Google's Other Ugly Secret: Some Managers Keep Blacklists (inc.com) 754
Last week a controversial internal memo written by a concerned Google employee was going viral within the company. The memo, titled "PC Considered Harmful" and since dubbed "the Google manifesto" on social media, argued two points: First, that Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind. Second, that part of the tech industry's gender gap can be attributed to biological differences between men and women. The person who wrote the memo has since been fired, but the internal tussle has revealed one more thing. The Inc reports: The contentious internal discussion revived a concern dating back to 2015: An unknown number of Google managers maintain blacklists of fellow employees, evidently refusing to work with those people. The blacklists are based on personal experiences of others' behavior, including views expressed on politics, social justice issues, and Google's diversity efforts. Inc. reviewed screenshots documenting several managers attesting to this practice, both in the past and currently, explicitly using the term "blacklist." The screenshots were shared by a Google employee who requested anonymity due to having signed an NDA. In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity. A Google spokesperson told Inc. that the practice of keeping blacklists is not condoned by upper management, and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated. It's not clear whether that principle applies in Damore's case. Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law, the views expressed in the manifesto and echoed by others who oppose political correctness do not seem to merit legal protection.
The Rainbow Scare (Score:3, Insightful)
You may want to research the early days of McCarthyism and the blacklist.
Is this the first firing that was perhaps an overly sensitive reaction concerned with appeasing a very touchy ideological base? Because I can think of a number of other people railroaded out of a job because of online "outrage."
We aren't all that far from an Inquisition (not prongs and tongs type Inquisition, but a "your job depends on agreement" type Inquisition). The most significant thing missing from the equation is that the most vocal social justice voices lack political influence and power. If you see this movement organize politically and get candidates in office, any student of history should recognize that things will get worse for open expression of ideas before things get better.
also girls suck at pooters lol
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
He was fired for pointing out a hostile work environment and discrimination..
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot discuss with religious fanatics. They want to preach their ideology, not discuss it.
Re: (Score:3)
You cannot discuss with religious fanatics. They want to preach their ideology, not discuss it.
Exactly. This is why heretics and blasphemers must be purged, as demonstrated by the firing.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read the actual "manifesto" , did you?
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
The dude has a PHD relevant to the topic he was discussing, and was well sourced. I'll grant that
he may have rambled a bit in some areas, but the intent, which is easily gauged by what is written,
was to ensure PC culture does not create a toxic environment for ANYONE, and that increasing
workplace diversity can be achieved in other ways.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Informative)
Oh really? Harvard doesn't think that he has a pHD [wired.com]. Care to provide a link to his doctoral thesis?
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, thanks for this. The guy makes a reasoned, careful argument. He's very adamant that he does not endorse applying stereotypes to individuals, and he accepts that we all have biases.
I don't agree with all of his conclusions, but it seems to me there is a culture problem at Google if he was really fired for authoring such a mild document. I have to assume that this document didn't come out of a vacuum and that there is more to this story.
Re: The Rainbow Scare (Score:3)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because your data is right, doesn't mean your conclusion is good or moral.
Translation: Your data is right, but your supported conclusions makes me uncomfortable. So I'm going to say it's evil and immoral, and hope that's enough to overcome your facts.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
Fact: Women in general have a lower lifting ability and physical strength then men in general.
Conclusion 1: Firefighters should reduce their requirements to allow women to fight fires.
Conclusion 2: Anyone who claims people who complete the reduced testing but could not complete the normal firefighter testing are somehow "less qualified" than the people who completed the normal tests are misogynist bigots.
Conclusion 3: Anyone who writes an essay pointing out that reducing requirements for women is sexist on its face because it displays low expectations for the capability of women, is a double misogynist bigot and a neonazi ultrafascist to boot.
Everyone's mistake is assuming anyone involved in hiring decisions wanted equality. Everyone involved just wants more women in tech fields, equal or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if the job requires upper body strength then test for that during the interview. There are indeed biological differences *on average* between men and women here. But women and and do become firefights and *many* women have more upper body strength than the average man.
Now go to computing. If there are differences in the average ability between men and women here then they are still much closer together than the differences in upper body strength. So if we can have women firefighters who can outperf
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers.
