Google Fires Engineer Who Wrote Memo Questioning Women in Tech - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

News stories of lesser political significance, but still of international interest.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Please include a source with news articles. No stupid or joke stories. The usual forum rules also still apply.
#14831386
NYT wrote:
SAN FRANCISCO — Google on Monday fired a software engineer who wrote an internal memo that questioned the company’s diversity efforts and argued that the low number of women in technical positions was a result of biological differences instead of discrimination.

The memo, called “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” angered many in Silicon Valley because it relied on certain gender stereotypes — like the notion that women are less interested in high-stress jobs because they are more anxious — to rationalize the gender gap in the tech industry. The memo quickly spread outside the company, as other Google employees railed against many of its assumptions.

In a companywide email, Google’s chief executive, Sundar Pichai, said portions of the memo had violated the company’s code of conduct and crossed the line “by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

The memo put the company in a bind. On one hand, Google has long promoted a culture of openness, with employees allowed to question senior executives and even mock its strategy in internal forums. However, Google, like many other technology firms, is dealing with criticism that it has not done enough to hire and promote women and minorities.

One female Google engineer posted on Twitter upon reading the memo that she would consider leaving the company unless the human resources department took action.

In an email titled “Our Words Matter,” Mr. Pichai said that he supported the right of employees to express themselves but that the memo had gone too far.

Image
Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, said a memo written by an engineer had promoted “harmful gender stereotypes.” Credit Akintunde Akinleye/Reuters

“The memo has clearly impacted our co-workers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender,” Mr. Pichai wrote. “Our co-workers shouldn’t have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being ‘agreeable’ rather than ‘assertive,’ showing a ‘lower stress tolerance,’ or being ‘neurotic.’”

James Damore, the software engineer who wrote the original memo, confirmed in an email to The New York Times that he had been fired. Mr. Damore had worked at Google since 2013. He said in his memo that he had written it in the hope of having an “honest discussion” about how the company had an intolerance for ideologies that do not fit into what he believed were its left-leaning biases.

Mr. Damore, who worked on infrastructure for Google’s search product, said he believed that the company’s actions were illegal and that he would “likely be pursuing legal action.” “I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does,” Mr. Damore said. Mr. Pichai’s memo was reported earlier by Recode, and Bloomberg confirmed Mr. Damore’s dismissal. Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.

Mr. Pichai said he would be cutting short a family vacation to return to Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., to deal with the matter. He said the company intended to hold an all-hands meeting to discuss the issue on Thursday.


Read the full memo here.

In our obsession to get population-based representations in certain fields we have gone way past the idea of equal opportunity and have re-entered a strange sort of paternalism.

Women to date have chosen to not go into technical fields at the same rate as men, while on the other hand they have chosen to go into fields such as psychology where they now absolutely dominate. Yet, women are constantly being told what they should want to do and that they are being held back and prevented from exercising their real choices by some sinister and oppressive force. Furthermore, the opinion of some Google employee is apparently enough to make us women, fragile little flowers that we are, feel threatened and shy away from our true calling.

Just what is wrong with seemingly intelligent people jumping to conclusions and making assumptions about what women or any other group should aspire to and want to do with their lives?
Attachments
08google-1-master768.jpg
08google-1-master768.jpg (45.17 KiB) Viewed 4345 times
#14831388
*Puts his foot up on a nearby chair and reassuringly calms Kaiserschmarrn down*

That's great, but I'll take it from here. The trend among women to enter certain types of professions at different rates, like psychology rather than technical sciences, is obviously due to a grand discriminatory conspiracy. Although women have equal access to the same technology and training men do, women are being prevented from becoming engineers, and are being forced into taking up different career paths. As a man who only wants to look out for you, and has your best interests at heart (especially the ones you don't know about, trust me, the world is a complicated place and you're lucky I'm here to think on your behalf), I'll give you a list shortly of the kinds of career paths you are allowed to begin exploring.

