Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also
interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Damore memo]
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=The Damore memo]
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming
and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how
people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive
ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing this).
[/QUOTE]
Nope, seems like we’re reading exactly what he wrote.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Freedom of speech does not mean free access to the medium of one’s choice. Freedom of speech does not mean JOB SECURITY.
Yeah, totally sucks, I know, but that’s the reality.
Oh, he has a PhD. Big whoop. I have two degrees in Accounting and have worked with numbers my whole life, so that makes me an expert on meteorology, right? Didn’t we already learn this lesson with Bill Nye?
But let’s say there’s something to this. That there really is something within human biology that makes white males ideal for computer work. Can’t imagine frigging what, but let’s just go with it. That still does not mean that he should’ve made this known by THROWING A FREAKING 10-PAGE DISSERTATION AROUND THE FREAKING WORKPLACE. Sit down with the manager, quietly make his case, and be ready to back it up. What he did was bombastic chest-thumping for one purpose and one purpose only, to shove his rancid bigotry in everyone’s faces. I don’t care how damn formal his tone was or how much research he did. I have eyes and years and I wasn’t born yesterday.
He didn’t merely quote statistics. He stated that women are less likely to be programmers because of their biology and that therefore, Google was hurting itself by trying to bring more women into the field and into leadership roles.
There is no science that proves that women are biologically less fit to be programmers or managers. Damore’s conclusion is basic sexism.
Once again if the truth is so bad, why do people keep having to make up stuff? He did not throw his dissertation around the workplace. He posted it on internal board created for the purpose of discussing issues. It went viral within Google because so many people agreed with it.
If you had read the article you would know that he never says anything about white males. The fact is that white people are underrepresented at Google and his article never discusses race at all.
He provides mainstream consensus scientific views as to why males are more interested in computer work and offers suggestions how to make computer work more appealing to women.
If you said “less suited” instead of “unsuited”, then you’d be OK.
That aside, you personally may find even the accurate formulation unacceptable. But they’re not at all the same as those same sentences with the qualifiers removed and wording changed. And the distinction - while possibly unimportant to you - could make a difference to others. Which is why people are misrepresenting the guy in this manner to begin with.
Joe Rogan had a podcast with James Damore on youtube, if anyone is interested. Be aware that the entire video is 2 hours and 39 minutes long (titled Joe Rogan Experience #1009). I have not watched the entire thing, so I can not give a TLDR synopsis.
He has indeed sued and it sure looks to me like he’s got a case. Not only does he provide evidence that Google’s corporate culture is actively hostile to white males, but California has laws against discrimination based on political views that are in play here. And he was openly fired for his political views, so it’s not like Google will claim they didn’t discriminate on that front.
How has he provided evidence of this? I see none in your link.
Without diving back into the shark-infested waters of where exactly on the hero->douche->oppressor scale Mr Danmore objectively falls, you don’t have to look far to find people arguing the exact opposite of his thesis. Google’s being blasted discriminating against ALL the possible groups now.
No, more sensible diversity policies. Damore was seeking to explain why despite Google’s monumental diversity efforts, they were failing when it came to women. Damore sought to explain why. Which is an entirely legitimate workplace debate.
Now I’m not a lawyer, but this sure looks like an open and shut case to me. But I think Google is fine with it, just a cost of doing business. Damore’s win won’t even dent their vast fortune and they’ll be seen as heroes for standing up for their beliefs. And that’s fine. But wronged employees deserve to get paid damages and Damore seems to have been seriously and wrongly harmed by Google’s actions. He’ll never have to work again and Google gets to look like they are in the right even though they are legally wrong. Everyone wins.
Let me put it to you this way: is there any reasonable way for an employee to dissent from Google’s diversity policy without getting fired? Since legally, employees have a right to dissent from ANY company policy as long as they do so reasonably and in the interests of improving their workplace, then Google must allow for reasonable disagreement with their diversity policy. Is Google allowing reasonable disagreement or are they firing or creating a hostile work environment for anyone who does dissent?
The evidence that Damore provides says that the company is systematically punishing employees for such dissent, no matter how reasonably stated.
