Damore didn't violate the Code of Conduct, in any way shape or form.
He didn't perpetuate gender stereotypes, he simply cited actual, real, scientifically vetted, average differences between men and women.
Perpetuating gender stereotypes is like deciding that the essence of being a woman is fulfilled by hormone therapy, breast implants, the construction of an artificial vagina, wearing a dress, and going to the women's restroom.
So, dateline 1960, black person in a majority white company writes about how Jim Crow laws aren't fair. Pisses off nearly every white person working at the company, causing a bigger disruption to the business than tardiness.
Explain to me exactly how it would be fair to fire this disruptive negro.
"I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
There is nothing in there that is offensive, full stop. Misrepresenting the respectful and dispassionate analysis this man did as bigoted or hateful can only happen through malice or ignorance.
He never called anyone inferior - that's your own personal sexism creeping in. He mentioned that men and women, are on average, different on several scales - he made no value judgements as to which differences or traits were inferior or superior.
Thanks for the cites - this part from quillette stands out:
"Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:
* The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
* The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink."
We live in a day and age where the only socially acceptable racism is against whites, and the only socially acceptable sexism is against men.
Perhaps it's foolish to think that it could be any other way, and that we could come to a harmonious society with equality of treatment (even if that leads to disparate outcomes), and judgement based on content of character rather than color of skin, but it seems clear now that once empowered, and in power, the alt-left has inevitably become the demons they once fought against, authoritarian, bigoted, and inflexible.
He says women are less inclined to negotiate for higher salaries. Studies show that when they do, they are often punished for being "bossy" or "shrill"
Cite, please.
are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends.
Do you also find it sexist that men are judged more harshly for *not* putting in long hours, and are expected to neglect their family and friends?
He claims that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress.
Now, let's be specific here. He says "women, on average" not "women". And he specifies:
He is LITERALLY saying that because of innate differences in women, they are INHERENTLY less likely to advance themselves or to get positions of leadership in tech.
Yes. That's a perfectly reasonable assertion, if there are differences between the free choices of men and women.
This doesn't mean that there aren't *some* women who choose a path of tech leadership, but it certainly explains why the ratio might not reflect the population.
In fact, knowing that women have more choices than men, this is actually a sign of women's empowerment - they aren't forced to run the rat race that men are socially obligated to.
The point is not ALL ideas are worthy of discussion!
Fine. We shouldn't consider sharia law and the death penalty for homosexuals as worthy for discussion. Or honor killings. Or male genital mutilation.
But talking about free choices causing differences in outcome? Really? You're going to assert *that* isn't worthy of discussion?
They are corrosive, because what woman wants to work with an asshole like that and the assholes who support him?
Every high performing, masters degree obtaining, high speed, low drag, super duper woman I know, would rather spend time with her kids, than at work. Understanding that women, even incredibly talented women, might make the choice *not* to participate in tech leadership, is *supportive* to women in the workplace. It gives them the social permission to pursue their technical career when they want to, and to *not* pursue their technical career when they want to.
Stating that approximately half of the population is by default, choosing more often to do something besides tech work, doesn't create a hostile workplace at all.
The mischaracterization of his opinion (which was about distributions and choice, not inherent inability for all members of a given group), is a willful misreading, and shows the critique of the echo chamber was spot on.
If you want to say that some ideas are off limits, then you should be more cautious with which ideas you put into that category. Like, maybe demanding that gays be killed because Allah would be a good one to put off limits, but "women make different choices than men"...that's a stretch.
Mod parent up. I don't think there can be a more damning reaction from the left than a collective freakout and immediate calls for censorship of wrongthink.
If the intent is to debunk the original author's points, screaming "bad, bad, bad thinker!", is literally the most unpersuasive move in the book.
It's almost as if nobody actually has any logical, reasoned response to his critique...
Serious question, no snark or offense intended: given your personal experience, would Google's gender disparity disappear if an appropriate number of their male engineers simply stated that they identified as female?
I think you hit the nail on the head - the whole DS9 series was about faith and religion.
That's both the reason why it alienated a bunch of strictly secular trekkies, and why it was so much more interesting and deep that any of the other ST franchises.
