsuit. You're contradicting yourself.

He predicted this witch-hunt behavior in his essay,

It isn't clear to me that it's witch-hunt behavior. He caused a fair amount of disruption in a large company, and it's reasonable to fire people who do that. He undoubtedly was bad for profits. It looks to me like some people who reject any social considerations for business are arguing that Google should refrain from firing him for social considerations. Also, behavior that has been predicted is often justified. Consider a poster who writes, "I'll be modded down for this" and then writes something stupid. Should I refrain from downmodding?

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

How did you celebrate the anniversary of the day your mother shat you out of her distended sphincter?

Watching Smokey and the Bandit (40th Anniversary Edition) on TV. My favorite movie with Sally "Gidget" Fields. ;)

Re: It is

[cyber-vandal]

Most white males don't have any power.

Re: It is

[cyber-vandal]

You should tell the homeless white guys I see every day about their privileged existence. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Re:The Great Equalizer

[HornWumpus]

It will certainly improve my chances of being allowed to telecommute every day.

Re:It is

[penandpaper]

You are why we can't have nice things. You became the monster you hate.

Re:It is

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently right now they're having a pretty rough time. And I'm sure people like you are the problem. Society has trivialized any problems white males have and label them "whiners" if they mention their hard time. That might describe what can only be called an epidemic within the white male population of suicide. I would have thought people like you would realize that there was a problem with the recent suicides of Chester Bennington and Chris Cornell. They were rather high profile and some had hope that it might bring a spotlight on to the larger problem which society on whole is largely ignoring. Or do you think that white men killing themselves isn't a problem worth addressing because we have it so good?

Re: It is

[cyber-vandal]

Yes we did. Try reading a few history books about Europe to see how crap the life of an ordinary white male was until very recently. The history of the Balkans would be a good place to start.

It's simple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google leadership really, really wants more people to choose tech as a career. The under representation of women in tech makes them a big juicy target. So they are doing everything they can to socially-engineer women to want to go into tech.

When someone points out that there are perfectly valid, biological reasons why many women might not want to do this, that undermines the whole effort. The last thing they want is for an on-the-fence young woman to start thinking it is "ok" to stick to professions that are more popular among women because she, too, is wired to dislike a career in tech. On the contrary, they would absolutely love it if they could make women feel ashamed of themselves for not throwing themselves into tech (of course, they can't have that, so they are focusing on the "it's great for women and all women naturally love it and are great at it" message).

Don't get caught up in the "sexism" smoke and mirrors. That has nothing to do with the memo, nor the firing. It's all about the social engineering, which cannot abide the harsh light of truth.

Statistics-Defined Problem

[jasnw]

You cannot ‘solve’ a problem that is only identifiable through statistics (there are more male programmers than female) or anecdotes (my career was held back by sexist men in management). If hard facts can be documented of bias in hiring practices, or in how promotions are made, or how supervisors do their jobs, then you can identify problems that can be fixed. I believe this sort of thing is being done all over the US by companies that want to be gender-neutral, or at least don’t want to leave themselves open to clearly-supported lawsuits.

The only ‘solution’ to a statistics-defined problem is the solution-du-jour of quotas. If the population has X% of some identifiable sub-population (female, black, smokers, whatever), then the company will have X% of people of that sub-population in every job. This is not a solution, this is a hack on a major scale. It solves nothing, and arguably makes everything worse.

There is absolutely no place for sexism of any kind, male-on-female or female-on-male, in our society. However, sexism is not fixed by quotas.

Re:There ARE biological reasons...

[iCEBaLM]

And men have evolved to be hunters and warriors? But how is that related to tech? Channeling natural tendencies into higher-brain-function endeavors requires abstracting away from our basic predispositions.

In evolving to be better hunters and warriors we learned to be inventive, create tools, weapons, machinery, etc. It's what men do, we're interested in it. This is not an abstracting away from our basic predispositions, this is a magnification of them. Does this mean women can not invent, or create tools, weapons, etc? No, of course not, but the empirical evidence shows that these vocations are not what they're interested in.

Stereotypes

[Kunedog]

When she was 9, we upgraded her video card.

Let me guess: EVE Online.

