Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Yahoo! IT Technology

From Google To Yahoo, Tech Grapples With White Male Discontent (bloomberg.com) 577

Reader joshtops shares a Bloomberg report: Google isn't the only Silicon Valley employer being accused of hostility to white men. Yahoo and Tata Consultancy Services were already fighting discrimination lawsuits brought by white men before Google engineer James Damore ignited a firestorm -- and got himself fired -- with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers. The Yahoo case began last year when two men sued, claiming they'd been unfairly fired after managers allegedly manipulated performance evaluations to favor women. They claim Marissa Mayer approved the review process and was involved in their terminations, and last month a judge ordered the former chief executive be deposed. TCS, meanwhile, is fighting three men who claim the Mumbai-based firm discriminates against non-Indians at its U.S. offices.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

From Google To Yahoo, Tech Grapples With White Male Discontent

Comments Filter:
  • Need vs Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amiga3D ( 567632 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:23PM (#55011971)

    White males are not very PC today but it's hard to run a company without any of them. The trick is to find a balance where you treat them shitty enough to make the left happy but not so shitty they go somewhere more tolerant.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Worse yet, gay white males are ignored as being any different. Try getting any support from Fox News or the ACLU for a gay white male. It sucks never getting any representation.

      Look at what they did to destroy Milo's career, and no one even blinked.
    • The trick is to find a balance where you treat them shitty enough to make the left happy but not so shitty they go somewhere more tolerant.

      Fortunately corporations are EXCELLENT at application of these principles to their workforce. The secret is doing everything possible to make sure there is nowhere else to go.

    • go somewhere more tolerant

      Well, that part's easy - there is no such place.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 )

      How is this modded "insightful"? White males are not oppressed. I am a white male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible liberal places, run by leftists, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly. I know a lot of liberal democrats, and none of them want white males to be treated badly.

      The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a

      • by zugmeister ( 1050414 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:11PM (#55012449)
        Well as long as you have a personal anecdote I guess that's all the data we should ask for?
      • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:47PM (#55012647)
        So if a black person claimed that they had personally never experienced racism, it must also mean that it doesn't exist? Let's see how it scans for fun:

        Black males are not oppressed. I am a black male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible conservative places, run by righties, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat black males badly. I know a lot of conservative republicans, and none of them want black males to be treated badly.

        The people I see complaining about the treatment of black males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.

        While I'm not going to suggest that racism doesn't exist (there are plenty of scientific studies [nber.org] or statistical analysis of data [umich.edu] that have found racial bias exists or cannot explain race-based gaps for different outcomes) I would argue that the people on both sides who are creating or perpetuating a victim narrative should just fuck off because they're not doing anything to help.

        • So if a black person claimed that they had personally never experienced racism, it must also mean that it doesn't exist? Let's see how it scans for fun:

          Black males are not oppressed. I am a black male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible conservative places, run by righties, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat black males badly. I know a lot of conservative republicans, and none of them want black males to be treated badly.

          Not sure if you've noticed, but that exact argument is used by conservatives all the time, and the rare black conservative that airs that on Fox pretty easily. Many people point at Obama or black CEO as evidence that racism can't exist.

          An anecdote doesn't prove that the state of the country is equitable. It can provide some evidence about the extent of problems, though. Ideally to support any claim about the state of society, you would have aggregated statistics, credible explanations of mechanisms that cou

      • by Cederic ( 9623 )

        I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly.

        I have never been in or seen a workplace that intentionally tried to treat any population group badly.

        I've heard of a few, e.g. people that have worked there have told me you'll always be treated as a second-class citizen at a certain Japanese IT company if you're not Japanese.

        The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.

        Most of the people that I see complaining about the treatment of white males are merely seeking the equality that the people acting in a sexist or racist way keep yelling that they're trying to achieve.

