4 ms·

There is the freedom to negotiate, and the freedom to leave. Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects the millions of people who genuinely suf

by _dps 9y ago

There is the freedom to negotiate, and the freedom to leave. Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects the millions of people who genuinely suffered and died under Stalin.

candiodari 9y ago
And, of course, there is the freedom to reduce the chances of getting confronted with this issue. Let's see ... How would one do that ... Make sure no women passes any interview. Obstruct women and generally get them out of the team, or at least don't work with them when avoidable. Why ? Because otherwise there WILL be instances, on occasion, where gender either is, or is simply perceived to be the basis for decisions. Since in both those instances you can get fired for simply getting into that situation, one must avoid getting into that situation at all. So we'll see what we see in every other company now also at Google. No mixed teams. Male teams being terrified (or even having an unofficial policy of not having women, or only in specific roles or teams or otherwise separate), and have a few women-only departments, like sales or HR to pretend to make the quota. We all know this is how Directors and VPs and the like think, we just don't say it. And (really quiet now) it is probably the correct way to maximize your career advancement. Once you use force, all reasoned debate is over. Google engineering, I hope you enjoyed actually having women, because you'll miss them in the future ... And for Google HR, or perhaps legal or some such, I pity the men working there. This is what people mean by "using force causes radicalization". Well, force was used. Expect strong reactions going forward.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  That's a pretty unrealistic black and white picture you're painting. Cultures and groups within a company that are already diverse and are truly merit based aren't going to be bothered by these sorts of events. They're already got their house in order, so to speak. The people you're describing of being so terrified by these events or adopting unofficial policies against women already had a misogynistic bent. They were already a problem. Them using an event like this to justify their anti-social behavior is typical, but it is not the cause. They weren't accepting bastions of equality until they were frightened into sexism. Putting them on notice isn't the end of the world for anyone. Whether we appease bigots or confront them, some people are going to be assholes until they die. I'd rather confront them and leave no question about which way the world is going.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > So we'll see what we see in every other company now also at Google. No mixed teams. Do folks really believe that's what gender-balanced work places are like? I used to work at a large New York law firm where 40% of the lawyers were women. All of my teams were mixed, and out of happenstance I spent the bulk of my time working for women partners. Nobody was "terrified" because everyone knew how to act like a professional adult.
  - Sacho 9y ago
    I don't dispute your conclusion, but for the sake of argument, how can you be sure nobody was "terrified", given the claim from GP that people would hide their opinions on the matter very carefully?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      I guess I don't know if people were secretly terrified of the mixed-gender situation. But the recruiting process at a big firm involves 12 weeks of alcohol-fueled social events, and I saw pretty much everyone participate. People socialized and made friends with people of the opposite gender, as if we were in a first world country where that was okay. And when I started full time, I never saw any friction in the exclusively mixed-gender teams I worked on.
- grey-area 9y ago
  Make sure no women passes any interview. Obstruct women and generally get them out of the team, or at least don't work with them when avoidable. Why are you so scared of women? We all know this is how Directors and VPs and the like think, we just don't say it. It's really not.
obstacle1 9y ago
OP's quotation is not speaking of freedom generally, which you are; it is speaking of freedom within the corporation, i.e., you are there and you do not leave. >Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects No, making a comparison of abstract forms of government is not in any way disrespectful to people who lived under a regime. It can only be construed as disrespectful if you are looking for an emotional tangent to distract people reading from the argument at hand (which, incidentally, indicates that you know your argument is bad!)
- _dps 9y ago
  By exercising your freedom to negotiate and threatening to use your freedom to leave, you can attempt to cause changes in the corporation. Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad.
  - obstacle1 9y ago
    >Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad. I didn't attempt to tell you that, I did tell you that.
- jules 9y ago
  The freedom to leave gives you leverage within the company, even if you don't leave. Imagine how it would be within companies if the government forced people to stay.
  - smoyer 9y ago
    Effectively this is what Utah's new non-compete laws achieve. You won't leave if you can't work at another company in your field.