Quotation, please?
Re: (Score:3)
Read the paper.
Stereotypes come from somewhere. On average women are less capable, less inclined, and less willing to be engineers. That doesn't mean all women are the same, and that a particular women is a worse engineer than a particular man. He hypothesized that changing job roles, work flows, and hour requirements would work to attract more women to Google, and that women-only programs and favored hiring could be considered legally problematic while ignoring the needs of men.
" Is Conservativism now ab
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. He was fired because he asserted women were less capable of being engineers. It was a gender stereotype that called out Google's female employees as somehow being lesser in a particular set of fields. In my organization, he'd have been given his walking papers as well.
Well, really he said women were less likely on average to be engineers, which isn't without merit [inc.com]. The conclusion being that trying to strive for an arbitrary 50/50 ratio of women to men didn't make sense. I've been digging around all over the internet and I can't find anyone who has posted a good rebuttal to his points. If you find something, I'd like to read it if you don't mind sharing.
Re: (Score:3)
How is he a sexist in your mind?
How is your logic different than that of anti-vaxxers? (substituting sexist with shill)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Informative)
Basically nobody that criticizes him has actually read what he wrote. You can tell immediately by invalid the claims they are making.
Some actual experts that did read his text come to the conclusion that he is pretty much accurately describing reality:
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something sad about a PHD in biology getting fired for stating a biological opinion supported by other PHDs in biology
But that's the ideal situation for a political inquisition. Facts and expertise don't matter, only obedience. And now that should be 100% clear to everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
You're welcome.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Informative)
1. Not a trick (unless you are unable to read)
2. quilette.com is currently down, and that is the only reason why I posted that link
Also, are you claiming the scientific credentials of those people are invalid? Unless you do, you have no leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3)
The first is Lee Jussim, who is a professor in this field, but is well known for going against the prevailing views in academia... it's more like "some fringe experts who reject the mainstream, most widely accepted view agree with this guy".
When you are publicly shamed, then fired, then sent death threats for not having the PC view, of course only a few "fringe experts" would risk having a different opinion.
I don't even agree with the guy, but the hate he's receiving disgusts me.
Re: (Score:3)
Although, maybe not even then, as some research shows that men will underestimate the achievements of female colleages and overestimate the achievements of male colleagues
I wonder at that research. This is a gold-mine - you just need to open a competitor to Google with only women employees and beat the shit out of Google by the sheer brilliance of women.
Even if one argues Google has had too much of a head start, in many industries / companies this principle can be used to outcompete the companies making the mistake of hiring less women, or misjudging their competence . I don't see any in the industries I follow. Do you ?
Proof of a pudding is in the eating. Proof of competenc
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't denigrate anyone. He just pointed out that people aren't homogeneous in their aptitudes and interests.
Some people find the *suggestion* that there may in fact be differences between people to be denigrating.
Re: (Score:3)
But the problem is using a generalization of a people to advocate a direction.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Men and women differ by an entire chromosome. That's more than differentiates many species from each other. How much more genetic difference do you need? But the memo in question mentioned that genetics was only one of the factors involved and that culture and bias undoubtedly played a role as well. Again, did you really read it?
As to the shift in engineering demographics, perhaps it's not men and women that have changed in the past 40 years but rather the nature of the job.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Interesting)
There's not a whole lot that the Y chromosome carries, and there are predictions that it will atrophy into carrying no information in 4.6 million years at the current rate of decay: https://www.quantamagazine.org... [quantamagazine.org]
While the X chromosome carries 1,000 or so genes, the Y chromosome currently carries 200 genes and declining: http://gizmodo.com/the-y-chrom... [gizmodo.com]
Most of what people think the "male" chromosome carries is based on unscientific knowledge. Your chest hair, beard, and other male traits, do not come from the Y chromosome, but are instead expressions of the X chromosome under high levels of testosterone. That's why people without the Y chromosome can have sex-change operations and get a beard, chest hair, etc. by taking testosterone supplements. Testosterone also increases aggression and risk-taking, even for individuals without the Y chromosome.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Informative)
Men and women differ by an entire chromosome
Nope. Men still have a copy of an X chromosome.
