James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

For those of you who do not recognize the name, James Damore was the author of a controversial memo last year, claiming that the reason there were more men than women at top jobs for Google was because of "biological differences" between men and women. To be exact, the phrase he used stated the "abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership." Since these comments can very easily be interpreted as sexist, he was fired from Google due to breaking the code of conduct.

Well, here's the sequel. James Damore is suing Google, claiming wrongful termination. His argument is that Google discriminates against people due to "perceived conservative political views, male gender, and Caucasian race."

That's right. We have officially reached the point where someone is claiming, in a court of law, that they were discriminated against due to being a conservative white male. Regardless of how you feel about his memo, that's going a bit far.

To be a little more fair, parts of the lawsuit also state that Google uses illegal hiring quotas to fill posts with women and minorities, which is a serious issue if that's true. That doesn't excuse claiming to represent all conservative white males who are discriminated against at Google. That claim is just...ridiculous.

Source, BBC NEws

Let's start with that being discriminated for being a "white male" is not impossible, racism is not a one side street.

As for the case itself, there's definitely a case for being a political discrimination, but not a racial or sexual one. If I recall correctly the guy put the opinion piece in a public opinion forum. Furthermore it is not sexist (despite being proclaimed otherwise), it is about as sexist as me being told that I'm more susceptible to types of cancer for being jewish is racist.

inu-kun:
Let's start with that being discriminated for being a "white male" is not impossible, racism is not a one side street.

As for the case itself, there's definitely a case for being a political discrimination, but not a racial or sexual one. If I recall correctly the guy put the opinion piece in a public opinion forum. Furthermore it is not sexist (despite being proclaimed otherwise), it is about as sexist as me being told that I'm more susceptible to types of cancer for being jewish is racist.

Wasn't the Memo internal and leaked by someone else?

thebobmaster:

That's right. We have officially reached the point where someone is claiming, in a court of law, that they were discriminated against due to being a conservative white male. Regardless of how you feel about his memo, that's going a bit far.

Without having much of a opinion on the Memo itself, what I remember of it seemed largely benign.

You seem to be objecting to this however on principle...which would be ridiculous. So, what makes this in your mind seemingly impossible?

Edit: Sorry for the Double-Post, wasn't intended.

Fischgopf:

inu-kun:
Let's start with that being discriminated for being a "white male" is not impossible, racism is not a one side street.

As for the case itself, there's definitely a case for being a political discrimination, but not a racial or sexual one. If I recall correctly the guy put the opinion piece in a public opinion forum. Furthermore it is not sexist (despite being proclaimed otherwise), it is about as sexist as me being told that I'm more susceptible to types of cancer for being jewish is racist.

Wasn't the Memo internal and leaked by someone else?

I think it was like an internal forum inside Google where you could post opinions about diversity topics, so "public" for google workers.

There does seem to be a rise to being open discrimination to white males, but I don't think it really applies to this case. Still feel Google made a dumb call since they did ask for the opinions of their workers in the first place, but I don't think James Damore will have a strong chance arguing wrongful termination with the racism angle.

I don't understand why people went after this guy like he's the devil himself. Did people even read his memo or did they just read what they're supposed to think about his memo? It was nowhere as bad as it was portrayed in some news outlets. The guy is not some right-wing lunatic. He's not even conservative. He's just an autistic guy who likes math, values facts and data and doesn't understand people very well.

Also, corporations shouldn't be able to fire people because of their political opinions. Unless your opinion is criminally extreme like "all Jews must die" or "carnivores must die" etc.

I hope he wins his case, I really do. Fuck giant corporations and how shitty they treat their employees. And fuck people who see this as some kind of left vs. right issue. It's not. It's a giant corporation vs little people issue.

Adam Jensen:

Also, corporations shouldn't be able to fire people because of their political opinions. Unless your opinion is criminally extreme like "all Jews must die" or "carnivores must die" etc.

I hope he wins his case, I really do. Fuck giant corporations and how shitty they treat their employees. And fuck people who see this as some kind of left vs. right issue. It's not. It's a giant corporation vs little people issue.

Or, you know ... the flipside of this being that there were also other behavioural problems and frankly they had had enough? Happens. As someone who did do management work, people seem to have a myopic opinion that dismissal is either entirely or in part on one action. I've had to discipline bullshit in the workplace and situations like these? Willing to bet that it's way more than this garbage.