        E.g. Google claim they're seekin

      • Re:Need vs Politics (Score:4, Informative)

        by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @08:16PM (#55013681) Journal
        When I was a early teenager I became aware that there was a technical jobs thing at the local army base for high school students but when I went to apply I found out it was only for minorities. It didn't matter that parents were divorced and we were dirt poor being white was too much.
        • Yup. That's why there are exactly zero white "Social Justice" Hypocrites who grew up poor. SJH is basically a club for rich douchebags who want a socially acceptable excuse to harass and discriminate against their poor and working class brethren.

    • by epyT-R ( 613989 )

      How about we just respect the personal liberties of individuals regardless of irrelevant attributes?

  • As a white man... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mellon ( 7048 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:25PM (#55011985) Homepage

    I gotta say, I get treated pretty nicely. When I was a twenty-something I was really resentful because I couldn't figure out how to get dates. I want to believe that there is more to this kerfuffle than that, but I really just don't get it. Why are my youthful brethren so discontent?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:40PM (#55012135)

      You get treated nicely. Given your Slashdot user number, it's highly likely you've been here for almost 2 decades. That would mean you've figured out the corporate game and how to keep your mouth shut. You may have already been promoted and given generous raises.

      Young men getting shoved to the back of the class or young men getting passed over for promotions or not getting accepted to college because they are white and male is a different thing than you've experienced. But - they are not a protected class. Are we creating a disenchanted class of young white men without prospects? Maybe not yet, but when you have a cadre of young men without jobs, passed over for promotions and educational opportunities, they will find other ways to spend their time. Witness Charlottesburg. Lot of people apparently with plenty of time on their hands to create havoc and now murder.

      It may sound like grievance mongering, and you may not buy the thesis, but lots of young people with nothing to do equals time wasted spent on other things that are not productive to society. That goes for all races, genders, etc.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:41PM (#55012141)
      The kind that have vanished. There's nothing more dangerous than a man, any man, with no job prospects and therefore no marriage prospects.
      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:39PM (#55012601) Homepage Journal

        The kind that have vanished.

        Bah. My son-in-law, who is a high-school dropout, not even a GED, is working as an HVAC installer for $16 per hour. He's going to do a certification course (at employer expense, and paid), and then he'll jump up to $35 per hour. My son (HS diploma) passed up a full-time job at $18 per hour doing composites fabrication to take a $10 per hour part time job at Target because he decided he needs to get his degree (wise decision) and Target will work around his school schedule. He doesn't need the money that much, though because his wife (HS diploma) is making $40K per year doing office admin work for a company that owns billboards. My other son (HS diploma) similarly passed on a decent full-time job doing cabinetry work because he wants to get his degree, so he's flipping burgers instead for $9 per hour (he lives at home). My nephew, who has nothing but a high school diploma and is somewhat slow (IQ 80 or so), is making $15 per hour working for the city maintenance crew, driving trucks and whatnot.

        And then there are all of the young people I know who do have degrees. None of them are making less than $60K, except one who chose to be a public schoolteacher, but teachers have always been poorly paid, and he went into it with his eyes open. His wife is an FBI agent, currently GS-10, so they're okay.

        Maybe I just live in the right area and you live in the wrong one, but around here employers -- at every level -- are begging for employees, and they're paying accordingly. And we have a moderate to low cost of living.

        The biggest problem I see right now is that too many young people around me are being enticed away from school by good-paying (from their perspective) jobs. Four years of school could nearly double their income in the short term, and in the long term it will do better than that. I've got my sons convinced to take the short-term hit for the long-term reward (financial and more). I've had less success with my daughter and her husband, but there are some complications in their case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because the white 20 year old males are being blamed for everything.

      Did you ever feel in YOUR twenties that you were being blamed for society? Were YOU ever being told to "check your privilege" simply because you were a white male? That, somehow, it was YOUR fault and YOU should feel ashamed due to an accident of your birth?