Now, to be clear, I'm a full-on god-does-not-exist atheist, but understanding that a vast majority (sadly) of humanity does believe in supernatural dogma, means that when you exclude faith and religion, you lose a great part of the human story.
Thank you for your detailed reply. My greatest sympathies for your distress pre-op, and any distress you have post-op when people still consider you a man. I can totally understand why people might still consider you a man, despite your surgery, but their minds, their choice - we can't force people to believe what you believe. Rather than label that "transmisogynist", I'd call that a difference in beliefs, with no malintent.
I think you make a good case for keeping transgender out of the military - the transgender journey is a serious and significant one, and cannot be minimized.
Good luck on the rest of your journey, may it be safe.
Honest questions, not trying to judge the path you've chosen to take, and certainly not trying to upset you:
1) do you believe that the surgery and treatment you've gotten has made you a woman?
2) do you believe you would have committed suicide if you had not gotten the surgery and treatment?
3) if people don't accept you as a "real" woman (if you don't "pass"), do you feel mental distress?
My guess is you can probably see how your answers to those questions would guide my argument against transgender in the military - if it really is something that has been a source of serious mental distress in your life, possibly up to and including suicidal ideations, then it would be a disqualifying factor for military service. And on the other hand, if it isn't that serious, and you could have just as easily skipped the surgery and treatment, and you aren't distressed by people who misgender you, then military service, as your natural born sex, should be perfectly reasonable without any special accommodations for your own personal beliefs about what sex you are post-op.
Anyway, again, your path is your path, and I hope nothing but the best for you, but if you could honestly answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
I'm sorry, if someone gets body mod surgery to add horns, that doesn't make them a demon, nor does that obligate me to treat them like a demon.
If someone gets body mod surgery to cut off two of their fingers on each hand, that doesn't make them a naturally three-fingered simpsons character.
Surgery does not remove the essential nature of a person.
Even tree-bark man, who got surgery to remove all those warts, didn't change his nature - he was still a guy who was covered with warts and had them removed.
Now, if you truly have the mental perspective that body mod surgery is removing a costume, and exposing your true nature, you're in the same boat as the guy from silence of the lambs, who truly believed that wearing the skin of a woman transformed him into his true nature of a woman. That's a severe mental disturbance, and people like that don't belong in the military.
Why should I treat a post-costume skeleton different than a pre-costume human on Halloween? Body modification, just like any costume, doesn't change the essential nature of someone. A boob job, or hormone treatments that increase your breast size, don't make you naturally big breasted - you're still a small breasted person who has modified their body. Bottom surgery to add a fake penis doesn't make you a man, and bottom surgery to remove your penis doesn't make you a woman - your essential nature isn't changed by the mere physical act of surgery - you've only put on a costume.
Maybe you want to take back your statement, "transgender have no mental problem", and agree with #2: bottom/top surgery + hormones is required to deal with severe mental problems, and without it, the sufferers of these mental problems will kill themselves. In this case, you're asking us to walk carefully around the self-image of transgender because they are fragile, and if you don't humor them that their body mod actually changed their nature, they'll kill themselves.
Or offer a third option besides #1 and #2. I just don't see how you can thread that needle though - either you think transgender are brittle, and we have to be careful about breaking them, or you think transgender or strong, and then we don't have to care what they think.
Slashdot Mirror
None of it was hateful. Not a single line.
And that was the conclusion, not the intro.
Why is there reason for others, on company time, to advocate for SJW policies and procedures? Aren't those explicitly disruptive?
Are you really saying that people should not be able to comment or disagree with the policies and procedures of their employer?
I can hardly imagine what you would think of a black employee discussing segregation policies of their employer in the 1950s.
Damore didn't violate the Code of Conduct, in any way shape or form.
He didn't perpetuate gender stereotypes, he simply cited actual, real, scientifically vetted, average differences between men and women.
Perpetuating gender stereotypes is like deciding that the essence of being a woman is fulfilled by hormone therapy, breast implants, the construction of an artificial vagina, wearing a dress, and going to the women's restroom.
The Cernovich cite has hyperlinked text to his external references:
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/...
For example:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2...
If there is any particular assertion he makes that you find incorrect, can you refute it through argument?