At the time Google was and still is facing heat over underpaying women in their operations, doesn't exactly look good for the company when you have nonsense like this emerge into the public, regardless of the methods and means by which it did so.

He would have known this. And frankly him being autistic doesn't excuse bad press at a particularly bad time. Frankly I'm going to wait until more details emerge, because honestly it sounds like other things were happening at the time that haven't been made public that Google can now air out about the case. I've personally met people like this who have a sheet of behavioural problems and have been told more than a few times 'last chance.' I've had to issue two of them myself for repeated behavioural problems in a department of 120 other workers.

And in both of those cases, give it a pretty enough paint job without all the facts available, it would look as sympathetic as this case.

In one of the cases one employee was trying to start a fight. You think after two warnings I'm just going to wait until an otherwise decent employee swings a punch out of blind anger, or indeed a bad one decides to take it upon himself to do so and gets one of my decent workers injured?

No. I'm not. And I'm equally sure he could paint a pretty little picture of 'free speech' in the workplace.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think this isn't the case in every corporate office of the Western world. Either that or habitually unemployable.

I don't like how megacorporations treat people ... but I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a decent chance this guy was already a bag of problems to begin with. Also not going to pretend that the conditions of employment are so disimilar anywhere else in the West...

How about saving the indignation until after the court case? Because sure as shit Google thinks it has a pretty good case for dismissal, and in my experience a lot of 'wrongful dismissal' suddenly becomes a whole lot more murkier when actual event logs and incident reports are taken into account.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Adam Jensen:

Also, corporations shouldn't be able to fire people because of their political opinions. Unless your opinion is criminally extreme like "all Jews must die" or "carnivores must die" etc.

I hope he wins his case, I really do. Fuck giant corporations and how shitty they treat their employees. And fuck people who see this as some kind of left vs. right issue. It's not. It's a giant corporation vs little people issue.

Or, you know ... the flipside of this being that there were also other behavioural problems and frankly they had had enough? Happens. As someone who did do management work, people seem to have a myopic opinion that dismissal is either entirely or in part on one action. I've had to discipline bullshit in the workplace and situations like these? Willing to bet that it's way more than this garbage.

At the time Google was and still is facing heat over underpaying women in their operations, doesn't exactly look good for the company when you have nonsense like this emerge into the public, regardless of the methods and means by which it did so.

He would have known this. And frankly him being autistic doesn't excuse bad press at a particularly bad time. Frankly I'm going to wait until more details emerge, because honestly it sounds like other things were happening at the time that haven't been made public that Google can now air out about the case. I've personally met people like this who have a rap sheet of behavioural problems and have been told more than a few times 'last chance.' I've had to issue two of them myself for repeated behavioural problems in a department of 120 other workers.

And in both of those cases, give it a pretty enough paint job without all the facts available, it would look as sympathtic as this case.

In one of the cases one employee was trying to start a fight. You think after two warnings I'm just going to wait until an otherwise decent employee swings a punch out of blind anger, or indeed a bad one decides to take it upon himself to do so and gets one of my decent workers injured?

No. I'm not. And I'm equally sure he could paint a pretty little picture of 'free speech' in the workplace.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think this isn't the case in every corporate office of the Western world. Either that or habitually unemployable.

I don't like how megacorporations treat people ... but I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a decent chance this guy was already a bag of problems to begin with. Also not going to pretend that the conditions of employment are so disimilar anywhere else in the West...

How about saving the indignation until after the court case? Because sure as shit Google thinks it has a pretty good case for dismissal, and in my experience a lot of 'wrongful dismissal' suddenly becomes a whole lot more murkier when actual event logs and incident reports are taken into account.

Even if he was a bag of shit, if his firing was made because of sharing a legitimate political opinion... it is still discrimination for a political opinion, or at the very least the timing of the firing highly suggests the document was the main reason for it.

inu-kun:

Even if he was a bag of shit, if his firing was made because of sharing a legitimate political opinion... it is still discrimination for a political opinion, or at the very least the timing of the firing highly suggests the document was the main reason for it.

Well there's some moral flexibility. Weren't you advocating that it was somehow okay for people to fire trans people simply for being trans? Beyond that, no. You leave your baggage at home. It's not legitimate criticism, only idiots without an understanding of psychology would pretend as such. If it were fact, it would actually be reflected as widely as it is represented.