      They're discontent because of the "SJW" -- VERY left wing, very liberal, people wanting to make a mark on the world and, instead of voting, are taking more direct action. Unfortunatel

      • by Altus ( 1034 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:55PM (#55012293) Homepage

        You seem to think that this is a new phenomenon... that the idea that we should treat women and minorities decently is somehow just coming up... or the idea that equal representation might be an important thing for minorities, or that you shouldn't sexually harass co-workers....

        All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, 2017 @06:24PM (#55012917)

          You ignored his questions and remade the argument to make him look anti-egalitarian. Here it is again:

          Did you ever feel in YOUR twenties that you were being blamed for society? Were YOU ever being told to "check your privilege" simply because you were a white male? That, somehow, it was YOUR fault and YOU should feel ashamed due to an accident of your birth?

          These things were not in the '90's. In '85 nobody said "check your privilege". Nobody called a computer club in '99 bigoted cisgender neo-nazis because the only people that showed up were socially ostracized teenage boys. Society has radically changed in the last ten years let alone twenty.

        • by Cederic ( 9623 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @07:10PM (#55013233) Journal

          All this stuff was around in the 90s, most of it came into being in the 80s. You might believe you are the first generation to be held to a higher standard, but thats simply not true.

          My generation was held to a higher standard. We were taught to treat everybody equally.

          Sadly that's no longer the case. Mainstream media is rampant with anti-white and anti-male writing, and at its most hysterical when the two intersect.

      • by mellon ( 7048 )

        Yes, I felt that I was to blame for most things. Rape, my fault. Racism, my fault. It sucked. My response was to work for social justice, not to get angry. I could see sexism in action all around me. I could see racism in action all around me. I had no illusions that they were problems, so I had no problem with trying to do something about it, even though I wasn't the one who caused it. I was probably 25 before I referred to myself as a man, because being a man was supposed to be bad.

        I get wh

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:22PM (#55012503) Homepage Journal

      To some degree the culture wars are a struggle between groups striving to reduce the other group to a bit player in their personal dramas. When you're young, you think the frustrations of your group are unique -- which in a way they are.

      When you're a female engineer, you face patronization, and an entrenched belief that no women can't be good at what you do. And that sucks. Yet it makes my skin crawl to see a wealthy middle class woman lecture a poor working class man about his "privilege". It's not that she's wrong; being male, particularly white male, confers certain privileges. But not only does it completely ignore the privileges of class that he does not enjoy, it's reducing all that individual's unique life experiences to a scheme.

      The bottom line is people don't have enough compassion for each other. And that's because they treat compassion as a resource; if I spare compassion for *that* group, I won't have enough left over for *my* group.

      Compassion is not a resource, it is a habit of mind. What's more it's an essential tool in the the human cognitive framework; the way we enter another's skin and come to understand him or her as an individual. All these pointless arguments, you will note, take place in terms of archetypes (e.g. the average woman or man).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by laie_techie ( 883464 )

      I gotta say, I get treated pretty nicely. When I was a twenty-something I was really resentful because I couldn't figure out how to get dates. I want to believe that there is more to this kerfuffle than that, but I really just don't get it. Why are my youthful brethren so discontent?

      I am a white man, early forties. Every celebration of diversity I have seen during nearly 20 years as a professional has been to the detriment of whites in general (and white men specifically). Diversity means giving preferences to women, LGBT, or racial minorities. It means I have to be twice as qualified in order to compete against individuals in the desired minorities. I have been passed over for raises two years in a row while all minorities in my company got significant pay increases.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:26PM (#55011989)

    The memo not only does NOT make the claim that women are less suited to tech roles and leadership roles, it makes the counter claim, that men have designed those roles to make them less friendly to women and that by altering those roles we can improve diversity and decrease the gender gap.

    But I've yet to see a single neoliberal source treat the memo honestly, every neoliberal source I've seen treats Damore radically different than his behavior reflects. I don't agree with everything he says, but to claim he is against diversity is straight slander here.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      The memo not only does NOT make the claim that women are less suited to tech roles and leadership roles, it makes the counter claim, that men have designed those roles to make them less friendly to women and that by altering those roles we can improve diversity and decrease the gender gap.

