Author of Google Memo Sues Former Employer For Discrimination Against Conservative White Men

[Gothmog]

How did this idiot find a lawyer willing to file this piece of crap lawsuit. The attorney who signed the pleadings need to be sanctioned https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/james-damore-google-memo-sues-discrimination-against-white-conservative-men.html

James Damore, the ex-Google software engineer who was fired in August for writing a 10-page memo arguing that biological differences account for gender imbalances in the tech industry, filed a class action lawsuit against the search engine giant on Monday for discriminating against employees who are “Caucasian,” “male,” or hold “perceived conservative political views by Google.”

Damore, who filed the suit in the Santa Clara Superior Court, is joined by another plaintiff named David Gudeman, a software engineer who worked at Google for three years.

The accusations against Google are manifold.

One group of allegations has to do with supposed ideological discrimination at the company. According to the filing, the plaintiffs claim the company mistreated employees who “expressed views deviating from the majority view” at Google’s on issues such as “‘diversity’ hiring policies, ‘bias sensitivity,’ or ‘social justice.’” It further argues that political diversity is neglected in favor of race and gender diversity at the company.

[rownesheck]

1. Ugh!

I hate white men. And I'm a white man!

[burnbaby]

180. and you hate yourself? nt

[sarah FAILIN]

2. My son read this guy's memo and agrees with him

He said the guy was saying that they had to quit hiring people just because the hire met a diversity quota for them. Leaving more qualified applicants behind in favor of a less qualified applicant doesn't make sense to me either. Would you want a racially diverse group of men and women operating on you or would you want the best nurses and surgeons available no matter their sex or race.

Sounds like he is using their own issue against them.

[bettyellen]

3. He actually argued that genetically women are inferior at coding....the kid is a moron

And a bigot.

[sarah FAILIN]

6. I didn't read it myself

My son has a different viewpoint than others because he is in the tech field. He is also young, and I used to dismiss everything he said that I didn't agree with because of his age, but he has shown me a couple of things that I had to rethink my attitude over.

[bettyellen]

7. He sounds like a lot of young tech guys, to be honest. Book smart in a narrow area but....

wrongly extrapolating that they are well rounded in any way. He’s endorsing similar genetic superiority theories as the Nazis did. Sadly it’s not uncommon for young guys to latch on to crap like that. It’s junk science, and all the footnotes in the world doesn’t make it legitimate science.

[sarah FAILIN]

18. Are you saying my son is a NAZI?

He is the furthest thing from a Nazi you could imagine. This is offensive.
Common sense is not "junk science".

[bettyellen]

20. No, but the fact that he didnt realize this genetic superiority crap has a sick history and has

Been debunked is really sad. Common sense? The idiot wrote a paper about men being superior based on biology- and it was debunked immediately by actual biologists.

That one understands computers does not make you at well versed in biology. In this case, he was extrapolating from studies he thought he understood, but did not.

Common sense, LOL. Not at all- nerdy delusions of grandeur is more like it. Lots of people got taken in by the footnotes- mostly people who wanted desperately to believe it- or already did. The kid is a moron when it comes to biology- also, life.

[sarah FAILIN]

25. I'm done here.

This was not what my son said. He looked beyond the biology issue to the root of the problem which is hiring people just because they met a quota even if they weren't qualified. I still agree with him.
Some people are so bent on being offended that they can't see past their nose to look at the whole picture.

[bettyellen]

29. Im sure you think your child knows more than Googles HR department despite that not being his field

Same crap that kid who is suing them assumed. Both have a whole lot to learn about life- and how the workplace operates and how innovation is fostered. The fact that they both think they do know better is exactly why they’d be bad hires- so uncreative, so frightened of a changing world.

[CreekDog]

35. tell us what the quota is at the company he is referring to

and we need some evidence.

you can't even be bothered to read the document this thread is about and are commenting on it.

WHY should anyone care what someone thinks about a document they have not read?

[sarah FAILIN]

39. Like I said..

HE read the memo and looked at the root of the problem. I never once claimed to have read this myself. I don't see any need to. I didn't know I had to do so to comment on something as long as I was clearly saying this was what I was doing.
Why should you care what I posted? Not my problem because you guys are the ones that keep posting to me. When I don't care about something someone posted, I scroll past it.

[CreekDog]

40. you said there's a quota to hire women, PROVE IT

or else you're just trying to make the thread go diagonal, as most threads you post in go diagonal after you post in them.

Such as when you post that for the California housing crisis, that people should just move. It's SO EASY TO MOVE right? Wrong.

Such as when you post that you support fining food stamp recipients $1000 if they buy a cake with food stamps.

[sarah FAILIN]

43. I think you need to go back and stalk me some more

You are wrong about what I have posted. Maybe you can point me to the comments you are offended by if you think otherwise.

[CreekDog]

54. then prove to us there's a quota (you know those are illegal right?)

as for food stamps, well...https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028473100#post176

[Codeine]

56. Wow. That explains a great fucking deal right there.

Do people log on to DU accidentally thinking they’re somewhere else?

[mcar]

93. Wow!

[sarah FAILIN]

119. You have lied about me and I'm pretty sick of your crap.

You said I support fining food stamp recipients $1000 and that is a lie.
The original POST you linked falsely claimed recipients were going to be charged $1000.
JUST LIKE NOW, some people can not bother to take the time to read anything I posted and run headfirst into anything they can push as controversial, sure it is "the man" trying to force you down. NOBODY was going to charge recipients that kind of money, but it doesn't go with your current mindset so the truth is ignored. I even looked up the law, posted the link along with a portion of the text of the bill you are making false claims about and you still can't be bothered to read it. I posted it again below.. You would rather lie when the worst I said was that I think soda and junk food like little debbie cakes shouldn't be allowed on food stamps. I still feel the same way.
THIS spreading of lies like the original poster was doing is what makes us all look bad
People making up lies is the sort of thing that gives the reps ammunition against us. Some people like you just don't care. Goodness
knows you want something to be angry about though, so carry on.
b

The first post in this line has led people to believe the wrong thing about this bill anyway. These fines you are worried about are not applied to the person on assistance, but the vendor selling the item. Here is the actual law.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/110/Bill/HB0043.pdf
(A)
A person or business entity, or any agent or employee of the
person or business entity shall not knowingly accept public assistance
benefits from an electronic benefits transfer card for the purchase
of food items that are high in calories, sugar, and fat without any nutritional value,
including,but not limited to,soda, ice cream, candy, cookies,and cake, as recommended by the United States department of agriculture.

As for the housing problem in CA, it is not a horrible thing to invite a person to move to their state by pointing out the lower taxes and cost of living as well as the low unemployment. I would like to turn my state blue and am always trying to get people to retire here, not just people from CA. I can't fix the over crowding in Ca, but to pretend like it is a horrible thing to give those people other options is ridiculous IMO. If they refuse to consider moving, that is fine, but you don't get to be hateful because an invitation was given

NOW. You want proof that people are hired because of their gender or color. You know that I will not be able to provide it and you aren't going to believe anything I say anyway unless it goes along with your specific view. What I do know is that my daughter was told her last "after school" employer was trying to hire more minorities because they had too many white men working there. She was some sort of trainer or key holder and was told this as she was going through the applications with the assistant manager looking for holiday hires and an eventual replacement for herself. He wanted to hire a black female that had went to school with my daughter even though my daughter told him the girl wouldn't work out because she was lazy which she knew from personal experience. He said it didn't matter if she wasn't great, he needed to hire minority because they had minority goals to meet. If that isn't a quota, I don't know what is. The girl worked 1 day btw and didn't come back. Same company has online applications now and my son applied for a Christmas sales job. They have a section asking about any disability you may have. Turns out they also have goals for the disabled.. 7% from the way it looks to me. if you doubt, read at the link. There really are quotas even if you don't believe it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-entwisle/companies-ask-workers-wit_b_5233821.html

Now I am done with you and all of this bullshit. Some people like to stir up the pot with no regard to fact or reality. Not my problem if that is you. I have enough to deal with out of Trump, I don't have time for your crap too.

[tonedevil]

137. Somehow...

it's always lazy minorities that are taking the jobs from your family. I'm sure that is just a coincidence.

