James Damore Suing Google for "Reverse Discrimination"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

Quick question: why do you think sexism and racism are bad?

Because all people should be judged on the merit of their character and not on superficial things such as the colour of their skin, or the type of genitalia they do or do not possess.

And why do you think that?

Because superficial things do not contribute in any meaningful way to our progress as a species. I would rather we move forward and not care about such pointless things that divide us when instead we should focus on things that encourage us to aspire for more.

Abomination:
If this "magical" scenario happens, as you so painted it, then it's the HR department or recruiter that's to blame and most likely has a racist/sexist streak to them. One would think a progressive company like Google would be able to monitor the hiring practices of its HR or middle management.
...
They are turning down applicants based on their race/sex combination. It doesn't matter how you justify that, it's racist and sexist. If they're prepared to have racist and sexist hiring practices - more power to them, but call it what it is. Racist and sexist.

They already are, quotas or not. Unconscious bias is a hell of a thing.

Brute forcing a solution by hiring against prevailing prejudice until said unconscious bias is rendered moot is the solution affirmative action is attempting. It's not like you can go through an entire job interview process for a tech job with the same identity-concealing techniques like an orchestra can.

Abomination:
The rule exists, and the rule is racist and sexist. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter. It's racist and sexist.

No it's not, that's dumb.

Choosing to employ someone because they won't cost you as much money is no different than any other capitalist exercise on the rational use of resources.

If anything, hiring a white person who will traditionally expect a higher pay packet and a 9-10 hour working day over someone equivalently trained, willing to work unpaid overtime and for less money, would be a lot more racist wouldn't you think? It's almost as if there was a reason why Google promoting workplace diversity was also under investigation by the Department of Labor for the huge schism in its pay cheques to women doing the same job...

Turns out that traditionally marginalized labour and people are entering the workforce with equivalent skillsets. And they're cheaper labour ... After all, they can be giving all that money they save on equivalent labour to shareholders like me, and that goes the same for any other type of free market private industrial sector out there.

Ever wonder why corporations were probably the biggest 'allies' for trans people during all those bathroom bill shenanigans? Why the business community openly slagged off Republicans? It's because ithurts their potential talent pool of cheaper labour that is not only statistically less likely to ask for apromotion but rather just be happy for steady work, and because they're also overwhelmingly more likely to look over the abuse of their awards, turn down leave, and not make demands for better working conditions.

Trans peopledo not pull a Damore (to coin a phrase) for a reason ... because they can count on no one but themselves and their community for support when such things go down. Ain't no white nationalist stupidity like Breitbart willing to offer them a pay cheque simply for running their mouths pretending like it's a conspiracy against white, cis people.

The monopoly on academia is no longer a thing, or at least a continually reducing thing, in a world where national borders mean fuck all on the migration of labour.

Adapt or die, don't whine. This is the free market Reaganauts and the Keating-Corporates wanted, well they got their wish. Too late to whine petulantly about it now.

All I know is what is good for my bank balance and div yields, and that doesn't involve paying 'overpriced' labour as time goes on. Whole reason why corporations like Oracle are opening their doors to the wider world and looking strongly towards foreign labour and traditionally marginalized groups. It's because those groups are getting degrees now, they have the equivalent skillsets, and many of them are used to having nothing.

You can't compete with that sort of talent who probably knows what it's like to routinely either choose buying a texbook, or eating for the next two days.... or spend years couch surfing after coming out to their parents ... or someone like me that had to enlist in the military at 16 after coming out to my parents, because it was that or persistently living in the gutter, and that was the only way to get ahead and to get a STAT score.

Funnily enough, you can no longer compete with the people that have routinely been put down, abused, and treated like garbage ... because any step up from that is going to be welcome, regardless of how much it would be a step down for those who just assumed they were owed a job coming out of uni and didn'thave the same degree of social stigmatization.

It's almost as if a modern day Irish scapegoating thing going on...

evilthecat:
So, why would being the best person for the job correlate extremely closely (if not require) being white or asian and/or being male?

I mean, that's what you're suggesting right. It's that we should "hire the best person for the job" even if it means we only hire white and asian males.

Something's going on there, isn't there, something you're not talking about. If we set out to hire the best person for the job, we magically only hire certain types of people. I wonder what kind of hardcore magical wizard shit could possibly be causing that. Like, let's have a think..

Well, to start, who decides who is the "best person for the job?" I mean, that's not an easy question is it. Obviously, you want someone with good qualifications, but for competitive careers at companies like Google everyone has good qualifications. To a certain extent, you can use aptitude tests to delve deeper into someone's strengths and weaknesses, but even then it's a pretty shallow look at a person. Ultimately, it's going to come down to the impression of whoever is conducting the interview. There will be criteria like "is this person a good fit", "will they work well with the team we have" which ultimately come down to the subjective impressions of the interviewer.

So why might interviewers tend to think that white/asian male candidates might be a "good fit" with their existing workforce?

Oh.. right.. because google's existing tech workforce are 82 percent male, and 94 percent white/asian. Wow, it's almost magical, isn't it?

So many white/asian men not getting the tech jobs they deserve.. How can those 18 percent of women and 6 percent of non-whites/asians possibly sleep at night knowing they stole a job which rightfully belonged to a white or asian man.

OK, let's have a look at this.

I am a physicist that after around a decade working as researcher at various universities switched into private buissness as software developer (building on my experience in simulation software).

All of my work environments were predominently male and white as i am myselft. I have conducted a lot of job interviews in this time.

At the universities, interviewing for physicists aiming for a PhD-position, 80% of applicants were male and white. We had rules for preferring women to men and to prefer disabled people and we had always someone from the equality bureau tasked with enforcing that in every job interview, but it didn't really matter much, especcially in cases where all applications happened to be male and white anyway.
That was not much of a surprise actually. Counting the percentage of women as tenured professors, PhD-students, master students and bachelor students, they were all pretty much the same. Which leads me to the conclusion that there is not much discrimination against women going on in our universities in STEM. Because women who actually choose this career seem to be as successfull as their male counterparts.

