Slashdot Mirror


From Google To Yahoo, Tech Grapples With White Male Discontent (bloomberg.com)

Reader joshtops shares a Bloomberg report: Google isn't the only Silicon Valley employer being accused of hostility to white men. Yahoo and Tata Consultancy Services were already fighting discrimination lawsuits brought by white men before Google engineer James Damore ignited a firestorm -- and got himself fired -- with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers. The Yahoo case began last year when two men sued, claiming they'd been unfairly fired after managers allegedly manipulated performance evaluations to favor women. They claim Marissa Mayer approved the review process and was involved in their terminations, and last month a judge ordered the former chief executive be deposed. TCS, meanwhile, is fighting three men who claim the Mumbai-based firm discriminates against non-Indians at its U.S. offices.

49 of 577 comments (clear)

  1. Need vs Politics by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    White males are not very PC today but it's hard to run a company without any of them. The trick is to find a balance where you treat them shitty enough to make the left happy but not so shitty they go somewhere more tolerant.

    1. Re:Need vs Politics by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Discrimination against white males is no more "tolerant" than discrimination against any other race or gender.
      Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what group it is against. Just because it's socially acceptable to discriminate against white men doesn't make it right.

    2. Re:Need vs Politics by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct. Unfortunately when companies make it white males vs everyone else, everyone loses.

      Companies need to stop discrimination, not shift the target of it. Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.

    3. Re:Need vs Politics by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How is this modded "insightful"? White males are not oppressed. I am a white male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible liberal places, run by leftists, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly. I know a lot of liberal democrats, and none of them want white males to be treated badly.

      The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.

    4. Re:Need vs Politics by zugmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well as long as you have a personal anecdote I guess that's all the data we should ask for?

    5. Re:Need vs Politics by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Companies shouldn't even keep track of race or gender of their employees, there is no legitimate reason to keep that information, and it is only ever useful for discriminatory practices.

      FWIW, in the USA, most large companies are *required* by the government to collect information about the race and gender of their employee by the EEOC.

      Of course they aren't required to *keep* or *use* the information, but when would a post-modern company in the social media age not keep data that it is actually required to collect? If a company takes advantage of their customers that way, why would they treat their employees with more respect?

    6. Re:Need vs Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Where are whites being discriminated against, other than in conspiracy theories?

      By "progressives" all over the fucking place.

      For example:

      Stacey Evans gets shouted down at Netroots conference

      Democrat Stacey Evans’ speech to a conference of progressive activists descended into chaos on Saturday, as protesters interrupted her repeatedly and she struggled to make herself heard over chants of “support black women.”

      Evans, a Smyrna state legislator who is white, expected a tough audience at the Netroots Nation event, where her rival Stacey Abrams was treated like royalty. But she said she at least expected to be able to make it through her remarks.

      That didn’t happen.

      Almost as soon as she took the stage, a ring of demonstrators – some holding stark signs criticizing her – fanned out in front of Evans. The chanting soon followed. Pleading repeatedly for the room to speaks – “let’s talk through it,” she implored – the demonstrators at times drowned her out.

      ...

      One of the demonstrators, Monica Simpson, said she made her stand because she wanted to show she was “true to progressive values.”

      Asked why Evans hasn’t met that standard, Simpson couldn’t point to any votes or policy stances. But she said she wants “a candidate that truly speaks to my community.” [the blatant racist...]

      “This is our opportunity, especially as black women, to make it known or clear that this is standing on true progressive values,” said Simpson, who lives in Atlanta. “And if you’re not, we’re going to make that clear.”

    7. Re:Need vs Politics by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful
      So if a black person claimed that they had personally never experienced racism, it must also mean that it doesn't exist? Let's see how it scans for fun:

      Black males are not oppressed. I am a black male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible conservative places, run by righties, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat black males badly. I know a lot of conservative republicans, and none of them want black males to be treated badly.

      The people I see complaining about the treatment of black males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.

      While I'm not going to suggest that racism doesn't exist (there are plenty of scientific studies or statistical analysis of data that have found racial bias exists or cannot explain race-based gaps for different outcomes) I would argue that the people on both sides who are creating or perpetuating a victim narrative should just fuck off because they're not doing anything to help.

    8. Re:Need vs Politics by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Now try looking for Trans, PoC, etc Queer people - yeah. They barely exist.

      That'd be because (aside from "PoC"), they do barely exist, at least in the US. It's well under a percent for trans people, and 1-2 percent queer/lesbian/gay. I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I wouldn't be surprised to find they're actually overrepresented in the media (I can't find simple numbers with a quick Google search, but Wikipedia gives ~4% for regular broadcast TV characters, which is surprisingly close to the right fraction). And as for "PoC": they're again usually represented at around the expected demographic fraction (13% of movie characters vs. 13.6% of the population, for e.g.), except for IIRC Asians, who tend to be overrepresented, and Mexicans, who tend to be underrepresented.

      Mind you, people will still complain because most people have no idea what the demographics in the US actually are (such as for e.g. this, admittedly quite dated, study), and for many special interests groups, that's a feature, not a bug. A news story of "only 3 of the 20 Oscar nominees are black!" gets clicks, "black actors slightly overrepresented at the Oscars" does not.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Need vs Politics by avandesande · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I was a early teenager I became aware that there was a technical jobs thing at the local army base for high school students but when I went to apply I found out it was only for minorities. It didn't matter that parents were divorced and we were dirt poor being white was too much.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:Need vs Politics by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now, obviously foreigners (non-citizens) face massive systematic discrimination (perhaps even to the point of oppression) by the US government - facing severe restrictions on living and working and traveling anywhere...

      As they do everywhere in the world to a greater degree than in the US. Although only a few countries still have explicitly racial immigration policies (Japan), most countries are not as used to diversity as the US.

      In the US, the only right a naturalized citizen does not have is to become President, because this is an exception specified in the Constitution. In a certain neighboring country, the list of restrictions is a little more extensive.

      Under the Mexican constitution, naturalized citizens are prohibited from serving in a wide array of positions, mostly governmental. Naturalized Mexicans cannot occupy any of following posts:

      The Mexican military during peacetime[5]
      Policeman[5]
      Captain, pilot, or crew member on any[dubious – discuss] Mexican-flagged vessel or aircraft[5]
      President of Mexico[6]
      Member of the Congress of Mexico[7]
      Member of the Supreme Court of Mexico[8]
      Governor of a Mexican state[9]
      Mayor or member of the legislature of Mexico City[10]

    11. Re: Need vs Politics by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, SJWs won't rest until everyone is treated equitably regardless of age, race, color, gender, or sexual identity. The horror!

      So tell me something, what's equal about hiring the trans black lesbian with no experience over the person with 8 years experience? Yeah, I thought so. Now you know why James Damore wrote that 'manifesto' as the media likes to call it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re: Need vs Politics by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      PopeRatzo doesn't have to worry about being discriminated against. He owns property and lives off a nice fat pension.

      Goddamn right, but I don't start collecting my pension for a while yet. And I might not even need the pension if my investment in TrumpCoin pays off.

      So basically what he's saying is: "I've got mine, so screw you Jack".

      Well, Jack is kind of an asshole, but I will concede your point.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. As a white man... by mellon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I gotta say, I get treated pretty nicely. When I was a twenty-something I was really resentful because I couldn't figure out how to get dates. I want to believe that there is more to this kerfuffle than that, but I really just don't get it. Why are my youthful brethren so discontent?

    1. Re:As a white man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You get treated nicely. Given your Slashdot user number, it's highly likely you've been here for almost 2 decades. That would mean you've figured out the corporate game and how to keep your mouth shut. You may have already been promoted and given generous raises.

      Young men getting shoved to the back of the class or young men getting passed over for promotions or not getting accepted to college because they are white and male is a different thing than you've experienced. But - they are not a protected class. Are we creating a disenchanted class of young white men without prospects? Maybe not yet, but when you have a cadre of young men without jobs, passed over for promotions and educational opportunities, they will find other ways to spend their time. Witness Charlottesburg. Lot of people apparently with plenty of time on their hands to create havoc and now murder.

      It may sound like grievance mongering, and you may not buy the thesis, but lots of young people with nothing to do equals time wasted spent on other things that are not productive to society. That goes for all races, genders, etc.

    2. Re:As a white man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the white 20 year old males are being blamed for everything.

      Did you ever feel in YOUR twenties that you were being blamed for society? Were YOU ever being told to "check your privilege" simply because you were a white male? That, somehow, it was YOUR fault and YOU should feel ashamed due to an accident of your birth?

      They're discontent because of the "SJW" -- VERY left wing, very liberal, people wanting to make a mark on the world and, instead of voting, are taking more direct action. Unfortunately, they implicitly blame the individual when that individual didn't chose their parents, skin colour, or genetic make-up (under the guise of blaming segments of society).