[sarah FAILIN]

146. And you are another person that has trouble comprehending what you read.

I said my daughter was helping pick out new workers. She had already finished her degree and had a job in her field. She was staying long enough to get them through the Christmas holiday and train her replacement which took a while because everyone they hired would work a little and then move on.
Nobody took her job from her, but the manager did want her to be replaced by another female. The first attempt happened to have gone to school with my daughter for years so she knew the girl was lazy. Not really a coincidence...

[CreekDog]

148. You wrote 2500 words about what your "son" "thinks" here -w/o reading the memo he's talking about

You've written 2500 words yet say you didn't read the thing that your son was telling you about.

Are you talking about yourself and the "son" is not really a separate person who has not read this document?

You wrote one-fifth of the words in this thread --yet you want us to believe, you didn't read the memo this thread is talking about

I think you are the person you're referring to, I don't really care who the son is or who the mother is, I'm saying the person who read the memo and whose opinion is being represented by you IS YOURS.

To believe what you're saying, we have to believe that you have such intimate knowledge of his opinion on a document you never read, YET have the interest to spend 2500 words here defending it.

Most people are going to find that hard to believe.

[sarah FAILIN]

154. Did you even read the post you just replied to?

Or are you a bored troll?

[Gothmog]

74. The premise of the Google memorandum was wrong

I think that Google was correct in firing the idiot who filed this lawsuit. I am personally disappointed that a member of the bar would bring such a lawsuit

[tonedevil]

76. You should give thought...

to the idea that women are genetically inferior. If you don't understand what the heart of the memo is why do you feel qualified to discuss it with people who have read it.

[treestar]

86. How do we know the best happen to be the white guys?

I've heard this complaint from my own white male relatives. They claim there is a quota for black people or women and that they are missing out on the job, because they are better than those black people or women, but how do we know? And why is the white guy just happening to be better than those black people or women every time?

[mcar]

88. An interesting assumption, isn't it?

White boys are automatically better because.....

[Blue_Tires]

139. Your son is equally outraged over nepotism hires too, right?

Or is only when people of color get their share that pisses him off?

What field does he work in, by the way??

[sarah FAILIN]

141. Yes he is

Any unqualified person, no exceptions. If a more qualified person of any color is up for something, they should get it. This is all about qualifications to him. You shouldn't pass over one qualified person to have to train someone else just to fill a diversity quota

He is in Cybersecurity.

[Blue_Tires]

143. Would you consider your son intelligent?

He knows that this bullshit stunt from a disgruntled bro is no more about "qualified employees getting hired" than GamerGate was about "journalistic ethics", or Charlottesville was about "Civil War Heritage", right??

[sarah FAILIN]

157. How would you feel if you were a were the well qualified female

Say you were looking for a job and you were well qualified and had all your licenses or certifications with 5 yrs experience. What if a girl that was a year from finishing school with no certifications or experience was hired over you because she has more poise and personality which as has been said here, are more important being qualified on paper.
Yes, my son is intelligent. When I told him to look at some youtube from Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich to see their take on some issues, he didn't just listen blindly. He looked up their qualifications and history along with the qualifications of several other people we see on news shows to make sure they had some sort of base to speak from which I had never done myself. He was surprised that some on tv are not much more than radio djs that got lucky. He doesn't blindly accept everything he is told without looking it up himself like some around here.

[Blue_Tires]

176. You're acting like I've never been passed over for a job I was easily qualified for

due to racism or any number of reasons having nothing to do with my qualifications...

[mercuryblues]

128. what you are ignoring here

is that this whole screed is justified by his perception of gendered biological traits. It can't be looked past to get to the root of the problem, when the root of the problem actually is considering women and other minorities as inferior, due to biology. Then claiming Google's hiring and diversity programs as inferior. He feels discriminated against because as a conservative, white male, he can't act in a manner that diminishes a diversity hire based on his view of racial/ethnic stereotypes (which he conveniently labels as biology), because only conservative, white males have superior biological traits.

IOW Google's programs to promote diversity and be more inclusive to reflect society no longer gives this guy an automatic head start based on his views and gender, not his actual work product. Equality sucks for those who have skated through life doing the bare minimum to advance when a minority comes along, who works harder and smarter gets raises and promotions before them. he can't possibly consider that he just isn't the best one in the room because he thinks he is genetically superior to them. Oh, and he should be free to remind his co-workers that he is genetically superior to them, without being labeled a bigot.

[ehrnst]

167. I think you need to take a look at your own responses to this thread. (nt)

[MichMary]

163. "Superior"

I just skimmed the document, and he referred to psychological differences,

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
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.

I don't see any of that as a qualitative judgment. A lot of people would think that someone who is more socially-oriented, or artistically-oriented is "superior."

[tonedevil]

179. Yet not qualified...

to be coders for Google, if you listen to James Damore.

[MichMary]

182. More like--

--as a group, less likely to choose that field.

Wasn't this about why there are fewer women in the tech field?

[DonCoquixote]

151. I do not know what she said

but what I would offer is not that the son is a "nazi" but that history has shown whenever "genetics" used to not hire people, it usually has roots from the sort of people who will insist "no, I am not a nazi at all" but nonetheless hide the poison in a sweet candy costing, knowing that your son might be tricked into eating it.

Again, NOT sayign your son is any bigot, but as a former tech worker myself, I have seen a lot of people get tricked with that poison apple, especially as sadly most of their bosses encourage it in the hopes of turning liberal into libertarians, and then to Maga

[CreekDog]

34. why are you commenting on something you didn't read?

i mean really?

[sarah FAILIN]

37. I never claimed to have read it

My whole point is someone young had a different view and explained it in a way that made me see it differently than what is the popular knee jerk reaction.

[LanternWaste]

95. What specifically is this new perspective of genetically inferior women you were introduced to?

"explained it in a way that made me see it differently than what is the popular knee jerk reaction..."

What specifically is the new perspective on genetically inferior women you were introduced to?

I ask because having read through the thread, you consistently say it was explained to you in a new way, but you've failed to supply us with that 'new way' and presenting it to us may deescalate the attacks and stalking you allege.

Fava beans, of course.

[MichMary]

164. I don't get all this "inferior" & "superior"

business is all about. Is an English teacher "inferior" to a biology teacher, just because of their subject content? Is a teacher "inferior" to an engineer, because of their choice of profession?

Discussing psychological or biological differences doesn't infer anything about inferiority or superiority. To outright state that it does truly devalues people who make choices that you apparently don't approve of.

[yardwork]

169. Have you read the memo itself?

The author claimed that women are genetically incapable of being engineers. Do you agree with that?

[MichMary]

170. I skimmed the memo

and saw nothing about "inferiority." I saw discussion of biological/psychological differences that may lead women to choose more people-oriented or artistically-oriented fields.

Dh worked for a manufacturing plant, prior to retirement (just last month.) They have nowhere near an equal number of male and female engineers, even though they actively try to recruit them, retain them, promote them. In fact, one of the young, female engineers recently got a 7% raise, when the guideline was 3%. She had been heard complaining about her (female) manager, and they were afraid she would start looking elsewhere for a job.

Yes, women CAN do anything they want, but maybe there are reasons, having NOTHING to do with genetic capability, that fewer women are attracted to STEM fields.

Please point me to a specific excerpt in his memo that claims women are "genetically incapable" of being engineers.

[yardwork]

172. Do you skim candidates' positions and base your vote on what somebody else tells you?

I'm on my phone and not in the mood to prove something you're presumably capable of reading for yourself. I read the memo - actually read the document itself - when it was released to the public.

I suggest you do the same.

[MichMary]

173. Okay.

I just read every word, and nowhere did I see anything about women being "inferior."

[yardwork]

174. You don't consider being accused of neuroticism as inferior?

From the memo:

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.

[MichMary]

175. I saw that, and it did strike me as odd

Then, I read his definition and the fact that women SELF-REPORT higher levels of anxiety. He isn't saying they're nuts, just that more woman appear to be more anxiety-averse than men. Hey, I can relate!

Look, I'm not defending the guy. Some of what he wrote was truly cringe-worthy. But, IIRC, this was written in response to Google reaching out to its employees for solutions to the problem of fewer women in tech. Okay. He did offer some suggestions, in regard to restructuring tasks to make them more cooperative than competitive. There were other suggestions, including more part-time positions, etc.

