3 ms·

What does it say about your industry, if even people with average, moderate positions are "impossible to work with"?

dguaraglia 9y ago
As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability. I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women are not that interested in engineering" he concluded "black people are not that interested in engineering". Would you see a problem with that? Do you think that might create some friction with fellow engineers of color?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  What if Damore had been a woman. What do you think would have happened then. This is just en exercise in public outrage, not in morality, responsibility or the application of ideals.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I don't really understand this perception that "women get away with everything". The legal department would have as much of an argument to fire a female Damore as they'd have a male Damore.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      > Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I seriously doubt that. The public would generally be conflicted about crucifying a woman in the name of women, it would have not arised easily to public knowledge. To deepen the understanding of the situation, men and women withing google might have shown public agreement of some level with the essay and they havent been fire. People have done threats and attacks of many degrees on Damore because of that essay, which would have been a firable offense in any other circumstance.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        > I seriously doubt that. And that's your prerogative. But it also makes the rest of your argument just conjecture. Making a huge deal about "inequality" based on conjecture is probably not the best way to spend your time.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  You're not convincing me when your argument is literally "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." Which isn't true anyway. As I said, his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." I never said it was illegal. I said it was stupid to do it at work. There's a lot of things that while not illegal, are stupid to do at work and will get you fired. > his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently. His opinions demonstrated that he holds biases against women and minorities, and he thinks the company is doing the wrong thing by hiring more of both. Whether those biases are justified by his "science" (they aren't) or not, is neither here nor there, he's a walking legal landmine. On that basis alone, it would be perfectly justified to fire him. Now, should he be able to express his opinions? Sure! Talk to your friends at a bar. Find people you think are like-minded and discuss this. Better yet: find people you know to hold the opposite opinion and discuss it with them. Don't fucking spread something company-wide and then complain when you get fired.
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      It's a double standard. Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Not only that, but actually have them become official policy. Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. But if you dare to object to it... Against policies that are actually sexist and actually relevant to your work. Make an actual scientific case for your side. Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago

As I explained to conanbatt, the problem is that he put himself in a position of being perceived as biased against women. Even if 90% of the company agreed with him - even if the CEO agreed with him - any Legal department would recommend firing him, rather than have to deal with the liability. I propose a mental exercise: let's say that Damore had written a similar "manifesto" but instead of concluding that "women are not that interested in engineering" he concluded "black people are not that interested in engineering". Would you see a problem with that? Do you think that might create some friction with fellow engineers of color?

conanbatt 9y ago
What if Damore had been a woman. What do you think would have happened then. This is just en exercise in public outrage, not in morality, responsibility or the application of ideals.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I don't really understand this perception that "women get away with everything". The legal department would have as much of an argument to fire a female Damore as they'd have a male Damore.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > Had Damore been a woman, she would have to be fired too. I seriously doubt that. The public would generally be conflicted about crucifying a woman in the name of women, it would have not arised easily to public knowledge. To deepen the understanding of the situation, men and women withing google might have shown public agreement of some level with the essay and they havent been fire. People have done threats and attacks of many degrees on Damore because of that essay, which would have been a firable offense in any other circumstance.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > I seriously doubt that. And that's your prerogative. But it also makes the rest of your argument just conjecture. Making a huge deal about "inequality" based on conjecture is probably not the best way to spend your time.
Houshalter 9y ago
You're not convincing me when your argument is literally "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." Which isn't true anyway. As I said, his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > "it doesn't matter if he's right, it's illegal to talk about it." I never said it was illegal. I said it was stupid to do it at work. There's a lot of things that while not illegal, are stupid to do at work and will get you fired. > his opinions were nowhere near that extreme and are basically just "women have statistically different interests than men." He never said the women in tech were less interested or capable or should be treated any differently. His opinions demonstrated that he holds biases against women and minorities, and he thinks the company is doing the wrong thing by hiring more of both. Whether those biases are justified by his "science" (they aren't) or not, is neither here nor there, he's a walking legal landmine. On that basis alone, it would be perfectly justified to fire him. Now, should he be able to express his opinions? Sure! Talk to your friends at a bar. Find people you think are like-minded and discuss this. Better yet: find people you know to hold the opposite opinion and discuss it with them. Don't fucking spread something company-wide and then complain when you get fired.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    It's a double standard. Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Not only that, but actually have them become official policy. Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. But if you dare to object to it... Against policies that are actually sexist and actually relevant to your work. Make an actual scientific case for your side. Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago