Your argument is predicated on the belief that whatever is not explicitly legal must not be legal. You live in a dystopian fantasy world far removed from reality.
The "They lost" argument is weaker than the moral argument. In addition, it qualifies for removal all statues of Native Americans currently on local and federal government property.
This is what is needed to get people to think about their actions, or more specifically their expectations when they ask women for sometging or assign tasks to them -- specific examples like yours of coworkers belittling her time on the job, wittingly or unwittingly, rather than pointing to disparate participation and immediately concluding sexism.
Also leads to the counter-argument: "If there is no difference between the way women and men think or operate, then it is wrong to claim that diversity would improve a company, or have any effect on business"
If women bring nothing unique to the table, then diversity becomes solely a placating effort.
You didn't look at his graph. One had two distributions the other had two lines. He specifically said he was talking about relative prevalence among distributions and specifically cautioned to not to think in terms of generalities (the two line graph is bad don't condone it). You need to look over the essay again.
50/50 perhaps overall, but guaranteed not 50/50 in every department. And therein lies the truth of what Damore said about the distribution of preferences.
His essay was filled with caveats and cautionary words about not confusing statistical distributions with generalities. Yet the offense-takers did exactly that.
If a company fires you for filing a complaint with the government, for cooperating with the government in an investigation of the company, or for bringing lawsuit against the company, it qualifies as retaliation. However, Google currently denies this, they say they were not informed of his complaint or lawsuit before deciding to fire him. So while he has other paths to a successful lawsuit, the retaliation angle might not be very successful.
He didn't say tend toward neurosis, he said had more neuroticism (again, the clinical understanding), linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., the research for which is cited within the article.
From one of those citations:
Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism as measured at the Big Five trait level, as well as on most facets of Neuroticism included in a common measure of the Big Five, the NEO-PI-R (Costa et al., 2001). Additionally, women also score higher than men on related measures not designed specifically to measure the Big Five, such as indices of anxiety (Feingold, 1994) and low self-esteem (Kling et al., 1999). The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility (Costa et al., 2001).
Again, he doesn't use this information to argue in favor of men or against women. He very clearly states this:
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).
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions
Suggestions 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).
And when some other mass delusion of unsafe-words-and-thoughts infects our society, perhaps that time in the minds of conservatives, would you sacrifice liberals to placate those people's demands to "feel safer"?
Look, it's 10 pages in 13pt font, with the first and last pages half filled with text, and the others interspersed with charts and footnotes. It takes just a minute to relocate whatever evidence you had previously found which caused you to condemn the man. If you're going to condemn a man, have the self-respect to spend a minute explaining yourself.
Research shows that neuroticism (the clinical term encompassing anxiety and stress tolerance, not the colloquial term which most associate with insult), is more prevalent among women than among men. In the essay he prefaces that passage about neuroticism with this:
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
He talks about it as sources of disparate preference not ability, he talks about overlaps between men and women, and provides the caveat that these differences are small, AND not to ascribe aggregate phenomena to individuals. What he writes directly contravenes your assertions of him, and is clear evidence you either didn't read it or are maliciously twisting it.
he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers.
this is not a conclusion that a reasonable person who has read the essay would arrive at. Are you even able to quote anything from the essay that suggests this? Have you even read the essay?
He didn't even "start a high profile political shitfight" He posted his essay on an unofficial messaging list that was made for this sort of discussion. Only a fraction of Google employees were part of that list, and it only went viral after people in the group leaked it to a wider audience.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is predicated on the belief that whatever is not explicitly legal must not be legal. You live in a dystopian fantasy world far removed from reality.
The "They lost" argument is weaker than the moral argument. In addition, it qualifies for removal all statues of Native Americans currently on local and federal government property.
This is what is needed to get people to think about their actions, or more specifically their expectations when they ask women for sometging or assign tasks to them -- specific examples like yours of coworkers belittling her time on the job, wittingly or unwittingly, rather than pointing to disparate participation and immediately concluding sexism.