This prompted a conversation with dh, who worked in industry for something like 37 years. He claims that only 4% of women go into STEM. If there is any truth to that, it is truly a problem; but short of drafting women into STEM, I don't see what can be done about it. If those fields aren't attractive to people, what can you do?

[tonedevil]

178. Interestingly...

In High School girls are even with and in some cases ahead of boys in participation and success with STEM studies. In college the number of women enrolled in STEM studies is between a quarter and a third of all STEM students. I think it gets worse when you look at the professionals. An often cited reason is hostility toward women in such professions presenting a barrier to entry for women that favors men. Anecdotally my years as a computer tech bear this out.
I notice when Mr. Damore offers solutions they seem to be in the spirit of a magnanimous being who is willing to share some of the spoils of his amazingly superior skill set. An example of this:

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Notice it is female students who are being encouraged to code who are, or may be, being deceived into thinking they will be able to do this sort of thing professionally. Their role which he so generously carves out is not as in demand therefore he envisions less of a need for them. Everything in that memo is cringe worthy if you find a single sentence that isn't look at the sentences before and after you will find the cringe. At no point in the memo do I find any part-time position suggestion where do you see that?

[MichMary]

183. FTA:

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

Under the heading "Non-discriminatory says to reduced the gender gap."

I get it. A lot of women would prefer to work fewer hours because they often have to go from their professional job to their home job--cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc., etc.

More women might be drawn to tech and other STEM fields if they could be assured of more flexibility in their work day/week.

[yardwork]

186. Why do you assume that women "want" to do all the domestic work?

This is incredibly sexist. Just because some women might want to work part-time, you assume that this applies to all women and use it as an excuse for treating all women differently?

This is disgusting. I'm done here.

[MichMary]

190. Who says they want to?

Does anyone necessarily want to? Women are usually stuck with it. That's just reality. Shouldn't be, but is. If women want to change it within their own relationships and their own homes, that's up to them to do.

If SOME women want to work part-time, shouldn't that be an option that is open to them? Would that make the tech field more attractive to more women? I think so.

[yardwork]

184. We can address the falsehoods and pseudoscience that keep women from being allowed to succeed.

It's dishonest to pretend that that bigoted memo isn't an example of the problem. I quoted one small section. The entire memo repeats the falsehood that women and non-whites are biologically predisposed to be bad at math and science. That's bullshit.

That kind of attitude keeps women out of the sciences. My former boss, for instance, was told by her physics professor in college that he would grade women in his class more harshly than the male students. Why? He said that he didn't believe that women had a right to major in physics, that if allowed to succeed in his class, they would take up a spot in the field that a man deserved more.

THAT'S the reality women face.

[MichMary]

188. Nearly half of all medical school enrollees

are women, so I doubt that women are kept "from being allowed to succeed" because they are biologically predisposed to be "bad at math and science."

A basic difference between medicine and tech fields is exactly what Damore addressed in his memo--social interaction. Women who are interested in science AND driven to succeed may be choosing a "helping profession" over a field where they interact mainly with a computer.

Sorry that your former boss was fed so much crap by a professor. Did that take place in the '40's or something?

(And--just to correct myself from a previous post, women comprise 24% of STEM workers overall. More women should be represented, but what do you propose that Goodle do--force women to work for them?)

[yardwork]

189. I think that you should stop digging. You're in a pretty deep hole.

[MichMary]

191. Huh.

I have addressed all of your wild-assed claims with FACTS and you think you've won the discussion?

[yardwork]

168. You're accusing those of us who read the memo of a "knee jerk reaction."

While you yourself admit that you didn't read it. Do you see how irrational that is?

I read the memo. The google employee stated that women are genetically inferior to men, making them unqualified to work as engineers or programmers. That is demonstrably false.

There are no quotas that require companies to hire unqualified people in place of qualified people. That is a false belief.

[sarah FAILIN]

181. Are "targets" and "goals" not the same as a quota?

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8412192

Call it what you will.

[yardwork]

185. No, they are not. If you don't know the difference, look it up.

[sarah FAILIN]

192. They are the same thing.

[tammywammy]

194. No, theyre not.

[CreekDog]

193. you sound really expert, you haven't even read the document that got him fired

but you asked a child what he thinks it means and figure that's all you need to do to justify littering this thread with your thoughts --or are they your child's thoughts?

honestly, if you read one word of the memo that guy wrote for every word you've written here, you'd have read and begun a second reading of the thing that got him fired by now.

[Jim Lane]

69. According to the linked article, the original memo was 10 pages.

According to this article, the complaint in the lawsuit is 161 pages.

I'll hazard a guess that the majority of those commenting in this thread haven't read the memo, let alone the complaint. (I certainly haven't.)

Making comments on a discussion board isn't exactly like presenting a paper at a conference. We generally accept a certain degree of casualness. I'd draw the line at someone falsely claiming to have read source material, but that didn't happen here.

[CreekDog]

70. If she's going to comment on the memo to defend it because her son read it, that's ridiculous

there's nothing wrong with not reading it, but spare us dozens of posts in this thread from someone wasting our time by defending something she admits she didn't read, she didn't even read a summary of it, or a newspaper article.

it's BS.

[Jim Lane]

78. OK, I understand now

Anyone who posts in support of the accepted orthodoxy is allowed to do so without having read the memo. At least, that seems to be acceptable, because you offer no criticism of those posts.

OTOH, anyone who might provide a different perspective must be thoroughly familiar with the memo and must also provide detailed information about the company's hiring practices; otherwise, any such post is to be gang-flamed.

BTW, if you care, my own perspective on the lawsuit (which I haven't read) is that the enactment of the EEO laws was prompted by concerns about discrimination in favor of whites and men, but the laws also apply to discrimination against such people, and some cases of that sort have been won. Claiming discrimination against conservatives is less clear. Political opinion is not a protected category, but he might prevail if he can show that this was Google's practice and that it had a disparate impact.

An important point is that he could win the lawsuit without proving or even alleging that there is any inherent genetic difference between the sexes in terms of aptitude for the work. IOW, the assertions he made in the memo, which have drawn so much of the flak here, are logically distinct from the allegations of the complaint.

[LanternWaste]

97. I'm open to entertaining conjecture of additional perspectives of the inferior genetics of women.

I'm open to entertaining conjecture of additional perspectives of the inferior genetics of women (that being a critical premise of the suit), despite having only a cursory knowledge of both premise and content. Go ahead...

[Jim Lane]

105. Sorry, but you've completely misread my post.

You write that "the inferior genetics of women ... [is] a critical premise of the suit...."

No, it's not. In the post of mine that you're purportedly responding to, I specifically said that "he could win the lawsuit without proving or even alleging that there is any inherent genetic difference between the sexes in terms of aptitude for the work."

The law on this point has been well established for years. A plaintiff has the burden of making a prima facie case (i.e., that a "first look" at the evidence shows that the employer discriminated on the basis of a protected category). The burden then shifts to the employer to show that its employment decisions were based on bona fide occupational qualifications.

Even on the issue of a BFOQ, genetics has nothing to do with it. For example, the average woman has less upper-body strength than the average man. For a job that requires a lot of heavy lifting, though, the employer couldn't just point to that generalization as an excuse for not hiring women. That was the practice decades ago, but no longer. Now, the employer would give each applicant a test involving tasks that duplicate what the person hired will have to do on the job. More women than men will fail such a test. Therefore, it has a disparate impact, and the employer must justify it as a BFOQ. Nevertheless, even if a test that correlates with job requirements does disqualify more women, some women are stronger than most men. If a woman passes the test, the employer can't refuse to hire her just because she has XX chromosomes.

[CreekDog]

121. I read your post in the context of your other posts about race and gender issues.

Last edited Thu Jan 11, 2018, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)

[Jim Lane]

125. Your "context" was something I wrote in 2014????

Moreover, a post from 2014 that merely explained my jury vote? That's just absurd.