    3. Re:As a white man... by Altus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to think that this is a new phenomenon... that the idea that we should treat women and minorities decently is somehow just coming up... or the idea that equal representation might be an important thing for minorities, or that you shouldn't sexually harass co-workers....

      All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:As a white man... by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To some degree the culture wars are a struggle between groups striving to reduce the other group to a bit player in their personal dramas. When you're young, you think the frustrations of your group are unique -- which in a way they are.

      When you're a female engineer, you face patronization, and an entrenched belief that no women can't be good at what you do. And that sucks. Yet it makes my skin crawl to see a wealthy middle class woman lecture a poor working class man about his "privilege". It's not that she's wrong; being male, particularly white male, confers certain privileges. But not only does it completely ignore the privileges of class that he does not enjoy, it's reducing all that individual's unique life experiences to a scheme.

      The bottom line is people don't have enough compassion for each other. And that's because they treat compassion as a resource; if I spare compassion for *that* group, I won't have enough left over for *my* group.

      Compassion is not a resource, it is a habit of mind. What's more it's an essential tool in the the human cognitive framework; the way we enter another's skin and come to understand him or her as an individual. All these pointless arguments, you will note, take place in terms of archetypes (e.g. the average woman or man).

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:As a white man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You ignored his questions and remade the argument to make him look anti-egalitarian. Here it is again:

      Did you ever feel in YOUR twenties that you were being blamed for society? Were YOU ever being told to "check your privilege" simply because you were a white male? That, somehow, it was YOUR fault and YOU should feel ashamed due to an accident of your birth?

      These things were not in the '90's. In '85 nobody said "check your privilege". Nobody called a computer club in '99 bigoted cisgender neo-nazis because the only people that showed up were socially ostracized teenage boys. Society has radically changed in the last ten years let alone twenty.

    6. Re:As a white man... by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.

      My generation was held to a higher standard. We were taught to treat everybody equally.

      Sadly that's no longer the case. Mainstream media is rampant with anti-white and anti-male writing, and at its most hysterical when the two intersect.

    7. Re:As a white man... by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That advice applies to everyone, not just white males.

  3. False representation/slander? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The memo not only does NOT make the claim that women are less suited to tech roles and leadership roles, it makes the counter claim, that men have designed those roles to make them less friendly to women and that by altering those roles we can improve diversity and decrease the gender gap.

    But I've yet to see a single neoliberal source treat the memo honestly, every neoliberal source I've seen treats Damore radically different than his behavior reflects. I don't agree with everything he says, but to claim he is against diversity is straight slander here.

    1. Re:False representation/slander? by m00sh · · Score: 3, Informative

      The memo not only does NOT make the claim that women are less suited to tech roles and leadership roles, it makes the counter claim, that men have designed those roles to make them less friendly to women and that by altering those roles we can improve diversity and decrease the gender gap.

      But I've yet to see a single neoliberal source treat the memo honestly, every neoliberal source I've seen treats Damore radically different than his behavior reflects. I don't agree with everything he says, but to claim he is against diversity is straight slander here.

      He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

      Maybe he should have hiring standards had been changed, or hiring standards had been altered to accommodate but he said LOWERED.

    2. Re:False representation/slander? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, they have been lowered.. he didn't sugar coat the truth.

    3. Re:False representation/slander? by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

      FWIW, I work for Google and interview software engineering candidates. I have never, ever been told to go easier on diversity candidates, or indeed anything other than to apply the same rigorous standard to all. My colleagues on the hiring committees (who make hire/no-hire decisions) say the same, and I see no evidence of bias in which people I've interviewed got offers... maybe half of the good ones got offers, none of the borderline or below got offers, and I see no gender or racial correlations at all.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:False representation/slander? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

      True. But he doesn't say that is because women are inherently less capable, but inherently less interested, so the standards have to be lowered because the female candidate pool is shallower.

      Disclaimer: I am just trying to clarify what James wrote. I am not agreeing with it. I like working with chicks.

    5. Re:False representation/slander? by harrkev · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think that the bigger issue is that, generally, women are not as interested in tech jobs as guys are.

      Women are 100% as capable as men in tech fields -- when they choose those fields. I have known some great women engineers.

      However, women only make up approximately 20% of I.T. related degrees earned.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    6. Re:False representation/slander? by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're going to attempt to have more employees of category X in your company than exist naturally in the available labor pool, then you're going to have to lower hiring standards. The only ways you don't is if you assume people in category X are more skilled on average or if you pay higher wages to people in category X so you can maintain the same level of quality but draw from the best individuals among category X. I suspect that the people who disagree with what the memo/manifesto had to say are going to argue that in favor of the first being true as it directly contradicts the notion that biology doesn't play a role, and probably would reject the second as well because it's going to result in a perception of non-equal pay based on lack of merit, unless all of the category X people are more skilled than everyone else who's not in category X.

