4 ms·

> Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks. Let me break it down for you, because it seems

> Please quote Damore (or me) otherwise; I can't find reference to "settled matter" you put in quotation marks. Let me break it down for you, because it seems like the inference chain is escaping you: - The moment he starts suggesting "things we can do to fix this", it's clear that there's a problem. I mean, why suggest fixes if nothing's broken? (Engineering 101) - What's the problem? Apparently, trying to reach a 50/50 gender parity is discriminatory. But wait a minute, that's about the split in population, so how can that be discriminatory? - There has to be something that Damore knows that we don't know that explains why 50/50 is wrong. Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering at the same rate as men are. Never mind that only 70 years ago women couldn't even participate in the workforce, or that all the way until double-income families became necessary they were actively discouraged to participate in the workforce. Never mind that only about 30 years ago the US started programs to encourage women to participate in STEM careers. I mean, all those things wouldn't explain the disparity, so there has to be something else. - Well, of course! It's the genes! I mean, we know (from his memo) that women are just not interested in "things" but "people" (conclusion derived by a study that has been debunked and even the author couldn't replicate) and that they "get more anxious". You know girls, they freak out and stuff! Of course that'd explain why they feel anxious in a job where they are literally surrounded by males. Nothing to do with things like "beer thirty" being the norm, but rather it's their genes. D'oh! So that's the crux of it: Damore admits that there's social issues, but rather than addressing them and seeing if the disparity fixes itself, he'd rather call the efforts "discrimination" without any proof that actually they are affecting males. He could've made a solid argument (and one that wouldn't have gotten him fired) if he had asked, honestly, whether creating different queues for minority candidates isn't in itself a form of discrimination. Laying out his theory about women being "different" is where he went against Google's Code of Conduct. That kind of shit is better left for r/theredpill, not your work environment where you have to interact with women. I hate reminding you, but this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people until very recently. Going back to your "metaphor" about segregation: Damore is not Rosa Parks, he's the driver trying to tell us that "why should we let black people sit at the front of the bus, when they seem pretty happy in the backseats."

Chris2048 9y ago
If you've read the memo, then you don't understand it if this is your conclusion. > Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering You've also tried to badger me with "demands" for whatever level of certainty you decide. Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out". > Never mind that.. If you think you have a better case for explaining the disparity, then do as I suggested, and create a memo of your own. Are you claiming that the memo must be a fraud, because your own opinion isn't represented in it? Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought. > a study that has been debunked But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking? You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying: > this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people Hmmm
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out". That was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Damore doesn't have any solid evidence, just an "intuition" (read: bias) based on some articles he's read. At least he's honest enough to admit he's not infallible. You, on the other hand... > Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought. Please, correct my wrong assumptions. You seem to be well informed in the subject, seeing as you are telling me I'm wrong. So far, you've been incapable of answering the simplest of questions: what is the number of women who are not interested in engineering because of biological causes? > But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking? This is the study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... Here's some critique on methodology: http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-connellan-baron-cohen.html http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-connellan-.... Google for more, it's not that hard. As an aside, notice that the split in the study doesn't correlate with the 80/20% gender divide at Google. So even if the study was correct, Damore's point would still be bullshit. > You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying Awe, look at you! Trying to do the old alt-right "by pointing out someone else's racism you are the real racist" switcharoo! It would be cute, except for the unfortunate events in Charlottesville that reminds us that racism is alive and doing great in the US. Yes, I do flip at people trying to use dubious "biological" causes to explain away clear societal issues. You, my friend, are one of them.

Chris2048 9y ago

If you've read the memo, then you don't understand it if this is your conclusion. > Turns out, Damore has solid evidence that women are not willing to participate in engineering You've also tried to badger me with "demands" for whatever level of certainty you decide. Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out". > Never mind that.. If you think you have a better case for explaining the disparity, then do as I suggested, and create a memo of your own. Are you claiming that the memo must be a fraud, because your own opinion isn't represented in it? Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought. > a study that has been debunked But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking? You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying: > this kind of "biological arguments" were made about black people Hmmm

dguaraglia 9y ago
> Please quote the memo section that you are referring to when you say "Turns out". That was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Damore doesn't have any solid evidence, just an "intuition" (read: bias) based on some articles he's read. At least he's honest enough to admit he's not infallible. You, on the other hand... > Maybe if you researched the matter you'd be surprised that your arguments aren't as strong as you thought. Please, correct my wrong assumptions. You seem to be well informed in the subject, seeing as you are telling me I'm wrong. So far, you've been incapable of answering the simplest of questions: what is the number of women who are not interested in engineering because of biological causes? > But don't bother to link to the study, the line/page in the memo, or any aspect of its debunking? This is the study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe... Here's some critique on methodology: http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-connellan-baron-cohen.html http://www.thetutorking.com/2014/08/criticisms-of-connellan-.... Google for more, it's not that hard. As an aside, notice that the split in the study doesn't correlate with the 80/20% gender divide at Google. So even if the study was correct, Damore's point would still be bullshit. > You flip out over the Rosa Parks metaphor, but have no problem with saying Awe, look at you! Trying to do the old alt-right "by pointing out someone else's racism you are the real racist" switcharoo! It would be cute, except for the unfortunate events in Charlottesville that reminds us that racism is alive and doing great in the US. Yes, I do flip at people trying to use dubious "biological" causes to explain away clear societal issues. You, my friend, are one of them.