Now in private buissness we did not have rules to promote diversity. Still, the number of apprications as programmer had not exacty a higher percentage of women. Not only that, from around 30 job interviews i have done not a single non white applicant was there and the decision about who to invite in the first place was done on certificates and other credentials.

Now how to find the best one ... well, our company looks if work experience match the job, if the applicant seems interested instead of going away after a couple of months, how much money they want and how competent they seem. The last point is difficult. We use two interview rounds. In the firat one we ask details about cv, expectations experience and then end it with a short 5 minute quiz about the programming language the candidate claims to know. The second job interview includes a 30 minutes programming task where programmers have to find, understand and solve 5 bugs in a little application. Afterwards we talk about their solutions.

Now for the last couple of jobs, only for one their was a female applicant at all. Preferential hiring f non-white non-males would not have changed anything for the other jobs. For the last job we were actually going to take that women, whoc managed to convince us of her skill... until the programming tast which she utterly failed (only finding two bugs, making a solution that would lead to a crash instead, having problems understanding the other 3 bugs, when getting them explaine). We didn't take her. We took another white male.

No, i don't think, quotas or rules to always employ women when you are male dominated would really improve anything here. I also don't think we have any significant discrimination, as we still do have as many female programmers that it roughly matches the workforce percentage. Employee percentage is not a good indicator of discrimination if you don't consider what the available workforce looks like.

OK, i also live in Germany, which means "white or asian" is basically cheating with a black population of around 1%. Most of our minorities also count as white. And both at the universities and in the private companies we employed far far more people with foreign roots and often without German citicenship as would be expected from population representation.

evilthecat:

As horrible as it may be, Locke was demonstrably right. We come into this world as screaming lumps of flesh devoid of any understanding of ourselves or the world around us. We know, because we've seen what happens if you deprive social animals of socialization. They don't become perfect little Flintstonian carer mummies and breadwinner daddies just like nature intended, untainted by feminist manipulation or decadent social theory, they become.. well..

"These monkey mothers that had never experienced love of any kind were devoid of love for their infants, a lack of feeling unfortunately shared by all too many human counterparts. Most of the monkey motherless mothers ignored their infants ... but other motherless mothers abused their babies by crushing the infants face to the floor, chewing off the infant's feet and fingers, and in one case by putting the infant's head in her mouth and crushing it like an eggshell. Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers."
- Harry Harlow

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

Ah, it's been good to be away from this conversation for a week or so. Nevertheless, let us persist.

You are aware that you're using animal testing as an argument for extreme cultural determinism? As in, "these monkeys that were deliberately denied the nurture they would have experienced in their natural habitat turned out pathologically abusive." That's certainly an interesting twist. Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between the oft-misconstrued nature/culture dichotomy? Do birds fly because it's their culture? Do fish swim because culture? What about amoebas, should they be encouraged to adopt a more proactive culture, instead of just lazing around?

Look, this thing "culture" is not the opposite of "nature", but rather a higher level adaptive capacity built on it, so that the hypothetical "wolf child" would in fact be an incomplete human organism, rather than an "empty slate". This means that culture is flexible enough to allow a wide variety of adaptive strategies, but not arbitrary enough to allow successfully countering fundamental imperatives inherent in life as a biological species.

renegade7:

StatusNil:

That's what James Damore was getting at, in his "nerdish", autistic way that people find so objectionable, and not any variety of "Hurr Durr, Teh Women'z is stubid!" as claimed by all the Mean Girls and the Wanna-Be Chads trying to impress them.

Mother of God, you're serious.

I need you to explain this for me.

Bummer, this whole train of commentary is potentially hilarious, but unfortunately it's like hearing the same joke for the 20th time. There must be a lot of people on this thread who went back to Bed, Bath and Beyond to get refunds for their mirrors, citing some weird creep that keeps appearing every time they look into it. Similarly, what we have here is a whole lot of Well-I-Nevering from people who faithfully embody the very behavioral cliche they pride themselves in being opposed to, in response to simply identifying the familiar pattern.

Listen people, I too feel that same reflexive impulse to cringe when encountering the awkwardness of nerdy obstinacy, also known as "autistic" by some practitioners, being cool and socially smooth in aspiration as well as the next dude. But rather than go kick some more sand in the "dink's" face in a crude effort to establish that crucial difference between myself and the nerdlinger, I remind myself that it's not only a little bit reprehensible to act like that, but also unlikely to greatly distinguish myself in anyone's eyes as a serious Knight.

StatusNil:

evilthecat:

As horrible as it may be, Locke was demonstrably right. We come into this world as screaming lumps of flesh devoid of any understanding of ourselves or the world around us. We know, because we've seen what happens if you deprive social animals of socialization. They don't become perfect little Flintstonian carer mummies and breadwinner daddies just like nature intended, untainted by feminist manipulation or decadent social theory, they become.. well..

"These monkey mothers that had never experienced love of any kind were devoid of love for their infants, a lack of feeling unfortunately shared by all too many human counterparts. Most of the monkey motherless mothers ignored their infants ... but other motherless mothers abused their babies by crushing the infants face to the floor, chewing off the infant's feet and fingers, and in one case by putting the infant's head in her mouth and crushing it like an eggshell. Not even in our most devious dreams could we have designed a surrogate as evil as these real monkey mothers."
- Harry Harlow

Love, even love for your children, is ultimately socially learned. The capacity for love is not inherent to a particular sex, because it's not inherent at all. If I can spare a moment for sentiment, I think what's saddest about your position is not that it limits women, but that it ultimately dehumanises men who could, if given the chance to learn, be perfectly capable of experiencing love or of bonding with their children.

Ah, it's been good to be away from this conversation for a week or so. Nevertheless, let us persist.

