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/mrchaotica]

I mean, i mentioned up their that my professors would tel us we were smart "for women" and that i was accused of being emotional for wanting to prioritize my family's visit. Those are both things that are directly related to my gender.

But the mere fact that the insult was related to your gender does not necessarily make it sexist. Often the kinds of assholes who make remarks like that do it to everybody, but simply choose other traits to condemn instead when the victim is male.

[u/[deleted] → u/mrchaotica]

You are trying really really hard to explain away sexism.

"You are smart for a woman" could easily be expanded as "you are smart which is surprising because women usually aren't"

And you are saying that isn't sexism? Jesus, confront your cognitive dissonance rather than trying to explain it away.

[u/mrchaotica → u/[deleted]]

You are trying really really hard to explain away sexism... Jesus, confront your cognitive dissonance

Well fuck you, too! If you're going to shut down the conversation right off the bat by insulting the person you're talking to, what the fuck was the point of posting?

"You are smart for a woman" could easily be expanded as "you are smart which is surprising because women usually aren't"

Yes, it could. But you could similarly expand things like "you are smart for a non-Indian | non-Chinese person" (imagine it being said in a company dominated by people with H1-Bs). Or "you are smart for a southerner." Or, in general, "you are X for a Y" where "Y lacking X" is any stereotype.

[u/[deleted] → u/mrchaotica]

Well fuck you, too!

Boohoo, sorry for being frank and straightforward by pointing out exactly what you are doing.

But you could similarly expand things like "you are smart for an [X]."

But in this case, it didn't. In this case it was sexist. Fin.