Women and men are equal on many terms. If they're not, then the "inequality" is due to biological reasons. Men cannot deliver babies, even if they wanted to. And women cannot get anyone else pregnant because they don't produce sperms. Sportive men are usually stronger and faster than women.
Doesn't really explain women being paid less for doing identical office jobs though. Doesn't explain toxic masculinity leading to depression and suicide and violence among men either.
That's why a female boxer was almost killed by her transgender opponent. The transgender woman could easily beat the shit out of her because "she" is actually man.
Presumably you mean Fallon Fox. That's a good example of why feminism is needed in the west, because there are issues we need to figure out and feminist theory provides a framework and decades of research and thought to help us do it.
There is also a lot of straight up transphobia, like describing her as a man, that feminists have experience of tackling due to decades of dealing with misogyny and homophobia and other assorted bigotry.
It's kind of sad that over here in the West we're beating each other over the head over who's the most oppressed special snowflake
I agree. This stupid meme about straight white males being oppressed now needs to stop. It's not true, it's never that simple and all it does it make things worse for straight white men. Some are apparently too scared to even talk to women now.
You think you are being edgy, but if you read the code you will see that this comment is not in itself problematic.
If you addressed it to someone and they asked you to stop but you did it again, or if you proposed to give some specific person a hug there might be a case to answer. But just saying someone needs a hug doesn't seem to be an issue.
Unfortunately this is typical of the massive over-reaction by people who didn't really read it, or who are deliberately trying to misrepresent the content.
I agree that Sir Tim's comments were misconstrued and he should not have been pushed out. But surely having a code of conduct would help people like Sir Tim, because they could point to it and say "what I did is allowed in this organization", or they could read it and realize that certain jokes won't be appreciated.
Without any rules we only have mob justice.
In fact, had this code of conduct been in place Sir Tim might have been able to make a complaint about the mobbing on Twitter.
The community enforced that. And if there wasn't consensus, the founder decided.
That can kinda work for smaller, less culturally diverse communities where people aren't really working on some shared project together, e.g. a forum. But FreeBSD needs developers from all over the world and as we have seen with other open source projects, failure to state what is not acceptable and failure to take action against people being dicks can damage them hugely.
If you're forced to consider every statement for intent, and determine if it rises to the level of a community defined understanding of "being a dick", it significantly limits the ability to complain about all but the most egregious conduct.
Precisely why this code of conduct just flat out says "don't do X", not "if they intended X". There has to be a bit of leeway for genuine mistakes, but making everything a judgement call by the community/site owner makes complaining much harder.
It's impossible to create any practical rule governing human behaviour that enumerates every specific bad action. Just look at the law of any country, none of them are very specific.
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had. How much they were retweeted, how much they shaped the discourse.
Just comparing the language in the tweets to some of the posts on Slashdot suggests that some people were heavily influenced. Usually the ones who insist that the Russians had no effect on anything.
Books themselves are in decline, at least in the English speaking countries I'm familiar with. They all seem to have clickbait titles and are thin on detail.
For me the lack of good magazines to serve as a gateway into technical books is what really stopped me buying glued together bits of dead tree.
Your own link says the opposite of what your are claiming.
For a start, girls have lead since 2000, way before the change came in. And the new test is 100% exam based, rather than looking at consistent ability over the entire course.
And even then, the gap is lower than it was 10 years ago.
It's not a political issue. Damore lost because he drew his own conclusions that are not supported by the studies he cited. The Labour Board aren't going to believe him over the authors of the studies.
Exactly the same thing will happen in court. Just watch.
"It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me)"
How much clearer does it have to be for you to admit the truth?
The problem is that the labour board read the studies and listened to their authors. This is totally unfair to rationals like Damore, who intend for the reader to blindly accept their interpretation without question.
Implicit in your argument is that other people should have their freedom of speech curtailed because criticism might discourage you from expressing your opinion.
In other words you only want freedom of speech to apply to people who agree with you and never hurt your feelings.
If you want freedom from consequences your only option is to speak anonymously. Weirdly you seem to know this, Mr AC.
When the story first broke, I didn't even bother checking Damore's exact references on the science. A quick google search will turn up tens of thousands of journal articles substantiating that the gender differences he specified do in fact exist.
That pretty much sums up what Damore did too.
It's the classic internet rational technique of googling a few studies that superficially appear to support your established view, but not actually reading them.
In this case, the mistake is assuming that the differences are great enough to account for the gender gap at Google. The authors of the studies have said that they are not, and that the conclusions drawn by Damore are unwarranted.
Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
Check out his Twitter feed. Even after the authors of the studies he cited debunked him, and people tweeted those debunkings at him multiple times, he just doubled down on his mistake.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
Strange that so many people on a tech news site don't seem to understand how computers work. If you send someone a file, you can't stop them sending it to someone else. Well, you can try, you can add DRM or something, but Damore didn't. As the Labour Board points out, any reasonable person would have realized that circulating the memo, even to just 8 people, meant it was out of Damore's control and, given its inflammatory nature, likely to be shared further.
He was working at Google at the time, a company that builds products around sharing stuff. The whole culture at Google is to share, via internal mailing lists and forums. He was sharing his memo... But somehow it's other people's fault that it was shared.
The research that Damore cited doesn't say what you and he think it says. The authors of those studies have publicly stated as much.
The mistake both you and Damore made is that while there are differences between men and women that are backed up by that research, the CONCLUSION you are drawing from those differences is not warranted. The differences are so small as to be irrelevant in this context and certainly not able to explain the gender gap at Google.
There's no point arguing with me about this, you need to take it up with the authors of the studies that Damore cited. Because unless they recant and beg forgiveness every court is going to cite them as evidence that Damore was just flat out wrong. In fact it's worse than that, because the only possible explanations are that Damore deliberately mis-represented the science or is too dumb to understand it.
If Google had done nothing they would have opened themselves up to hostile workplace and discrimination lawsuits. The Labour Board memo makes that clear.
Straw man. No one is saying there are not differences. They are saying that the science the memo cites does not justify the conclusion the memo reached. The authors of the studies have said that publicly.
You can't even argue this one. If the authors of the study are right then the memo is wrong. If the authors of the study are wrong then the study is using debunked studies and has no credibility.
Also, fuck you for accusing me of lying. At least do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting my posts and making false accusations. Aside from anything else it makes you look like a prat because everyone can see what I wrote for themselves. And it's not even me saying this now, it's the labour board.
And everything Obama did is automatically wrong, so...
I think it's safe to assume Sophir is a left winger.
Because that really matters with lawyers. It's literally impossible for them to issue a legal opinion based on case law, judicial opinions and statutes without applying their own political bias. And well, you did assume you had one, so that's as good as actual proof.
Of course, there is no way to objectively check this legal opinion because the law is just a vague expression of political leaning, not an application of rules, logic and precedent.
And don't forget Obama gave her a job, so she must be wrong.
Trump was dumb to leave all these Obama holdovers in place.
He's got to finish firing all his own people first. He should do Mueller next.
I'm actually a little disappointed. I was hoping that Damore's lawsuit might see decades of social study and feminist theory rigorously tested in court, or at least used to make some good arguments debunking his arguments which are fairly typical of the stuff we see on the internet quite often.
It won't come to that though. The memo's attempt to justify itself with science was so catastrophically botched that it basically debunks itself. It will get shredded in court, if this even gets that far. The best we can hope for is for the authors of those reports to give evidence against Damore, because it will be both interesting and hilarious when he is forced to either be lectured on his mistake or effectively argue against himself.
Read the article I linked to, they interviewed the actual authors of the study. Not some other scientists, the people who wrote the studies that Damore cited as scientific evidence in his memo. And they said in clear, unambiguous language that his conclusions were unwarranted.
The main issue is not that there are not differences between genders, no one is disputing that. The problem is the degree to which they influence career choice and performance. The authors of the actual studies Damore cites say that the differences are small and would not account for the low percentage of women working at Google.
Perhaps Damore will cite those other people you found in his lawsuit. The problem is that the court will consider the memo as it was when he circulated it at Google. He can't very well try to argue against the authors of the studies he cites as evidence of his own views, so it's hard to see how he can win on the grounds of his memo being scientifically sound.
Great example of how stereotypes can be harmful. In the UK girls overtook boys in maths at school over a decade ago. They are measurably better at maths than boys, once the stereotypes about girls being bad at maths are addressed. Efforts are also being made to address the things that cause boys to lag behind in maths, because no one seriously thinks that boys are biologically inferior with numbers.
Another interested and related example is how in some European countries with high levels of gender equality the number of women studying STEM is rather low, yet in countries where women are widely oppressed like Iran they are actually the majority. Turns out that because engineering and medicine are not prestigious careers in Iran they are often majority female at university, but in European countries even when there is equality in wages and conditions those centuries of cultural stereotypes are really hard to shake off, especially if it feels like the battle has already been won.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "asshole".
Women and men are equal on many terms. If they're not, then the "inequality" is due to biological reasons. Men cannot deliver babies, even if they wanted to. And women cannot get anyone else pregnant because they don't produce sperms. Sportive men are usually stronger and faster than women.
Doesn't really explain women being paid less for doing identical office jobs though. Doesn't explain toxic masculinity leading to depression and suicide and violence among men either.