You are aware that you're using animal testing as an argument for extreme cultural determinism? As in, "these monkeys that were deliberately denied the nurture they would have experienced in their natural habitat turned out pathologically abusive." That's certainly an interesting twist. Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between the oft-misconstrued nature/culture dichotomy? Do birds fly because it's their culture? Do fish swim because culture? What about amoebas, should they be encouraged to adopt a more proactive culture, instead of just lazing around?

Look, this thing "culture" is not the opposite of "nature", but rather a higher level adaptive capacity built on it, so that the hypothetical "wolf child" would in fact be an incomplete human organism, rather than an "empty slate". This means that culture is flexible enough to allow a wide variety of adaptive strategies, but not arbitrary enough to allow successfully countering fundamental imperatives inherent in life as a biological species.

Those motherless monkeys are just as natural as anything else in the world. Atypical is not "incomplete" or "unnatural".

Seanchaidh:

Those motherless monkeys are just as natural as anything else in the world. Atypical is not "incomplete" or "unnatural".

Sure, if we go to the other extreme and maintain that dudes in white lab coats keeping the monkey in a cage in order to study what that does to it is just another strand of Mother Nature's glorious tapestry. But then, what is "culture"?

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
Yes?..

If it's sexist it's sexist. Sort'a tautology there, I realize, but the intent doesn't mean diddly squat. It's sexist and certainly racist.

Quick question: why do you think sexism and racism are bad?

Several reasons. First, it severely limits the quality of life in ways that ignore skills, talents, knowledge and resolve.

Why do you think this isn't bad?

StatusNil:

Sure, if we go to the other extreme and maintain that dudes in white lab coats keeping the monkey in a cage in order to study what that does to it is just another strand of Mother Nature's glorious tapestry. But then, what is "culture"?

Or ... you know ... you can actually look at the argument EtC was making about why we don't steep our perspective in an essentialist viewpoint, because it stops us looking like fools. Moreover as flawed as direct comparisons are, wehave other complementary evidence to suggest the same in terms of childhood socialization research.

How about you stop evading their point of the nature of psychosocial forces fundamentally altering behaviour and performance? What ...? Given the weight of observable history you don't think we can examine how humas have changed and the nature of their relationships with others? Because there isnothing in the gene pool suggesting what you're suggesting, because we'd see it.

This is why we don't couch our positionsin terms of an unconscious bias in the first place. We look at evidence. We test to theevidence we see. And everything we see says you don't have a leg to stand on.

More over it speaks volumes compared to your fun little moral observance of ... what was it ...? A local tv weather woman? Christ. There's a joke in there somewhere but it's too early to be so glib and pithy.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Abomination:
The rule exists, and the rule is racist and sexist. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter. It's racist and sexist.

No it's not, that's dumb. ...

It's because of the amount of pay? If someone demands more pay than someone else it comes down to a case of economics and not racial diversity. You're no longer comparing apples with apples, and management can then consider other candidates who meet a better cost:performance ratio.

And hold on, Google wants to hire more women and non-Asian/white people because it can pay them LESS?

THAT'S STILL BEING RACIST AND SEXIST

Abomination:
It's because of the amount of pay? If someone demands more pay than someone else it comes down to a case of economics and not racial diversity. You're no longer comparing apples with apples, and management can then consider other candidates who meet a better cost:performance ratio.

What the metric fuck?

Okay, so we have proof Google had a 'workplace diversity' platform, and we haveproof they were massively underpaying women in the same job title. And you don't see a connection there? Fun fact, computer science and programming was dominated by women because people just assumed women were better at typing and filing. So women dominated that early computer programming workforce.

It was also an incredibly low paid job, but the private sector hadn't yet emergedaround these industries yet to capitalize on their lateral movement. You don't think things can return to that original status quo simply on the basis thatthe privatesector now dominates the computer architecture of both governments and the highly increased personal use of electronics and the common market?

In places like China, women still did a whole lot of the computer programming given the massive government investment into their Great Firewall, as well as their burgeoning cyberwarfare divisions.

There's a whole lot of Asian talent, men or women, out there that in the world of liquid national borders groups like Google and Oracle can take advantage of in terms of computer network engineering and codebusting. Influential people like Xia Peisu that essentially built what would become the future PRC Cyberwarfare Division singlehandedly during the Cold War... she inspired cadres of Chinese women to computer infrastruture and network engineering.

There are places in the world that do not share the US's gender gap in CS (at least, nowhere near as broadly).

And no ... it's not some clinically retarded idea of some dark, shadowy conspiracy of 'progressive' hiring policies but the simple fact that whatever idiots like Damore spout off about is wrong in terms of workforce participation of women.

It's not so different in Australia. Australia is set to be the first country to build the quantum computer. Based out of my university no less. That project is directed and overseen by women .... and curiously the affiliation of many of the women involved in leadership or research areas in that project are affiliated with UNSW (ADFA). The Australian Defence Force Academy. An institution that grants education to those interested (and contractually obliged) to provide services to the government in terms of military initiatives via the Department of Defence and speculatively the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.

They got those jobs purely because of their skills, their research and their ideas in terms of cross disciplinary approaches to unconventional computing.

Once more, a whole lot of women locked into government special enterprise. I have little doubts people involved in delivering the first working quantum computer project will not be accessible labour in the private sector for decades to come given the sensitive nature of the project and simply in terms of the contract they have signed with the Australian Defence Force.

The thing is, a lot of that talent is locked up in China and other places under various incarnations of state secrets acts and have strict limitations on their mobility... but do you think that will be the case in 10 years' time?

For starters you quoted my original post .... which is the fact that there are economic incentives for corporations to broaden their horizons. The geopolitical and fiscal reasons for doing so providing unique 'business solutions' to cost management and geopolitical synergy of multinational efforts to consolidate market consumption.

How about if you read the post I made before accusing me of comparing apples and oranges?

