|
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. |