4 ms·
Open culture does not mean that actions that make environment more hostile to some group inside the company should not be punished. The 'memo' definitely did th
by urahara 9y ago
Open culture does not mean that actions that make environment more hostile to some group inside the company should not be punished. The 'memo' definitely did that to his female coworkers. That's why the story is not about open culture or freedom of speech, but in the first place about creating unhealthy environment for a particular group inside the company and setting a really bad precedent. Maybe the guy meant well, but the fact is his actions ended up harming both a particular group and the company.
- Yetanfou 9y agoIn what way did that memo make the environment 'more hostile to... his female coworkers'? I read the thing from start to finish and back again, checked the references and did not find anything which would serve to create a 'hostile environment'. Yes, he does question some of the programs at Google which discriminate against men (by refusing them access to resources solely based on their gender) but that criticism does not create a hostile environment in itself. Actual discrimination (against any group) can create a hostile environment. I do not see where he discriminates against women - or any other group for that matter.
- urahara 9y agoIn a very subtle and non-evident way. He doesn't do it directly, but as a whole, given the 'memo's structure and its tone, it creates wrong assumptions, ignores important points, emphasizes secondary ones, creates doubts where there is nothing to doubt about and doesn't question things that should be questioned instead, which in general presents an incompetent and harmful way of thinking about the subject. It's like someone would write an essay with a list of science-based points on why raping children is natural and suggest to doubt that it is a crime. Its pretty easy to kind of support any bad thing with scientific facts and make it look right, but doing this is bad in the first place. His post provokes subtle doubts on very sensitive things like female competence and questions if diversity is important enough to tolerate a risk of not hiring the most qualified person. Given what we know about the hardships women often face in society and at work, provoking doubts around those subjects does no good. At least, not in the way he presented the whole topic.
- Yetanfou 9y ago“It is easy to find a stick to beat a dog” comes to mind here, also "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". Yes, anyone looking for ulterior motives behind the manifest will be able to find something as demonstrated in the bit of prose above which goes so far as to include references to "raping children". Going to such extents to prove a point actually weakens it considerably. What makes it so difficult for some people to accept an open discussion on these 'touchy' subjects? What are they afraid of? If those programs which the writer questions are in fact valid and worthwhile they would stand on their own merits, if they are not they should be cancelled unless there is a 'political' reason to keep them in place in which case this should be made clear to all involved parties - employees, stock holders and regulators. Stop the witch hunt, it didn't help Salem and it won't help Google.