And no ... it's still not racist OR sexist to go with whatever is cheapest longterm.

StatusNil:
You are aware that you're using animal testing as an argument for extreme cultural determinism?

I'm not sure what you mean by "extreme cultural determinism", but I'm using animal testing because Harlow's experiments (as controversial and flawed as they were) were specifically designed to learn about animal behaviour, and in that regard they worked. I could have used human cases of extreme undersocialization in children. We have well documented examples of those too.

Remember the argument I was responding to.. you seem to have forgotten it already.

StatusNil:
As in, "these monkeys that were deliberately denied the nurture they would have experienced in their natural habitat turned out pathologically abusive." That's certainly an interesting twist.

Firstly, they weren't "pathologically abusive", they were antisocial. They had no interest in interacting with others, as they had never learned to do so. Some, as mentioned, abused their own children by hurting or killing them, but that is normal behaviour for antisocial animals.

In the wild, of course, animals are abandoned or rejected by their parents, or they become lost. This isn't an "unnatural" situation either, beyond such isolated infants being allowed to survive into adulthood.

Harlow had a tendency to be somewhat over-dramatic in his use of language, which in his line of work was an advantage. However, beyond the interpretation which a human observer might put on these observations, there is nothing evil about these animals or their behaviour. They're just animals.

StatusNil:
Just out of curiosity, where would you draw the line between the oft-misconstrued nature/culture dichotomy? Do birds fly because it's their culture?

Birds do not have "culture", because culture implies a level of socialization which most (if not all) birds lack. They are not particularly social animals. They do have learning, however. They learn to fly. They are not born with the ability to fly already hardcoded into their brains. Birds are not "meant" to fly. There is no all encompassing natural order which tells birds they should fly. They do not make "varying life choices" based on their genetic knowledge of flying. Those who don't learn to fly seldom survive.

StatusNil:
Look, this thing "culture" is not the opposite of "nature", but rather a higher level adaptive capacity built on it, so that the hypothetical "wolf child" would in fact be an incomplete human organism, rather than an "empty slate".

You assume a teleological "purpose" to life which you can't evidence.

There is no such thing as a "complete" or incomplete organism, because there is no great plan or natural order which explains what an organism should be. The bird which never learns how to fly is not an "incomplete" bird. If it found a way to survive on the ground and breed, it could produce generations of flightless birds. Your absurdly anthropomorphised concept of "nature" would not care that a bird was breaking the sacred, natural laws of bird-dom by not flying.

StatusNil:
This means that culture is flexible enough to allow a wide variety of adaptive strategies, but not arbitrary enough to allow successfully countering fundamental imperatives inherent in life as a biological species.

It's both. It's incredibly obviously both.

Creatures which violate what you (arbitrarily) decide are the "fundamental imperatives inherent in life" (inherent where?) may not survive to breed, but nature doesn't put on her disproving frowny face because creatures aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing. Animals with intelligence have always exhibited their own learned behavioural quirks which have nothing to do with their imaginary or made-up "purpose" as animals, and these may cause them to behave in evolutionary noncompetitive ways, such as abandoning healthy young.

And then there are the millions of species which never broke the rules, which did exactly what they were "supposed" to do until the environment changed and they went extinct. Is there some nature-based heaven waiting for them, where they will recieve their eternal reward from mother nature being good little molluscs and worms and never countering those fundamental imperatives inherent in life?

Nature does not have this moral or teleological dimension you are ascribing to it. There is no purpose, there are no rules. There is genetic survival and there is genetic extinction, but to the individual organism even those are abstracts. Ironically for your argument, they can't even be imagined without culture.

In conclusion, this is not evidencing your reductionist point that "nature" can somehow incorporate and fully explain "culture", it is evidencing your conviction in an ordered, intentional and basically anti-Darwinian (in the broader, cultural sense) view of nature which you don't seem to think "culture" can be allowed to spoil. Those are not the same thing.

CaitSeith:
Why do you think this isn't bad?

I don't think it isn't bad.

Abomination:

Seanchaidh:

Abomination:
Because all people should be judged on the merit of their character and not on superficial things such as the colour of their skin, or the type of genitalia they do or do not possess.

And why do you think that?

Because superficial things do not contribute in any meaningful way to our progress as a species. I would rather we move forward and not care about such pointless things that divide us when instead we should focus on things that encourage us to aspire for more.

As I thought; fairness doesn't even seem to enter into the equation for you.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And no ... it's still not racist OR sexist to go with whatever is cheapest longterm.

It is when you specifically target a race/gender demographic because you know you can get away with paying them less.

Seanchaidh:
As I thought; fairness doesn't even seem to enter into the equation for you.

It's a job interview, fairness is not part of the equation as we are discussing people from varying backgrounds. Some of the applications could have been from a very affluent family, their parents able to afford the best education and exposure for their child, while the other had to sacrifice work and study at the same time at a less prestigious institution.

The company doesn't care about that though, they only care about what the applicant can do for THEM. Not their background, they also shouldn't care about their race or sex - because it doesn't matter. All that matters is how good they are at the job. It isn't fair, but it's at least an even playing field.

Abomination:
It is when you specifically target a race/gender demographic because you know you can get away with paying them less.

We've been outsourcing for decades ... why did you think skilled labour would be immune to rising living and educational standards for marginalized and foreign people? Bit late to be complaining about the free market.

Also, frankly, don't care.

It doesn't negate what I've been saying all along. Adapt or die, don't whine like a child.

I find it funny how so many people like you seem to only have had a problem with Damore and the like's moronic essentialist rhetoric right up until the moment it begins to become clear that white, male and cisgender entitlement seems to be making corporations look elsewhere.

Careful there ... it's almost as if you guys are advocating for trade unionism or something.

After all ... I can now pay Indian and Chinese network engineers with decades of experience for half the price of one white dude at Google. And chance are those underpaid network engineers and codebusters have actually been worked to the bone by their respective governments, and actually understand the rigours of their market.