Re:Stereotypes

[t0qer]

Nah, I went from SLI GTX 660's to a single 1080. The kids inherited my 660's.

Re:It is

[brennz]

baby white boys grow up into Testosterone-Fueled Oppressive White Devil Evil Menz!!!

Re: It is

[liquid_schwartz]

Most white males don't have any power.

This. The 1% are thriving by convincing everyone that it's all the white males fault. Most white males aren't part of the 1% however by protecting themselves they keep the mob somewhat at bay and by extension protect the 1%. If you ever want to stop the 1% then think of all the fragments required to piece together a 99% (hint that will include deplorables and others that you don't like). Until you're willing to stop insisting on complete agreement with any given agenda other than economics the 1% will thrive while the peons argue about bathrooms, abortion, guns, and , in this case, benign essays.

I grieve because 'we are the 99%' is a brilliant slogan and an absolutely spot on argument. Unfortunately it's just too easy to fragment the 99% into much smaller groups and get them to fight each other while the middle class declines further.

Re: Why did GNOME's 2006 efforts fail to stop thi

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, let's limit our sexist stereotypes to positive stereotypes about women or negative stereotypes about men.

Pointing out that women are humans as are men is not constructive to this discussion.

Re:There ARE biological reasons...

[liquid_schwartz]

... why there are less women in tech. Why is this surprising?

Women have evolved to be caretakers and nurturers. They tend to enjoy those types of fields more than solving technical problems. They tend to go into the healthcare and social welfare fields 4.5x more than men, and education 2x as much as men.

Does this mean they CAN'T be interested in tech, or that they CAN'T solve technical problems? No, however saying there is absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in IT than men is like saying there's absolutely no biological reason why there are less women in construction than men. They simply don't want to do it as much.

While this is about as obvious as saying that the sun rose this morning, it's a good thing you don't work at Google - they'd have to fire you right about now. Truth is no defense sadly since the original essay (yes I actually read it) had numerous citations.

Re:It is

[__aaclcg7560]

Which was a quarter century ago.

That would explain my white beard then.

Two words for you: Hidden Figures

[laurencetux]

Not only did a single woman calculate the reentry for Grissom she HAD TO DISCOVER THE NEEDED MATH.

I would like to see you stream a Stock KSP session where you recreate Grissoms flight with only RSS installed as mods.

(i think you have 20 square miles to land in)

Oh and do the calcs by hand on paper with only a simple calculator

Re:Two words for you: Hidden Figures

[brennz]

Do you mean the "Figure-8" free return trajectory and free return trajectories invented by the noted physicist & programmer and Dr. Jack Crenshaw, who was actually using a computer?

Re:Two words for you: Hidden Figures

[djinn6]

If you only have RSS installed, your engines and fuel tanks will be far too underpowered to make it. Not to mention reentry heat would be unrealistically high and you'd burn up no matter what you do.

More to the point, the memo is talking about averages. One woman's achievements, however extraordinary, is not going to raise the average very much. Even now, the majority of critical breakthroughs in science come from men (look at this list and count how many men there are vs. women).

We already know there are social reasons for this disparity and are doing things to correct it through things like outreach, scholarships, advertising and other programs targeted at young women. Now if there are biological reasons for the disparity as well, then we should try to understand them and work around those too. But the moment these reasons are suggested, everyone blows their tops and lynches the messenger. How can we ever fix the problem if it can't be talked about?

Re:What do genitals have to do with programming?

[hey00]

I'm still waiting for somebody from either side of this nonsense to clearly explain what exactly penises and vaginas have to do with programming computers.

The computer hardware doesn't care if you have a penis or a vagina.

The programming language(s) being used don't care if you have a penis or a vagina.

The libraries and frameworks being used don't care if you have a penis or a vagina.

In most corporate environments, it's likely that one's penis or one's vagina is hidden under several layers of clothing while engaging in computer programming. (I know some Rubyists like to type with their penises, but we don't find them in corporate environments.)

So what exactly do penises and vaginas have to do with computer programming?

The computer hardware cares about your code.

Your code comes from your mind.

Your mind is produced by your brain.

Your brain is made from your DNA and bathes in hormones.

That same DNA and hormones that defined your gender.