That's why a female boxer was almost killed by her transgender opponent. The transgender woman could easily beat the shit out of her because "she" is actually man.
Presumably you mean Fallon Fox. That's a good example of why feminism is needed in the west, because there are issues we need to figure out and feminist theory provides a framework and decades of research and thought to help us do it.
There is also a lot of straight up transphobia, like describing her as a man, that feminists have experience of tackling due to decades of dealing with misogyny and homophobia and other assorted bigotry.
It's kind of sad that over here in the West we're beating each other over the head over who's the most oppressed special snowflake
I agree. This stupid meme about straight white males being oppressed now needs to stop. It's not true, it's never that simple and all it does it make things worse for straight white men. Some are apparently too scared to even talk to women now.
Someone at FreeBSD needs a hug.
You think you are being edgy, but if you read the code you will see that this comment is not in itself problematic.
If you addressed it to someone and they asked you to stop but you did it again, or if you proposed to give some specific person a hug there might be a case to answer. But just saying someone needs a hug doesn't seem to be an issue.
Unfortunately this is typical of the massive over-reaction by people who didn't really read it, or who are deliberately trying to misrepresent the content.
I agree that Sir Tim's comments were misconstrued and he should not have been pushed out. But surely having a code of conduct would help people like Sir Tim, because they could point to it and say "what I did is allowed in this organization", or they could read it and realize that certain jokes won't be appreciated.
Without any rules we only have mob justice.
In fact, had this code of conduct been in place Sir Tim might have been able to make a complaint about the mobbing on Twitter.
The community enforced that. And if there wasn't consensus, the founder decided.
That can kinda work for smaller, less culturally diverse communities where people aren't really working on some shared project together, e.g. a forum. But FreeBSD needs developers from all over the world and as we have seen with other open source projects, failure to state what is not acceptable and failure to take action against people being dicks can damage them hugely.
If you're forced to consider every statement for intent, and determine if it rises to the level of a community defined understanding of "being a dick", it significantly limits the ability to complain about all but the most egregious conduct.
Precisely why this code of conduct just flat out says "don't do X", not "if they intended X". There has to be a bit of leeway for genuine mistakes, but making everything a judgement call by the community/site owner makes complaining much harder.
It's impossible to create any practical rule governing human behaviour that enumerates every specific bad action. Just look at the law of any country, none of them are very specific.
Feminism is the implementation of egalitarianism.
The relevant metric is how much influence these tweets had. How much they were retweeted, how much they shaped the discourse.
Just comparing the language in the tweets to some of the posts on Slashdot suggests that some people were heavily influenced. Usually the ones who insist that the Russians had no effect on anything.
You see the same behaviour with cult members.
Books themselves are in decline, at least in the English speaking countries I'm familiar with. They all seem to have clickbait titles and are thin on detail.
For me the lack of good magazines to serve as a gateway into technical books is what really stopped me buying glued together bits of dead tree.
Your own link says the opposite of what your are claiming.
For a start, girls have lead since 2000, way before the change came in. And the new test is 100% exam based, rather than looking at consistent ability over the entire course.
And even then, the gap is lower than it was 10 years ago.
You thought no one would check, didn't you?
It's not a political issue. Damore lost because he drew his own conclusions that are not supported by the studies he cited. The Labour Board aren't going to believe him over the authors of the studies.
Exactly the same thing will happen in court. Just watch.
"it's natural"
Yet you offer no evidence to back that up and the authors of the studies Damore cites disagree with you.
I don't mean to single you out, but it's saddening how few people in this discussion even understand what the argument is.
"It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. Thatâ(TM)s a huge stretch to me)"
How much clearer does it have to be for you to admit the truth?
The problem is that the labour board read the studies and listened to their authors. This is totally unfair to rationals like Damore, who intend for the reader to blindly accept their interpretation without question.
Implicit in your argument is that other people should have their freedom of speech curtailed because criticism might discourage you from expressing your opinion.
In other words you only want freedom of speech to apply to people who agree with you and never hurt your feelings.
If you want freedom from consequences your only option is to speak anonymously. Weirdly you seem to know this, Mr AC.
How does being a pussy make you bad at maths? If anything, there seems to be a correlation with having a pussy and being good at maths.
When the story first broke, I didn't even bother checking Damore's exact references on the science. A quick google search will turn up tens of thousands of journal articles substantiating that the gender differences he specified do in fact exist.
That pretty much sums up what Damore did too.
It's the classic internet rational technique of googling a few studies that superficially appear to support your established view, but not actually reading them.
In this case, the mistake is assuming that the differences are great enough to account for the gender gap at Google. The authors of the studies have said that they are not, and that the conclusions drawn by Damore are unwarranted.