Why the fuck would I put up with a whiny little POS like Damore who'll go crying to his white nationalist friends in Breitbart when I can have two Chinese engineers for the same pricetag? People who have lived and worked in extreme conditions and often unpaid for months and not liable to be a whiny POS?

Shut your mouth, get back to work, or your arse will no longer sit in a company chair. And if people don't like those terms, they can always leave rather than simply wait to be fired. Zero sympoathy or fucks given, because frankly that's the story of way too many trans people ... who suffer, are chronically underpaid, and save only for the promise (material or otherwise) of steady labour were simply happy to find a job.

And it was people like Damore that created that situation in the first place... now it's finally coming to bite you all on their arse, and consider it schadenfreude if you will, but frankly I ain't got time for it and no one looking out for the interests of shareholders has either. After all, same people like Damore that tried to chase trans people out of the military despite over twice the likely ex-service history compared with the cisgender populace in the U.S.

Rather than arguing on their behalfand the merits of them receiving their dues and their equal workforce participation, you'd rather quibble about non-existent racism and sexism? ... You'd rather query how it's now somehow offensive that corporations want to openly hire said people simply because it's cheaper labour rather than earnestly discuss the merits of paying these people a whole lot less?

No dice. No comprende. Bu hao. Bilkul nahin.

Awwww .... I'm sorry if the wretched colonialism of the world giving way to global capitalism is starting to fail you ...

... it's totally not as if an entire group of people were telling you that since the mid 19th century.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
I find it funny how so many people like you seem to only have had a problem with Damore and the like's moronic essentialist rhetoric right up until the moment it begins to become clear that white, male and cisgender entitlement seems to be making corporations look elsewhere.

You sure do love making an ass of yourself with assumptions.

I would take issue with any racist or sexist policy. Using offshore labour is also something I take issue with.

I'm not even from the United States.

Dial your rage back, Skippy.

Abomination:
You sure do love making an ass of yourself with assumptions.

I would take issue with any racist or sexist policy. Using offshore labour is also something I take issue with.

I'm not even from the United States.

Dial your rage back, Skippy.

Oh, I'm sorry person who doesn't even bother reading my posts... here's a helpful suggestion. It's not racist or sexist. You haven't yet proven how they are. It's a product of postcolonialism and the capitalist marketplace.

Given how badly you seem to wish skirting around the fucking issue, it's got nothing to do with the U.S. either. This is a macrological economic system. Something that uniquely seems to shape English speaking nations, precisely because it's more productive to learn that language given, you guessed it, it offers a world of better employment opportunities.

See, you seem to be evading the issue entirely ... because not once have I seen you actually say Google underpaying marginalized labour is somehow bad ... merely seem to have a nebulous problem of the 'other' as if it's somehow a moral failure of people who will be paid less getting preferred treatment by corporations simply because it will cost them less money for equivalent labour.

Here, I'll make it easy for you;

Do you think it's wrong people are getting less purchasing power despite the same job title and level of seniority?

Do you think it's wrong that a corporation naturally favours the returns to their shareholders as a measure of their business success and validity for existing?

Do you have a problem with the nature of one's freedom of contract and the capacity for which people can negotiate their awards on labour? That much like individuals, corporations should be able to express due reasoning and evaluation of that freedom of contract as a measure to decide upon one's employment?

No more fucking waffling here. When you tell me how someone choosing cheaper labour is somehow sexist or racist, I want to see fucking proof. Not point out the obvious that, yeah, the systems f inequality are deeply rooted in such things but then again the reasons for pursuing them isn't merely about race ir sex, but rather about money.

Let's say IK hold an interview. I have three people, and one of those is a trans person who seems desperate for the job, is willing to work any days and any hours asked of them, and reflects that desire for work for saying they're willing to undergo lengthier trial periods, and seem to be happier with less than what the other applicants are thinking their labour is worth.

How is it sexist or racist that that trans person gets the job?

You can swap it out for any group of people traditionally marginalized. I don't fucking care. But why would hiring that person be a sexist or racist act?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Here, I'll make it easy for you;

Thanks. I don't have the time to read your exploding texts to what was a 3 sentence comment.

Do you think it's wrong people are getting less money despite the same job title and level of seniority?

No. Since title and seniority are not a reflection on the quality of the work done or their productivity, you also didn't how many hours they're working and if they're different. Should THOSE be the same I would have issue with them receiving different pay based on a factor such as skin colour or sex.

Do you think it's wrong that a corporation naturally favours the returns to their shareholders as a measure of their business success and validity for existing?

On a micro level? No. On a macro level? Yes.

Do you have a problem with the nature of one's right to contract and the capacity for which people can negotiate their awards on labour and that corporations, much like individuals, should be able to express due reasoning and evaluation of that right to contract as a measure to decide upon one's employment?

No. People should be free to negotiate their terms of employment and companies should be able to negotiate their terms of employing. An accord should be reached and a contract formed. That's just good business.

Abomination:
No. Since title and seniority are not a reflection on the quality of the work done or their productivity, you also didn't how many hours they're working and if they're different. Should THOSE be the same I would have issue with them receiving different pay based on a factor such as skin colour or sex.

Good, then I'll employ that trans person statistically less likely to ask for a promotion, statistically more likely to devalue their labour, and has all the equivalent training prerequisites.

On a micro level? No. On a macro level? Yes.

There's no such thing as a 'micro' free market. The markets necessitate natiopnal and even international investment.

So, what? Do you or do you not have a problem with a corporation seeking to lower the amount of money it throws into payroll? I mean ... I'd rather keep the same productivity, ixnay paycheques to workers, and inflate the div yield or pay off loans to attract greater investment personally, simultaneously decreasing the likelihood of organized shorting of my company's stock by doing so.