For anyone who cares about the 2014 post: An alerted post by seaglass had included the sentence "Hey I can't do anything if Hosts can't use their own brain cells." In the post you link, I reported that I had voted to leave seaglass's post alone, but I opined that it would have been better to use more temperate language. In response, seaglass graciously wrote, "Thanks for your feedback, you are correct, it was unnecessarily rude." She then edited her post to remove the language the alerter had criticized.

I will leave it to readers of the current thread to use their own brain cells to decide whether this minor exchange from more than three years ago provides a "context" for my views "about race and gender issues."-

[CreekDog]

133. Have your views of race and racism changed significantly since 2014?

If yes, then that statement no longer represents your thinking.

If no, then that statement still does represent your thinking.

It's quite simple really.

[Jim Lane]

142. The post you linked has ZERO to do with race and racism.

I was not called upon to jury the OP in that thread. As I took the trouble to explain in #125, the post you're answering, I was called upon to jury seaglass's post in the ensuing discussion. The issue was whether her sharp remark about people using their brain cells was so nasty as to merit a hide for incivility. I concluded that it was not, and I voted "Leave it alone" on seaglass's post.

The issue was not racism. It was the boundaries of civility in this forum.

As I reread my 2014 post now, I agree with my earlier self that there was some merit to the alert but not enough to justify hiding seaglass's post. I also agree with my earlier self and with seaglass that her language was, as she said upon reflection, "unnecessarily rude." Finally, I agree with seaglass's decision to edit her post. In those respects, my 2014 post does still represent my views of civility standards on DU.

You write, "It's quite simple really." I guess you're overestimating my mental capacity. Would you please spell out, in terms my limited brain cells can comprehend, exactly what my post from 2014 reveals concerning my "views of race and racism"?

[CreekDog]

150. Fair enough. I should have used a better post to illustrate my issue

[tonedevil]

77. Given the content...

I can understand why a woman wouldn't bother to read such complicated stuff and would simply defer to her son's obviously superior opinion. There is absoutly no irony in that at all.

[Jim Lane]

80. That's an absurd characterization of the thread.

Is it just that I'm getting grouchier as I age, or is it objectively true that the prevalence of straw-man arguments on DU has increased dramatically?

[tonedevil]

81. The memo says...

women are genetically inferior. A man read the memo and agreed. He explained to his mom he didn't pay attention to that and just extrapolated from his own experience that tech companies discriminate against white males. His mom doesn't read the article, but instead jumps into an online conversation to discuss a memo she has not read.
No strawman involved a woman is defending a memo she never read against reasonable charges of superiority based on gender. Her defense is based on something her son explained to her about the memo we are all talking about.

[MichMary]

165. I have read multiple times in this thread

that he stated that women are "genetically inferior." Can you please provide an excerpt where he actually used the word "inferior?"

I am viewing this whole thing in a totally different light. My dh's company (manufacturing concern) would kill for an equal mix of male and female engineers, but has trouble attracting them. It isn't salary, since they are paid equitably, it isn't advancement, since they are eager to promote women to management positions. Could it possibly be that fewer women choose STEM fields? Even highly genetically "superior" women may choose a non-STEM field for reasons that we really shouldn't judge.

[ProfessorGAC]

82. No, It Is Not Objectively True

As someone who is in the running for longest standing DU'er, there is no objective evidence to your strawman claim.

[LanternWaste]

98. Curtain number one seems much more probable.

Curtain number one seems much more probable.

[Jim Lane]

106. Unlike "Let's Make a Deal," the car could also be behind both. (n/t)

[Gothmog]

110. Did you read the petition?

The petition is only 62 pages and the rest of the filing are exhibits including the rather disgusting memorandum from the idiot who was fired. Here is a sample of this memorandum.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
● The underlying traits are highly heritable
● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

I really was disgusted by this section

Men’s higher drive for status

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. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on
, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

I read the petition and found it amusing. Evidently it is wrong to mock trump supporters or conservative white males. Hopefully, this is not the law in California. I had read the memorandum a while back and it was just as misguided and wrong as the first time that I read it.

[Jim Lane]

115. No. As I said, I haven't read any of this gentleman's work.

Even if the complaint is "only" 62 pages, that's 62 pages more than I want to read.

One thing I notice about the passages you quote from the memo, though: The second excerpt appears to undercut the "genetic superiority" thesis. He writes in part:

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail.

Even allowing for the vagueness inherent in the use of the passive voice ("are judged on" ), this seems to say that society treats men and women differently. The logical conclusion is that observed differences can't be innate and based on genetics -- at least, not entirely, and perhaps not at all.

It's certainly true that our society socializes little boys and little girls differently. How one gets from that premise to the conclusion that Google broke the law by firing this guy is a problem I'll leave to the court.

[Gothmog]

127. The petition was an amusing read

Being a conservative idiot who supported trump is not a protect class

[Jim Lane]

129. Did it raise a disparate impact claim?

Presumably Google will say that his politics played no role in his firing. Suppose he could prove that it did, though. That would raise the issue of the law concerning an employer's standard of either "We'll fire everyone who voted for Trump" or "We'll fire everyone who voted against Trump." Given how few blacks voted for Trump, I would think that either of these standards would have a significant disparate impact by race (by sex to a lesser extent), and would therefore be illegal discrimination unless the employer could defend it as a BFOQ.

Did the plaintiff plead that theory?

[Codeine]

4. Its hard to quantify less qualified.

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 10:13 PM - Edit history (1)

When offering a job to an applicant one considers their basic qualifications, but also intangibles like personality, poise, assertiveness, etc. How can anyone look at an applicant pool and decide that the most qualified person wasn’t hired unless one actually sat in on the interview and hiring decision processes?

And yes, one also needs to consider the general diversity of the company makeup. This matters, and it matters a great deal. A diverse company will make decisions different than a company dominated by straight white males.

I weary of people complaining about companies “not hiring the most qualified”, simply because “qualified” means a lot more than simple training and experience, it also takes into account who a person is as a human being.

[bettyellen]

9. When people wonder why the internet is a cess pool of anger, misogyny and

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 10:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Bigotry... it blows my mind that they never consider who designed it- emotionally stunted, socially awkward young white men. It’s a mirror of their desires, and idiots like this former Google employee think it’s awesome. He’s a troll at heart.

[Codeine]

10. Its tough out there for guys like him!

[sarah FAILIN]

12. This meme..

What if this guy has a great sense of humor and personality plus? Bit of a double standard to me.

[Codeine]

15. If he had either of those things

he wouldn’t buy into the Alpha Male/MRA philosophy, would he?

[sarah FAILIN]

21. This guy didn't create the meme did he?

Someone decided to use a pic of someone they saw as decidedly NOT an "alpha male" and make fun of the guy. This is not any more acceptable than the memes that devalue women... but it does prove the guys point. It is accepted by some to make fun of white men in a way that is not ok to do to any other group.

[Codeine]

24. Of course youre correct about the photo,

but it’s just an image, an archetypal representation of what those guys generally look like.

And as for making fun of white guys, we can take it. We own everything, we control everything, the entire western world is built for our comfort and our convenience — a bit of barbed humor aimed our way is not much of a price to pay.

As a white male I can’t get too worked up about the horrors perpetuated upon my people by the mean, mean intarwebz.

[sarah FAILIN]

26. Which guys do you mean by "those guys"?

Just wondering.

[Codeine]

28. The MRA crowd that the photo is mocking. nt

[sarah FAILIN]

31. I had to look that up. MRA Men's Rights Activists

I didn't realize the meme was making fun of people exercising men's rights. I thought it was making fun of guys that aren't up to some people's standards of hotness. Just not cool at all.
Also think it is a bit of a double standard that it is applauded to campaign for women's rights, but not men's rights. I know a couple of single dad's putting in 5 days a week taking care of the kids and still paying full child support as well as insurance. But that's not the stuff memes are made of..

[Caliman73]

47. Either those guys had really bad lawyers or the situation is not as represented.

When I divorced my ex left for almost a year with only occasional contact. When she came back we arranged custody 65% for me and 35% for her. While I did not ask for child support, I did not have to pay either. If you have more than 50% child custody, you usually do not have to pay child support.

Men can certainly be given the short end of the stick when it comes to family court, but that is an unfortunate side effect of policies that were trying to correct for the previous legal processes that say, up until the 1970's and 80's still heavily favored the male perspective in areas of family law.

