4 ms·

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 pol

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
> Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Google. Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. > Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities. What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent?
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > Mandatory gender quotas. Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases. > Women-only lectures, events and benefits. So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. > Why does it matter. Thats not the point. That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. > Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). > So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone. > That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise? So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        > You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. Or maybe I'm trying to consider the whole context of a nuanced and complex topic before reaching a conclusion. Dishonest, idiot me for not taking every discrete input as an absolute determinant in order to keep the argument "simple" for your benefit. > Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. Damore does not provide proof of anything like that happening. His biggest gripe is that Google is proactively reaching out to minority groups in order to try to get more candidates from that pool. He also mentions a "high priority queue for diversity hires", but I haven't found any evidence of that and he doesn't provide any. > (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). So, let me get this straight: you are criticizing my analysis of a manifesto you haven't read (I have), written by someone working at the same company I used to work for (Google) on a topic I have researched quite a bit on my spare time (causes of gender disparity in Tech and other STEM industries). Your criticism is not based on published statistics, academic studies or any other kind of hard evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdata. Wow. That has to be the most Argentine behavior I've seen in a while. La Argentinidad al palo. > Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter No I'm not. You cited things that are perfectly legal as examples of "extremist behavior". Damore's behavior was legal too, it was just stupid. > Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. It's kind of bizarre that you are trying to paint males as some form of oppressed minority. Have you ever stopped to think why some of these events might want to avoid having males take the spotlight from people trying to discuss something? Maybe it's because they deal with that every day? > So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. You attack my supposed ad-hominem, by offering an ad-hominem based on a completely baseless assumption. Meanwhile you complain about me being dishonest. Again... wow.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  >Give examples. Read page 6 of Damore's memo. He gives a number of very serious examples. >Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men. A 50/50 split would require severe discrimination. Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and setting arbitrary quotas. I find this very, very, VERY difficult to defend.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    > What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men. Thing is, you don't have these numbers. And you are making them up, to push your narrative. Which is another massive flaw on Damore's argument: he's trying to solve a problem he doesn't even know exists. > Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and setting arbitrary quotas. Damore suggested based on assumptions. I find that very, very, VERY difficult to defend.
    - Houshalter 9y ago
      So, can we at least agree that gender quotas etc are bad?
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Sure. I never said they'd be good. There's also no proof they exist, so there's that.

dguaraglia 9y ago

> Feminists with far more extreme beliefs can talk about their opinions at work. Please give examples. > Even policies that intentionally discriminate against men, which is insane. Again, provide examples. I hear this argument a lot "poor men are being discriminated by women!!!" and yet I have to see a single shred of evidence of this. Again, for context, I'm a male working in the tech field and I have worked at Google. Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. > Then somehow you are an evil sexist that wants to discriminate against minorities. What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent?

conanbatt 9y ago
> Please give examples. Mandatory gender quotas. Women-only lectures, events and benefits. > What exactly do you propose was Damore's original intent? Why does it matter. Thats not the point.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > Mandatory gender quotas. Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. I interviewed tons of candidates there. I was never told to benefit this person or the next because they were of a particular gender or ethnic background. In fact, there was mandatory training on how to not fall for your own biases. > Women-only lectures, events and benefits. So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. > Why does it matter. Thats not the point. That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise?
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. > Those - as far as I understand - don't exist at Google. You asked for example of extreme "feminists" opinions that are allowed in the workforce and I gave you some. Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). > So you are all for "freedom of thought" but you don't want people to be able to group in whatever way they want. That's an interesting take. Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter. That was not the question you asked. You asked for examples of extreme feminist positions in the workplace and women-only events is an example of one. Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. Some people are fine with that, some aren't. The standard is not the same for everyone. > That's totally the point. Why on Earth would he write the manifesto otherwise? So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. It can be true and Damore be the worst person ever born at the same time. Its not an argument of anything.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      > You keep doing this in all the arguments you have in this thread: you ask a question, and then when you get a response you reframe the question. You are being either dishonest or a zealot. Or maybe I'm trying to consider the whole context of a nuanced and complex topic before reaching a conclusion. Dishonest, idiot me for not taking every discrete input as an absolute determinant in order to keep the argument "simple" for your benefit. > Also Damore's argument is that google is propping the numbers in a way akin to quotas, by jigging the selection process. Damore does not provide proof of anything like that happening. His biggest gripe is that Google is proactively reaching out to minority groups in order to try to get more candidates from that pool. He also mentions a "high priority queue for diversity hires", but I haven't found any evidence of that and he doesn't provide any. > (Well, I heard people say that, i haven't read the essay). So, let me get this straight: you are criticizing my analysis of a manifesto you haven't read (I have), written by someone working at the same company I used to work for (Google) on a topic I have researched quite a bit on my spare time (causes of gender disparity in Tech and other STEM industries). Your criticism is not based on published statistics, academic studies or any other kind of hard evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdata. Wow. That has to be the most Argentine behavior I've seen in a while. La Argentinidad al palo. > Now you are reframing the question as in a constitutional matter No I'm not. You cited things that are perfectly legal as examples of "extremist behavior". Damore's behavior was legal too, it was just stupid. > Man-only corporate events dont exist, and if you called it one, there would also be public outrage. Women-only is actively discriminatory. It's kind of bizarre that you are trying to paint males as some form of oppressed minority. Have you ever stopped to think why some of these events might want to avoid having males take the spotlight from people trying to discuss something? Maybe it's because they deal with that every day? > So if a feminist had written the essay, you would agree with it and would find it enlightening? Its a simple ad-hominem. You attack my supposed ad-hominem, by offering an ad-hominem based on a completely baseless assumption. Meanwhile you complain about me being dishonest. Again... wow.
Houshalter 9y ago
>Give examples. Read page 6 of Damore's memo. He gives a number of very serious examples. >Do you personally feel that a field where 80% of the workforce is male (vs a 50/50 split in overall demographics) is "actively discriminating against hiring males? I find that argument very, very, VERY difficult to defend. What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men. A 50/50 split would require severe discrimination. Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and setting arbitrary quotas. I find this very, very, VERY difficult to defend.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  > What are you not understanding here? If 20% of qualified applicants are female, but 30% of new hires are female, you must be discriminating against men. Thing is, you don't have these numbers. And you are making them up, to push your narrative. Which is another massive flaw on Damore's argument: he's trying to solve a problem he doesn't even know exists. > Damore suggested they were lowering hiring standards and setting arbitrary quotas. Damore suggested based on assumptions. I find that very, very, VERY difficult to defend.
  - Houshalter 9y ago
    So, can we at least agree that gender quotas etc are bad?
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Sure. I never said they'd be good. There's also no proof they exist, so there's that.