So, dateline 1960, black person in a majority white company writes about how Jim Crow laws aren't fair. Pisses off nearly every white person working at the company, causing a bigger disruption to the business than tardiness.
Explain to me exactly how it would be fair to fire this disruptive negro.
Yes, I did read it. Did you?
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/...
"I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)."
There is nothing in there that is offensive, full stop. Misrepresenting the respectful and dispassionate analysis this man did as bigoted or hateful can only happen through malice or ignorance.
He never called anyone inferior - that's your own personal sexism creeping in. He mentioned that men and women, are on average, different on several scales - he made no value judgements as to which differences or traits were inferior or superior.
Read the whole thing, and try again:
https://medium.com/@Cernovich/...
Quote exactly where he uses the word "inferior".
Thanks for the cites - this part from quillette stands out:
"Here, I just want to take a step back from the memo controversy, to highlight a paradox at the heart of the ‘equality and diversity’ dogma that dominates American corporate life. The memo didn’t address this paradox directly, but I think it’s implicit in the author’s critique of Google’s diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:
* The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;
* The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink."
Never heard that paradox laid out so bare before.
In this case, a biologist called upon his employer to take actual, real life, distribution differences between the sexes seriously.
So...biologist calls on his employer to take evolution seriously, and then gets fired because the employer believes in young-Earth creationism.
FTFY
All he has to do is identify as a trans-trans-gender :)
I suppose, at the end, it'll be for the courts to decide:
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/...
He was citing literature on the subject, showing sex-based differences in neuroticism:
https://www.cambridge.org/core...
Can you now be fired for quoting scientific literature?
It seems like Google has made it clear that their work environment is definitively hostile towards anyone who dares question feminist dogma.
Of course, the only way they'll learn that lesson is if they're taken to court over this, for unlawful firing.
We live in a day and age where the only socially acceptable racism is against whites, and the only socially acceptable sexism is against men.
Perhaps it's foolish to think that it could be any other way, and that we could come to a harmonious society with equality of treatment (even if that leads to disparate outcomes), and judgement based on content of character rather than color of skin, but it seems clear now that once empowered, and in power, the alt-left has inevitably become the demons they once fought against, authoritarian, bigoted, and inflexible.
Shame on google.
Cite, please.
Do you also find it sexist that men are judged more harshly for *not* putting in long hours, and are expected to neglect their family and friends?
Now, let's be specific here. He says "women, on average" not "women". And he specifies:
"Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance)."
And, he's right - https://www.cambridge.org/core...
Now, that being said, THANK YOU. Argument is the answer, not name calling, or shaming, or shunning, or deciding that certain topics are off limits.
Yes. That's a perfectly reasonable assertion, if there are differences between the free choices of men and women.
This doesn't mean that there aren't *some* women who choose a path of tech leadership, but it certainly explains why the ratio might not reflect the population.
In fact, knowing that women have more choices than men, this is actually a sign of women's empowerment - they aren't forced to run the rat race that men are socially obligated to.
Fine. We shouldn't consider sharia law and the death penalty for homosexuals as worthy for discussion. Or honor killings. Or male genital mutilation.
But talking about free choices causing differences in outcome? Really? You're going to assert *that* isn't worthy of discussion?
Every high performing, masters degree obtaining, high speed, low drag, super duper woman I know, would rather spend time with her kids, than at work. Understanding that women, even incredibly talented women, might make the choice *not* to participate in tech leadership, is *supportive* to women in the workplace. It gives them the social permission to pursue their technical career when they want to, and to *not* pursue their technical career when they want to.
Are you against work/life balance?
Stating that approximately half of the population is by default, choosing more often to do something besides tech work, doesn't create a hostile workplace at all.
The mischaracterization of his opinion (which was about distributions and choice, not inherent inability for all members of a given group), is a willful misreading, and shows the critique of the echo chamber was spot on.
If you want to say that some ideas are off limits, then you should be more cautious with which ideas you put into that category. Like, maybe demanding that gays be killed because Allah would be a good one to put off limits, but "women make different choices than men"...that's a stretch.
Your cite supports him. From the first hit:
"Results indicated that no gender differences in programming performance were found after controlling for the effect of student ability."
So...after you control for ability (which may be driven by gender), there's no difference in performance.
