3 ms·

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR) > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't hav

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR) > Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits. This is sexism. Right here. This point and its thorough embedding in every aspect of the article.

searealist 9y ago
> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits. This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.
- interpol_p 9y ago
  Helping others succeed and building a diverse environment is not discriminating against men.
  - searealist 9y ago
    Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.
    - interpol_p 9y ago
      No it is not discriminating against men. It is fighting existing discrimination against women. Women are already discriminated against in these fields, to try to stop that we have to encourage them to participate. Because it is Really Hard to join an industry or field where you are discriminated against.
    - interpol_p 9y ago
      I can't emphasise enough that this is not discrimination. Discrimination is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people." Google only has finite resources. Diverting them to assist the oppressed class (women) is not discrimination against the dominant class (men). It is simply a way to correct for existing discrimination against women.
      - Inconel 9y ago
        As someone who takes these kinds of larger social issues fairly seriously, and supports many efforts to correct the long lasting effects of discrimination, I think viewing this issue in such a binary fashion(that is that women as a class are oppressed and men are the oppressors) is both incorrect and unhelpful to the cause you seem to be supporting. Privilege, oppression, and discrimination exist over multiple overlapping spectrums. The notion that in a country like the US white women(due to their being women) are somehow oppressed by black men(due to their being men) is both incorrect, and quite frankly, somewhat insulting. You will not win any allies to your cause by framing these very important issues in such a binary, and unnuanced way.
MichaelGG 9y ago
Choosing employees based on their gender to meet quotas is sexism. Choosing them on their skin colours to be diverse is racism. Implying there are differences between genders (or races) -- something unquestionably accepted in physical contests -- is simply a basic truth, something that should be investigated so we have a real answer to know how much incorrect bias there is.

searealist 9y ago

> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits. This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.

interpol_p 9y ago
Helping others succeed and building a diverse environment is not discriminating against men.
- searealist 9y ago
  Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.
  - interpol_p 9y ago
    No it is not discriminating against men. It is fighting existing discrimination against women. Women are already discriminated against in these fields, to try to stop that we have to encourage them to participate. Because it is Really Hard to join an industry or field where you are discriminated against.
  - interpol_p 9y ago
    I can't emphasise enough that this is not discrimination. Discrimination is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people." Google only has finite resources. Diverting them to assist the oppressed class (women) is not discrimination against the dominant class (men). It is simply a way to correct for existing discrimination against women.
    - Inconel 9y ago
      As someone who takes these kinds of larger social issues fairly seriously, and supports many efforts to correct the long lasting effects of discrimination, I think viewing this issue in such a binary fashion(that is that women as a class are oppressed and men are the oppressors) is both incorrect and unhelpful to the cause you seem to be supporting. Privilege, oppression, and discrimination exist over multiple overlapping spectrums. The notion that in a country like the US white women(due to their being women) are somehow oppressed by black men(due to their being men) is both incorrect, and quite frankly, somewhat insulting. You will not win any allies to your cause by framing these very important issues in such a binary, and unnuanced way.

MichaelGG 9y ago

Choosing employees based on their gender to meet quotas is sexism. Choosing them on their skin colours to be diverse is racism. Implying there are differences between genders (or races) -- something unquestionably accepted in physical contests -- is simply a basic truth, something that should be investigated so we have a real answer to know how much incorrect bias there is.