7 ms·

What astonishes me is that Google's VP of Diversity knows so little about the underlying science of her vocation that she confused statements of clinical fact (

What astonishes me is that Google's VP of Diversity knows so little about the underlying science of her vocation that she confused statements of clinical fact (with the science even referenced in footnotes!) with personal attacks on women.

occultist_throw 9y ago
> gender studies If I've learned anything, a "degree" in gender studies means one thing. It means that you are not a "Cis-gendered hetereosexual White Male". Gender studies is a code-word for Women Studies. It's a bone to throw, to get "VP of Diversity and Hugbox" - and those groups are the ones to twist, lie, and deform anything you said because you're a threat. As long as you toe the line, you're usually relatively safe. If you speak out about the elephant, you are not to be discussed or engaged. You're to be blackballed, fired, and worse if they could. And what those programs teach - they teach professional victimhood, professional weakness, and "Multiculturalism" in the sense of that you should hate Western Heteresexual White culture.
sp332 9y ago
It was an attack on women, even if it used "science" as corroborating points.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  This is just dogma. Making a scientifically supported argument against a position of postmodernists and feminists doesn't equal an "attack on women". The lack of intellect and integrity displayed by the attacks on the fired Google employee is really disturbing.
  - sp332 9y ago
    Nope. But the original memo defends discrimination against women and makes recommendations for future discrimination. Implementing these suggestions would be literally illegal for Google (subject to EEOC), and in fact Google is already in a lawsuit defending their alleged discrimination.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      It does not defend discrimination against women. That's absurd. Quote me a single section that "defends discrimination against women". Incredibly harmful false accusations like this seem to be par for the course anytime someone goes up against postmodernist/feminist dogma.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > the original memo defends discrimination against women Can you back up this claim with a citation from the document? If not, can you explain your thought (feeling) process?
      - Delmania 9y ago
        > Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and 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).
        Jabanga 9y ago
        Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.
        Delmania 9y ago
        It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bullshit, as I know several women who run a company and have a decent life. Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro (I'm reminded of ESR) who wants to pretend technology is some sort of meritocracy and that a woman doesn't play well in that situation. Almost every one of his claims has a hanging but attached to it.
daughart 9y ago
The fact that you equate a few studies with "clinical fact" shows you do not understand how science works. http://retractionwatch.com http://retractionwatch.com
- blusterXY 9y ago
  The Big-5 aka OCEAN model (openness / conscientiousness / extroversion / agreeability / neuroticism) constitutes the most scientifically accepted framework for measuring personality. It is confirmed by decades of work and massive amounts of large-n survey research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits One of the major giveaways that the Diversity VP at Google is incompetent came when she criticized the author for attacking women simply because he used the terms "conscientiousness" and "agreeability" and "neuroticism". You are not doing much better by insinuating that science can only be correct when it supports your ideological position.
  - daughart 9y ago
    I insinuated no such thing. Bluster is an appropriate username for you.

occultist_throw 9y ago

> gender studies If I've learned anything, a "degree" in gender studies means one thing. It means that you are not a "Cis-gendered hetereosexual White Male". Gender studies is a code-word for Women Studies. It's a bone to throw, to get "VP of Diversity and Hugbox" - and those groups are the ones to twist, lie, and deform anything you said because you're a threat. As long as you toe the line, you're usually relatively safe. If you speak out about the elephant, you are not to be discussed or engaged. You're to be blackballed, fired, and worse if they could. And what those programs teach - they teach professional victimhood, professional weakness, and "Multiculturalism" in the sense of that you should hate Western Heteresexual White culture.

sp332 9y ago

It was an attack on women, even if it used "science" as corroborating points.

Jabanga 9y ago
This is just dogma. Making a scientifically supported argument against a position of postmodernists and feminists doesn't equal an "attack on women". The lack of intellect and integrity displayed by the attacks on the fired Google employee is really disturbing.
- sp332 9y ago
  Nope. But the original memo defends discrimination against women and makes recommendations for future discrimination. Implementing these suggestions would be literally illegal for Google (subject to EEOC), and in fact Google is already in a lawsuit defending their alleged discrimination.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    It does not defend discrimination against women. That's absurd. Quote me a single section that "defends discrimination against women". Incredibly harmful false accusations like this seem to be par for the course anytime someone goes up against postmodernist/feminist dogma.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > the original memo defends discrimination against women Can you back up this claim with a citation from the document? If not, can you explain your thought (feeling) process?
    - Delmania 9y ago
      > Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and 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).
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.
        Delmania 9y ago
        It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bullshit, as I know several women who run a company and have a decent life. Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro (I'm reminded of ESR) who wants to pretend technology is some sort of meritocracy and that a woman doesn't play well in that situation. Almost every one of his claims has a hanging but attached to it.

daughart 9y ago

The fact that you equate a few studies with "clinical fact" shows you do not understand how science works. http://retractionwatch.com http://retractionwatch.com

blusterXY 9y ago
The Big-5 aka OCEAN model (openness / conscientiousness / extroversion / agreeability / neuroticism) constitutes the most scientifically accepted framework for measuring personality. It is confirmed by decades of work and massive amounts of large-n survey research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits One of the major giveaways that the Diversity VP at Google is incompetent came when she criticized the author for attacking women simply because he used the terms "conscientiousness" and "agreeability" and "neuroticism". You are not doing much better by insinuating that science can only be correct when it supports your ideological position.
- daughart 9y ago
  I insinuated no such thing. Bluster is an appropriate username for you.