Seems like that is arguing for Damore to take women's feelings into account.
Also leads to the counter-argument:
"If there is no difference between the way women and men think or operate, then it is wrong to claim that diversity would improve a company, or have any effect on business"
If women bring nothing unique to the table, then diversity becomes solely a placating effort.
...sticking by neo-Nazis.
Sticking by neo-Nazis.
The ACLU is sticking by neo-Nazis.
They must be in league with them.
You didn't look at his graph. One had two distributions the other had two lines. He specifically said he was talking about relative prevalence among distributions and specifically cautioned to not to think in terms of generalities (the two line graph is bad don't condone it). You need to look over the essay again.
50/50 perhaps overall, but guaranteed not 50/50 in every department. And therein lies the truth of what Damore said about the distribution of preferences.
You didn't read the memo before posting, but the judge and jury would read the memo before making a decision.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
IIRC only illegal for government employers
Qing dynasty China
IIRC it was mentioned in an interview that he has a masters from Harvard.
His essay was filled with caveats and cautionary words about not confusing statistical distributions with generalities. Yet the offense-takers did exactly that.
If a company fires you for filing a complaint with the government, for cooperating with the government in an investigation of the company, or for bringing lawsuit against the company, it qualifies as retaliation. However, Google currently denies this, they say they were not informed of his complaint or lawsuit before deciding to fire him. So while he has other paths to a successful lawsuit, the retaliation angle might not be very successful.
When you condemn someone for wrongdoing, you DO owe an explanation. Morally and ethically.
Otherwise, we're back in 17th century Salem
Take special note of the top of that Wikipedia article
Neuroticism
Not to be confused with Neurosis.
He didn't say tend toward neurosis, he said had more neuroticism (again, the clinical understanding), linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., the research for which is cited within the article.
From one of those citations:
Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism as measured at the Big Five trait level, as well as on most facets of Neuroticism included in a common measure of the Big Five, the NEO-PI-R (Costa et al., 2001). Additionally, women also score higher than men on related measures not designed specifically to measure the Big Five, such as indices of anxiety (Feingold, 1994) and low self-esteem (Kling et al., 1999). The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility (Costa et al., 2001).
Again, he doesn't use this information to argue in favor of men or against women. He very clearly states this:
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).
You didn't read the essay https://www.documentcloud.org/...
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions
Suggestions
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).
You condemn him while you and he are in agreement
And when some other mass delusion of unsafe-words-and-thoughts infects our society, perhaps that time in the minds of conservatives, would you sacrifice liberals to placate those people's demands to "feel safer"?
Look, it's 10 pages in 13pt font, with the first and last pages half filled with text, and the others interspersed with charts and footnotes. It takes just a minute to relocate whatever evidence you had previously found which caused you to condemn the man. If you're going to condemn a man, have the self-respect to spend a minute explaining yourself.
Research shows that neuroticism (the clinical term encompassing anxiety and stress tolerance, not the colloquial term which most associate with insult), is more prevalent among women than among men. In the essay he prefaces that passage about neuroticism with this:
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions.
He talks about it as sources of disparate preference not ability, he talks about overlaps between men and women, and provides the caveat that these differences are small, AND not to ascribe aggregate phenomena to individuals. What he writes directly contravenes your assertions of him, and is clear evidence you either didn't read it or are maliciously twisting it.
he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers.
this is not a conclusion that a reasonable person who has read the essay would arrive at. Are you even able to quote anything from the essay that suggests this? Have you even read the essay?
post a line from the essay that backs up your claim.
He didn't even "start a high profile political shitfight"
He posted his essay on an unofficial messaging list that was made for this sort of discussion. Only a fraction of Google employees were part of that list, and it only went viral after people in the group leaked it to a wider audience.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
Find the line where he harassed anyone.
Find the line where he called others inferior.
Give us the quotes to back up your assertion.