I like how you turn a voluntary charitable contribution into forcing other people to pay. If you aren't poor, you should already be making contributions to the poor since you have such high moral standards.
"It seemed like he cherry-picked research that agreed with his views and didn’t seek dissenting research or opinions before sending the document to internal Google groups."
- The purpose of posting this memo was to seek dissenting research and other opinions.
Pure gold. This is exactly what I was thinking when I read that.
Fact: women and men have varying distributions in abilities and traits - due to biology
Fact: women and men aren't distributed equally in tech and leadership.
And your conclusion is that anyone who presents these facts and says that maybe one causes the other means that women are "less suited" for engineering?
There is no logical basis for this. He didn't say what you are attributing to him.
> why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women.
Well, she only has to prove it to men that she assumes are sexist or incapable of understanding population distributions. I mean, really? Let's fight sexism with sexism.
So, for reference, after taxes a single person takes home what? $80k. That's about $6,666 per month, leaving $2666 after paying rent. That's not including food. Also for reference, when I lived in a South American country, rent was running about $400 a month, but even if it was $700, wouldn't you be doing better in South America? You can't ignore the fact that food and services are extraordinarily cheaper due to the lower cost of living.
>I’m not remotely surprised, however, that Damore naturally assumes the differences between typically female and male traits mean that men are more skilled.
He never said or implied that. The whole problem is people overreacting about what they read in to it.
>but I'm pretty sure everyone who agrees with that rant probably thinks it's just because of some supposed biological reason.
I sense someone is still operating from the ignorance of not having read and understood the scientific reference supporting the diversity memo...or a troll
Are you saying it's necessary or desirable to lower the bar for people to fill quotas, however, when someone writes something that you obviously haven't read or understood, it's rightful that they should be terminated for those opinions that you don't even seem to have grasped. I mean, you do realize that "trying to use provable false statements to create a toxic work environment for one third of your coworkers is a PR disaster" is utterly false.
> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
You're saying this implies that the author thinks women working at Google perform worse than men at Google?
I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean, and for anyone who is reading what was written above, this might clarify.
> At what point does saying things ... starts becoming 'creating a hostile work environment'?
Certainly well known, supported, and referenced scientific facts, are not creating a hostile work environment. The fact that he was treated that way suggests that it is in fact a "thought crime".
It's weird, but this is all pretty well known stuff in the fields from which he refers. And, as obsessed as we are with instilling diversity in everything, why even common people don't know these things who knows?