Also, if you want to try to measure the difference via counting genes, there are more differences between unrelated men than there are between all men and all women.
(Sounds weird, but when you switch to "all", you are now talking about the frequency of various mutations in the overall population. When you're talking about the individuals, you are measuring the difference in their specific set of mutations.)
Re: (Score:3)
I was referring to the Y, not the X. Though having an unpaired chromosome (the X) also leads to differences in the form of a wider variance between individuals. Paired chromosomes have a moderating effect where even if one gene is defective the other can sometimes cover for it. Hence why men tend to be found more on the long tails of distribution graphs for various attributes while women show less variance from the mean. Also why the birth rate for men is lower despite Y sperm having a higher rate of fertil
Re: (Score:3)
They refuse to be teamworkers and work as long as their teammates do. They leave early, refuse to work weekends, and demand vacation time. All of those things are incompatible with a modern tech company.
I'm a male Engineer, and after my years in the industry I've come to the following conclusion: My employer buys 40 hours of my time per week. The rest is my time. We should be applauding those who stand up for themselves and refuse to work stupid hours because their employer is too cheap to hire enough people to do the job. That is something to be admired, not denigrated. Your family and your personal well being are far more important than meeting some artificial deadline.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, this is what passes for a political discussion these days. Demonize your opponent is all they know. You can't talk about anything substantive because you are just constantly fighting off accusations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4)
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were just cultural, you would expect to see wide variances and even opposite roles emphasized across cultures.
Please enlighten us as to which culture emphasizes men being caretakers, and women being the builders/makers.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Interesting)
And last night I was reading about Forrest Mims and Ed Roberts and the the Home Brew computer club. It kinda sounded like all this microcomputer nonsense got its start in the world of ham radio electronics enthusiasts. So why not look there for answers since there is a hundred years of global statistical data?
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Some societies have more women studying CS than men, e.g. Iran. The women there moved into that relatively new field before it became male dominated, and view it as liberating. Of course the down side is that some men are not put off studying CS because it is seen as a woman's job.
Other examples include Iceland and New Zealand, where girls now slightly out-perform boys in maths at school. If it was not a social thing, if it was biological, then it's hard to explain how two different cultures with two different languages on opposite sides of the world and with little migration between them could be that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Some societies have more women studying CS than men, e.g. Iran. The women there moved into that relatively new field before it became male dominated, and view it as liberating.
Programming and CS used to be "woman's work" in the US as well. Indeed, the first professional software engineers I met in the 70s were all women. Over the decades women left and/or were forced out. I wonder if there might be a similar dynamic in Iran.
Other examples include Iceland and New Zealand, where girls now slightly out-perform boys in maths at school.
Statements like this actually contain a lot less information than they appear to. The scientifically-demonstrated gender differences are complex, and they produce different statistical distributions of abilities across the populations. Merely noting that the m
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm....I'm not sure what I see here that is so offensive....
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise known as, "Dog Whistles", which are imaginary constructs conjured up by the left when they have no evidence to back up their claims of some kind of cultural transgression such as racism, sexism, any ind of phobia, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing like that was said... If you have insecurities of this level, take it up with your shrink, not /.
But thank you for taking offense on behalf of other people that aren't here. You must be a very busy man.
Re: (Score:3)
But the idea of treating the individual based on generalities of that group is wrong.
And the guy specifically addresses that in his paper, and he agrees with you. So we'll need to find some other reason he was fired.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't say that. He didn't imply that. His main point was to stop treating people as groups and the gender gap in tech is probably not because of sexism.
Of course, it's easy to argue a straw man you and others created.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree and I will be right there with you to try and resolve that issue like helping anyone to be better negotiators. That doesn't imply that anyone that is a poor negotiator is inferior. Negotiating is a social skill and that in and of itself is a valuable asset to have to increase your worth for a company. If you are a poor negotiator then you possibly have other areas of communication that could be better which have nothing to do with the code you produce.
two equally qualified individuals work equally well and produce equal amounts of value, then it is morally wrong to pay one individual less than another, regardless of their gender.
First, I think Damore was right. We should stop
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
no, he was fired for intentionally creating a hostile working environment.
