Related Posts
Layoffs at Walmart corporate 😬😬
Hello all,
Would like to know specifically about Queer inclusion at SocGen Societe Generale. What is the attitude of mangers and HRs towards treating LGBTQ identifying candidates? Is company really inclusive or it’s just a lip service? Considering an offer with the company but being an out and proud Queer woman, super anxious and concerned.
More Posts
Top 10 books to read about consulting life ?
French cuffs are for VP and up.
If Obama has swagger, what does Trump have?
Pro
Breaking: Boris Johnson moved to ICU bc of COVID-19
Additional Posts in Consulting
8AM Sunday Scaries 😬
Bain & Company Which are the best consulting firms and practices for Climate Change & Sustainability, especially in the Canadian geography? Also, please suggest the best Canadian city for consulting jobs.
McKinsey & Company | Boston Consulting Group | Bain & Company | Kearney | LEK | EY | Oliver Wyman | PwC | Deloitte
#ClimateChange #Sustainability #Water #ESG
Rising Star
Got a random email from a supposed Amazon recruiter for a SDE position (which is not at all a fit). The email is amazon.com domain and there are no red flags in the body but it doesn't feel like an Amazon recruiter due to the tacky signature, etc. Has anyone seen this kind of cold-calling from FAANG recruiter?
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
I got about 30 seconds into it when I saw the "women have a higher agreeableness factor". As someone dealing with situations I do NOT agree with professionally right now, I am bordering the "bitch" line by not being agreeable. I am tapping out. This faux science is what got us Trump and Men's Rights and All Lives Matter. 🙈
This manifesto is like a jar of honey with a teaspoon of shit in it. People who say "but he still had a few valid points" just can't taste the shit. Having a discussion about work discrimination & equality based on this document is like working out ways to resolve Germany's problems between WWI and WWII based on Mein Kampf.
Ey4, I read him as saying that part (not all) of the reason that women are less interested (not less capable) in computer science/tech jobs is their biology, and that their reduced interest in these jobs explains (in part) their under representation better than does sexism. Turn the table here -- let's start explaining why women are way over represented in other high paying, high status jobs such as veterinarian, child psychiatrist and family law attorney. Is that sexism? Or is it interests? And if it's interests, why couldn't that be biology? The core of the biology-shapes-interests argument is that women as a group tend to be more interested in (again, not more capable, more interested) people and men tend to he more interested in things and abstract concepts. This "theory"'would explain women being less interest and thereby underrepresented in computer tech and over represented in child psychiatry. Seems like a more robust theory than sexism.
You can't have a productive conversation on this topic. The progressive playbook is that any discussion or consideration of dissent is morally corrupt.
Id just like to highlight that this guy felt he had time to write a 10 pager. Was it on company time??? That sounds like the real issue
Just skimmed it. I think the only woman whose competency he drew into question was the new VP of Diversity and Inclusion.
Firing is not about a precise argument of the points of the memo. It was about what the memo has come to symbolize to the public (who probably don't care to spend time comprehending). Google is doing the easier thing to position itself as against whatever impression the public already has on the memo rather than trying to change that impression
The problem with your line of thinking @atk is that it assumes that high IQ is the only thing needed to be a successful engineer in tech, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Tech products are built to serve a diverse population, and thus NEED diverse and empathetic teams to function effectively. When you have monogamous teams of people building products, they miss out on many features/potential bugs that would be fixed otherwise (for e.g Siri not understanding women's voices, google images algorithm identifying black people as gorillas etc.)
It only seems reasonably defensible to you because you are not the subject of his rant. Women and minorities rightfully take this kind of rhetoric personally. Suggesting that a group is biologically inferior is a non-starter for any reasonable conversation.
Female here - and I was not offended by the "manifesto" at all. Sure, there were some areas that could have been cited better... But he wasn't making definitive claims. He uses qualifying language throughout the document, and chooses words that don't force an opinion on to anyone else.
One thing I took away from the piece was that the way leadership roles are defined is inherently sexist, because some behaviors that are seen as positive traits in men are seen as negative traits in men. Rather than forcing women to "act like men" to get the role, perhaps a re-examination of how job descriptions are put together might be worth looking into.
I also think the piece was raising some interesting questions around political diversity, diversity of background/upbringing that are less visible than race or gender.
While others may not agree with his opinion, if we truly respect diversity and inclusion, it means including the author in the discussion. We should give him the same benefit of the doubt as we give any other person who states they are working toward a better workplace for all.
FWIW - I'm sick of getting gendered leadership advice, attending women's events where we go on and on about how to "feel confident" and "know we have a right to sit at the table" - and we never include other genders in the discussion. it shows me three things:
1 - we are antiquated in our view that all women are the same and have the same challenges in the workplace
2 - women need help being leaders, and men don't. In the event that there is a good training I received, its a "women's event" and the men on my team feel excluded
3 - we continue to portray women and men as the only two gender identities and end up excluding people who are neither.
I find it amusing that these gender gap arguments only surface in the context of highly regarded, well-paying jobs at prestigious companies. Why is there no outrage about how only 3% of kindergarten teachers are men? About why less than 1% of pavers, electricians, or garden workers are women? Shouldn't those industries all have diversity officers as well?
here's the orig manifesto with all the citations intact http://archive.is/jJ6mk
If diversity has merit, from whence does it come? From differences in people perhaps? May not some of these differences be biological? I think I see an issue here -- diversity and equality of outcomes so not coexist in the same logical construct. What we have here, ladies and gentlemen (may I still use those terms?), is the intolerant liberal left attacking itself. Apparently the equal outcomes persona is more powerful than the diversity persona in this schizophrenic philosophy.
I never said anything about his statements being degrading. The purpose of his whole screed is "maybe women are biologically predisposed to sucking technology."
All, stop bitching. Hiring the most qualified people. Quit the race and gender wars.
"Let's have a debate about how your gender/race is inherently inferior to mine" is not a debate and I'm glad that dude got named and fired. I'd do the same to anyone I work with who espoused such trash beliefs.
Last point: the leap to discussing "biological" factors is just so fucking inane. It's clear that behavior is malleable, and culture can and does shape preferences. (Hint: not all ethnicities have the same rate of participation in technology)Let's address the cultural factors that lead to under representation before throwing in the towel and blaming nature lol.
Ey4, the author is a biologist proposing that biology is one factor, but not the only factor, in Google's struggles to foster diversity. As a biologist and a person at Google, i think he is qualified to present his ideas on that.
I think he's being lampooned because he stated in the paper that 'I'm a conservative and I value diversity' and nobody knows how to react to that.
Wow looking at some of these comments here, no wonder conservatives feel like they are getting the short end of the stick. There's absolutely nothing he said which warranted the firing. A lot of what he said was based on science. SJWs are societal cancer and there's Google employees openly talking about how they will blacklist anyone who has supported any of Demore's ideas. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/?service=amp
@BA1: I can question your competency as an individual, but not as a class of person. Certainly not in a field like software engineering.
M1, agree. I think the "iq shit" is actually pretty solid science. Or at least here is the solid science -- average male and female iq's are very similar, but there is more variation in the make distribution, meaning more dunces and more geniuses as a percentage. The corollary of this is that if you look at the deep tails of the distribution (dunces and geniuses), you're going to find disproportionately more men. If (and I'll say if, because it's a pretty powerful explanatory factor and so people will reject it out of hand if it doesn't fit their belief system) you hypothesize for a moment that this is true, and if you believe that googles in tech are generally a pretty high iq bunch, well then ... you do the math.
He also generalizes left and right politics and puts recommendations in there to cater to 'right politics,' which does nothing for his thesis because google doesn't want political diversity, or at least isn't trying to achieve it.