by _dps 9y ago

There is the freedom to negotiate, and the freedom to leave. Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects the millions of people who genuinely suffered and died under Stalin.

candiodari 9y ago

And, of course, there is the freedom to reduce the chances of getting confronted with this issue. Let's see ... How would one do that ... Make sure no women passes any interview. Obstruct women and generally get them out of the team, or at least don't work with them when avoidable. Why ? Because otherwise there WILL be instances, on occasion, where gender either is, or is simply perceived to be the basis for decisions. Since in both those instances you can get fired for simply getting into that situation, one must avoid getting into that situation at all. So we'll see what we see in every other company now also at Google. No mixed teams. Male teams being terrified (or even having an unofficial policy of not having women, or only in specific roles or teams or otherwise separate), and have a few women-only departments, like sales or HR to pretend to make the quota. We all know this is how Directors and VPs and the like think, we just don't say it. And (really quiet now) it is probably the correct way to maximize your career advancement. Once you use force, all reasoned debate is over. Google engineering, I hope you enjoyed actually having women, because you'll miss them in the future ... And for Google HR, or perhaps legal or some such, I pity the men working there. This is what people mean by "using force causes radicalization". Well, force was used. Expect strong reactions going forward.

Brockenstein 9y ago
That's a pretty unrealistic black and white picture you're painting. Cultures and groups within a company that are already diverse and are truly merit based aren't going to be bothered by these sorts of events. They're already got their house in order, so to speak. The people you're describing of being so terrified by these events or adopting unofficial policies against women already had a misogynistic bent. They were already a problem. Them using an event like this to justify their anti-social behavior is typical, but it is not the cause. They weren't accepting bastions of equality until they were frightened into sexism. Putting them on notice isn't the end of the world for anyone. Whether we appease bigots or confront them, some people are going to be assholes until they die. I'd rather confront them and leave no question about which way the world is going.
rayiner 9y ago
> So we'll see what we see in every other company now also at Google. No mixed teams. Do folks really believe that's what gender-balanced work places are like? I used to work at a large New York law firm where 40% of the lawyers were women. All of my teams were mixed, and out of happenstance I spent the bulk of my time working for women partners. Nobody was "terrified" because everyone knew how to act like a professional adult.
- Sacho 9y ago
  I don't dispute your conclusion, but for the sake of argument, how can you be sure nobody was "terrified", given the claim from GP that people would hide their opinions on the matter very carefully?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I guess I don't know if people were secretly terrified of the mixed-gender situation. But the recruiting process at a big firm involves 12 weeks of alcohol-fueled social events, and I saw pretty much everyone participate. People socialized and made friends with people of the opposite gender, as if we were in a first world country where that was okay. And when I started full time, I never saw any friction in the exclusively mixed-gender teams I worked on.
grey-area 9y ago
Make sure no women passes any interview. Obstruct women and generally get them out of the team, or at least don't work with them when avoidable. Why are you so scared of women? We all know this is how Directors and VPs and the like think, we just don't say it. It's really not.

obstacle1 9y ago

OP's quotation is not speaking of freedom generally, which you are; it is speaking of freedom within the corporation, i.e., you are there and you do not leave. >Comparing it to Stalinism is silly, and surely disrespects No, making a comparison of abstract forms of government is not in any way disrespectful to people who lived under a regime. It can only be construed as disrespectful if you are looking for an emotional tangent to distract people reading from the argument at hand (which, incidentally, indicates that you know your argument is bad!)

_dps 9y ago
By exercising your freedom to negotiate and threatening to use your freedom to leave, you can attempt to cause changes in the corporation. Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad.
- obstacle1 9y ago
  >Please don't attempt to tell me that I know my argument is bad. I didn't attempt to tell you that, I did tell you that.
jules 9y ago
The freedom to leave gives you leverage within the company, even if you don't leave. Imagine how it would be within companies if the government forced people to stay.
- smoyer 9y ago
  Effectively this is what Utah's new non-compete laws achieve. You won't leave if you can't work at another company in your field.