[vkou]

The crux of the argument was:

1. There are biological differences between men and women.

2. Because #1 and <personal biases> and evolutionary psychology, this makes women bad engineers.

3. Because #1 and #2, diversity programs are harmful.

Saying one of those three things creates a hostile work environment. Nothing in that manifesto provided any unique, novel, or original insight. It was the same old, same-old, 'computers are for boys, talking to people is for girls' nonsense.

[leifaffles]

No.

Arguments #2 and #3 were not made. Argument #1 is utterly uncontroversial.

Please read the essay.

[bobdole1234]

So, there's this thing that happens when people who lack tact say things that are true, but they get fired for it.

When you say things without tact, people hear the wrong thing, and you get the walk of shame with your cube plant out of the building.

It doesn't matter how "right" it might be.

[flukus]

From what I can tell, he shared his controversial opinion in a forum specifically for controversial opinions, that is not a lack of tact.

I don't know if this is true, but after reading "journalists" summarize the memo random internet comments from purported googlers seem about as reliable.

[bobdole1234]

Well, if you get fired for it, you lacked tact.

Google is pretty clear about what is and isn't inside the lines for their code of conduct, and they make you take a mandatory refresher course every year on your anniversary of employment.

Which is partly why this guy was so pissy about the echo chambers rules: They're always in his face.

[flukus]

> Well, if you get fired for it, you lacked tact.

Really, you don't think there were any factors beyond his control, like other people spreading it around and media misreporting it?

[bobdole1234]

The only reason it spread was because people were shocked by his lack of tact.

[vkou]

Verbatim, from the manifesto:

> Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Women are neurotic, emotional and can't handle stress! Awesome! Haven't heard that one before.

> 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.

And because they are emotional and can't handle stress, that's why they don't get promoted, and become top leaders! Mystery solved! No unconscious bias here, especially not from people who share the author's opinions.

> 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...

Software engineering, as we practice it, is not for girls. We can change it to make it more for girls!

As I said, this is the poster child for "Computers are for boys, talking to people is for girls," mixed with some suggestions. Have you read the essay?

[baumy]

> Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Neuroticism is a precisely defined term in psychology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

The author cited many sources from scientific studies which have consistently found that on average, women score higher on that scale than men. The wording of your juvenile mocking of that statement seems to imply that you didn't comprehend the most fundamental point the author made through his entire essay; he is not saying that "women are neurotic", he's saying that out of a large sample of women, we'd statistically expect more of them to be above some arbitrary neurotic "threshold" than out of an equivalent sample of men. If tendency to be relatively more neurotic is negatively correlated with pursuing a career in tech, we'd expect more men than women to want to pursue careers in tech. Please explain what is sexist about that observation.

> 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.

The commentary you provided here is coming entirely from you, not the author. You've assigned the author biases that you believe he holds, and are assuming motivations behind his statements that are not there, and there is no reason to think they're there. If you don't believe this statement is true, please provide a citation indicating that women are equally willing as men to work long hours and endure stress in the workplace. The author provides several indicating otherwise, do you have anything to disprove him with?

> 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...

Your interpretation of this is very baffling to me. This struck me as a fantastic idea! Without even considering whether it appeals to women in particular, this seems a wonderful way to try to make software engineering more appealing to those who like working actively and in close proximity with other people. Imagine if it was an industry norm for software engineers to have "partners" who they frequently/consistently worked with, pair programming style. Personally that does not appeal to me at all, but I can easily imagine people who never would consider software engineering as a career reconsidering it if that was an aspect of it. Having a programming "partner" who you work as closely with, and could potentially form as much of a bond with as police partners could potentially draw people into our field who currently don't think they would like it. These are the kind of interesting ideas that are worth discussion, but that discussion is being shut down by outrage.

> As I said, this is the poster child for "Computers are for boys, talking to people is for girls," mixed with some suggestions. Have you read the essay?

To be frank, this summary of the essay is so wildly inaccurate that you are either lying about having read it, your reading comprehension is shockingly poor, or (and I think this is the most likely) you have strongly held beliefs related to the topic at hand, and are reacting violently in the face of a decently well reasoned argument that challenges those beliefs. It's not the greatest essay ever written, everything in it isn't gospel truth, and in some places where the author veers away from relaying scientific stuides to offering his personal interpretations/opinions, I don't agree with him. But to dismiss it as you did is a poor reflection on your ability to engage with those you disagree with and have a constructive conversation.

[vkou]

1. Google is not not employing an arbitrary, randomly picked group of women. Even if neuroticism in the general population were negatively correlated with engineering performance (Which he has no citations for), that would not be relevant, as the candidates are not randomly selected from the general population. What this does, is reinforce a harmful sterotype about his co-workers. (Or it is a complete non-sequitur about people who will never become co-workers. The average man can't do software engineering either. So what?)

Black people do a lot of crime[citation, citation, science, citation], but that's not relevant to why they struggle to get promoted.

2. The author asserts that women are biologically different. The author asserts that this biological difference makes them less capable of succeeding in tech [citation needed]. The author presents this as an obvious solution for why they aren't succeeding in tech!

What else could this train of reasoning possibly mean?

3. Software Engineering is already highly collaborative, but that is a non-sequitur.

The implication here is that currently, it's not for girls, because they aren't interested in things. But if we change it, we can make it for them! This means that it is currently not suited for them. Because biology.

4. Yes, there are worthwhile bits of discussion in this essay. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it, while controversial, is not espousing the inherent inability of a random subset of women to do engineering, as currently practiced.

The small part of it that is, though, is the problem. It's also the kernel of the argument.