Talk about hyperbole, Mr. alt-left. This isn't even remotely accurate. A hostile work environment is defined by EEOC as:
1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive
What he said is anything but that. In fact, you could even argue that Google was intimidating and hostile against this guy's (and other people like him) opinion on this matter.
You come into a business then denigrate a sizable chunk of its workforce, then why should you expect anything else than getting fired?
Again, the hyperbole is real here. He didn't denigrate anybody. His argument amounted to "men and women are actually objectively different in terms of desires and mannerisms", something that is well supported by science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is just it. As the haters (and those that damn him now match that description pretty well) have no actual factual arguments, they claim that their stance is "obviously right" and threaten anybody that disagrees with retaliation. Pretty much SOP for fanatical cults.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Google CEO said yesterday:
To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive..
So all Google employees either have identical biology or it's impossible for biological factors to influence work performance at Google.
And if you disagree you'll be excommunicated and shunned.
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what gets me. There is nothing inherently wrong stating that there are biological differences in a sexually dimorphic species. What matters is what you do with that knowledge. I do not think women are inferior because they are different! Without their differences we wouldn't have modern humans to begin with.
It's pretty sad the number of people at google cannot fathom a world where any difference == inferior.
Re: (Score:3)
You are completely wrong on this. As all his statements are fact-based, he cannot have done that. Or is pointing out facts now "hostile"?
In actual reality, he was fired for questioning the truth of the cult's quasi-religious statements.
For some actual experts chiming in: https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
Re:The Rainbow Scare (Score:5, Insightful)
Except he did not denigrate anyone. At no point did he argue for a discriminatory hiring policy or suggest there were not good engineers among any group.
What he did suggest was that diversity hires don't help the situation over all. There are valid statistical reasons fewer female engineers exist. You can take aptitude tests and compare the distribution of men vs women and its plain that if you grab any random man off the street you have better odds he will posses the aptitude for higher math for example than any random woman will.
That is not at all to say this will hold true among the population of say job applicants for an engineering position. That will give you a huge selection bias. It might even eliminate the difference in distribution between men and women form the most part.
What does not make sense however is to say welp we don't have enough people who are X so we will exclude people that are Y and lower our requirements until we can fill enough positions with X. That won't get you the best people. Is his argument.
Frankly its a correct one, unless you take it as an article of faith that these other groups are just 'oppressed' in some way and these diversity hires will blossom once they are given a chance. This is a purely unscientific claim. This entire thing exists in the realm of politics.
Google is a private company. If they want to fire people because they don't support managements politics that is their right, but I think we should call this exactly what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
we should call this exactly what it is.
Anti-science bullshit being perpetuated in US culture because feelz before realz.
Does that include in the interview process (Score:5, Insightful)
... Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.
I am curious: does that include discrimination against those protected classes in the job interview process? Like, say, for example, ageism? I am just saying.
You see, it is easy to visually identify some protected classes and subtly discriminate against them (he is overqualified, or she is not a good fit for the team) in ways that are not obviously discriminatory. But nobody in their right mind talks politics or social justice as part of the interview process. So you hire some people who end being a diversity problem. Don't kid yourself, to Google and similar companies the views expressed which challenge the accepted thinking are not welcomed as part of a healthy and vigorous debate. They are seen as a disease that must be cut out.
We are very tolerant and accepting here. You had better be tolerant and accepting in the same way or we will sack you.
California Labor Code 1050-1053 (Score:3)
The interview process is protected against blacklisting:
1050. Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
1051. Except as provided in Section 1057, any person or agent or officer thereof, who requires, as a condition precedent to securing or retaining emp
Re:Does that include in the interview process (Score:5, Informative)
age is not a protected class (is it? I doubt it).
It has been, under federal law for the last 50 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Age is a protected class
Re:Does that include in the interview process (Score:4, Informative)
Not just in California, in the whole nation.
Is there anything wrong with this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there anything wrong with this? I also have a personal list of people I don't want to work with.
it's not as if anyone at Google tries to enforce the list on other companies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What are you? A fucking child? I don't love all of my coworkers. I don't agree with many of their political views. The salient factor - the only factor of any importance - is if they can do the job. Be an adult and a professional, and praise and elevate competent people. Shunning people because, boo hoo, they said something mean about X, and it hurts my feelings just to look at them, would seriously get you punted out of my company if I had anything to say about it. We're here to get a job done, expe
Re:Is there anything wrong with this? (Score:5, Informative)
???