Women's rights, like Civil Rights for Black people, Latinos, and Asian groups, have been necessary because the deck has been and is still stacked for White Men in this society. We want equal treatment under the law.

Men's Rights Activists are not fighting for equality, they are fighting to preserve primacy in a rigged system. Just like Christians who say they are being persecuted because other holidays beside Christmas are given any consideration and Nativity scenes are not on display at at all government locations, or Christian prayer is not required at the beginnings of meetings or at school. With MRA's like their Christian fellows, it isn't about equality, it is about preserving their advantages.

[treestar]

89. [phone]

[CreekDog]

57. why did you look it up?

why not just ask your son what you should think about it like you did with the author of the Google memo that this thread is about?

now you're suddenly curious to read things?

[treestar]

87. If they spend that much time taking care of the kids

Then they are not paying "full child support." Child support formulas now account for time spent beyond the traditional every other weekend. One thing MRAs always do is misrepresent domestic relations laws. Men are not victims in those courts, in spite of their protestations and falsehoods. They are treated equally there, and that is what bugs them.

[sarah FAILIN]

11. I respectfully disagree

In the tech fields I think poise and personality take a back seat to education and accomplishments which is how you define if a person is qualified or not.. Which candidate has the best resume and education should always come ahead of who looks the best or seems like they would be fun to hang out with imo. I almost feel like we are talking about beauty pageant participants versus AV club geeks.
My son was saying if you keep hiring mediocre people, you get a mediocre result. That makes sense to me. You want people that are innovative imo. Who a person is as a human being doesn't come into it for me at all in this field.

[Codeine]

14. Respectfully, that is why the tech field

is in such disorder. Human beings are still human beings, and pretending they can be analyzed merely on the basis of coding certifications is folly. They still have to work with others, for others, and direct others. They still need to understand their markets and audiences.

And as for innovation, well that’s NEVER been quantifiable or certifiable. Innovation comes from new blood and new ideas, different perspectives and experiences. It is precisely the sort of thing that can be fostered by a deliberate focus on diversity.

[tammywammy]

16. +1

[bettyellen]

22. Exactly- the output of the work suffers from lack of diversity- same ill our government suffers from

A bunch of white guys just convinced they are better and more important than everyone else.... is not a workable model in this new century. It’s a proven failure. Garbage in, garbage out.

[sarah FAILIN]

23. So certifications mean nothing?

Would you let a surgeon operate on you that wasn't able to pass stateboards, but they worked well with others? I don't think so. Training and certifications are everything. Putting diversity, poise and personality ahead of training and knowledge is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.
I'm done.

[Codeine]

27. Are we talking about surgeons or the people

who are coding our fuckin’ iPhones?

Listen, I get it; your kid told you that all the good jobs are going to the unqualified women and black lesbians and transgender Indian immigrants and so on, but really that’s just so much bullshit. It’s the same bullshit every white dude in the tech world spouts, and I’m sick unto death of it.

You know what the problem is? Your son sees a black woman get a job over a white guy and he assumes, without evidence, that the black woman was less qualified. That’s the issue. That’s the problem. Deal with it.

[bettyellen]

30. Nailed it!

[sarah FAILIN]

32. Actually you are wrong in all counts

My son is in school. He is not even looking for a job.
My son read the memo objectively and looked at the core issues and decided not to crucify the writer because he was right. More importance was given to issues other than qualifications.
Just because you are cool with having unqualified people moving ahead of qualified people doesn't mean the rest of us are.

[Codeine]

42. I personally do not buy the premise

that the most successful corporations on earth have decided to hire unqualified people. It’s a ridiculous notion.

The guy that wrote the article your son admires is a far-right asshole who thinks women are genetically incapable of succeeding in the tech world. Do YOU believe that? Obviously not! Then why do you credit this person with anything worth intellectual consideration? Why would ANYONE believe he has any insight into the qualifications of the people hired at Google vs the people not hired?

I would posit that, in fact, his views demonstrate a particular INABILITY to judge the qualifications of an applicant pool, simply because he will a priori discount the qualifications of anyone not white and equipped with a swinging dick.

Honestly, the motherfucker has demonstrated a complete disconnect from the real world and yet we are to believe he possesses some special insight into corporate hiring practices? Fuck that.

[sarah FAILIN]

48. I never said my son admired him

I said he looked at the memo in a different way than I look at things.
He cut past the emotional crap everyone gets pissed about to see the core of what the guy was saying. I have no way to know if that situation was accurate at Google, but in general I have seen this situation happen. People get caught up in diversity and ignore qualifications.

[Codeine]

51. Im not talking about the emotional crap.

I’m talking about the bald statement that women are genetically incapable of writing code. That men are inherently superior to women in the tech field.

That’s not “emotional crap”, that’s just flat-out nonsense. Anyone who spouts that kind of shit cannot be trusted, and any analysis they make regarding the qualifications of women in a hiring situation must be completely rejected, as they have already demonstrated a complete inability to understand the reality of the situation.

You’ve been completely destroyed in this thread. One wishes you had the wisdom to understand that.

[sarah FAILIN]

53. You say I have been completely destroyed in this thread, lol

Yet you are the one all tore up over this. You are totally unable to consider anything outside your little circle.
Good night.

[CreekDog]

55. Yes you've ruined it all without actually reading the thing the thread is about in the first place

there's a word for doing that you know.

and you do know.

[tazkcmo]

104. You need a new shovel

You've worn the present one out. I don't know wether to put you on ignore or let your posts remain visible for entertainment value.

[CreekDog]

71. for someone who didn't read the memo, you provide a lot of detail about how deeply it was read

Last edited Tue Jan 9, 2018, 08:02 AM - Edit history (1)

and about how your son read it and all the things he did while reading it and how thorough he was.

and you spent all this time observing him reading it, yet none of your own time reading it.

then you spent all these posts in this thread talking about a memo you didn't read,

and despite not reading it, you seem quite determined to defend what it says (which you both know and don't know..confusing).

something about this story is not ringing true.

i find it hard to believe one would expend this much effort to express her son's thoughts on the matter without reading it herself.

[treestar]

92. and hide behind the son

instead of taking responsibility for the opinion is not a good look. I think a door buzzard may be involved.

[CreekDog]

147. DOOR BUZZARD!!!

was thinking that very thing right down to the door buzzard LOL

that is crazy https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027423760

[uponit7771]

60. The writer was NOT right, the writer is a person who is privileged and feels equality is oppression

... which is the normal reaction of the privileged

[burnbaby]

83. your son is correct

but this isn't the place to say it. I've been working in IT for over 35 years. Diversity does play a role and I have seen others get laid off and/or hired based on non technical qualifications.

I can remember a time I was asked to find a POC to fill a spot because the company needed it for social data or some sort.

[tonedevil]

108. 35 years...

is about 10 more than I, but I have to say if you found an IT shop where there wasn't a preponderance of white males I am amazed. I worked for consulting firms or on my own for about 15 years and for the last 10 I have been a System Information Analyst with the State of California. I've seen people hired and promoted without qualification at various shops myself. It has never been anyone who was not white and male YMMV. Would you like to weigh in on the genetic superiority argument that Mr. Damore has proffered?

[sarah FAILIN]

120. Thank you

He was talking about the diversity hire issue in a general way, not specifically to the way the memo was talking and he did say the guy said some stupid stuff.
I would not want to be hired because I was the right sex or color. I'd rather be the most qualified person for whatever job I was applying for. Sadly this is not the politically correct way of staffing these days.

[cwydro]

68. Spot on.

[AZCat]

36. Respectfully, as one who has training and certifications in a profession...

I do not think these things are everything. Far from it. I have known lots of people with licenses to practice their profession who are much more dangerous than ones without.

[Blue_true]

44. I am a university trained, experienced engineer.

My experience with hiring people is that paper qualifications (grades, school attended) are only 40% of what has proven to be important. More important determinants of success is how a person deals with unexpected setbacks, how that person convinces resource people to work with him or her to get projects done on time, how that person treats underlings. I have seen people who had sparkling paper qualifications fail because of an inability to adjust to the challenges of real world engineering work. The best people are ones that worked as engineers for a few years then went back to school to pick up specific skills that they saw that they were short on when on a real world job.