Gender have biological differences. Claiming there aren't is ignoring reality.

Claiming those differences make a gender better at programming is an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

But if you go back to the original memo, never did he claim that women are worse at programming. He said they are more neurotic, more agreeable, more open toward feelings and aesthetics. Which is supported by science.
He said those differences _may_ explain why less women in average have an interest in STEM. Again, I have seen noone, here or elsewhere, or in the original memo, claiming women can't program as well as men.
He then proposed that to make google friendlier to women, to make software engineering more people-oriented, to make tech and leadership positions less stressful, etc. and to not deceive students by embellish what tech actually is.

On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people who obviously didn't read it strawman it like crazy, a bit like what you're doing, and claiming there is no difference between genders, including youtube's and google's ceos, which is blatant denial of reality on the scale of climate change denial. This is sad.

Re:Yeah

[computational super]

"The fact that somebody disagrees with me even after I already said it hurt my feelings when they disagree with me" is proof that she's right? In a way, I can't really say I blame you - this approach has been very successful for the left for at least 50 years now. I really feel like this incident is somehow different, though - that the tide is shifting and you're losing the tight grip you've had over western society for at least the entirety of my lifetime, if not longer.

Re:What do genitals have to do with programming?

[zlives]

it seems that a discussion is over due but no one has the ...ahem... guts to actually take it on and deal with the backlash it might produce. we live in the world of Alt-Facts on both sides.

Re:What do genitals have to do with programming?

[Rakarra]

Are you trying to argue that there are no differences, no differences at all on average between the sexes than the equipment between the legs? Do you seriously want to go there?

Re: It is

[Rakarra]

The 1% are thriving by convincing everyone that it's all the white males fault. Most white males aren't part of the 1% however by protecting themselves they keep the mob somewhat at bay and by extension protect the 1%.

The greatest con of 2016 was 1%ers like Trump convincing people that he really cares for the underclass and will totally fight for them. And the underclass was dumb enough to believe him his nonsense, despite being shown time and time and time again that this is bullshit.

Re: It is

[Rakarra]

You should tell the homeless white guys I see every day about their privileged existence. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Everyone is capable of pissing away their advantages. The Olson Twins, Kardashians, any sports player or music artist who blew through all their money on houses/cars, etc. Being white doesn't mean there's any limit to hard the fall to rock bottom can be.

Re:It is

[Rakarra]

New York Yankee fans are fucking hated for existing (because they're pricks).

Moderators, please mod up! Parent poster shows uncommon wisdom.

Q for Mrs. Wojcicki

[CQDX]

Why did you study history and literature at Harvard? Why not computer science? Did you try and were thwarted by sexist students and professors? Or did you just pursue your interest?

Revels Herself a Terrible Mother

[FrankDrebin]

Shameful to publish a political article lying to your own offspring.

Re:Revels Herself a Terrible Mother

[eaglesrule]

When making an appeal to emotion, especially to a female audience, children make for good props. It serves as an effective way to oversimplify the issue and being condescending to the audience without them realizing it.

Note the 'what if' red herring about race and sexuality. I'd think it was a calculated move if it wasn't just such a typical reaction by those invested in identity politics.

Re:There ARE biological reasons...

[superwiz]

Meh. These "tools" are so abstract, that they can as well be abstract "dwellings" or "children" or whatever else you think we may have natural propensity to channel. There are so many layers that separate these abstractions from reality that you can find the cross interests of abstractions at much lower levels. If math occupies levels 14-20 of your abstract thinkings and programming occupies levels 10-15 for someone else, while it occupies levels 18 to 23 for someone who knows math well, you'll have to explain to me why it matters what kind of primitive motivation exists at levels 3-6.

Re: What do genitals have to do with programming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so quickly they forget the history of the industry in which they work. Programming was once women's work. This started to change in the 80's along with the advent of PC gaming and the male oriented marketing of the time. All you dickswinging programmers still have to face the fact that your industry was created -and nurtured- by smart, determined women. Which would make sense to those who believe in the pre-destined and unchanging roles of men and women in society. The irony is that you don't know what can be until you break out of those rigid constructs.

Grrrl Power or victimhood?