I'll go make some chamomile tea for you once you've become less emotional and hysterical. ( :roll: )
#14831390
I agree with Bulaba.

A better measure than population in the field would be the ratio of applications at those positions. STEM is still overwhelmingly male, but that isn't a conspiracy to repress women. I'm all for making the gender ratio equal in those fields, and the nice thing about capitalism is that if they can make more money with a woman than a man, they generally will.

The pay gap question is more complicated, since it also reflects more on race and other traits.
#14831394
Bulaba Jones wrote:*Puts his foot up on a nearby chair and reassuringly calms Kaiserschmarrn down*

That's great, but I'll take it from here. The trend among women to enter certain types of professions at different rates, like psychology rather than technical sciences, is obviously due to a grand discriminatory conspiracy. Although women have equal access to the same technology and training men do, women are being prevented from becoming engineers, and are being forced into taking up different career paths. As a man who only wants to look out for you, and has your best interests at heart (especially the ones you don't know about, trust me, the world is a complicated place and you're lucky I'm here to think on your behalf), I'll give you a list shortly of the kinds of career paths you are allowed to begin exploring.

I'll go make some chamomile tea for you once you've become less emotional and hysterical. ( :roll: )

I'm just trying to appear assertive rather than agreeable. The memo clearly had a strong effect on me although it' subconscious and I don't realise it. OMG, what else is it going to do to me?

Zagadka wrote:I agree with Bulaba.

A better measure than population in the field would be the ratio of applications at those positions. STEM is still overwhelmingly male, but that isn't a conspiracy to repress women. I'm all for making the gender ratio equal in those fields, and the nice thing about capitalism is that if they can make more money with a woman than a man, they generally will.

The pay gap question is more complicated, since it also reflects more on race and other traits.

Not quite what you are talking about but related:

PNAS wrote:
National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track

Wendy M. Williams1 and Stephen J. Ceci
Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Edited* by Richard E. Nisbett, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and approved March 5, 2015 (received for review September 30, 2014)

Significance

The underrepresentation of women in academic science is typically attributed, both in scientific literature and in the media, to sexist hiring. Here we report five hiring experiments in which faculty evaluated hypothetical female and male applicants, using systematically varied profiles disguising identical scholarship, for assistant professorships in biology, engineering, economics, and psychology. Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Comparing different lifestyles revealed that women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers and that men preferred mothers who took parental leaves to mothers who did not. Our findings, supported by real-world academic hiring data, suggest advantages for women launching academic science careers.

Abstract

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g., single without children, married with children). Applicants' profiles were systematically varied to disguise identically rated scholarship; profiles were counterbalanced by gender across faculty to enable between-faculty comparisons of hiring preferences for identically qualified women versus men. Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. Results were replicated using weighted analyses to control for national sample characteristics. In follow-up experiments, 144 faculty evaluated competing applicants with differing lifestyles (e.g., divorced mother vs. married father), and 204 faculty compared same-gender candidates with children, but differing in whether they took 1-y-parental leaves in graduate school. Women preferred divorced mothers to married fathers; men preferred mothers who took leaves to mothers who did not. In two validation studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narratives, and 127 faculty rated one applicant rather than choosing from a mixed-gender group; the same preference for women was shown by faculty of both genders. These results suggest it is a propitious time for women launching careers in academic science. Messages to the contrary may discourage women from applying for STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) tenure-track assistant professorships.
#14831397
Honestly, I think a lot of this goes back to the US military-industrial complex (MIC). Women are an integral part of that system, notably, because they (especially mothers) represent a group that is usually opposed to military-industrial projects. A major victory for the establishment has been getting more women into the military and STEM since this helps to destroy opposition to military-industrialism. STEM fields themselves are basically holding grounds/farms for the production of military technology for the US Department of Defence, and there is a concerted effort by such groups the STEM coalition, to get more women into STEM fields for reasons of national defence.