My list and Googles list contains people can not do the job, or who prevent other from doing their job. Or people who are impossible to work with. It does not contain people I don't like, or don't agree with.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree with many of their political views.
I don't even know the political views of any of my coworkers at all, but there have been coworkers that I don't work with. They have been people who are terrible at their job, or are obnoxious, and one who simply smelled too bad to be near.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What are you? A fucking child? I don't love all of my coworkers. I don't agree with many of their political views. The salient factor - the only factor of any importance - is if they can do the job. Be an adult and a professional, and praise and elevate competent people. Shunning people because, boo hoo, they said something mean about X, and it hurts my feelings just to look at them, would seriously get you punted out of my company if I had anything to say about it. We're here to get a job done, expediently, correctly, competitively with the best group of people to make it so. We're not here to massage egos, create safe spaces, or coddle people.
That sounds suspiciously like you would, ahem, blacklist them from your company for holding a view that you don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
I get a little nervous when people start compiling dossiers of evidence...
Google is not a political club or Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that your employer is obligated to give you a podium. In general, so that everyone can get along I'd rather not know that my co-worker is a bigot or a Trump supporter, etc.
Had this fellow made his posting outside of his employment, things would have been different. But he chose to do it at work, and because of the way Google's merit system works (your co-workers grade you), he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers. This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday. And the CEO called off a family vacation in order to come back and deal with the fallout.
Re: (Score:3)
I've had issues with co-workers political views lately, and it really does make things difficult. I try to be professional and work with them, but they want to be my friends even though I know they don't want my wife to immigrate and live with me. It would be better if we just didn't talk about it, but Brexit and the fact that I'm often taking time off to sort out visa issues and the like makes it impossible.
Re:Google is not a political club or Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
I've had issues with co-workers political views lately, and it really does make things difficult.
They are your issues, not everyone elses. Its in your head, not everyone elses.
Also stop modding yourself up with your sock puppets.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. It's hard knowing that people around you want you to abandon your family, to deny you happiness and a life together. It's best to not discuss these things at work.
Re:Google is not a political club or Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
This so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday.
This right here is a problem and it sort of reinforces the notion that some people (be they women, liberals, Christians, immigrants, whatever) are so fragile that they cannot abide people around them who think differently.
I teach at a Midwestern university. Last fall after Trump won the election I read about how students at some universities were so overwhelmed by the Trump victory that their professors delayed or canceled exams, that the school had cry ins, and other such nonsense.
What I told my students was that regardless of who you supported, half of the country was terribly disappointed the morning after the election, but that life goes on. The cows still have to get milked, the news papers have to be delivered, the Starbucks have to be open for business, students have to be taught, etc. We have to encourage people to be more resilient, not less.
I come from an immigrant family. My parents didn't sit around and cry when something didn't go their way or someone said something impolite to them. They put on their big boy/big girl pants and worked that much harder. The state of society today has me frequently asking how we become so weak minded.
Re: (Score:3)
Mass sick-outs are often politically effective within organizations. It sounds like this one may have been. Did the CEO cut short his vaction only because of the press? Or was internal strife significant?
You did have the choice to be a vocal enemy of prejudice, highlighting your own situation and the perpetrators. Some people do, often sacrificing other opportunities (up to and including staying in their jobs) and those who follow and would
Re: (Score:3)
It seems to me that "shut up and soldier" can't always be the response, lest we make little social progress. Maybe you were too severe in your judgement of those folks?
Honestly, Bruce, I look up to you and I am not trying to be belligerent. I struggled for quite some time with how to respond here (more than I have for just about any other comment I have posted to Slashdot).
I do have my view of the world and my way of dealing with things and I realize that others have their own ways. That said, I think my attitude can best be summed up as "if you want to change the world, you cannot let hurt feelings keep you down." Certainly, if someone suffers a personal tra
Re: (Score:3)
Well, any system devised by humans can go haywire; there's a lot to be said for a system where your coworkers grade you, but such a system is susceptible to group-think and prejudice.