      But I've yet to see a single neoliberal source treat the memo honestly, every neoliberal source I've seen treats Damore radically different than his behavior reflects. I don't agree with everything he says, but to claim he is against diversity is straight slander here.

      He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

      Maybe he should have hiring standards had been changed, or hiring standards had been altered to accommodate but he said LOWERED.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:44PM (#55012183)

        Well, they have been lowered.. he didn't sugar coat the truth.

      • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:02PM (#55012371) Homepage Journal

        He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

        FWIW, I work for Google and interview software engineering candidates. I have never, ever been told to go easier on diversity candidates, or indeed anything other than to apply the same rigorous standard to all. My colleagues on the hiring committees (who make hire/no-hire decisions) say the same, and I see no evidence of bias in which people I've interviewed got offers... maybe half of the good ones got offers, none of the borderline or below got offers, and I see no gender or racial correlations at all.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        It's fairly well known that Google lowered their standards for women to meet quotas. That must really suck if you're a top-notch woman working there, since there will always be that suspicion. What he wants is to change the job description such that you don't have to lower the standard, and yet engineers will be just as productive for Google. Sounds worthwhile to me, if you can pull it off.

        We all know engineering is a fairly collaborative process. When I interviewed at Google it was all "design this, co

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:07PM (#55012421)

        He says hiring standards had been lowered for diversity.

        True. But he doesn't say that is because women are inherently less capable, but inherently less interested, so the standards have to be lowered because the female candidate pool is shallower.

        Disclaimer: I am just trying to clarify what James wrote. I am not agreeing with it. I like working with chicks.

      • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:18PM (#55012481)
        If you're going to attempt to have more employees of category X in your company than exist naturally in the available labor pool, then you're going to have to lower hiring standards. The only ways you don't is if you assume people in category X are more skilled on average or if you pay higher wages to people in category X so you can maintain the same level of quality but draw from the best individuals among category X. I suspect that the people who disagree with what the memo/manifesto had to say are going to argue that in favor of the first being true as it directly contradicts the notion that biology doesn't play a role, and probably would reject the second as well because it's going to result in a perception of non-equal pay based on lack of merit, unless all of the category X people are more skilled than everyone else who's not in category X.

        I just don't see any other way to accomplish this without lowering the bar. Say you ran a company and only wanted to hire people who are left handed (about 10% of the population, but as an interesting aside it is estimated that men are more likely to be left-handed than women [nih.gov] for whatever reason) and that for the job you are hiring people, dominant hand plays no role in actual performance (so we're not hiring for a baseball team). How could you not reduce hiring standards if you're actively ignoring some 90% (this assumes left and right-handed people are equally likely to apply for the job) of the labor pool for artificial reasons?

        I think some people just want to jump on this argument or line of thinking because it goes against their ideas of increasing diversity, but if you stop and think about it, it also supports diversity outcomes. If you were only hiring right-handed people it also means that your company is ignoring qualified individuals in the labor pool for the same reason. Sure in this particular case, it's a smaller part of the pool so you might not have to lower standards as much, but anyone who is discriminating against any minority group is actively hurting themselves by ignoring skilled workers. Interestingly, the same is true for other aspects of the memo. If women are more likely to have some attribute (whether physical or personality) than men and having a diversity across that attribute is valuable or improves outcomes in some way, then not hiring women makes it more difficult to have employees with that attribute.