It's a winning strategy. It will also make me more money than paying for overpriced labour.

Also provides some useful corporate tax off setting by doing so.

(Edit)By unloading taxation burdens on willing long term investors (due to said high div yield) in lieu of a jacked up div yield via franking credits, I can inflate the value of my stock options at a preferred buy in rate I'd get for working at the company ... I can also funnel more corporate money from its productivity into primary shareholder beneficiaries' wallets while claiming the company is operating at a meagre profit margin for taxation purposes.

Why is this somehow worse than paying white males an average 25-30% more on equivalent domestic labour and productivity?

Seems like you're asking meto sacrifice my total profitability for the sake of giving you a paycheque you eminently don't needto have because other people seem to be fine with less.

Maybe you're asking for too big a pay cheque there? What about my pay cheque? Every extra dollar I have to pay to someone like Damore that I don't need to is like 0.000000046c out of shareholder's pockets ... and really, who should I claim to represent? The people that keep giving me money simply because I make the company look good ... or some whiny former employee who makes me look bad, gets me in further trouble with the Department of Labor, and whose own personal labour is expendable?

No. People should be free to negotiate their terms of employment and companies should be able to negotiate their terms of employing. An accord should be reached and a contract formed. That's just good business.

Right, so someone willing to work for less despite equivalence of training and experience should get the job.

Abomination:
The company doesn't care about that though, they only care about what the applicant can do for THEM. Not their background, they also shouldn't care about their race or sex - because it doesn't matter. All that matters is how good they are at the job. It isn't fair, but it's at least an even playing field.

It isn't an even playing field. And you haven't actually come up with a convincing denunciation of racism or sexism here: because all of this falls apart if a more diverse workforce is better for profits even with seemingly weaker individual employees. Try google searching the benefits of a diverse workforce sometime. Maybe try it in incognito mode if you don't find much.

Okay...I'm looking through this thread and I'm reading an awful lot about diversity quotas and affirmative action and non-whites and women being deliberately chosen over men and whether or not that's acceptable or sound from a business or moral perspective.

What seems a bit light on the ground is any evidence that this actually occurs on a routine basis.

Where, exactly, are we seeing competent straight white men being systematically passed over in favor of hiring less competent people who aren't straight white men solely for the purpose of being diverse for its own sake?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
It's not so different in Australia. Australia is set to be the first country to build the quantum computer. Based out of my university no less. That project is directed and overseen by women .... and curiously the affiliation of many of the women involved in leadership or research areas in that project are affiliated with UNSW (ADFA). The Australian Defence Force Academy. An institution that grants education to those interested (and contractually obliged) to provide services to the government in terms of military initiatives via the Department of Defence and speculatively the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade.

Ok, first, there are many many universities and research institutes over the world claiming to be set to be the first to build a quantum computer. Some do even claim to already have done so.

Of course, half of that depends on how exactly do you define "quantum computer" and where some entangled qbits that can do a set of operations transform into one.

But what is even more important is that building a quantum computer is not really IT, we are still at a stage where it falls completely into quantum mechanics, where algorithms are extremely short and simple and datasizes are measured in bits and maximum storage times in memories in microseconds and where nearly all the the new developments are about solving physics problems.

Once more, a whole lot of women locked into government special enterprise. I have little doubts people involved in delivering the first working quantum computer project will not be accessible labour in the private sector for decades to come given the sensitive nature of the project and simply in terms of the contract they have signed with the Australian Defence Force.

And a whole lot of other quantum computer projects are at civil intitutions like universities. Many other are international collaborations anyway. A very small numer is already in the private sector (but generally private sector shuns that stuff because RoI is still very uncertain). in 10 years' time?

For starters you quoted my original post .... which is the fact that there are economic incentives for corporations to broaden their horizons. The geopolitical and fiscal reasons for doing so providing unique 'business solutions' to cost management and geopolitical synergy of multinational efforts to consolidate market consumption.

Back to that.

So the fact that neither women nor minorities are actually noticable cheaper in Germany if they have equal qualification is a sign of missing discrimination ?

Ok, the "equal qualification" is often a problem with foreign minorities as our strong trade guilds demand that a lot of work can only be done by people who have been certified by them. And small and medium sized companies often demand German language skills as that is the work language.

But "saving money by hiring cheaper minorities/cheaper women" simply does not work at all here.

renegade7:

Where, exactly, are we seeing competent straight white men being systematically passed over in favor of hiring less competent people who aren't straight white men solely for the purpose of being diverse for its own sake?

In Germany, boardrooms of big corporations have been male dominated a long time. A quota was introduced that compelled all companies above a certain size to have a certain percentage of women in their board or pay huge fines.

The result is :
- most of those companies now barely achieve the quota
- some companies tried to create dummy board members who get paid but don't really decide. But that was instantly called out.
- female board members earn now far more than male board members because companies fight desperately over every woman with some board room experience and even a modicum of competence
- the pool for future board members is still the same as before. The new quota did not encourage more women to get onto this particular career track.
- Some companies pay the fines because they really can't fill the positions.
- companies that are just small enough that they don't have to fullfill the quota have even more male dominated boards because all female candidates take the better paid positions at the big companies and the smaller companies can freely choose from the best of the pool of male candidates that the big companies can't hire without being fined.

Satinavian:
And a whole lot of other quantum computer projects are at civil intitutions like universities. Many other are international collaborations anyway. A very small numer is already in the private sector (but generally private sector shuns that stuff because RoI is still very uncertain). in 10 years' time?

Given that this is the same team to give us the first silicon dressed qubit and patented its design, yeah. They're at the forefront of the tech.

Back to that.

So the fact that neither women nor minorities are actually noticable cheaper in Germany if they have equal qualification is a sign of missing discrimination ?