That said, it shouldn't really even come up in the context of the workplace. If your political views cause dissension, you leave them at home. Same with your religion, or anything else. If it pisses people off, you button it.
But we all know that kind of person. The one who is convinced he's misunderstood because he's smarter
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that he was outed. But once he was outed, it became very distracting from the organization's message.
No, I have not donated to organizations that seek to limit anyone's religious freedom. I have, however, donated to organizations that work against religiously-motivated discrimination. If you think you have a right to deny services to gay people just because they are gay, yes, they are working against that.
"Protected Classes" (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work. How old fashioned!
Victimhood Identity Politics is in direct opposition to the American principle of individualism. Evidently treating people as individuals doesn't offer SJW types enough opportunities for graft or lording over others to make them conform to their far-left culture war politics.
So we get "Protected Classes," because some animals are more equal than others...
Re: (Score:3)
There are some who argue that only those classes with a history of
Re:"Protected Classes" (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work..
No. You simply remember the times you were hired and your self-belief makes you assume that you were the most qualified applicant. It's not true now [npr.org] and never has been.
Echo chambers and workplace equality (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has become an ideological echo chamber where anyone with centrist or right-of-center views fears to speak their mind.
How ironic, because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. I used to be a Republican, back before moderates were "RINO's". The GOP of that era knew that climate change was real, and debated carbon tax vs cap-and-trade as a solution. The modern GOP either thinks that climate change isn't real, or that it's caused by gay marriage.
Gender equality is a complex issue, and is full of people talking past each other, so I expect little progress to be made anytime soon. Women should feel completely free to join male-dominated fields like programming and science, just as men should feel free to join female-dominated fields like nursing and teaching.
Yes, there is often enough male misogynists, weirdos, and "those guys" in IT that it would make women uncomfortable, and that needs to be nipped in the bud, both for the sake of women and for the sake of business. There are women like that too. People who are jerks in one way are often jerks in other ways too, and those malignant personalities often have deleterious effects on their co-workers irrespective of gender.
But I don't see people fretting about why women aren't working construction jobs, or hauling garbage. That's because even the men working those jobs largely don't *want* to do them. IT isn't hauling the garbage, but it involves long hours, an often stressful work environment, and a relentless grind. Maybe those characteristics aren't as attractive to women as to men. Having worked in IT for 15+ years, it's not attractive to me as a man either. Or maybe women simply have better options.
Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium. I don't *think* so, but it's possible. Men and women are different, and desire different things. Men desire income (to attract a wife and support a family), while women often prefer jobs that allow them more free time (again to support their family). If you're a woman who desires income, or a man who wants more free time, that's completely fine (I'd definitely prefer more free time over a pay raise), but it's not the average response.
TL;DR: People are all different. Be kind to one another. Don't be a dick.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'd be surprised if you read the "anti-equality" manifesto. The author highlighted a lot of the social and biological norms that you did.
Re: (Score:3)
I read the manifesto, and I see it as a sincere effort to be thoughtful, but ultimately pseudo-scientific.
For example it's absolutely true that women and men are exposed to different ranges of testosterone in utero, but to draw a causal link between that and the rate at which they become programmers takes an enormous leap of faith.
Likewise he peppers the piece with references to the "average woman", but the average woman doesn't become an engineer any more than the average man. It takes an uncommon set of
Re:Echo chambers and workplace equality (Score:4, Funny)
Political movements are supposed to have specific positions and organize around those positions. It's not "ironic".
...because the right has itself become an ideological echo chamber. ... Maybe 20% women in programming *is* the natural equilibrium.
That's cute. You think disapproving of "the right" will save you from the inquisition.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there is often enough male misogynists, weirdos, and "those guys" in IT that it would make women uncomfortable
Are there not enough hyper feminists, weirdos and "those girls" to make men feel uncomfortable?
I don't want to listen to prattle every friggin day about how terrible it is you can't get the kind of birth control you want for free, and my gosh how come we don't have menstruation breaks here, or see your stupid pussy hat on the coat rack when nobody else would wear something like that to place of professional business. Lets face it. The real issue here is that we allow this shit to be an issue. The issu
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to my own comment since this seems to have blown up.