        But back to the central point, please let me know if there's some obvious approach by which you can discriminate in favor of some category of employees in excess of their representation in the labor pool without lowering standards or paying a higher wage, because I can't think of one. If you really want to see more people of category X in some job you'll need to address the number of people in the labor pool (which is probably a tangled mess of all manner of underlying factors both biological and social and not always easily solved) otherwise attempting to hire people disproportionately is just a bad move, much like trying to put the roof up before erecting any of the walls or laying the foundation.
    • You're presuming that folks of all stripes are capable of reading, and, more importantly, understanding what they read. If all someone understands is a sound bite, it's not possible to read. Very few people in the USA and, increasingly in other advanced countries, can understand what they read so they wait for visual and auditory snippets to tell them what to think.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I've been in the computing industry for decades now. Despite the recent rise of so-called "social justice", things are worse now than they've ever been.

      I've worked alongside many women since the 1970s. I've worked alongside open homosexuals, and even some transgendered people, since the 1980s. I've worked with people having every imaginable shade of skin color over the years. And you know what? We all got along fine. We accomplished some great technological achievements. We didn't spend all day fixated on t

    • by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kfmsd@nOspam.harrelsonfamily.org> on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:09PM (#55012441) Homepage

      I think that the bigger issue is that, generally, women are not as interested in tech jobs as guys are.

      Women are 100% as capable as men in tech fields -- when they choose those fields. I have known some great women engineers.

      However, women only make up approximately 20% of I.T. related degrees earned.

      • I think that the bigger issue is that, generally, women are not as interested in tech jobs as guys are.

        Is it not as interested or that our society (still) actively discourages women - and especially, school age girls - from tech jobs?

        As I have mentioned before, my girlfriend was discouraged by her teachers (both female and male), and even a few of her college professors. Our daughter experienced similar discouragement in K-12 schools, though has not from any of her college professors.

        • by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kfmsd@nOspam.harrelsonfamily.org> on Monday August 14, 2017 @06:12PM (#55012823) Homepage

          Not necessarily. I have kids, so I have seen the differences between males and females. There are structural differences, including differences in the corups collosum (part of the brain). Perhaps such changes just mean that boys and girls find different sorts of things interesting.

          I have four daughters. If one of them wanted to enter the tech field, I would support them 100%. However, I am not going to try to force them to enter the field just just because somebody thinks that we need more women coders and sysadmins. I will let them decide what interests them.

          • http://www.nber.org/papers/w14... [nber.org]
            "By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have er

    • What his memo failed to account for is that many people react to these issues more emotionally than rationally. As such, presenting your arguments in what you believe to be a purely factual manner in this debate is a fool's errand. It's a bit ironic, because he failed to realize the implications of the very facts that he was presenting as a rationale for his conclusions: that this means you can't expect pure rationality to win the argument among those you're trying to sway. As such, pointing all this out

  • But I don't blame any other ethnic group, just politicians.

    Irish slurs [rsdb.org]

    • The easiest way to deal with the manifesto is to say, "Women don't always choose to become programmers......but when they do, they're quite good at it."
    • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

      I'm interested in scientific studies that refute or at least clarify specific claims, in regards to neurobiology.
      However that article is full of links to books (see below) and makes the claim that because only testosterone is mentioned, it's the only biological factor that has deterministic merit. The structural and functional differences found between male and female brains, seems to be something Dr. Fuentes is unaware of? This is a questionable source, when cherry picking for a (nearly) unsubstantiated na

    • I'm not really sure why you're being moderated flamebait. You're the first person in any of these threads (at least that I've seen) who's provided any evidence (whether its good or not is another argument) to try to refute the memo/manifesto. Even, if like me, you agree with the science behind the manifesto, it's bad to down-mod someone just based on presenting something to the contrary. If you think its bad evidence, point out why.

      If you down-mod someone just because it doesn't agree with your point of
  • Fix (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:30PM (#55012041)

    Pretend you're gay. You'll gets lots of kudos and become part of a protected class.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why pretend? Don't half-ass it. Go all in and really enjoy getting fucked at work.

  • Again??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:33PM (#55012075)

    >> claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.

    Come on, He didn't make such a claim. He said biology may play a part in women's preferences in choosing to go into the field.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      But that would be contrary to the obvious truth that women are discriminated and only do not go into IT because of that. We cannot have that.