[sarah FAILIN]

49. But you don't say that the best people have to be

A black woman or a transgendered person.
Qualifications don't have to be on paper, but I don't think they are gender or race related.

[Codeine]

52. Gender and race can matter.

They bring different points of view to a discussion. They highlight different aspects of a problem.

How is this even a controversy here?! When did DU become a stomping ground for social conservatives?

[uponit7771]

63. +1, people who've worked in diverse engineering environments know this outright by experience

... and those who have experienced the opposite are the privileged ones thinking equality means oppression to them

[mcar]

94. Boggles the mind that we're seeing this here

[uponit7771]

62. The privileged feel the best people have to be other privileged people. diversity of thought in ...

... engineering is no doubt needed and you don't get diversity of thought with homogeneous environments.

No one is saying the best have to be any gender or race just that the best in thinking environments are nor just one or two of the aforementioned.

[uponit7771]

61. +1

[treestar]

91. Who said that?

But among those who passed the boards to be surgeons, how come those who are female or POC happen to be the less qualified? Among them, would you rather than the surgeon with good bedside manner or poise or personality or the one with none of those?

[treestar]

90. The mediocre people just happen to be the blacks/POC and the women?

By coincidence, it is the white men who wanted the jobs they got that are the brilliant ones?

[BoneyardDem]

84. People seem to forget about ALL of the aspects of a new hire

I worked with a person who worked their butt off. Knew their stuff, but was constantly the center of every office conflict. Even if it wasn't a conflict of their own creation (of which there was very many), that person found a way to interject themselves and make a conflict out of a mole hill.

That employee's supervisory team were in discussions to terminate that employee, when that employee suddenly handed in their 2 weeks notice. OMG..the resulting peace and serenity and lack of tension is so palpable.

So yeah, there is more to any hire than their knowledge of the job.

[haele]

134. Especially since most people aren't an Einstien or Jobs, even though they think they are.

Tech Companies are going to hire the most qualified people who aren't going to create a fuss when they eventually get let go.
They're going to be looking at people who understand that they are going to just be another cog in a much larger wheel - a hardworking and important cog - but still a cog that can be replaced none the less.
In the old days, companies didn't have HR doing the hiring. Your daddy and grand-daddy will talk about interviewing with a supervisor and convincing him they were the most loyal and *best person* for the job (no matter the qualifications even then), and that was that - they had a career for life as long as they kept their noses clean.
However, now-days, you go through HR.
HR assesses risks as well as whether or not the employee meets the minimum for the task. They project possible legal or workplace ramifications - does this employee wear his or her emotions on their sleeve or seem to have expectations of employment permanence once they might be hired. Are they aggressively self-assured, are they narrowly focused on the job they're applying for, or do they appear to flexible - do they realize they can only stay on with the company for as long as there is work, and that the requirements and qualifications they need to continue working might change at any time?

Could the employee possibly create a hostile or sub-optimal workplace because they may present signs of an intolerant attitude and the company is large enough to have a significant diversity of employees and customers who might not be like them? Is there a potential for the employee to sue or worse, go postal if something doesn't go their way?

Unlike a supervisor who will naturally pick someone most like him or her for the team and the job at hand, HR is not going to hire someone who says they "will be loyal employee".
HR will pick someone who both meets the qualifications of the job, and is flexible enough that the employee will not, in HR's assessment "rock the boat".

And honestly, for decades, even after the tech world has gotten past the "middle to upper class highly educated or former military white guy" requirement to get a job, women and minorities have generally understood they need to accept they not only have to be qualified on paper, they have to work twice as hard in a potentially hostile workplace just to get to the same place their equally qualified but stereotype of a white male tech worker or engineer has to. And they'll be more quickly fired than that stereotypical co-worker would, if there's a problem that requires "flexibility" from management. And if they complain about treatment from management, they'll find themselves blackballed in their field quicker than their stereotyped counterparts - labeled "irresponsible" or "unqualified" by the upper level tech management, who travel through a world where they all know each other.

The reality is that girls who do better in STEM than their male counterparts during high school often drop out of the field during college due to humiliation and the stress of the preponderance of the tech world's stereotype of the nerd wunderkind saving the day for a company.
These stereotypical "wunderkinds" are few and far between. Most graduates are smart, but not that innovative or groundbreaking.
But there are a lot of (frankly) man-children who where raised with the expectation of the workplace from those who made their careers in the 1960's through 1980's - when minorities and women were still pretty much relegated to data-entry, project administration support, or testing, while the "real engineers" and technical wizards were the white men with the degrees from Caltech or MIT.
These engineers travelled in a rarified environment where everyone knew everyone else - and every start-up Silicon Valley company would actively recruit "5 star" engineers from, say, IBM, General Electric or Kodak, because tech at the time was still a small world and the actual innovation in technology did pretty much require a hard-to-get well-rounded education that included significant knowledge in physics as well as engineering or math - as well as some serious talent in design.

However, Moore's Law has taken a lot of tech out of the hands of humans and into the circuits of machinery. So much of our current tech is leveraged off existing tech; and since the 1990's, engineers no longer needed to have the massive amounts of training and experience just to be able to design or innovate; computers and controllable simulation environments have made "wunderkinds" and "5-star" engineers pretty much obsolete in tech. Anyone is qualified if they understand the basics and can successfully research and leverage existing information to puzzle their way thorough a simulation. "Qualified" means much less in the 2000's than it did in the 1970's.

And that's the sad conundrum that previously privileged young men find themselves in now a days. The expectation of having a lifetime career with the benefits of respect "just because" they were lucky enough to fit a manager's stereotype of what a good employee would be does not match what is going on in the real world of tech.
They have to be flexible and approach both their interviews and workplaces without expectation of praise or recognition; they have to act as if they know they are just one of many possible interchangeable qualified people in a big, big world out there. Just like everyone else has over the decades.

I was trained as a computer, electronics and systems engineer by the military back in the 70's and 80's (no degree, but lots of experience and OJT with PhD's in the respective fields) and I've worked tech for a long, long time - as the only woman in a male dominated field.
I can't tell you how many times I've been relegated to "project assistant" for a less-technically qualified but more acceptable project management "face" - where I've done all the work and innovation and he got all the kudos and bar time with the customers.

I finally broke down and got a degree so I could be "as qualified" and get paid what I deserve for the work I'm doing. I'm still actively going out and learning, because there's never any promise that I will be able to keep my job - there's always someone else out there than may not have my experience, but has the education that with a little bit of effort and learning curve, they can do the same work I'm doing - for less money to my employer.

And that's the reality of tech work. The workforce is fungible, and HR is not going to hire people who don't come in showing they have the expectation that they're going to be considered more qualified just because they bonded with a supervisor and feel that makes them a better person.

Haele

[Blue_true]

38. Read the memo that the guy wrote.

Maybe you should have a conversation with your son.

The memo that was written said that female and some minority software applicants have natural intellectual limitations when compared to White men. His basic proposal was that Google should not spend time looking for anything but White male coders. The memo was barely masked racist and sexist garbage.

[sarah FAILIN]

41. Nope

I'm done with it. This conversation was not about the biological statements. It was about how the guy was saying a company can't succeed by hiring mediocre workers. I think that is true.
The conversation also happened back when it was in the news. There is no point in dragging it out again.

[Blue_true]

45. So, he assumes that women and some minorities are mediocre at birth.

That was the basis of his argument. He did not care that some of Google's best coders have been female or one of the minorities that he felt are automatically inferior to him.

I have worked with guys like that, never saw one succeed. They always found something where they were being victimized in their minds and focused exclusively on that to the detriment of progress.

[sarah FAILIN]

50. That is not what was said

But I am tired of explaining it.

[uponit7771]

65. Yes it was !!! He injected birth ability into his analysis like a privileged asshole

[CreekDog]

149. you wrote 2500 words in this thread about a memo you didn't read one word of

you cared so much about this topic, yet didn't read the document the thread was about.

[sarah FAILIN]

155. You have followed me around like a stalker trolling me

The 2nd time you have posted this same thing. I'm glad you don't know me because I'd be afraid you would break into my house and kill my cat the insane way you're acting. You have sat here and pulled out my posts to count the words. That is stalker behavior. You have searched for old posts of mine to lie about me with, then totally ignored that I caught you in your lie. You seem obsessed.