For starters, historically inaccurate. There's always been a shitload of women in computer science, atleast until the tail end of the Cold War. And historically very low paid. That's no different in Germany. They used to advertise computer science jobs in magazines such as Vogue back in the 50s. Something to do with filing, sorting and typing. Evidently 'women's work' ... and it was treated as such across the Anglo-colonised world ... and given the first computer tech jobs arose out of the government sector (particularly military) ... Healthy men in the military were supposed to fight. Leave the communications and a lot of the codebusting jobs to the womenfolk.

This was an attitude that carried weight across particularly Anglocized countries throughout thr first half of the Cold War. And yeah, once again, very low paid... despite the huge responsibilities and intrinsic military importance these tech and communications jobs were.

You had high profile enlistment pieces showing teams of women working on the U.S. Army ENIAC machines with slogans like 'For aspiring young women looking to do their patriotic duty!" and all that jazz.

image

The two of the women pictured in that were involved in programming that beast.

image

See? Women's work ...

Glorified typing, sorting, and filing... There were 6 people involved in organising assembly and programming duties for that monster that revolutionized everything. And all of them women. Sme with only a bach. And all of them I'm willing to wager had a harder and more cerebral job than anyone currently at Google given this shit was uncharted territory. It's moderately difficult to become a researcher ... it's leagues away from being a pioneer of science and engineering.

I'm also willing to bet Damore couldn't even lift what Patsy Simmers has in her hands, but that would be petty...

This attitude was also ported even to places like China. Like Dr. Xia Peisu's handbuilt computer in (I want to say...) 1954(?) and being invited to the 5th and 6th People's Conferences concerning the applications of computer technologies and their use in industry and warfare as well as to advise the Party about the future of (what would become) cyberwarfare. She is accredited (albeit somewhat quietly) about the first real essays on 'futuretech' for the next generation of conflict, social development, and cyberstrategy of what she called the emergence of 'High Performance Computing' and the visions she had for a networked world and what that means for China.

Effectively she predicted the world we're living in now years before the internet, and she had both the electrical engineering know-how as well as being the architect of China's now burgeoning network engineering initiatives. It was her personally designed electrical infrastructure work that wasthe first to break 1 megaflops, and she is firmly recounted (at least by history buffs) as the single greatest mind of her era in terms of computer technologies and electrical engineering.

She was the one responsible for penning down the first comprehensive principles of pipeline theory which was instrumental in allowing PRC computer divisions to rapidly outpace even the best efforts of the U.S. Army, and that technology we still use now. Which is effectively the same shit we use now in hardware infrastructure. The problem is that given the fact that 'Grr, Maoists' that still actually persists in historical revisionism, China is often overlooked in terms of electrical engineering and computer technologies talent.

Much to our own detriment, might I add.

And she is not an isolated case in the PRC.

The gender gap in CS within the PRC is nowhere near as severe as it is in the West. And a lot of that talent will be hitting the world's private sector as China increasingly opens its doors.

Secondly, no one is going to think of living in Germany to do work, private or public, in CS. Most of the people studying this stuff in China and India hone their English while they're at it. It's because there's a shitload of demand for contractual temporary or fulltime networking jobs in Australia, the UK or the U.S. and practically any place they can integrate or move to where the language barrier ain't going to be a problem (given they can study one language and access the largest markets of the Western world).

Moreover ... shall we say the uniquely 'pro-globalist stance' of places like the U.S. and Australia, such jobs have routinely outsourced and imported and continue to do so at an accelerated rate. At rough estimates, only 60% of German residents speak English to a fluent degree. In terms of attracting the world's millionaires (and anybody seeking to be a millionaire) Germany isn't even in the top ten much less the top 5.

Whatever talent you do get, Germany isn't going to attract the same diversity of talent. People go where the money is.

https://www.businessinsider.com/high-net-worth-people-moving-to-australia-2018-1

You can practically buy an Australian visa if you're willing to dump the equivalent of AU$750,000 into domestic markets. The federal government will just rubber stamp your approval, and offer naturalization automatically after 3 years. That includes pretty much anybody that looks like they're going to be worth a million bucks in 4-5 years.

Which makes our offshore processing centers seem almost as if we've made it a crime to be poor.

Naturally that means a whole lot of people coming from accredited universities in desired industries often have no trouble setting up shop here. And given 42% of those with a Masters+ in CS/CS-like unconventional computing qualifications in China who are women, will come here inevitably as China continues to desensitize the nature of their working relations and they will more than likely come to Australia and the U.S.

And sure, that's merely two countries of the Western world ... but it's far more telling than whatever ridiculous nonsense Damore is spewing on about.

Greater diversity has proven benefits to improving global strategy, geostrategic goals and synergy with multinational efforts towards market consolidation.

A diverse workplace provides business solutions to global markets that otherwise would be inaccessible. Always pays to have a handful of people that knows a guy related to their mother's uncle-in-law's son's former university flatmate who just so happens to have ties to a Singaporean politician.

You can't put a dollar value on that sort of broadening of scope and operations (but you can bet we'll try).

Satinavian:

renegade7:

Where, exactly, are we seeing competent straight white men being systematically passed over in favor of hiring less competent people who aren't straight white men solely for the purpose of being diverse for its own sake?

In Germany, boardrooms of big corporations have been male dominated a long time. A quota was introduced that compelled all companies above a certain size to have a certain percentage of women in their board or pay huge fines.

All right, I went around looking for this legislation and I found this:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-firms-slowly-adjust-to-new-boardroom-quota-law-a-1070622.html

It seems that the law doesn't actually impose any penalties on companies that fail to meet the 30% target. The law imposes an obligation to make a good-faith effort to attempt to meet that target, but the law doesn't penalize failing to do so. A company will not be fined simply because of a lack of qualified female applicants. As for the specific claims...

- some companies tried to create dummy board members who get paid but don't really decide. But that was instantly called out.

Which companies?

- female board members earn now far more than male board members because companies fight desperately over every woman with some board room experience and even a modicum of competence

Examples?