      Also, facts? Haw dare you bring facts into the discussion?

  • I know a Mexican (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:38PM (#55012115)
    With a CS degree who can't find work as a programmer. It's got nothing to do with skin color or sex. None of us can compete with India. Sad thing is a lot of us voted Trump because he at least have IT workers lip service. Last I heard his plan was to cut back on low skill immigrants in favor of high skill ones. E.g. the ones gunning for the same jobs as me and everyone else reading this post...
  • /. lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by getuid() ( 1305889 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:48PM (#55012223) Homepage

    Slashdot, that's not what the memo said.

    You can agree with the memo or you can't, but at least get the f$#@ing facts straight.

    • Re:/. lies (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:55PM (#55012297)

      Seems like people who know they're wrong will never dare confirm the facts.

    • They can't let facts get in the way of shaming, bashing and firing someone who dares to challenge the pro-feminist, pro-everyone except white males agenda. Someone making a reasoned argument that some might disagree with doesn't go viral, but if we all just assume the argument is ignorant and is against accepted PC values then it can just go viral without anyone having to read the memo. Support your local SJW and help white males understand that their new role in society is to stand quietly in the corner c
  • White discontent? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @04:55PM (#55012289)

    Wow. Now imagine we called black people being discriminated against "black discontent."

    Slashdot, your bias is leaking.

    • by Jodka ( 520060 )

      Wow. Now imagine we called black people being discriminated against "black discontent."

      Google search for "black discontent [google.com]", about 11,400 results.

      Google search for "white discontent [google.com]", about 1,530 results.

      So about 7.5x more "black discontent" than "white discontent".

      Here [google.com] is a graph of the frequency of the two over a 208-year span, from 1800 to 2008.

  • Fake Summary (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The memo stated that women on average have more **INTEREST** towards people and a cooperative environment and that might detract possibly good candidates.

    He also suggested to focus more on peer programming and focus on making the environment less cutthroat and more welcoming to everybody.

  • by Marful ( 861873 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:27PM (#55012535)

    with an internal memo criticizing the company's diversity efforts and claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers.

    At no point in the memo was this ever stated.

    I'm fucking tired of disingenuous assholes trying to spin something that says one thing, into something else to further their agenda.

  • by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:36PM (#55012587) Homepage

    Disagree with the memo all you like, but at least have the integrity to argue against the points it raised instead of making up some bullshit that it didn't say.

  • by K. S. Van Horn ( 1355653 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:36PM (#55012589) Homepage

    "an internal memo... claiming women are biologically less suited than men to be engineers."

    Goddamnit, have you people no shame whatsoever? THE MEMO DOES NOT SAY THIS. Why do you keep on repeating this lie?

  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Monday August 14, 2017 @05:51PM (#55012677)

    1.) He did _NOT_ criticize Googles diversity efforts per se. In fact, he applauded them. He did however express concerns that the way they are executes isn't effective and/or counter-productive to the cause and provided educated conclusions for this presumption.

    2.) He did _NOT_ claim that women are biologically less suited for tech jobs. He used solid state-of-the-art scientific research results to find explanations why women might not be interested in taking tech jobs other that the standard arguably totally insuifficient "OGM! WTF! WHITE MALE OPPRESSION OF WOMEN!" narrative/explanation.

    Please quit the lying/irresponsible spreading of falsehoods and inform yourself.
    Just be an educated slashdotter and question the official group-think narrative. Thank you.

    Here's to help you out:
    Jordan Peterson interview with James Demore [youtube.com] (citations linked in the description of the video)
    The actual paper/memo that James Demore wrote [google.com]

    You're welcome.

  • by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 ) on Monday August 14, 2017 @06:47PM (#55013097)
    Oh my god stop lying. He made no such claim. Stop pushing your agenda down my throat. Fuck

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...