We know for a fact you cannot level biological differences to inequal treatment in the workplace simply because that treatment is not universal nor expressed in things like standardized testing in various parts of the world. Mayhaps the problems lay elsewhere... almost as if there was a reason the Department of Labor was investigating them in the firstplace.

Publicly expressing a political opinion that it's okay to treat other races as if of lower breeding would have you marched into someone's office, as well.

The workplace is not a public space, it's a shared space ... and that comes with certain responsibilities as per the awards of one's contracted labour. The costs ofdoing the job, and the rewards of performing in its service, are plainly written. Nowhere should it be listed as "Having to deal with a co-worker's stupidity or bullshit..." because sure as shit, I can't find a reasonable measure to award that, and nor should I pay people more having to put up with it.

I'd rather pay them less and simply put an end to it.

If you can't be a professional, don't blame people who will look past you for one.

Very fucking simple.

If he was fired just for the memo, as some kind of PR thing from Google showing how sexism isn't tolerated there to an extreme degree as I've heard people claim, then I hope he wins as that's really wrong in my opinion and the sort of thing wrongful termination laws are there to protect us from.

If it was the last straw in a chain of issues they've had with this individual that until now were kept private then I can see Google having a strong case and I may change my mind.

At the moment I don't see the memo on its own being worth firing the guy for, from what I remembered it was him pointing out there are biological differences between men and women (true) and that may be a reason why there arn't as much women at Google (opinion, but valid opinion until someone disproves his theory).

Bobular:

If it was the last straw in a chain of issues they've had with this individual that until now were kept private then I can see Google having a strong case and I may change my mind.

At the moment I don't see the memo on its own being worth firing the guy for, from what I remembered it was him pointing out there are biological differences between men and women (true) and that may be a reason why there arn't as much women at Google (opinion, but valid opinion until someone disproves his theory).

It has been disproven. That's the thing. The data he uses, actual psychologists don't know what it means and are found to be inconclusive of anything that he says. It's a fallacy. Which is precisely why idiots shouldn't spew garbageand pretend like it isn't going to bite them in the arse.

Iyt turns out that sex differences is marginal, compared to all the other ways we can measure the differences between people. There is far more bdifferences between you and any other random person you could pick up off thestreet than any consistent differences of psychology simply because of your gender identity or sex.

Maybe, I don't know, we should leave psychology to psychologists. There's an interesting thought. You know, because psychometrics says he's wrong.

Moreover, that isn't even the issue people should be taking away from this.

As wrong as he is in his rant (actually look at it), that isn't even the biggest fucking issue here.

Seriously, have no one in this thread actually worked in the corporate world? Effectively you had one employee turn around and say the corporate direction was wrong because women are shit at tech and leadership (you know, despite the evidence saying the opposite), followed by broken ideas of evolutionary psychology, and you don't think that crosses a line? What you have done is give the Department of Labor more ammunition with their investigation of the company, and on the flipside if bosses do not react either validate those concerns, or if they do react end up being brushed with the 'censorship' brush.

What a joke ... I would be fired from any job I have ever had if I pulled that fucking stunt. That is not what sane people do if they want to keep their job.

And this is just one instance of stupidity and blind ignorance. I'm willing to believe that if he obviously thought this was a good idea, that he's shown general impropriety before.

To put it bluntly....

As I've said elsewhere, good on James. I hope he rips Goolag a new one.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Bobular:

If it was the last straw in a chain of issues they've had with this individual that until now were kept private then I can see Google having a strong case and I may change my mind.

At the moment I don't see the memo on its own being worth firing the guy for, from what I remembered it was him pointing out there are biological differences between men and women (true) and that may be a reason why there arn't as much women at Google (opinion, but valid opinion until someone disproves his theory).

It has been disproven.

Instead of just interjecting this, how about some specifics?

What exactly are you saying has been disproven?

By whom?

How did they disprove it?

Call me nuts, but I always find it weird that apparently all my interactions with other people seem to fall outside the norm if there are no significant differences between men and women in general.

thebobmaster:
Well, here's the sequel. James Damore is suing Google, claiming wrongful termination. His argument is that Google discriminates against people due to "perceived conservative political views, male gender, and Caucasian race."

Well he can have fun trying to prove that in court. I look forward to telling all the fragile white supporters of his to put their race card back in the deck.

Fischgopf:

Instead of just interjecting this, how about some specifics?

What exactly are you saying has been disproven?

By whom?

How did they disprove it?

Call me nuts, but I always find it weird that apparently all my interactions with other people seem to fall outside the norm if there are no significant differences between men and women in general.

Through psychometric data and comparing standardized test data.

For starters, I see what you're doing here. There are obviously differences between men and women in general, but that's not the argument he was making. He was making the argument of evolutionary psychology that women in tech and leadership positions are inherently psychologically different to not be able to succeed in those fields. Which is wrong on numerous fronts... namely the fact that only in visuospatial capabilities differences do not account for the discrepancy, and even then not for the extent of the discrepancy that we see.

Which is reflected in the fact that women seem to be doing better of worse depending on where they are in the world...

Secondly comes to the question of leadership...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270278/

The fact remains, however, that the problem is even more galling when you begin to analyse it in terms of leadership capabilities. Not only do women tend to exceed the scoring weights of all academic disciplines (including science and mathematics), and despite having higher capacities of delegation and communication, they are even less represented in core leadership positions that place emphasis on effective communication.

And once again, there is the discrepancy itself that women in leadership positions is not static and highly dependent on where you are in the world...

So not only are women scoring higher on standardized testing (due to a greater capacity of representing data and presenting it to others as well as a statistically significant advantage in fluid reasoning intelligence), that researchers are noting obvious psychosocial forces at play why exactly women are not represented in leadership positions. In fact, with the advent of latter model cross-general intelligence tests women were found to have an advantage over men as they grew older despite, funnily enough, not finding reciprocal success amidst the ranks of CEOs, CFOs, COOs, or boardmembers.

Essentially ... the data is in ... there is no conclusive reason for this discrepancy, and if anything women should excel in leadership positions if there were inherent differences in psychology. That if the be all and end all of women participating in corporate America was solely down to evolutionary psychology, then women should be making up the grand number of corporate officer roles...

But all the psychological data so far points to the fact that while certain aspects of psychology show differentiations, it's incredibly marginal and utter fantasy to pretend they can be applied so broadly to fucking everyone (because only an idiot would do that). No one could make that claim that Silicon Valley represents an accurate depiction of how much women can participate in these fields.

If people are going to run with that logic, then men should quit being corporate officers, because they are innately inferior to women at communication and as they grow older prove less intellectually capable as their counterparts. Of course that would be a fucking unfair judgment call to make, wouldn't it? Because no actual psychologist would say men are innately crappy at being communicators and delegators ... precisely because these differences mean little when you take all people everywhere.

If you're interested and if you have access to university library databases...

Keith, T. Z.; Reynolds, M. R.; Patel, P. G.; Ridley, K. P. (2008). "Sex differences in latent cognitive abilities ages 6 to 59: Evidence from the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities". Intelligence. 36 (6): 502-25.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

Nope. Not what I asked for.

What I want from you is not a Light-Novel.

I want you tell me specifically:

Guy claimed X -> This is how he is wrong

Because all I remember about it was a focus on "the current structre is unsuitible to attract female workers". I could be entirely wrong about that, I'm nowhere near invested enough to double check. So this is easy and I'm not asking much.

Oh, also, some brevity would be nice for once. I don't have all day to get to your point.

Fischgopf:

Nope. Not what I asked for.

How fucking short do you want me to make it?

I mean I thought I was being incredibly short why this chucklefuck was wrong about what he wrote. I gave evidence. I thought I was dumbing down far too much.

And yeah, you're completely wrong ... because you evidently don't bother to read posts. What exactly did you have a problem with with my first post? As it seems like you wanted me to explain why he was wrong with empirical evidence.

Well its a nice way to earn yourself an exclusive with Breitbart.

Cynicism aside, I can't believe this guy still hasn't figured out that however polite or scientific sounding you state your argument, there are going to be consequences for saying your female colleagues are biologically inferior at doing their jobs.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Fischgopf:

Nope. Not what I asked for.

How fucking short do you want me to make it?

I mean I thought I was being incredibly short why this chucklefuck was wrong about what he wrote. I gave evidence. I thought I was dumbing down far too much.

And yeah, you're completely wrong ... because you evidently don't bother to read posts. What exactly did you have a problem with with my first post? As it seems like you wanted me to explain why he was wrong with empirical evidence.

I believe that you think that, your posts often seem unnecessarily long and rambling to me. Kinda why I brought up the brevity thing.

And make no mistake, I read your post. What it is largely missing is any specifics on what the guy claimed. Just vague allusions to evo-psych. But I'm not talking to him, I am talking to you, so I don't care that his reasoning is based in evo-psych. I already told you, I don't care enough to check his memo and guess what specifically about it bothers you. I expect you to tell me what you specifically disagree with. Tell me about specific claims he undeniably made and how those specifically are wrong.

And if you think the following is short...well, you are just plain wrong.

For fucks sake, turns out the Forum can't even handle that many characters and yet you think this is short for a meaningless discussion on a fucking gaming forum? Seriously, the fuck?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Bobular:

If it was the last straw in a chain of issues they've had with this individual that until now were kept private then I can see Google having a strong case and I may change my mind.

At the moment I don't see the memo on its own being worth firing the guy for, from what I remembered it was him pointing out there are biological differences between men and women (true) and that may be a reason why there arn't as much women at Google (opinion, but valid opinion until someone disproves his theory).

It has been disproven.

Was it? It seems that doctors all over the place say his science is right on, while other doctors say that he has it wrong.

"For what it's worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo's empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I've taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo's author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters' level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I've met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question 'What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?')"
-Geoffrey Miller
http://psych.unm.edu/people/faculty/profile/geoffrey-miller.html

Fischgopf:

I believe that you think that, your posts often seem unnecessarily long and rambling to me. Kinda why I brought up the brevity thing.

And make no mistake, I read your post. What it is largely missing is any specifics on what the guy claimed. Just vague allusions to evo-psych. But I'm not talking to him, I am talking to you, so I don't care that his reasoning is based in evo-psych. I already told you, I don't care enough to check his memo and guess what specifically about it bothers you. I expect you to tell me what you specifically disagree with. Tell me about specific claims he undeniably made and how those specifically are wrong.

If you don't care to read his memo, why quote me? I read his memo a year ago and Bobular made the comment that somehow his aspersions were accurate and a 'viable opinion' despite not conforming to actual psych consensus. I assume Bobular has read his memo pulling out that statement ...

If you want a starting point, quite clearly the information that he uses is outdated, more over it's taken from the fields of evo-psych and behavioural genetics, which needless to say has a spotty enough check history to begin. More over the way that information is applied is also wrong. You do not fit results to tailor what is obviously an anomaly. You cannot justify Silicon Valley's poor representation of women in leadership positions, nor the fact that Google had routinely underpaid women despite comparable work, on the basis of the research he cherry picked.

The two do not explain eachother and his attempts to do so end up meandering.

It does not hold uniformity, and frankly there is other empirical evidence that directly counteract his own that are taken from a position of reliable strength as to validity. In essence, he took things he didn't understand, and try to explain phenomena that is all too unique and lacking grand uniformity, to makean argument no psychologist could make if they had access to other sources of information. The information is accurate at least in relatiuon to the fields they are taken for (which are not reliable), but what they tell you isn't applicable to the points he's making.

Quite literally, the psych we have on sex differences does not inform us as to the abysmally low representation of women in tech and leadership positions. That wecannot ignore psychosocial factors precisely because there is no essentialist measurement that can answer variable discrepancies, but there is significant proof of environmental causal factors.

One of them might be the fact that a guy wrote a ten page screed in the middle of a government investigation into provable discrepancies of pay between men and women despite comparable work atthe very place he worked at ....

I don't know ... I mean that seems like a pretty good place to start why women don't want to work there nor can achieve leadership positions ... Maybe Google trying to clean up its act (however thinly veiled an attempt that is) isn't some leftist anti-white conspiracy against freedom of speech despite it not being relevant to a private enterprise but rather recognising they had a fucking problem with how they treated women in Silicon Valley.

You know .... maybe.

I don't think the guy should've been fired, I don't know what he expected to accomplish with the memo in the first place, and I also don't really think he oughta be suing for being fired, because this just makes him look way less sympathetic.

I mean, citing workplace discrimination against "conservative views, the male gender, and the Caucasian race" is not going to win you the sympathy of the jury.

inu-kun:
Let's start with that being discriminated for being a "white male" is not impossible, racism is not a one side street.

As for the case itself, there's definitely a case for being a political discrimination, but not a racial or sexual one. If I recall correctly the guy put the opinion piece in a public opinion forum. Furthermore it is not sexist (despite being proclaimed otherwise), it is about as sexist as me being told that I'm more susceptible to types of cancer for being jewish is racist.

You do know you?re talking about the company where 56% of the stock is controlled by the very white men who founded the company. Does anyone really think racism or sexism against men was a factor?

Kind of like how people keep saying negative views on LGBT people are political/religious huh? As it?s been pointed out below, he was using bogus science to talk about why women don?t get leadership positions. That sounds pretty sexist to me. It reminds of the 1800s and the ?science? used to prove the superiority of the white man. And telling a Jew they?re more vulnerable to cancer is pretty racist if it has no basis in reality.

Warhound:

Was it? It seems that doctors all over the place say his science is right on, while other doctors say that he has it wrong.

The science is accurate for the relative sources it;s taken from, but evo psych is notoriously unreliable, and moreover he borrowed from theories in behavioural genetics ... It's a case of being right, but not applicable to the argument he's making. Particularly given we have newer research that shows otherwise.

Moreover, it's not a leap to recognize them. After all ... they're not routinely shared in other industries! Regardless of the relative dependency on technological innovation and evolution, or on the nature of leadership positions. Heaven forbid if we recognize things like psychosocial forces exist.

The research he uses does not explain the ridiculously low number of women in the tech and leadership positions of the company he's working in. Moreover you can't even apply them meaningfully to individuals of the people who do or are in comparable positions or leadership roles, and just happen to be women. And we have evidence why these discrepancies exist. In the fact at that time there were provable instances of underpayment of women despite comparable labour.

Might be a pretty good place to start why there is low numbers of women working there...

The fact that he goes on for pages about the false equivalency of Google trying to clean up its act is as if misguided because of the research that doesn't even bear out his conclusions. No one is saying he fabricated the 'evidence' ... it's merely that the evidence doesn't describe the problems at Google.

His assertions are disproven by other theories, and more so common sense looking at Google's past. He performs the cardinal sin of taking unreliable theory with cherry picked aspects, and applies it as if in broadstrokes to a small sample size that is showing such high degrees of discrepancy that the research he uses cannot account for even if it were reliable to begin with.

The fact of the matter is, taking even hisarguments and applying it to other industries, he still couldn't argue his points because evidentially Google is still awful.

His research doesn't show why it's estimated women will climb 13 percentile points over the U.S. of the total IT workforce in Australia. I guarantee you his research won't make points as to the quality of their labour and leadership. In essence it's mindless pap, cherry picked data from an unreliable school of thought (and unscientific), that never had any answers to begin with...

Fischgopf:
I want you tell me specifically

Then you should have set a very specific question, shouldn't you?

Warhound:
Was it? It seems that doctors all over the place say his science is right on, while other doctors say that he has it wrong.

It's not disproven. It is however just one theory amongst several; Damore presents it as truth, neither considering its flaws nor pointing out the existence of other theories. Nor is it in many cases particularly suited to the point he wants to make.

Bobular:
If he was fired just for the memo, as some kind of PR thing from Google showing how sexism isn't tolerated there to an extreme degree as I've heard people claim, then I hope he wins as that's really wrong in my opinion and the sort of thing wrongful termination laws are there to protect us from.

If it was the last straw in a chain of issues they've had with this individual that until now were kept private then I can see Google having a strong case and I may change my mind.

At the moment I don't see the memo on its own being worth firing the guy for, from what I remembered it was him pointing out there are biological differences between men and women (true) and that may be a reason why there arn't as much women at Google (opinion, but valid opinion until someone disproves his theory).

Essentially this, although I seems to recall that California doesn't actually require any justification for firing people, i.e. a company can fire someone without having to justify themselves. So google can just claim that they didn't fire him for sexism (which would be illegal) and that they refuse to state why they fired him and that would be just fine in the eye of the law.

The coverage of the memo by the media was pathetic, a lot of key facts were left out of the discussion. Chief amongst them the facts that he posted this in an internal forum dedicated to this issues and the fact that it was leaked weeks after he posted it (and in the meantime there seems to have been literally no problem with it, some people discussed it but it was mostly ignored).

Personally I can see weight to both side (i.e. a company can fire people for political/ideological view) on one side it's just wrong to fire people for what they believe in (if you don't like this, imagine if instead he was a women who published a memo saying that google was discriminating against women, and had then been fired, would that have been okay with you?). On the other side, google could have faced significant backlash if they didn't fire him and could have ended up being financially hurt (imagine if a company had a nazi or something like that as an employee and people organized a boycott against the company until they fired the nazi but they literally couldn't).

In the end, I hope this goes far and they don't settle out of court so that they can be properly examined and debated.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Fischgopf:

snip

If you don't care to read his memo, why quote me?

I did read it. Back when it was a current event. I don't care to re-read it, at least not now. I am not specialized in Law or Psychology, so I can't ascertain whether he is correct or incorrect in either the Lawsuit or his argumentation for the problems at Google.

And why quote you? The same reason you'd ever ask a question, because I cared to get a answer. While I consider you often times unnecessarily wordy, I still think you are worth hearing out. I simply don't typically converse with you directly, so the brevity thing has never come up.

If you want a starting point, quite clearly the information that he uses is outdated, more over it's taken from the fields of evo-psych and behavioural genetics, which needless to say has a spotty enough check history to begin. More over the way that information is applied is also wrong. You do not fit results to tailor what is obviously an anomaly. You cannot justify Silicon Valley's poor representation of women in leadership positions, nor the fact that Google had routinely underpaid women despite comparable work, on the basis of the research he cherry picked.

They two do not explain eachother and his attempts to do so end up meandering.

See, this I can work with. It's still not entirely what I wanted, but you are atleast telling me exactly why you think he should be dismissed instead of just dismissing him without any specifics as to why he should be dismissed.

One of them might be the fact that a guy wrote a ten page screed in the middle of a government investigation into provable discrepancies of pay between men and women despite comparable work atthe very place he worked at ....

Quite frankly, anybody that is discouraged by it wasn't leader material to begin with.

I don't know ... I mean that seems like a pretty good place to start why women don't want to work there nor can achieve leadership positions ... Maybe Google trying to clean up its act (however thinly veiled an attempt that is) isn't some leftist anti-white conspiracy against freedom of speech despite it not being relevant to a private enterprise but rather recognising they had a fucking problem with how they treated women in Silicon Valley.

Not that I disagree with you. But do you not consider it strange that you'll dismiss the idea that this is a anti-white issue out of Hand yet have no problem believing that it is arbitrary discrimination of Women? Neither is inherently reasonible or unreasonible (that either could happen) to me, though I doubt we'll ever agree in that regard, you clearly have your biases and I certainly have mine.

Also, do you really think that Freedom of Speech not applying to a private Enterprise of Googles Scope is something that should be defended? Sounds like a terrible idea to me considering that some of these Enterprises can arguably push their weight around more then most Governments. So, you aren't wrong, but I do see it as very ill-advised to actually be in support of that.

erttheking:
You do know you?re talking about the company where 56% of the stock is controlled by the very white men who founded the company. Does anyone really think racism was a factor?

I take it you've never heard of internalized racism?

Fischgopf:
I take it you've never heard of internalized racism?

What would cause a bunch of white people to be racist to a bunch of other white people? If you're going to suggest that as a possible explanation for Damore's firing, then it's only fair that you explain what factors helped cause this attitude of internalized racial self-loathing among white people.

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
I take it you've never heard of internalized racism?

What would cause a bunch of white people to be racist to a bunch of other white people? If you're going to suggest that as a possible explanation for Damore's firing, then it's only fair that you explain what factors helped cause this attitude of internalized racial self-loathing among white people.

I'm not suggesting it was the case. I'm saying that it is silly to pretend that people can't take issue with their own race and that ertheking knows better.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

inu-kun:

Even if he was a bag of shit, if his firing was made because of sharing a legitimate political opinion... it is still discrimination for a political opinion, or at the very least the timing of the firing highly suggests the document was the main reason for it.

Well there's some moral flexibility. Weren't you advocating that it was somehow okay for people to fire trans people simply for being trans? Beyond that, no. You leave your baggage at home. It's not legitimate criticism, only idiots without an understanding of psychology would pretend as such. If it were fact, it would actually be reflected as widely as it is represented.

Let's start that I didn't put any of of my subjective opinion in the matter (edit: the matter that this is a political discrimination, not how offensive it was which is subjective), furthermore unless I've said "It is never ever justified to fire for political reason" trying to frame me as an hypocrite is pointless.

But let's put it the other way around, if a guy was fired a couple of weeks after he came out as trans publicly would you also write a spiel of how he was likely fired because he was a shitty person?

We know for a fact you cannot level biological differences to inequal treatment in the workplace simply because that treatment is not universal nor expressed in things like standardized testing in various parts of the world. Mayhaps the problems lay elsewhere... almost as if there was a reason the Department of Labor was investigating them in the firstplace.

Publicly expressing a political opinion that it's okay to treat other races as if of lower breeding would have you marched into someone's office, as well.

He did not say it. You are literally creating stuff to try to demonize him.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
snip

Let's start that even if he came to wrong conclusions (though I really doubt that) that does not make his opinion hateful.
Now about what experts thinks about the subject: It's pretty obvious that the answer won't be "women are inferior to men in certain fields" because that's suicidal. This will murder the person's career and thus you are pointing a finger for people who, even if they get opposite results, cannot actually say them. Not to mention that the results can never be said to be 100% accurate, only to a certain probalistic number.

As for topic of women being worse than men in leadership and IT we cannot have a test that will know 100% of the skills required as there are too many so pointing at test scores as proof is meaningless. For example, a person A might be better at leading than person B on a test but is not mentally ready for years of commiting hard decisions and being judged on them and thus will be worse overall despite having a better test score.

We can observe of the amount of women in different countries are in less leadership and IT positions and it's a massive difference. The chance for a global spanning male conspiracy to not hire women is kinda low (especially in politics, with them having 50% in case of democratic countries), this leaves the reasons for this gap as either a primal cultural difference between the sexes (since it is shared pretty much world wide) or just them either having less interest or less skill in the subject. Which one is right? Who the fuck knows. But both are plausible as we have no (moral) way of finding out.

Fischgopf:

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
I take it you've never heard of internalized racism?

What would cause a bunch of white people to be racist to a bunch of other white people? If you're going to suggest that as a possible explanation for Damore's firing, then it's only fair that you explain what factors helped cause this attitude of internalized racial self-loathing among white people.

I'm not suggesting it was the case. I'm saying that it is silly to pretend that people can't take issue with their own race and that ertheking knows better.

image

If you're going to talk shit about me, I suggest you know the first thing about me. Though I am curious as to where you pulled that little concept, your ass would be my first bet.

And it's erttheking, not ertheking. Fuck's sake, if you're going to be making shit up about me, at least have the decency to spell my username right.

inu-kun:
Now about what experts thinks about the subject: It's pretty obvious that the answer won't be "women are inferior to men in certain fields" because that's suicidal.

More simply, it's unprofessional. An expert in the fields of biology / psychology should state what they believe to be the case on the relative biological and psychological qualities of men and women. It is up to an expert in a different field to interpret any such differences in terms of job suitability.

Indeed, one of the accusations against Damore is that he appears to have had a poor idea of what both his job generally and leadership actually involves.

The chance for a global spanning male conspiracy...

What makes you think it's a conspiracy, like with some moustache twirling cabal of misogynists plotting to keep women down?

to not hire women is kinda low (especially in politics, with them having 50% in case of democratic countries), this leaves the reasons for this gap as either a primal cultural difference between the sexes (since it is shared pretty much world wide) or just them either having less interest or less skill in the subject.

Just because something may have occurred worldwide doesn't mean it is therefore "primal". Basically everyone in the (Anglophone) world uses the same QWERTY keyboard layout. It doesn't mean that it is the best keyboard that could exist for some "primal" reason - although it does of course have reasons. However, once we have a tradition - no matter how random its origins or unnecessary its continued existence, it's quite hard to break.

The ultimate issue with the sorts of people who side with Damore is they tend to assume that they way the world is is the way it is supposed to be: "more men are leaders because they are intrinsically better leaders, QED". They overlook that perhaps men became leaders for other reasons... Perhaps because at some point they could use their greater strength to punch women into submission. That's not the way we do things any more, and it's not a good reason to continue having men as leaders, but nevertheless it's a tradition that's hard to break.

I just can imagine the judge's reaction when they read the case...

Wow, this blew up while I was sleeping. I do want to address one thing, and I will take the criticism on the chin, as it were.

I definitely mis-typed when I was expressing my issues with this lawsuit. I didn't mean to imply that it is impossible for a white male to be discriminated against, or that reverse racism isn't a thing. What I was trying to say was that it was highly unlikely that one of the biggest corporations worldwide got to be that way...by discriminating against almost every American majority group they could. Trying to convince a judge that a company run by rich, old, white guys that you were fired for being a conservative white guy seems a doomed prospect from the outset.

Again, I admit that I should have made that point a lot clearer in the initial post. As a white male myself, albeit not a total WASP, I don't want to be one of those people who dismisses reverse racism completely. I just don't feel like, in all likelihood, it applies in this case.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here