      I just don't see any other way to accomplish this without lowering the bar. Say you ran a company and only wanted to hire people who are left handed (about 10% of the population, but as an interesting aside it is estimated that men are more likely to be left-handed than women for whatever reason) and that for the job you are hiring people, dominant hand plays no role in actual performance (so we're not hiring for a baseball team). How could you not reduce hiring standards if you're actively ignoring some 90% (this assumes left and right-handed people are equally likely to apply for the job) of the labor pool for artificial reasons?

      I think some people just want to jump on this argument or line of thinking because it goes against their ideas of increasing diversity, but if you stop and think about it, it also supports diversity outcomes. If you were only hiring right-handed people it also means that your company is ignoring qualified individuals in the labor pool for the same reason. Sure in this particular case, it's a smaller part of the pool so you might not have to lower standards as much, but anyone who is discriminating against any minority group is actively hurting themselves by ignoring skilled workers. Interestingly, the same is true for other aspects of the memo. If women are more likely to have some attribute (whether physical or personality) than men and having a diversity across that attribute is valuable or improves outcomes in some way, then not hiring women makes it more difficult to have employees with that attribute.

      But back to the central point, please let me know if there's some obvious approach by which you can discriminate in favor of some category of employees in excess of their representation in the labor pool without lowering standards or paying a higher wage, because I can't think of one. If you really want to see more people of category X in some job you'll need to address the number of people in the labor pool (which is probably a tangled mess of all manner of underlying factors both biological and social and not always easily solved) otherwise attempting to hire people disproportionately is just a bad move, much like trying to put the roof up before erecting any of the walls or laying the foundation.

    7. Re:False representation/slander? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except it was supported by his sources.

    8. Re:False representation/slander? by harrkev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. I have kids, so I have seen the differences between males and females. There are structural differences, including differences in the corups collosum (part of the brain). Perhaps such changes just mean that boys and girls find different sorts of things interesting.

      I have four daughters. If one of them wanted to enter the tech field, I would support them 100%. However, I am not going to try to force them to enter the field just just because somebody thinks that we need more women coders and sysadmins. I will let them decide what interests them.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    9. Re:False representation/slander? by dtandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Several of his sources said "yep, he pretty much understood our research and got it right."

  4. Fix by Tailhook · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pretend you're gay. You'll gets lots of kudos and become part of a protected class.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  5. Again??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.

    Come on, He didn't make such a claim. He said biology may play a part in women's preferences in choosing to go into the field.

  6. You get dates with good jobs by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The kind that have vanished. There's nothing more dangerous than a man, any man, with no job prospects and therefore no marriage prospects.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You get dates with good jobs by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They sort of exist. The problem is if you let them learn to speak english they turn into Americans and are quickly ruined.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:You get dates with good jobs by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The kind that have vanished.

      Bah. My son-in-law, who is a high-school dropout, not even a GED, is working as an HVAC installer for $16 per hour. He's going to do a certification course (at employer expense, and paid), and then he'll jump up to $35 per hour. My son (HS diploma) passed up a full-time job at $18 per hour doing composites fabrication to take a $10 per hour part time job at Target because he decided he needs to get his degree (wise decision) and Target will work around his school schedule. He doesn't need the money that much, though because his wife (HS diploma) is making $40K per year doing office admin work for a company that owns billboards. My other son (HS diploma) similarly passed on a decent full-time job doing cabinetry work because he wants to get his degree, so he's flipping burgers instead for $9 per hour (he lives at home). My nephew, who has nothing but a high school diploma and is somewhat slow (IQ 80 or so), is making $15 per hour working for the city maintenance crew, driving trucks and whatnot.

      And then there are all of the young people I know who do have degrees. None of them are making less than $60K, except one who chose to be a public schoolteacher, but teachers have always been poorly paid, and he went into it with his eyes open. His wife is an FBI agent, currently GS-10, so they're okay.

      Maybe I just live in the right area and you live in the wrong one, but around here employers -- at every level -- are begging for employees, and they're paying accordingly. And we have a moderate to low cost of living.

