3 ms·

> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be

> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. He said that gender differences can explain, in part, difference in preferences between men and women. Is it sexist to say "hey, maybe 95% of kindergarten teachers are women not because men are discriminated against, but because men don't prefer to work with young kids at the same rate as women due to innate biological reasons."

flatb 7y ago
>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating: >Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. And certainly he didn't say that women were genetically inferior in high-powered tech jobs! He simply said that they're genetically predisposed to dislike jobs that involve systematizing (such as...tech jobs), and that they're genetically inferior when it comes to handling stressful jobs (which, by pure chance, he happens to exemplify with Googlegeist, a...tech job), since they can't handle stress as well as men do because they're genetically predisposed to anxiety and neuroticism: >Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). (...) More men may like coding because it requires systemizing. >Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist I don't even know why I bother. I regret getting into this argument. Believe what you like; as long as you see movements for social improvement as some kind of personal accusation, it's what you'll do anyway. Yes, women in tech are not discriminated against, or if they are, it's either exaggerated or there's a reasonable explanation for it. Whatever, downvote away.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating Closer to reality, but you're still injecting your own narrative here. He did not say that women are worse at negotiating. He said that Google rewards assertiveness rather than agreeableness in it's negotiations, and because women are on average more agreeable this disadvantages women. And later, he suggested that Google should make it's environment more rewarding of agreeableness to make things fairer for women. How people made the jump from this to, "women are genetically inferior at tech" is astounding to me.

flatb 7y ago

>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating: >Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. And certainly he didn't say that women were genetically inferior in high-powered tech jobs! He simply said that they're genetically predisposed to dislike jobs that involve systematizing (such as...tech jobs), and that they're genetically inferior when it comes to handling stressful jobs (which, by pure chance, he happens to exemplify with Googlegeist, a...tech job), since they can't handle stress as well as men do because they're genetically predisposed to anxiety and neuroticism: >Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). (...) More men may like coding because it requires systemizing. >Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist I don't even know why I bother. I regret getting into this argument. Believe what you like; as long as you see movements for social improvement as some kind of personal accusation, it's what you'll do anyway. Yes, women in tech are not discriminated against, or if they are, it's either exaggerated or there's a reasonable explanation for it. Whatever, downvote away.

manfredo 7y ago
> Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating Closer to reality, but you're still injecting your own narrative here. He did not say that women are worse at negotiating. He said that Google rewards assertiveness rather than agreeableness in it's negotiations, and because women are on average more agreeable this disadvantages women. And later, he suggested that Google should make it's environment more rewarding of agreeableness to make things fairer for women. How people made the jump from this to, "women are genetically inferior at tech" is astounding to me.