If you weren't following me around harassing me I wouldn't be posting as much. What I have posted is to try to make people that have replied to me understand we see 2 different issues than the only one they see.

[CreekDog]

156. I haven't threatened you, I've only pointed out what you said in this thread

Far from stalking you, I've only ever interacted with you in this thread because the story you're telling and the amount of time you're spending trying to tell us what your son thinks of a memo you haven't read yourself (while writing at least the equivalent number of words about it in this thread).

It's odd behavior and you are posting crazy fears when all I ever do is point out what people say here, publicly and what those things mean when read together.

2500 words defending your "son's" interpretation of a memo you haven't read.

It makes no sense. Unless you are the one who read it and thinks as your son does about it.

Unless you are actually him, or instead are the person who thinks what he does, but attributes it to him without taking responsibility for it while trying to spread that opinion here.

[sarah FAILIN]

158. You are following me like an obsessed loon

You went to an extremely old thread and pulled out something you wanted to lie about then posted it in this thread. You then totally ignored that you were caught in a lie about me. You are acting obsessed. I have reason to be concerned.

Why would anyone lie about having a son ? I made a point of saying he is the one that read it because I hadn't and wasn't going to act like I did. If I were doing what you claim, I wouldn't say that I do agree with him which I have said repeatedly.
You just enjoy being a troll.

[CreekDog]

159. why are you so intent on derailing this thread with your son's opinion on the memo?

a memo you haven't read. if you cared that much about the topic, you'd have read it yourself.

if you cared that much about your son, you'd have read it yourself to show that he's right.

but you didn't.

it makes far more sense that attributing the opinion to him and saying that you didn't read it is a way to get his points into the conversation without having to own them as your own opinions.

it's a way to avoid responsibility for posting inflammatory stuff.

it's a tactic that has been used here many times.

[Skittles]

59. I know guys like him

THEY SUCK

they use their so-called "hiring the best" crap to justify their bigotry

I guarantee you their "standard" is a woman or POC has to be twice as good to be considered half as good - I've seen it for as long as I have been working

FUCK THEM

[uponit7771]

66. +1, I've experienced it first hand and their bigotry can be categorical

[malaise]

72. He's a bigot

plain and simple
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/08/james-damore-sues-google-discrimination-white-male-conservatives

[Demsrule86]

123. Exactly and if my son said such things which he would never ....his sisters and I would set him

straight for his own good. This guy is going to lose his lawsuit and those who agree with him are bigots pure and simple.

[uponit7771]

64. His "mediocre" was people who weren't white males !! You didn't read it or at least the whole thing

[Blue_true]

117. He used "majority" a lot when talking about hiring.

The right use "majority" instead of "Whites only". The guy is completely transparent. I have worked with clowns like that, everyone end up hating them.

[Demsrule86]

162. But why is this sort thinks that women and POC are always mediocre...I think many of this

sort are mediocre and looking for an excuse for their own failings...MRA is full of this type of person.

[Skittles]

58. they're both wrong

and I have been in tech for DECADES

[octoberlib]

73. James Damore is an alt right mens rights activist.

I glanced at his Twitter account when he first made the news and saw retweets of Richard Spencer , Stephan Molyneux and other alt right assholes. During the Charlottesville Nazi march , Damore posted tweets supporting them. He's a despicable person and a bigot as well as a misogynist.

[suffragette]

107. You set up a biased either/or - either diverse or best. In reality, a group can be both diverse and

best.

[Demsrule86]

122. There are plenty of qualified women...that is BS...first of all and without pressure you would find

that no woman was ever the most qualified...and often qualifications have nothing to do with who gets hired...hubs had the worst interview of his life for GM when he first got out of school...he did no research and botched it...he was hired because he went to the same school as the interviewer's kids and knew them. The guy is a flaming bigot...and if my son said what yours did, well I would be disappointed. I am sorry to say that and hope I didn't offend you. I am reminded of a High School teacher who told me my brilliant daughter wasn't good at math (she is an accountant and graduated summa cum laude)...he asked me what I did...I said I teach calculus at the local college. The idea that the most qualified person gets the job is ridiculous. Jobs are awarded for many different reasons and rarely to the 'best' candidate which is subjective to begin with. Let's Consider the rich boys who get hired because of who their Daddy is...and there are a fair number of wealthy young men from wealthy families at silicon valley. One thing the me too movement did is expose the bigotry women face everyday even from some progressive men. No way I trust companies to play fair without some sort of diversity requirement.

[sarah FAILIN]

124. I'm not offended

Everyone else has jumped to the conclusion that my son was agreeing with the biological statements and I did too at the time. I was correcting him is how we came to have the discussion because I thought that was all the memo was saying since people here said that is what it was. I still have never interest in reading it btw..
What my son said was that the guy was saying if you continue to hire less qualified people just because they fill a quota, you are not going to do as well as you would hiring the most qualified people. I still agree with that. That reasoning would keep a lot of "buddy hires" and bosses kids out too. He specifically said the guy said a lot of stupid stuff, but that this is the core. I'm not disappointed in my son at all because he thought about the statements and made a decision without depending on what was the popular thing to say.

[Demsrule86]

144. I don't agree with that. There are women out there who are qualified. That is their excuse.

I have heard this before with HIB2 visas...but the truth is they don't want qualified American workers and advertise in no name journals to make sure they won't get applicants. They want guys in this field and won't give women a chance unless they are forced to... I have seen this before. They hire unqualified women and then say 'see we tried' when in reality they didn't try. Your son is mistaken. There are plenty of qualified women in IT but it is a man's field and many don't get a fair shake. After all that has come out about the mistreatment of women...I think this is the really the same thing. I worked in Math and science most of my life and was told point blank several times they wanted a man. I went into business using math and science because I found businesses were more accepting of women. I love computers and there isn't much I can't do with them...but that industry would never hire a woman and certainly not a woman above 35.That is their excuse. I don't buy it.

[sarah FAILIN]

145. I think we are not talking about the same thing.

My son never said there were no qualified women in tech.

What he is saying and I agree with is that it is not good to leave a very qualified person behind to hire someone barely qualified or not qualified at all. That means not hiring the boss's son or your kid's girlfriend just because he is dating her. It doesn't mean there are no qualified women. How would you feel if you were qualified for a job but the boss was also interviewing a hot young 20 something that was only halfway through her degree and had no job experience. If you were a 40 and female very qualified woman, how would you feel if the unqualified 20 something woman beat you out of the job? I think I should get the same answer no matter if the more qualified person is male or female of any color. If you only hire mediocre people for any job- not just tech, you get a mediocre result imo.

[Demsrule86]

160. People get hired for all sorts of reason...nepotism etc. And who the best candidate is not based

on numbers or even facts. And I have seen companies who really would prefer a man hire the first woman who shows up ...and then say see...we told you. These are usually after government contracts. There are many good IT women. And if my kid said what yours did, I would be concerned. There is an arrogance among young men these days in certain industries...Tech is one of them. White men are now sharing power. It used to be they had the upper hand. Although as we have seen lately, women are still persecuted and sexually harassed. The guy suing Google is a bigoted tool.He is a whiny right winger who thinks he should be allowed to persecute women...political diversity should be a protected class for him and those those who think like him...not us of course. I do not agree with this person nor do I agree with your son's view and am surprised that you do...to each their own I guess. Tell your son that people get hired for all sorts of reasons and maybe he should not be resentful and get to know the women hired...they may be just fine if he can look beyond their sex. Otherwise he risks become a bitter person who blames others for any perceived failures. I have four kids...the oldest is a (gag) Republican. She married one. I disagree with just about every word out of her mouth. So we don't talk politics. These kids! My others are millennials and have joined the Democratic Party.

[Locrian]

166. I get where he's coming from

I see it in a lot of young people where I work

And there is merit in saying the most qualified deserve the job. Estimates are (in coding) that there's a 10:1 difference between the worst and best coders.

But does he know what the difference is between TEAMS ? Which can include people of different perspectives etc (ie a "diverse" team)? 10:1? 20:1 ??