Gender equality involves three interlinked questions:
1. As individuals, are women with a given level of education/experience/productivity *hired* at the same rate as men.
The answer is *no*, though economic forces alone will solve the problem even in the absence of regulation. Any business that can hire a woman who is just as effective as a man but will work for 80% of the salary will quickly find themselves making a lot of money. This leads t
Not the hours, not the tedium - job stability (Score:3)
"political affiliation is a protected class" (Score:4, Insightful)
"Although political affiliation is a protected class according to California labor law"
Yeah.
In the current political climate this doesn't matter AT ALL. NOT ONE BIT.
California universities have been tolerating violent, physically violent attacks against speakers, visitors, guests to their campuses, violence in reaction to their professed political affiliations, violence justified by student, faculty, and others NOT AFFILIATED WITH THESE UNIVERSITIES by THEIR political affiliations.
This is not limited to California, but to recite that California law declares political affiliation a 'protected class', that is, political association is by law in California protected and claimed to be a right of the people to participate in, express, and speak freely without threat of suppression, is not merely disingenuous, it is an affront and insult to those who have suffered actual physical injury because those with opposing views would not tolerate their speaking.
What? Google fires an employee for speaking their mind. Students and others at Berkeley physically assault people gathering to protest these suppressions of free political speech. In California. Some were arrested. And the attitude that contrary speech should be fought against, literally fought against, seems to be spreading.
The truth is, in California, there is a coalition of political groups agreeing that contrary speech can and SHOULD be suppressed and prevented, by physical violence if they choose to. And this is happening nationwide. Worldwide.
And it is justified by the 'greater good'.
The political philosophy that claims to be tolerant, inclusive, caring, and above all better, is the one that espouses violent response to their opposition. This philosophy is led to this by leaders worldwide, unapologetic in their goals and tactics.
Yes, and??? (Score:2, Interesting)
and that Google employees who discriminate against members of protected classes will be terminated.
So firing that guy may or may not have gone overboard a bit. But what do you expect? After all, they just got under fire [theguardian.com] for not protecting protected classes from discrimination.
Are they supposed to create a work environment more friendly to women or not?
Re: (Score:2)
He wrote a 10-page memo titled "X Considered Harmful". Of course they fired him. It takes a certain breed of idiot to presume themselves Djikstra.
(This coming from a Congressional candidate marketing a "New Deal", as if I presume myself FDR.)
Contractors keep blacklists as well... (Score:4, Interesting)
Over my 20+ year career as an IT Support contractor, I've kept a blacklist of recruiters that I refused to deal with. Tek Systems, Robert Half and Microsoft tops my blacklist.
Tek Systems always call you in for an interview, are more interested in who you interviewed with previously than your qualifications, and never offer a job after repeated interviews.
The San Jose office for Robert Half have recruiters who always get a better job for themselves than trying to help you get a job. I went through six recruiters in three month because of the turnover.
Microsoft requires that the hiring manager considers five applicants even though he plans to hire his drinking buddy. During a six week period in 2005, I had five Microsoft recruiters leading me by the nose for jobs that went to drinking buddies.
Siliconvalleydad, Kalifornistan (Score:3, Interesting)
So protected speech doesn't merit legal protection in California?
REALLY?
Again, illiberal, authoritarian shit like this, coming out of what's supposed to be the most liberal place on the planet should surprise nobody.
"Think differently, just like me, OR ELSE!"
So, instead of a tolerant, level-headed push to better and broaden society, we have a bunch of bitchy, socially maladjusted children pushing darwinian progressivism, group-think, intolerance and and the kind of antisocial interaction you see in nasty little grade school students.
And California isn't just "okay" with this, it wants the entire fucking state to be this goddamn crazy.
Then they wonder why people are praying for an earthquake or secession to take these fucknuts off our hands...
Wrong policy (Score:4, Insightful)
"In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".
Those are the people who should be fired.
Re: (Score:3)
It's insane. I can't choose to "not work" with my coworkers because IT'S MY GODDAMN JOB TO WORK WITH THEM.
