4 ms·

> ...he is not modifying his stance based on the feedback he has received. He is clarifying what he meant, to no apparent effect. It's not hard to find a clip

> ...he is not modifying his stance based on the feedback he has received. He is clarifying what he meant, to no apparent effect. It's not hard to find a clip of an interviewer asking whether he thinks women are inferior. He, predictably, says he believes nothing of the sort. And then this gets printed in the Times. > He assumes the only people who were not in agreement with him and complained were those who believe... I think all your other points are fair points for a discussion of the merits of his ideas. That discussion, at least on his part, isn't really possible now that he has been fired from Google and his views misrepresented so thoroughly everywhere else.

oddlyaromatic 9y ago
>He is clarifying what he meant, to no apparent effect. It's not hard to find a clip of an interviewer asking whether he thinks women are inferior. He, predictably, says he believes nothing of the sort. And then this gets printed in the Times. We'll probably just go in circles about this. The content of the memo, as a whole, does not reflect the harmless statement that "not everything is purely cultural" ... To suggest that biology might be even a significant factor in the lopsided representation is a mistake. Not just politically, but I believe factually too. And it is a bad one because it happens to overlap with the general stream of biases and impressions people already have about women in tech. And now they must also deal with people maybe believing their own interpretation of this memo. I think he should have been far more careful and specific in his terms. Also, he could believe his views are not demeaning to women, and be wrong. It is hard to see our own biases. I feel I have shown much of my own in writing about this but life is short!