[TheGoodNamesWereGone]

So, women.... Is it Grrrrl Power or victimhood? Pick one; you can't have both. Choose carefully

Re: It is

[blindseer]

Yep, everyone can hit bottom. Here's the difference though. Next to campus is a pedestrian mall where the homeless like to congregate to panhandle. The men (mostly white, not all) will often be seen with signs that read "homeless veteran", "disabled veteran", or some other variation on "veteran". What does the one woman I see have on her sign? "Disabled WOMAN" The capitals are on her sign just as I typed them. Oh, and she's walking while holding the sign, not in a wheelchair like the veteran she walked past.

I know why the men hold signs that read "veteran", because (true or not) it gains sympathy. (I trust that most or all of them are actually veterans given the proximity to a veteran hospital.) Why did the woman feel the need to put "WOMAN" on her sign? It's not like people couldn't tell from looking at her, just that it might be hard to tell from across a crowded ped mall.

I got to talking to one of the homeless vets in a beer-n-burger place while having lunch on a Tuesday. He was drunk. I offered to buy him lunch but he said he'd rather have another drink. I ended up giving him nothing as I lost a lot (not all) of my sympathy for his condition.

Yep, everyone can hit bottom. From my experience it's the white men that seem to hit it more often. Is it their fault? I don't know but it does seem that women, if/when they hit bottom, do seem to be able to crawl out more easily.

Re: It is

[Mashiki]

Yep, everyone can hit bottom. From my experience it's the white men that seem to hit it more often. Is it their fault? I don't know but it does seem that women, if/when they hit bottom, do seem to be able to crawl out more easily.

Easier to do when you're given more opportunities. Kinda like suicide prevention, and there being 56 programs just for women. There's 6 for men, and men make up 83% of the suicides around here.

funding

[Reverend Green]

Whenever there is an anti-populist bigotry story like this one, Slashdot gets beseiged by a 50 Cent Army posting misandrist, racist, and/or classist vitriol.

Which PR firm(s) hired these shills? Who is paying for it? There are hundreds of ordinary people out there who know the answer. The ruling class can accomplish nothing without hiring plebs to do the actual work. Let us pray that heaven will bless one of those workers with the courage to be a whistleblower.

Re: It is

[Reverend Green]

You are truly a fool if you believe that.

Re: What do genitals have to do with programming?

[Brockmire]

Fuck, you are dumb. RTFA. Because the person's brain behind the dick or vagina are different. Men and women think differently and the author is saying that.

Re: It is

[Reverend Green]

Since President Trump took office, I've noticed typical advertised nominal wages for programming jobs starting to rise. For the first time in more than a decade. It appears Trump is in fact benefiting tech workers.

Re: It is

[Reverend Green]

However being a white man does make it rather harder to access "safety net" services.

Re: It is

[Brockmire]

Dude, the suicides are a result of being diddled as kids. It fucked them up for life. Also, the porn and stripper industry would also point out the high rates of molestation. I don't have any stats, but I'd bet money that more females are molested than male kids.

Re: Yeah

[Reverend Green]

The current ruling clique is losing control of the narrative. The semi-official capitalist media no longer hold a monopoly on mass communication. Already the educated working class (including tech workers) has stopped believing meant of the more obvious lies in the official narrative.

By all appearances the ruling clique are scared. They were instrumental in the establishment of today's police surveillance state dystopia. Those who've studied history may note that police states have an amusing habit of turning and devouring their creators.

Thus the desperate need to maintain control of public discourse. Thus the hysterical, foaming at the mouth rage when debate strays from the established narrative.

Re: It is

[cyber-vandal]

Advantages? Do you think white males are immune to mental illness, don't get sexually abused and always have stable home lives? I remember when the left used to be about compassion and it saddens me immensely to see it turned into this hate movement. White males made up 70% of suicides in the US. So much for "privilege".

People take offence at statistics

[GESUS]

So, I am male. Yay for me.

I am part of a statistic that rapes, murderers etc etc. Though I have not raped or murdered anyone at least so far. I do not want to. But, with the sentiment feminists are spreading I just as well could as I am part of the group with the highest score in this statistic.

Also, I am part of the group that has achieved the the most things in history with notable exceptions on giving birth and caring for others on a personal level.