Some people can't be corrected, that's true enough, but honestly, I don't think that was the case for him
Check out his Twitter feed. Even after the authors of the studies he cited debunked him, and people tweeted those debunkings at him multiple times, he just doubled down on his mistake.
He distributed the memo inside an official working group of ~8 people. He didn't expand the memo behind that. Others did it for him.
Strange that so many people on a tech news site don't seem to understand how computers work. If you send someone a file, you can't stop them sending it to someone else. Well, you can try, you can add DRM or something, but Damore didn't. As the Labour Board points out, any reasonable person would have realized that circulating the memo, even to just 8 people, meant it was out of Damore's control and, given its inflammatory nature, likely to be shared further.
He was working at Google at the time, a company that builds products around sharing stuff. The whole culture at Google is to share, via internal mailing lists and forums. He was sharing his memo... But somehow it's other people's fault that it was shared.
The research that Damore cited doesn't say what you and he think it says. The authors of those studies have publicly stated as much.
The mistake both you and Damore made is that while there are differences between men and women that are backed up by that research, the CONCLUSION you are drawing from those differences is not warranted. The differences are so small as to be irrelevant in this context and certainly not able to explain the gender gap at Google.
There's no point arguing with me about this, you need to take it up with the authors of the studies that Damore cited. Because unless they recant and beg forgiveness every court is going to cite them as evidence that Damore was just flat out wrong. In fact it's worse than that, because the only possible explanations are that Damore deliberately mis-represented the science or is too dumb to understand it.
Why are you, by the way?
If Google had done nothing they would have opened themselves up to hostile workplace and discrimination lawsuits. The Labour Board memo makes that clear.
Straw man. No one is saying there are not differences. They are saying that the science the memo cites does not justify the conclusion the memo reached. The authors of the studies have said that publicly.
You can't even argue this one. If the authors of the study are right then the memo is wrong. If the authors of the study are wrong then the study is using debunked studies and has no credibility.
Also, fuck you for accusing me of lying. At least do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting my posts and making false accusations. Aside from anything else it makes you look like a prat because everyone can see what I wrote for themselves. And it's not even me saying this now, it's the labour board.
She was appointed by Obama
And everything Obama did is automatically wrong, so...
I think it's safe to assume Sophir is a left winger.
Because that really matters with lawyers. It's literally impossible for them to issue a legal opinion based on case law, judicial opinions and statutes without applying their own political bias. And well, you did assume you had one, so that's as good as actual proof.
Of course, there is no way to objectively check this legal opinion because the law is just a vague expression of political leaning, not an application of rules, logic and precedent.
And don't forget Obama gave her a job, so she must be wrong.
Trump was dumb to leave all these Obama holdovers in place.
He's got to finish firing all his own people first. He should do Mueller next.
I'm actually a little disappointed. I was hoping that Damore's lawsuit might see decades of social study and feminist theory rigorously tested in court, or at least used to make some good arguments debunking his arguments which are fairly typical of the stuff we see on the internet quite often.
It won't come to that though. The memo's attempt to justify itself with science was so catastrophically botched that it basically debunks itself. It will get shredded in court, if this even gets that far. The best we can hope for is for the authors of those reports to give evidence against Damore, because it will be both interesting and hilarious when he is forced to either be lectured on his mistake or effectively argue against himself.
Read the article I linked to, they interviewed the actual authors of the study. Not some other scientists, the people who wrote the studies that Damore cited as scientific evidence in his memo. And they said in clear, unambiguous language that his conclusions were unwarranted.
The main issue is not that there are not differences between genders, no one is disputing that. The problem is the degree to which they influence career choice and performance. The authors of the actual studies Damore cites say that the differences are small and would not account for the low percentage of women working at Google.
Perhaps Damore will cite those other people you found in his lawsuit. The problem is that the court will consider the memo as it was when he circulated it at Google. He can't very well try to argue against the authors of the studies he cites as evidence of his own views, so it's hard to see how he can win on the grounds of his memo being scientifically sound.
Her reason: "Math is too difficult"
Great example of how stereotypes can be harmful. In the UK girls overtook boys in maths at school over a decade ago. They are measurably better at maths than boys, once the stereotypes about girls being bad at maths are addressed. Efforts are also being made to address the things that cause boys to lag behind in maths, because no one seriously thinks that boys are biologically inferior with numbers.
Another interested and related example is how in some European countries with high levels of gender equality the number of women studying STEM is rather low, yet in countries where women are widely oppressed like Iran they are actually the majority. Turns out that because engineering and medicine are not prestigious careers in Iran they are often majority female at university, but in European countries even when there is equality in wages and conditions those centuries of cultural stereotypes are really hard to shake off, especially if it feels like the battle has already been won.