Not even ‘interests lay in other fields’ so much as ‘women appear to be more willing to avoid work environments that deny having any sort of life outside of the work place.’ Hell I’m afraid of speaking up here on the matter because i’m pretty sure the sharks here will tear me limb from limb.
However we are off topic from this thread. I did post in the actual google acting like intolerant screwheads thread a nice video by Bryan Lunduke.
Obligatory side eye:
It plainly states men are superior to women in the workplace, and his critique of diversity programs is that Google is not getting a positive monetary gain from the program.
He said: “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.”
Not what you are saying by embellishing his words to make them sound better than they are.
He doesn’t say that either, but he did say that Google is forcing conservatives into the closet and that the discrimination against men in their diversity programs means that Google will not be able to get their work load accomplished. However, unlike @8080256256 simply editing his words to make them sound better you are flat lying about the content of the memo entirely.
oh hey hi there. New face i haven’t seen scream at me before. To put blunt? Many activist groups, in spite and separate from the good they do in furthering diversification in the workplace and a normalization of differing views, often see it as a zero sum game in that ‘oh men are fair targets now, any man that speaks up must be shunned.’
And these people going ‘oh dear I must take sick days because of how hostile this place is and how frightened i am.’ Put on your grownup pants and go to fucking work. What’s happening here isn’t discussion it’s demonization. Did this guy put a few things in bullet points i don’t agree with in total? Sure. However a few of these things i do agree with. So calling me a liar is more than a bit much. You people are acting like he’s super nazi hitler stalin mao aids cancer for posting a fucking memo.that was only for a specific group he was around and was likely never intended to leave the work group he was part of.
You people are treating it like he marched to the front door of Google HQ and nailed a ‘women should be barefoot and pregnant slaving over a hot stove’ thousand page manifesto.
DIscuss. Don’t demonize this guy. He has a few wrong notions, but he did bring up a few trends that should be cross-checked and then discussed rather than ‘you misogynist sack of shit leave.’ Or by eyeballing me and squealing when I am just wanting everyone to calm the fuck down and stop acting like this is the end of the world.
I’ve said my piece. As I said before, this is off-topic for this thread We should move this to the proper thread.
If you suddenly feel like you now have a “target on your back” due solely to your gender or how you look, welcome to my world, 24/7/365.
That said most of the activists I personally know don’t believe in “zero sum” scenarios; nor do they think this is some kind of “game.”
I had reply for that last comment of yours, but since it got eaten, there’s no point in posting it now.
Citation needed.
To me the two statements are basically identical. Of course there are biological differences between genders. For starters, men enjoy the privilege of being able to father children up to a fairly advanced age. It may not be socially and genetically ideal, but a 45-year old man can still generally start a family while a 45-year old woman will face much greater physiological obstacles and risks. This alone is bound to have some aggregate effect on career choices.
Larger surrounding controversy aside, is that particular statement actually false? If so, would it still be false if you changed “may explain” to “may partly explain” and deleted “and leadership” from the end?
I’m not pretending there isn’t sexism. I’m not pretending that any level of sexism is acceptable. I would readily agree that women in tech would be exposed to much more sexism than in more gender equal fields even in the hypothetical world where men in tech were substantially less sexist than average, simply because that sexism would be concentrated on many fewer women per man.
None of this has anything to do with the question of “Why are there so few women in tech.” Women have made huge (though not total) strides in overcoming sexism in plenty of other formerly-male-dominated fields. Why is this one different? That’s an honest question, btw, I’d love to learn more.
It also has nothing to do with the question of how much, and in what ways, women’s and men’s interests differ at a statistical/population level, when those differences appear, why, and how much that influences career path choice.
Read his memo. It’s not hard to grok his intent there unless you are willfully ignoring it.
“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.”
The point is that America in particular has a troubled history taking dodgy or outdated science and forming rigid cultural divisions based on them (which remain even when said science is modified, or found to be wrong).
The point is leave it to the scientists to mull over how biology may inform behavior (or vice versa), but the rest of us would be do to well to form a just society where people are judged on individual merits, instead of supposed scientific pre-conceived notions.
Put another way: Human beings are pretty guilty of unfairly stereotyping at the best of times, so let’s try to structure our society to minimize that impact.
Please engage meaningfully. I’m not here to fight for the patriarchy. On the other hand, I don’t automatically accept every position and accusation based merely on it coming from the “right side” (or, in this case, the left side).
Not every move taken ostensibly towards a good cause is inherently a good, fair idea. People are getting way too animated by ideologies and the camps they represent and react to ideas through this lens.
But of course, as (if your avatar is any indication) a white guy, you’re not at all perceiving things through an ideological lens, amirite? Unlike those subjective others, you’re just an objective observer, right?
You may not realize it, but your comments on this topic come across as those of someone who hasn’t done a lot of thinking about his own ideological lens, including how it shapes your assumptions, and thus your reactions to others.
When a man writes an essay on the internet that says (paraphrasing slightly) “diversity programs are not worth it because it will never bring in as much money as it costs, diversity candidates cannot perform the same work as [the majority white men], and that without conservatives Google cannot do its workload because they do all the meat and potatoes work of the company” it’s pretty clear that it’s putting his position (white male conservatives) as more valuable than the women he claims to use some level of scientific analysis to say can’t do the same work as a white man.
Nothing you said here is correct or even relevant to the correctness of your previous statement.
My husband’s been suggesting this as a good read for anyone who doesn’t think science happens through a cultural lens:
