[Delmania]

It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bullshit, as I know several women who run a company and have a decent life.

Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro (I'm reminded of ESR) who wants to pretend technology is some sort of meritocracy and that a woman doesn't play well in that situation. Almost every one of his claims has a hanging but attached to it.

[ObnoxiousProxy]

The author mentions many many times throughout his memo that these are 'average' observations and by no ways representative of the entire female population. The author did not say that all women are more interested in people, merely that there is a higher proportion in comparison to the male population.

The author suggests that when these average statistics propagate into life decisions and employment preferences, you end up with an equilibrium with less females in these roles.

You write 'This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles' but the author did not use this to claim such a thing! 'I know several women' precisely coincides with what the author wrote. Again, he pointed out multiple times throughout that he was not generalizing but was merely looking at average trends.

[Delmania]

The author advocates for ending programs designed to get more females into technology and leadership positions because he views them as discrimination. His basis is precisely what you mentioned, that on average women are X. In his mind, the fact that men are more status oriented than women means that men will be disproportionately in leadership roles. That's "just the way it is" and we should accept it and create "separate but equal" opportunities (part time work in this case). It's not outright discrimination, but it's ignoring several other factors that cause women not to seek leadership positions. He's trying to use some very basic differences and ignoring a much broader picture.

[radisb]

So, you believe that equality ,in this context, is a reality only if the distribution of gender in corporate employees reflects more or less the distribution in general population?

[Jabanga]

Can you at least admit that your initial comment: that he "defends discrimination against women", is unfounded?

[mistermann]

> These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people

In the aggregate, this is objectively true based on my observations, and you can see this exact same sentiment passionately expressed by feminists.

> ...there are some roles they might not be able to perform.

This part is your mind playing tricks on you. You have certain beliefs, and you are trying to find anything to confirm them.

You have misunderstood what the author was saying, I would suggest because you are not trying to understand it, but rather are trying to find examples to substantiate your worldview.

> Strip away his science and his words

....leaving us....your imagination?

[Delmania]

There is no imagination, he might be citing scientific research, but this is no different that similar essays written by other technologists who don't agree with feminism and lean conservative and libertarian. ESR is a prime example, and this essay reminds me of his work. However,

>Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be

The line immediately before states that women tend to be more people-oriented than object-oriented. The line between these 2 states is crystal clear: women are more people oriented than men, and there are limits to how people oriented certain roles and the company can be, therefore, women will not have the same opportunities as men. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but his entire essay is for Google to stop programs aimed at gender inclusion.

[mistermann]

> There is no imagination

> If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead

Very interesting, to me.

> his entire essay is for Google to stop programs aimed at gender inclusion.

Is anyone disputing that? This conversation is beyond confusing.

[Jabanga]

>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform.

That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination.

>Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro

What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip away his message and judge him by what identity group he belongs to"

[Delmania]

> That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination.

Really? The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". The second bullet point is that there are limits to how people oriented specific roles or even Google as a whole can be. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay.

[mistermann]

> but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay

The only way I can think of how one could come to this conclusion is a lack of either:

- knowledge of what a statistical average is

- capacity for basic logical thought

You are mixing up your imagination with reality.

[Delmania]

Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X".

So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait.

Further down: "Women value work life balance" "Men are status achievers" "Because of that, men will appropriately be in leadership and technology roles, also women suffer anxiety more." Side note, convenient he leaves out that women are statistically able to deal with stress better than men. His conclusion is that rather than creating programs that encourage women to enter leadership positions, leave that to the men and give women access to part time roles.

If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

[mistermann]

> You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong.

The explanation was in my previous comment.

I will give you another hint: you are misinterpreting the meaning of "women" in your excerpted quotes.

> If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

I don't think there's a way to reply that will satisfy you, there is a crucial part of objective perception that you are lacking.

[Delmania]

You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. The "angry white male stereotype" has been at the heart of programming for a long time; misogyny has been at the heart of programming for a long time. As eloquent and research based as this paper is, it's just another in that long line of thinking.

[Jabanga]

>You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it.

Then you're choosing to not be constructive. Sexism and racism are not constructive, and they are hurtful to innocent people.