Quote:
Originally Posted by riseagainstrocks
I suspect this is the largest factor. Hell, we socialize infants to fit into existing worldviews of gender identity (pink/blue).
The Google guy went way too far in his analysis. If he stopped at, "we socialize women to be less interested in STEM, therefore, mandating equal representation will likely lead to less optimal outcomes for Google," then I'd say he has a valid point. He made the mistake of making it a biological deficiency, which only requires one counter-example to expose as sophistry (i.e. all women are biologically lesser than men in STEM fields. Oh really, meet Marie Curie, Rachel Carson, the inspirations for Hidden Figures, etc.)
|
Ja, I thought it was weird how he added that culture caveat but failed to explore it whenever he proposed a trait as biologically enforced.
Quote:
|
He 100% deserved to be fired. He essentially called his female and minority coworkers inferior. This was an HR matter.
|
Not to mention
PR. Distributing the manifesto to the company and sending it to Gizmodo is a dumb move that I would have fired him for regardless of his stance. Also, considering that Google's target audience is the youngins, the stance he took is a double whammy.
Threaded Mode