Would you like to perhaps be more specific in your critique?
Please, criticize a single one of his arguments.
Note, screaming "everything they say is absolutely wrong and we shouldn't tolerate such violent, corrosive thoughts!", is *not* a critique.
Mod parent up. I don't think there can be a more damning reaction from the left than a collective freakout and immediate calls for censorship of wrongthink.
If the intent is to debunk the original author's points, screaming "bad, bad, bad thinker!", is literally the most unpersuasive move in the book.
It's almost as if nobody actually has any logical, reasoned response to his critique...
Serious question, no snark or offense intended: given your personal experience, would Google's gender disparity disappear if an appropriate number of their male engineers simply stated that they identified as female?
I think you hit the nail on the head - the whole DS9 series was about faith and religion.
That's both the reason why it alienated a bunch of strictly secular trekkies, and why it was so much more interesting and deep that any of the other ST franchises.
Now, to be clear, I'm a full-on god-does-not-exist atheist, but understanding that a vast majority (sadly) of humanity does believe in supernatural dogma, means that when you exclude faith and religion, you lose a great part of the human story.
TNG had a better actor, OS had a better captain :)
Thank you for your detailed reply. My greatest sympathies for your distress pre-op, and any distress you have post-op when people still consider you a man. I can totally understand why people might still consider you a man, despite your surgery, but their minds, their choice - we can't force people to believe what you believe. Rather than label that "transmisogynist", I'd call that a difference in beliefs, with no malintent.
I think you make a good case for keeping transgender out of the military - the transgender journey is a serious and significant one, and cannot be minimized.
Good luck on the rest of your journey, may it be safe.
Honest questions, not trying to judge the path you've chosen to take, and certainly not trying to upset you:
1) do you believe that the surgery and treatment you've gotten has made you a woman?
2) do you believe you would have committed suicide if you had not gotten the surgery and treatment?
3) if people don't accept you as a "real" woman (if you don't "pass"), do you feel mental distress?
My guess is you can probably see how your answers to those questions would guide my argument against transgender in the military - if it really is something that has been a source of serious mental distress in your life, possibly up to and including suicidal ideations, then it would be a disqualifying factor for military service. And on the other hand, if it isn't that serious, and you could have just as easily skipped the surgery and treatment, and you aren't distressed by people who misgender you, then military service, as your natural born sex, should be perfectly reasonable without any special accommodations for your own personal beliefs about what sex you are post-op.
Anyway, again, your path is your path, and I hope nothing but the best for you, but if you could honestly answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
I'm sorry, if someone gets body mod surgery to add horns, that doesn't make them a demon, nor does that obligate me to treat them like a demon.
If someone gets body mod surgery to cut off two of their fingers on each hand, that doesn't make them a naturally three-fingered simpsons character.
Surgery does not remove the essential nature of a person.
Even tree-bark man, who got surgery to remove all those warts, didn't change his nature - he was still a guy who was covered with warts and had them removed.
Now, if you truly have the mental perspective that body mod surgery is removing a costume, and exposing your true nature, you're in the same boat as the guy from silence of the lambs, who truly believed that wearing the skin of a woman transformed him into his true nature of a woman. That's a severe mental disturbance, and people like that don't belong in the military.
Why should I treat a post-costume skeleton different than a pre-costume human on Halloween? Body modification, just like any costume, doesn't change the essential nature of someone. A boob job, or hormone treatments that increase your breast size, don't make you naturally big breasted - you're still a small breasted person who has modified their body. Bottom surgery to add a fake penis doesn't make you a man, and bottom surgery to remove your penis doesn't make you a woman - your essential nature isn't changed by the mere physical act of surgery - you've only put on a costume.
Maybe you want to take back your statement, "transgender have no mental problem", and agree with #2: bottom/top surgery + hormones is required to deal with severe mental problems, and without it, the sufferers of these mental problems will kill themselves. In this case, you're asking us to walk carefully around the self-image of transgender because they are fragile, and if you don't humor them that their body mod actually changed their nature, they'll kill themselves.
Or offer a third option besides #1 and #2. I just don't see how you can thread that needle though - either you think transgender are brittle, and we have to be careful about breaking them, or you think transgender or strong, and then we don't have to care what they think.