It's 2000:1.

Focusing solely on individual ability is smoked by focusing on team and system dynamics of people.

https://medium.com/the-crossover-cast/the-top-2-reasons-you-should-be-hiring-teams-instead-of-individuals-7f959a79f824

[obamanut2012]

135. Your son's reading of it was wrong n/t

[sarah FAILIN]

140. I think his perception was different since he ignored the stuff about biological differences

He did say that the guy said some stupid stuff which I was discussing with him since I had read here the guy was just a terrible misogynist, but he saw the job discrimination issue as an issue separate from what the guy was saying about biology. I still agree with him on this. The most qualified person with the required training should get a job ahead of a lesser qualified person that happens to fill a quota.

[Blue_Tires]

138. Yes, because underqualified mediocre white bros have never, EVER

been hired/promoted over better candidates in the annals of Western History

[DiverDave]

5. Find a safe space SNOWFLAKE

eom

[Initech]

13. They need more safe spaces than any group they belittle!

[crazycatlady]

109. One exists for people like him-- 4Chan

[haele]

8. Here's the nasty secret of the tech world.

Most of the employees - even the managers - are considered interchangeable, no matter how good they are.
The people who are on the boards can care less about diversity or talent. They want a product that brings ROI. And if they can get a program or Robot that does most of the work, they'll get rid of extra employees, starting with the oldest and the highest paid ones they can.

Haele

[Initech]

17. Yup. All the upper management cares about is that sweet $$$$.

They don't give a shit about you, or your background, or your diversity. They only care about what makes them money.

[Blue_true]

46. Yep, the ultimate next person up philosophy.

I have seen lots of people who thought that they were irreplaceable, walk away and become old news as other people replace them.

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[HughBeaumont]

171. Substitute "work" for "tech" and it's 100% correct.

[meow2u3]

19. What a snowflake!

[IluvPitties]

33. The plight of the white man...

[Gothmog]

75. Being a privileged white male is not a protected category

I am really surprised that anyone would bring the lawsuit mentioned in the op

[Jim Lane]

116. Actually, being a white male IS a protected category.

An employer is not allowed to discriminate against whites on the basis of race or against men on the basis of sex, unless the employer can show that the basis for the discrimination is a bona fide occupational qualification for that particular job.

Racial discrimination is covered in one of the EEOC's FAQ pages:

Are White employees protected from race discrimination even though they are not a minority?

Yes. You are protected from different treatment at work on the basis of your race, whether you are White, Black, or some other race.

As for sex, see "Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Against Men", an article that notes past EEOC actions against such discrimination.

[Gothmog]

126. Being an ignorant sexist white male is not a protected category

[Jim Lane]

130. Imprecise statement.

If Google fires ignorant sexist white males but retains ignorant sexist women and people of color, then that's sex and race discrimination.

Of course, if Google fires everyone who turns out to be ignorant, that's permissible.

It's typical of an employment discrimination case that an employer tries to refute the inference of discrimination by presenting non-discriminatory reasons for the employment decision. I assume that Google will do so in this case, by pointing to numerous deficiencies of this employee that are unrelated to any protected category.

[Gothmog]

131. Read that ignorant memo from this idiot

The Memorandum that got this idiot fired is really sad

[alarimer]

79. It's a tough time to be a mediocre white guy, that's for sure.

They used to waltz into just about any workplace and end up top dog regardless of their incompetence. Now those days are over.

So fucking sad I'm crying crocodile tears over here.

[George II]

85. Where that will fail is when Google shows up with a long list of "Caucasian" "male" "conservatives"!

I don't have a copy of Google's personnel manual, but I'm sure that there is something about using company resources for personal purposes.

[MineralMan]

96. Based on this quote:

James Damore, the ex-Google software engineer who was fired in August for writing a 10-page memo arguing that biological differences account for gender imbalances in the tech industry, filed a class action lawsuit against the search engine giant on Monday for discriminating against employees who are “Caucasian,” “male,” or hold “perceived conservative political views by Google.”

I think the last criterion is the one this moron is actually talking about. He's a political conservative. From that, I assume he's also a misogynist and a bigoted individual in more than one area. That has nothing whatever to do with "biological differences or gender." It has to do with his being an asshole.

I wouldn't hire him, either, just based on that last criterion. Having assholes in workgroups is always a bad idea, regardless of skills, talent, sex, skin color or any other factor. Assholes will disrupt the work and lower productivity.

He includes his political views in a list of boilogical differences. That makes him an idiot, besides.

A software workgroup has many people in it. Each contributes something to the whole. The slowest coder in that group may also be the person who can visualize a better overall approach to the thing that is being coded. As someone who has written the code for a number of Windows applications by myself in the process of creating software for my small shareware company, I discovered that I was a very fast, accurate coder, but sometimes had issues with conceptualizing how a particular routine should operate most effectively. So, I developed a different process that forced me to take time to outline processes before coding anything. That was not my strong suit, but in doing that, I actually ended up writing better code.

Competency is measured in many different ways, and sex and skin color have nothing whatever to do with it. Period. No workgroup needs an asshole as part of that group, though. Of that I'm certain, and this guy appears to be one such. I wouldn't have hired him, either, on that basis alone.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. Well, No Need For Me To Chime In

What MM said. Perfectly apt.

[MineralMan]

103. Thank you kindly...

[Demsrule86]

161. That is a great post and so true...as always you hit it out of the park MM.

[Orrex]

100. That stupid, entitled fucker.

[marylandblue]

101. The implied assumption is that "merit" is objectively measured

But studies show that it is not. They've shown people resumes that were exactly the same, differing only by whether it was it had a man's name or woman's at the top. The man's resume was judged better than the woman's.

This is why Google needs outreach to women. They are missing qualified female applicants because of gender bias. This is not something the techie managers who read the resumes are conscious of, but the HR departments know it happens.

http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-job-rather-jennifer

[harun]

102. The last thing any business wants is to strengthen political diversity.

Last edited Wed Jan 10, 2018, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

They want people to do their jobs and save the religious and political discussions for their own time.

[Blue_true]

118. Exactly. I have never worked in an all liberal or all conservative place.

The expectation is that people keep religion, politics, social views out of the work environment.

[Gothmog]

111. I read the amusing petition and found an answer to the question I asked in the OP

I was amused to see that the lead attorney in this case is a member of the GOP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmeet_Dhillon

Harmeet Dhillon (born October 2, 1968) is an American lawyer and Republican party official. She is the former vice chairman of the California Republican Party, and the National Committeewoman of the Republican National Committee for California.[8][9] She owns a law practice called Dhillon Law Group Inc.[10]

This explains a great deal about this lawsuit

[Nevernose]

112. Google is 80 percent me

And majority white, both in employment and the billionaires who own it. And the government is investigating them for sex discrimination.

But it’s those 80% who are the REAL victims of bigotry.

The stupid on some of these “smart” people is just painful.

[still_one]

153. That is exactly correct. This asshole doesn't have a case

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/02/googles-staff-worldwide-still-overwhelmingly-white-and-asian-men

[Iggo]

132. No...they discriminate against assholes. (n/t)

[Codeine]

136. Dammit. There goes my application. nt

[still_one]

152. Doesn't the question come down to if a company has a right to fire someone if they violate the

companies code of conduct, which they agreed to as a condition to work at that company?

I think it is going to be very difficult for Damore to show that Google discriminates against caucasian males. No doubt Google has plenty of examples of caucasian males working for them who will be more than willing to testify.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/02/googles-staff-worldwide-still-overwhelmingly-white-and-asian-men

I suspect that Damore's work performance evaluations will part of this case, along with what his job description was.

He agreed to certain terms when he went to work for Google, and if he is violating those terms through the code of conduct, or work performance, I think he will have a tough time proving his case.

There was a recent case where Mercer was Sued by a Hedge Fund Worker who claims he was Fired After Blasting Trump:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-08/trump-backer-mercer-sued-by-employee-fired-after-speaking-out

[DBoon]

177. no basis for this

"Assholes" are not a protected minority

Being an asshole does not fall under disability protection laws.

[Orsino]

187. Did anyone doubt that this is where dumbass was headed all along?

He could barely contain his entitlement in the original memo, and now he has a pretend-grievance.