I am different from all the other people in the statistics. More, generally, from women then men. But I am different from all of them.

Statistics do not make individuals, individuals make statistics.

Stop taking offence if statistics are not true for you. They are not a guide for your future. They say almost nothing about YOU. Just a tool for us to use.

Most people are not stars at what they do. Most are good enough. Potential star may not want to do the work it takes to be a star, others are the other way around.

Everyone is an individual, everyone struggles some how.

If you want to take on issues larger then your own life, fight climate change. Not illusions of strife because of this or that.

Re:So 18th Century

[gweihir]

If that were the situation here, you would be right. It is not the situation here, though.

Re:There ARE biological reasons...

[gweihir]

Indeed. That is why "equal opportunity" is the right thing, i.e. all woman that want to go into tech should not face any gender-related hurdles. But if it tuns out, they are fewer than on the male side, than it is their f***ing decision and that needs to be respected. "Equal outcome" as is preached by some, basically means to disrespect individual choices.

Re:I'm sure in California it is...

[gweihir]

Than, of course, works in both directions.

Re: It is

[Rakarra]

The greatest con is not realizing that if you make 30k$ per year you are in the global 1%

Only if you count all cost-of-living to be equal, and all currencies to be equivalent.

Re: It is

[Rakarra]

Advantages? Do you think white males are immune to mental illness, don't get sexually abused and always have stable home lives?

"Advantages" does not mean you're immune to any of these things. It means you might have a slight advantage over someone else of an equivalent situation -- that's all, nothing more. It doesn't mean you're going to have the good life. I'm not talking about these advantages as if it was like winning the lottery, where it overcomes most other problems. They don't. The effects, when they happen, are fairly mild.

Re: It is

[cyber-vandal]

So what are these advantages they've supposedly pissed away?

Re:It is

[TimothyHollins]

Do the Irish count as white? Because they just might disagree with you.

Re: It is

[david_thornley]

This. The 1% are thriving by convincing everyone that it's all the white males fault.

That statement is at best incomplete. The 1% is also trying to convince the white males that it's the fault of the women or minorities or whoever. Trump was really successful in telling poor white males that without having any credibility.

Re:Women in tech

[mfnickster]

For those of you reading and posting to /. on your mobile phone, you can thank Hedy Lamarr.

"That's HEDLEY!!"

Male Std Deviation Higher, Means More Notables

[MtnDeusExMachina]

It is basic statistics and science, and it is unescapable. Law can present equal opportunity, but if you enforce equal outcome it will require denying opportunities to males based on their gender. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/wa...

Re: It is

[liquid_schwartz]

If you live in a Western first world country you are part of the 1%.

I don't think you're familiar with how math works. Or do you define Western first world country in such a way that the total population there is only 75 million. I'm curious to know which it is for you.

Re: It is

[liquid_schwartz]

This. The 1% are thriving by convincing everyone that it's all the white males fault.

That statement is at best incomplete. The 1% is also trying to convince the white males that it's the fault of the women or minorities or whoever. Trump was really successful in telling poor white males that without having any credibility.

Trump was a protest vote and a warning. I can only speak for myself, but I am willing to support anyone who campaigns on a platform of economic justice where that justice is not equal for everyone despite what they do or not do (ie communism) but is instead based on a living wage for all who work (emphasis on work) and less inequality. To that end I recognize that the 99% includes many I will not agree with and I can agree to disagree and leave it at that to focus on economics. Can you say the same?

Re: It is

[liquid_schwartz]

If you're a white male and you actually feel the need to 'protect yourself' then you're exactly the sort of fuckhead everyone's railing against.

Sounds like a white male needs protection from you actually. All jokes aside I've heard for decades a steady stream of white people are responsible for all that's wrong with the world. Yet I pay my taxes (I'm not a 1%er that offshores everything), I don't commit crimes, and I contribute to society. In short, I'm a good customer for whichever country I reside in. Yet because I'm white I'm expected to accept guilt for things I didn't do and help others for wrongs committed to their distant relatives. I reject that plain and simple. Call me a monster / racist / deplorable / whatever new term the SJWs think of but I am not responsible for the past. I am responsible for myself and I pay *my* debts and make the world a better place in an ever so small way.