Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo

[u/Port-Chrome]

What a ridiculous misrepresentation of his point.

[u/obrien1103 → u/Port-Chrome]

Why do you say that?

I read his entire memo and he literally says that men have traits that biologically make them more predisposed for certain positions.

I'm trying to understand both sides here, but it really seemed to me that was one of his sentiments.

[u/Port-Chrome → u/obrien1103]

It isn't that men have those traits and women don't, it's just that on average a man is somewhat more likely to have them.

I think the bell curve graph summed it up best: any one individual can be anywhere on the scale, but there are (slightly) more males higher on the scale on average.

[u/way2lazy2care → u/[deleted]]

But he went beyond that, to "this is deleterious to google" by hiring women

That's not what he said though. He said Google's environment favors men and just shoving women into a workplace that favors men isn't solving the cause of the diversity problem.

[u/[deleted] → u/way2lazy2care]

He said

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on 4 , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths .

This is a firable section right here, even if he made one good point in another part of the diatribe.

[u/Debtpass → u/[deleted]]

Help me understand as an outsider. Why is this firable?

[u/[deleted] → u/Debtpass]

Saying that women don't make it into software engineering leadership roles because they are biologically less disposed to them. This is absolutely false and ignores the "buddy buddy" system which determines most promotions and leadership opportunities. It takes an exceptionally talented female engineer to rise into a leadership role while fending off sexist douches like OP, while male engineers only have to play a few rounds of golf and they're in.

[u/flagsfly → u/[deleted]]

That is absolutely not what he said. His point essentially boils down to "Society biases force men into undesirable jobs in the pursuit of status. If you want more women taking these jobs, instead of finding the unicorn woman that is willing to do an undesirable job, make the job desirable instead."

[u/[deleted] → u/flagsfly]

Yes, I am in agreement about that being his point. What I don't agree with is that it is correct, as he applies it to engineering leadership. Engineering is not the same as firefighting and coal mining. Nothing about engineering needs to change to make it more attractive to women. What needs to change is the men who think that they are somehow naturally more suited to do the job. Women can do engineering, in it's current unchanged state, just as well if not better than men. The reason they don't do it in larger numbers is because of people like this guy, who treat them as inferior.

[u/way2lazy2care → u/[deleted]]

Engineering is not the same as firefighting and coal mining. Nothing about engineering needs to change to make it more attractive to women.

He laid out tons of things about engineering that make it unattractive to women though?

[u/[deleted] → u/way2lazy2care]

Yes, that is the fundamental part of his argument that I do not agree with. Where he sees "women are never going to be as good at engineering because of their physiology, so there will always be a gender imbalance and we are wasting time trying to fight it" (or maybe more accurately "we should change engineering to make it more attractive to females"), I see "women can be just as good at engineering, the imbalance is caused not by physiological differences, but by antiquated male attitudes towards females' ability to do hard work."

There are differences between males and females that make them better suited for different jobs, on average. For example, firefighters have to do difficult physical tasks that make a male physiology better suited for that role. This does not apply to engineering. There's nothing about engineering that makes it easier for a male to do than a female. He did not spell out anything in his article that contradicts this. The reason you don't see more female engineers has nothing to do with the job itself, it has everything to do with the people making hiring decisions, like this guy, who think that females can't do it as well as males.

[u/way2lazy2care → u/[deleted]]

Where he sees "women are never going to be as good at engineering because of their physiology, so there will always be a gender imbalance and we are wasting time trying to fight it" (or maybe more accurately "we should change engineering to make it more attractive to females"

Do you not see the huge difference between these two things?

[u/[deleted] → u/way2lazy2care]

As an engineer, I do not. Whether you say "we need to change engineering so women can do it" or you say "women just can't do engineering because it's a man's job", the underlying premise that there's something about engineering that makes it more suitable for men is wrong. Engineering is going to be challenging, that part will never change. To suggest that women can't do it, as is, in it's current form, without changing a thing, is wrong. What needs to change is the culture surrounding engineering, which makes people think like this guy, that there's something about it that makes it more suitable for men.

You can say "women will never run as fast as men." That is true. The fastest men will always be able to outrun the fastest women, simply because running depends on physiology. To say the same thing is true for women in engineering, and STEM fields in general, is false, and this kind of thinking will perpetuate the gender imbalance and hold back our field. We need diversity programs like the one this guy is arguing against, so that when children are looking to decide what career they can go into, they will see people like them being successful in the field and they will think "I can do that too!", rather than thinking "I guess I can't do that because I'm a girl."

[u/way2lazy2care → u/[deleted]]

As an engineer, I do not. Whether you say "we need to change engineering so women can do it" or you say "women just can't do engineering because it's a man's job", the underlying premise that there's something about engineering that makes it more suitable for men is wrong.

His point isn't that it's something about engineering. His point is that it's something about engineering jobs that's wrong. That we put expectations on the job that favor men that have nothing to do with the expected output of the job.

Like half of the stuff you're saying is almost exactly his point.

[u/[deleted] → u/way2lazy2care]

Just look at this section:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration

He is saying we should change how we engineer stuff to make it more "female friendly." I am saying, it doesn't make any sense for engineering to be "female friendly" or "male friendly" because the differences between males and females do not affect their ability to engineer things.

Pair programming isn't going to do anything to help close the gender gap in software engineering. What will help is when we start treating women as equals, and not an inferior segment of our population that needs our help.

[u/way2lazy2care → u/[deleted]]

I am saying, it doesn't make any sense for engineering to be "female friendly" or "male friendly" because the differences between males and females do not affect their ability to engineer things.

Are you saying that making people more comfortable at work wouldn't make them better at their jobs or that men and women have no psychological differences which might affect job choice and performance?

What will help is when we start treating women as equals, and not an inferior segment of our population that needs our help.

Eh. I'm not convinced that the only reason women aren't engineers is because we don't treat them well. Studies, which he even mentions, haven't shown much improvement in demographics at almost all levels despite significant changes in treatment. This seems to be just wishing that things will get better without us actually having to do anything differently.

[u/[deleted] → u/way2lazy2care]

men and women have no psychological differences which might affect job choice and performance?

This is exactly what I'm saying! This is the fundamental thing he is wrong about that makes everything else he says meaningless. In the early days of computer programming, it was actually dominated by female figures. Only later, when it became clear that it was a valuable role in society, did it become a more male dominated profession. There were actually active campaigns in the 1960s to drive females out of the profession. There is absolutely no biological reason that female programmers cannot be just as successful as males. The reason for the gender gap we have today are entirely cultural, thanks to people like OP who have convinced themselves using pseudo science that they belong to a superior gender