What business does this guy have deciding what does or doesn't empower women in tech? Where is his evidence or personal experience here? I'm certainly no expert in this area, but couldn't it be better listen to the opinions of women in tech, disturbingly many of whom who have publicly shared stories of sexism or harassment directly limiting their career potential in tech, about whether they feel underrepresented because of interpersonal culture or because of their biology?
You don't need personal experience to have an opinion, if you are capable of reading what other people have written and bringing to bear your own experiences.
It does not mean you get to decide anything for others, but it is a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say, and it is an even more basic sign of respect to not attempt to defame them.
This guy clearly isn't perfect. He was naive about what the effect of releasing his memo would be. However he was respectful and seemed to be trying to temper his perspective. He doesn't deserve the raw hatred and condemnation he is receiving. I think we should be compassionate and try our best to tolerate our differences.
I applaud the guy for doing research and putting together an argument. He knew the backlash that would come from it. I think he thought that the people at Google would respond fairly reasonably. Now that he has been fired, people will use that to point out the intolerance of the people in the Echo chamber..thus proving his point.
They should have included him on the diversity and inclusion leadership team. Sad that Google went the route they did.
This is an extremely different takeaway from mine. From what I read, the author repeatedly made it clear that he is not stating that women or racially underrepresented workers at Google are individually worse at their job. In fact, most of his discussion on different tendencies in gender are focused on selection of job field type of job within the field rather than ability. Furthermore, the author repeatedly reiterates that these tendencies are just that: tendencies, not rules. Some women pull 70+ hour work weeks. Some men work part time. To say that a larger portion of one group, even in the absence of cultural and societal pressure, is going to choose either the former or the latter is not disparagement.
To put this in a different context, take the gender discrepancy in murderers. Across nearly all countries, men commit roughly 75-85% of murders. This nearly uniform across agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial countries, rich and poor countries, liberal and conservative countries. I would consider it totally fine to say that men innately have a greater tendency to commit murder than women (and for what it's worth I'm a man myself). Is it okay to say that because I have a Y chromosome I should be treated as a murderer? Or that I should face a different standard of evidence if I'm on trial for murder? Of course not. But stating that I, as a man, am statistically more likely to commit murder than the average woman is not the same as saying I should be presumed to be a murderer and it is not the same as saying that I should face a different standard of evidence. But the point remains, it is okay to conclude that the discrepancy in murder rates is because of innate tendencies rather than discrimination by police, juries, etc.
I wish the guy had written what other people had written. This stuff has been hashed, rehashed, refried, deep fried... and he got all the biology research wrong. It just seems that he did no research, instead thinking about his feelings a lot and claiming he got somewhere original without engaging the existing scholarship at all.
Agree that it's a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say. I am tired of guys not listening to me saying I'm a boring, normal woman who likes math/tech/computers, not a freak or a biological anomaly, some evolutionary mistake.
> And he is not saying that you are a "freak" or "biological anomaly", he is talking about aggregated, statistical differences.
He provides no evidence to back the conclusions he draws from that data though. It reminds me of some articles or posts you might see briefly gain traction on the internet where the author starts from a point backed by one or two reputable sources and proceeds to use those references to back an argument that lies well outside the bounds of the original data.
As one of the authors of a paper cited in the memo puts it:
> In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. [...] But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large [1]
The post I responded specifically said the memo author got all biological research wrong. Now, his conclusions from that are certainly more debatable.
I guess the larger point I was trying to make is that when people feel singled out because of statistical differences b it leads them to take things personally, which leads to perpetuating disproportionate reactions and a non-existing platform for actual discussion.
Vets are 80% female. Is the industry closed to men that might want to be a vet? Do we need more outreach programs for men to be vets?
Or maybe is it that men are less likely to want to medically treat animals than women, and the gender discrepancy is one of preference? And yes, men who do become vets are statistical outliers, but certainly not "freaks". It's likely the same for tech and women - you are a statistical outlier, and from your perspective things are the norm, but the majority of women are not interested in the same things that you are interested in professionally. (The majority of men aren't either, but there's a larger minority of men sharing your professional interests than a minority of women).
And as for "not getting somewhere original" - the author's point about the difference between comparing averages vs the overlap of bell curves around the averages is a great point and not one I'd seen highlighted that way before. Perhaps you have, but it was novel to me.
80 years ago all vets were men. How can men's biology change so fast? 150 years ago elementary school teachers were men. In 1984 more than 35% of CS majors were female. Not long enough for genetic change.
> Agree that it's a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say.
> This stuff has been hashed, rehashed, refried, deep fried... and he got all the biology research wrong. It just seems that he did no research, instead thinking about his feelings a lot and claiming he got somewhere original without engaging the existing scholarship at all.
Please provide examples. Your statement is incorrect. Looks like you didn't bother to listen correctly to what he said.
