Sundar Pichai, responding to the memo that went viral this past week:
First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.”
Follow the link to read the whole thing.
Highly recommend reading the actual memo before making any comments… https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html
“However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the
line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace”
Well, if you squint real hard, selectively read, and ignore the research paper citations.
Google has thoroughly beclowned itself on this one, and I don’t take Google’s claims to support internal free expression remotely seriously.
(Google seems to have put itself in the awkward position of having to claim men and women are Really Different and that that Real Difference makes gender diversity a valuable and useful thing … and simultaneously that they’re Exactly The Same and claiming that they’re Really Different is intolerable bigotry.
The CEO might be offended, but that ain’t changing anything, from the actual science of gender differences to the incoherence of his position.)
Highly recommend reading this, too: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
And this:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?service=amp
The point isn’t even whether he’s right or not. He expressed concern over a Google policy and tried to marshal evidence in favor of his point of view. Google has every right to hire or fire whomever they please, but I imagine he will still be a rich man after this.
More to the point, could we possibly all make an effort at honest discussion of issues instead of immediately going to the labeling of people as thisist and thatist?
This is the gist of the problem with the argument as I see it. STEM is dominated by men and has been for a long time, so it’s practices and processes tend to favour the thinking of men.
It’s entirely possible to argue that in an alternate reality where women had dominated STEM, that we could cite the low number of men in the field because of the differences in their brains.
This is already too much. The memo promoted bias, gender discrimination and inequality. It hid behind pseudo science. In any reasonable workplace this is not tolerable.
So, fuck this guy and his ideas.
Read this. https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788
The idea that engineering = coding alone is just a basic misunderstanding.
lol
My daughter was accepted into the Actuarial program at the University of Calgary. In her first day of class the professor asked her what she was doing in the class. She didn’t understand why she had been singled out until he said that she was “far too pretty to be in the program”. She switched to pure math and got a degree in Mathematical Probability with a freaking good average.
She has 3-4 years of work experience, was actively recruited for her current job, and could work in any tech firm on the west coast. My wife and I both work in tech but my daughter doesn’t and her career is blossoming. And personally, I’m glad because of know of the uphill battle she would have simply because she’s a woman.
My son is a baker. I’m stupidly proud of him too. It’s true, your kids turn out better than you.
Yonatan Zunger has some serious game. He represents the people at Google that I know.
How do you account for all of the other fields which were dominated by men for a long time, but now are not?
As a broad statement, I can’t. How one industry evolved over time is unlikely to be the same as another, and those changes are unlikely to be obvious to me, a layman.
The statement I quoted stated definitively that THIS is how STEM is and THIS is why it’s dominated by men. That allows the author to reach their conclusion, but ignores the question of why our approach to STEM is the way it is.
I did. It’s hilariously presumptuous in its “defining characteristics of” section.
You put the question in my head, and I just couldn’t let it go. IT started to dawn on me that it’s not just that STEM is dominated by men, it’s they are dominated by a certain type of man. STEM, in particularly the engineering area seems to be really attractive to a kind of really literal personality.
When I come across engineers like this, I can’t help but roll my eyes even while I would attribute that personality as a benefit to excellence in the trade. Mechanical systems don’t have grey areas, so literal thinking is a benefit. This personality is largely what it seems to me was identified by the Google employee.
However, it might not be that that personality is an inherent advantage, but that it isn’t punished (in a natural-selection sense) as it might be in other professions.
The stereotype of an engineer might make a fantastic physician, both engineering and medicine require knowledge of large amounts of factual information and specific training. However the term “bedside manner” exists for a reason, and that literal personality may prove a detriment.
One of those pop-science books from a decade ago (Malcom Gladwell type things) cited the effect personality appeared to have on the likelihood of a Dr. being sued for malpractice.
It’s quite possible that since a lot of STEM occurs “behind the scenes” those personality types that get punished are able to coast along, frequently isolated from others but in a pod of like-minded individuals.
There might be nothing there, but I really can’t give the idea any more time, I just had to get it sketched out so I could move along and get some work done… writing code, from home, isolated from all my co-workers.
This is a good take on Google’s debacle… from Ben
maybe check this out
not actually – also if you saw the gizmodo post – it was fairly biased against (by omission)
You laid bare your interest in an intelligent conversation with your previous comment, so no thank you.
Why does no one seem to complain about the lack of women in sanitation or other fields that are considered dangerous – like commercial fishing or logging or coal mining (or other mining)?
One may surmise that current wave feminism is about domination and unequal outcomes mandated by the government or bizarre social constructs.
wow, arrogant much? Not really a question, carry on.
“You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.”
I think Ben has a good opinion on the matter – less than 16 minutes if you have the time. Ben speaks very well