It has been argued (in an edited volume, I'm not sure I can prove this anymore, but anyway), that the influx of women into the Army was one of the key ingredients in avoiding mass conscription during the Iraq War, and it was of course mass conscription during Vietnam that ultimately produced negative consequences for the MIC. The feminist author of the chapter I was reading considered this a significant betrayal of feminism to the establishment.

Tldr, coopting women into STEM fields is a major victory for the military-industrial complex and they're very interested in keeping it that way.

Edit: this may have been the book, I think the chapter by Jennifer Hyndman

As you can see from the STEM Ed coalition's 2016 report, many of their contributing members (and their director's board) have significant ties to the military industrial complex and weapons design and US federal intelligence agencies in particular
Image
Image
#14831402
Google also generates profit by supplying bulk data collection and analysis to the US government. Edward Snowden's leaks demonstrated that Google was completely complicit in bulk data collection and analytics for the US intelligence agencies.

The more I think about it, the clearer it becomes that this person was fired to protect the integrity of Google as a component of the US national security system. An attack on women in STEM is basically an attack on that system, since the MIC needs as many new technicians as it can get to remain competitive with its rivals.

Naturally the memo's author is a sexist bigot and probably an asshole. No doubt he feels he was fired because of his "conservative views" in response to the "globalist" agenda or some such nonsense, but I think the truth is actaully much worse. Little did he realize he was stepping on the toes of the US Defence Department and sacrosanct US national security.
#14831431
Bulaba Jones wrote:*Puts his foot up on a nearby chair and reassuringly calms Kaiserschmarrn down*


Oh dear. How patronising. The same mistake as Damore. Not once but...

That's great, but I'll take it from here.


As a man who only wants to look out for you, and has your best interests at heart


I'll go make some chamomile tea for you once you've become less emotional and hysterical. ( :roll: )


Four times? I never agree with Kaiser but don't patronize her. If you don't agree with her state why.

As for the Damore, after reading his memo it was almost like he knew what he was writing was taboo and kept repeating in his memo that I'm not sexist but... Personally I think Google have messed up here. By not allowing Damore to express a view they are supressing free speach and one of an ethical importance. Instead of firing him they should have explained more openly why these measures are in place. Explain that they are to give people more opportunity in a diverse world. And then offer Damore the opportunity to work with them to see himself why the measures are in place. Google's actions instead have given misogynist a martyr due to himself falling victim of distrimination.
#14831440
B0ycey wrote:Oh dear. How patronising.


Yes, that was the point of irony in a thread about men being patronizing to women. :roll:

Rancid wrote:Is the memo posted somewhere?


It's in the OP, but here's the link:
#14831444
B0ycey wrote:Four times? I never agree with Kaiser but don't patronize her. If you don't agree with her state why.

Bulaba always talks down to us and gets away with it. What's more, the women on this board like him. Is this a case of slave morality?

What really hurts though is that you say you never agree with me, B0ycey. I'm starting to suspect I'm being stereotyped and judged based on my gender. How can we ever hope to attract more females to this board when misogyny is so pervasive?
#14831446
I've been meaning to talk to you, Kaiser, and you might as well tell the other women in the office about this. I feel like this place needs to be livened up. The guys and I were talking the other day after work, and we think you all need to wear higher heels. This isn't for us, Kaiser. This is for the good of the company. I hope you understand my professional concerns here.
#14831457
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:
What really hurts though is that you say you never agree with me, B0ycey. I'm starting to suspect I'm being stereotyped and judged based on my gender. How can we ever hope to attract more females to this board when misogyny is so pervasive?


Don't take it personally, we just have different political and ethical positions. If it helps, I do respect you. However I would like to add that I have never revealed my race, gender, creed, social standing or personal economic position on here (and never will).

When protesters are arrested, it is cops being vi[…]

Why would that be fascinating if you don't believ[…]

Wishing to see the existence of a massively nucl[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Speculation is boring and useless. Speculation is,[…]