      The biggest problem I see right now is that too many young people around me are being enticed away from school by good-paying (from their perspective) jobs. Four years of school could nearly double their income in the short term, and in the long term it will do better than that. I've got my sons convinced to take the short-term hit for the long-term reward (financial and more). I've had less success with my daughter and her husband, but there are some complications in their case.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  7. Re:Is it really that difficult? by green1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And better yet, treat them exactly the same as you would treat women or minorities. That means no discriminating against people based on gender or race (as is alleged by the "discontent white males")

  8. /. lies by getuid() · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot, that's not what the memo said.

    You can agree with the memo or you can't, but at least get the f$#@ing facts straight.

    1. Re:/. lies by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seems like people who know they're wrong will never dare confirm the facts.

  9. Re:"Discontent" by green1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But don't worry, discrimination against white males is socially acceptable.

  10. White discontent? by ckatko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow. Now imagine we called black people being discriminated against "black discontent."

    Slashdot, your bias is leaking.

  11. Re:Is it really that difficult? by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well here's the thing, if you treat everyone equally then you end up with a majority of white males in various roles such as tech.
    Different people are interested in different things, and different cultures have different biases. Girls in school for instance are usually not interested in technology, and their peers will shun the few that are.

    People are different, they have different interests, different upbringing, different aspirations. Trying to artificially distort the proportion of different groups in the workplace is stupid. If people were interested in doing a particular job they would have studied for it, learned about it and applied for positions.
    In all my years working in tech, the vast majority of job applicants who have applied for jobs i've been responsible for have been white or asian males.

    If you want women and other minorities to do tech roles, then look at schools and culture. If people are interested in these fields at an early age, and not discouraged (or bullied) away from them by their peers in school, then they will pursue careers in the subjects that most interest them.
    Trying to force "diversity quotas" and other stupid shit is simply a form of discrimination against the presently dominant groups, and will result in an overall lower standard of employee. As minorities account for far fewer applicants, you will need to apply far lower standards in order to ensure the same number of successful applicants vs the larger majority group.

    There are also many professions which are typically not taken by white males, nursing for instance - are any steps being taken to increase the number of white males working as nurses?

    If 99 women and 1 man apply for 5 nursing positions, how does the hospital satisfy a diversity quota saying that 50% of nurses should be male?
    What if the diversity quota is 20%, but the one man applying has no qualifications or experience and yet 30 of the women are highly qualified and experienced?

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  12. Fuck off with your lies msmash by Marful · · Score: 5, Insightful

    with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.

    At no point in the memo was this ever stated.

    I'm fucking tired of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda.

  13. That's not what the memo said by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disagree with the memo all you like, but at least have the integrity to argue against the points it raised instead of making up some bullshit that it didn't say.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  14. Stop lying about what the memo said! by K.+S.+Van+Horn · · Score: 5, Informative

    "an internal memo... claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers."

    Goddamnit, have you people no shame whatsoever? THE MEMO DOES NOT SAY THIS. Why do you keep on repeating this lie?

  15. WRONG! and WRONG! ... Stop lying already. by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1.) He did _NOT_ criticize Googles diversity efforts per se. In fact, he applauded them. He did however express concerns that the way they are executes isn't effective and/or counter-productive to the cause and provided educated conclusions for this presumption.

    2.) He did _NOT_ claim that women are biologically less suited for tech jobs. He used solid state-of-the-art scientific research results to find explanations why women might not be interested in taking tech jobs other that the standard arguably totally insuifficient "OGM! WTF! WHITE MALE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN!" narrative/explanation.

    Please quit the lying/irresponsible spreading of falsehoods and inform yourself.
    Just be an educated slashdotter and question the official group-think narrative. Thank you.

    Here's to help you out:
    Jordan Peterson interview with James Demore (citations linked in the description of the video)
    The actual paper/memo that James Demore wrote

    You're welcome.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  16. claiming women are biologically less suited by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh my god stop lying. He made no such claim. Stop pushing your agenda down my throat. Fuck

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  17. Re:Not a white male... by Cederic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, in the UK it's legal to hire a woman ahead of a man. To hire someone that's BME ("black or minority ethnic", a phrase in use in the UK) instead of someone that's white.
    Then there's the funding available for things like university grants.
    Plus there's the fact that women can retire with a state pension at a younger age than men.
    Perhaps you weren't aware that poor white boys have the lowest educational outcomes in the country right now?
    I'll close on the constant attacks in the media. Some are subtle, some are downright nasty, and many tacitly support anti-white and/or anti-male writings on less formal channels.

    Being blamed for all the woes in the world, getting no credit for individual achievement because of "privilege", seeing laws passed that discriminate against your gender and/or race? Yeah, I wonder how white men think they are being oppressed in this society.