Re: (Score:3)
If only voices saying just that were louder when Brendan Eich was forced out... but the thirst for scalps by the diversity gods can never be quenched.
Foreach $class (@classes_of_people_not_like_me, $my_class) {
they->came_for($class);
if ($class ne $my_class) {
self->speak_for($class) or they->delete($class);
} else {
null->speak_for($class) or die "there was no one left to speak for me.";
}
}
(apologies to Mar
What is meant by "blacklist"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most places that I've worked has had pretty strict prohibitions on discussing politics or religion in the workplace, no matter what flavor of those things is involved. For good and obvious reasons, I think -- such discussions can only lead to grief and strife among people who would otherwise be able to work productively together. I'm a bit surprised that Google allows it.
Also, I'm not clear on what is meant by "blacklist". Typically, that means a list of people who are ineligible for (whatever) that is distributed within an organization and everyone is expected to adhere to.
But the article makes it sound like something rather different: individuals deciding that they can't work with other individuals. This is pretty normal. I know that in most places that I've worked, there have been people that I would go to great lengths to avoid interacting with, and in a managerial role, there have been people who I would not accept on my team because of personality issues.
Is that a "blacklist"? I don't think so. I think it's more about wanting to have teams that can function well together. Being able to get along well in a team is as important as technical skill.
When did /. demographics change? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened, I thought we were all end-of-life curmudgeons, not 15 year olds just entering the workforce.
Every single person ever keeps a "blacklist" of people they will not work with. There are many reasons one could find themselves on said list, many real, many petty. Maybe a person...
- were a client that didn't pay up for work done
- were a subcontractor that didn't do the work
- were constantly going on about their child/dog/cat
- drank too much during office hours
- smelled
- their food smelled
- kept going on about something political, no matter the spectrum
- you just don't like their face
- they stole your lunch money
- have an annoyING valley-girl/boy vocAL afflectiON
If you're freelancing, you just don't deal with them. If you're in a team/corporate environment, you avoid them. Welcome to life. Can't wait till you discover that you get free television channels by using an antenna (in most parts of the US). Get off my lawn and all that.
Dear Google team members (Score:3)
We are making regular additions to Sundar's List for all collective CrimeThinkers: Classical Liberals, Meritocratic Libertarians, Republicans, Christians, Moderates, associated FreeThinkers, Heteronormatives, Cis gender caucasian-males, Leftists refusing to toe the line, as well as scientists discussing inconvenient biological facts. We read your contacts, your email, your queries, your financial transactions, and shortly, your thoughts.
Dissent will not be tolerated
DoublePlus Love,
Danielle Brown
Commissar of GoodThink
ThinkPol, Google Corp
P.S. Support our Hillary2020 Campaign
I've seen it first hand (Score:3)
Working as a tech manager for 20 years, I've seen the misogyny and sexual harassment first hand. There were times I had to keep lists of who would work together and who needed to be separated. That is not a "blacklist" unless you're a little snowflake looking for a reason to be offended. That just means you have a large organization and there's always that talented but socially inept developer who has the social skills of a Neanderthal. You try to keep them on, try to work with them on the social aspects. Sometimes it works, most times not.
I did notice there tended to be cultural influences at work in some cases. I'd also argue that the current political climate has increased sensitivity to people who come across as "pussy grabbers."
Re:Feeling kind of misled about Google (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Having read that manifesto... (Score:4, Insightful)
Waiting....
Re:Having read that manifesto... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are offensive to a decent society. You're post was nothing but whining vitriol, with not even one counter argument to anything the paper contained. Yet, you equate the author with a criminal because his view of the world differs from yours. You're post is worthless and we are all dumber for having read it.
Re:Having read that manifesto... (Score:5, Insightful)
However "offensive" the man's beliefs may be, he voiced them in an extremely organized, non-confrontational tone that is very open to discussion. Something you have failed to do.
The real reason for my comment, however, is to ask how you can believe he is anti-diversity. Like another response to your comment, I request quotations for you to back up your point. I am surprised you find him anti-diversity because literally almost the entire document is about how to make Google friendlier to more diverse opinions, and as far as sex goes, has a whole section entitled "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap".
Re: (Score:3)