- Some companies pay the fines because they really can't fill the positions.

Again, the fines have nothing to do with ability to fill the positions.

- companies that are just small enough that they don't have to fullfill the quota have even more male dominated boards because all female candidates take the better paid positions at the big companies and the smaller companies can freely choose from the best of the pool of male candidates that the big companies can't hire without being fined.

Examples of this happening?

Also, it doesn't seem as though the law applies to small companies, only to companies subject to codetermination, which apparently (at least in Germany) means large companies.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
For starters, historically inaccurate. There's always been a shitload of women in computer science, atleast until the tail end of the Cold War. And historically very low paid. That's no different in Germany.

I don't have numbers for computer scientists in the two Germanys at the tail end of the cold war, but i remain somewhat sceptical that the situation was the same as in the US. Labor market in the FRG was always different than the US and it was even more so in the GDR.

They used to advertise computer science jobs in magazines such as Vogue back in the 50s. Something to do with filing, sorting and typing. Evidently 'women's work' ... and it was treated as such across the Anglo-colonised world ... and given the first computer tech jobs arose out of the government sector (particularly military) ... Healthy men in the military were supposed to fight. Leave the communications and a lot of the codebusting jobs to the womenfolk.

This was an attitude that carried weight across particularly Anglocized countries throughout thr first half of the Cold War. And yeah, once again, very low paid... despite the huge responsibilities and intrinsic military importance these tech and communications jobs were.

The Germanys certainly didn't belong to the Anglosphere ever.

Secondly, no one is going to think of living in Germany to do work, private or public, in CS. Most of the people studying this stuff in China and India hone their English while they're at it. It's because there's a shitload of demand for contractual temporary or fulltime networking jobs in Australia, the UK or the U.S. and practically any place they can integrate or move to where the language barrier ain't going to be a problem (given they can study one language and access the largest markets of the Western world).

Maybe, maybe not. It seems true that we seem to get a tad more foreigners wanting to do CS in Germany coming from Eastern Europe including Russia than from East and South Asia. But we still have lots of especcially Chinese coming which is related to the fact that we provide free university education even to foreigners. And once they have studied here, they often stay.

You can practically buy an Australian visa if you're willing to dump the equivalent of AU$750,000 into domestic markets. The federal government will just rubber stamp your approval, and offer naturalization automatically after 3 years. That includes pretty much anybody that looks like they're going to be worth a million bucks in 4-5 years.

And you don't even need a visum for Germany if you life in the EU. If you are not in the EU getting a work visum if you have a job lined up is not hard and getting a student visum if one of our universities accept you isn't hard either.
But i am not sure how this has anything to do with the rest of the discussion.

Greater diversity has proven benefits to improving global strategy, geostrategic goals and synergy with multinational efforts towards market consolidation.

German economy is manufacturing based, not service based. It also consists of a extremely high number of small and medium sized companies, the famous "Mittelstand". The benefits of diversity for global expansion is really not that important for them. If your company, while still exporting into the whole word has only 3 sales people in total, you will nearly always have cultural barriers anyway.

renegade7:
It seems that the law doesn't actually impose any penalties on companies that fail to meet the 30% target. The law imposes an obligation to make a good-faith effort to attempt to meet that target, but the law doesn't penalize failing to do so. A company will not be fined simply because of a lack of qualified female applicants. As for the specific claims...

There is a penalty if you don't have a convincing strategy to reach the quota. Furthermore, while there is not a penalty if you have not reached the quota yet (the law doesn't force you to fire your existing board), you can't hire a single new board member that is not a women until the quota is fullfilled.

So yes, you are right, there are not companies paying the fines, there are instead companies with lots of empty board seats.

Which companies?

That actually happened several years ago, before the law was actually made. Prior to the law there had been a commitment from the industry to try to avoid a real quota. That is when they tried those tricks

Examples?

http://www.zeit.de/karriere/2016-10/frauenquote-fuehrungsposition-arbeitgeber-gleichberechtigung-bewertung-mitarbeiter
http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/gehalt-frauen-in-dax-vorstaenden-verdienen-mehr-als-maenner-a-1170607.html
The latter says 5% higher pay than male collegues over all DAX companies even if less experienced. So it is not just some lone exception.

Again, the fines have nothing to do with ability to fill the positions.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/frauenquote-in-aufsichtsraeten-steigt-14595908.html

Examples of this happening?

The statistics say so.
As soon as the quota needed to be filled and the female board member percentage of the companies that needed to comply rose, the percentage of other companies started to drop. And the wage of female board members soared as well. Which means the companies that had to hire women simply headhunted them away from the smaller companies.

Also, it doesn't seem as though the law applies to small companies, only to companies subject to codetermination, which apparently (at least in Germany) means large companies.

That is true.

Satinavian:
I don't have numbers for computer scientists in the two Germanys at the tail end of the cold war, but i remain somewhat sceptical that the situation was the same as in the US. Labor market in the FRG was always different than the US and it was even more so in the GDR.

Well given that the U.S. ported their early electrical engineering talent all over Erope in the years after WW2...

The Germanys certainly didn't belong to the Anglosphere ever.

No one said it was ... I'm saying your argument isn't backed by historical accounts.

image

Programming the ENIAC ... for example.

image

Killer picture of Patsy Simmers being boss. Courtesy of the U.S. Army and reaching out to young women to study programming as a job suitable for women looking to enlist, circa 1946.

image

And the Mao appointed CAS professor that singlehandedly beat the U.S. Army's computer processing speed test, with her home built 'data processor array', all while penning the first principles of pipelining for computer infrastructure.

It was seen as 'women's work' ... mind you, for no good reason, but regardless the cultural ideas of it transcended borders. These were the 'digital heavyweights' of their time. Arguably the finest minds on the planet that changed society in ways we cannot even begin to measure.

They didn't even get a meaningful pay cheque for what they did ... though arguably Dr. Xia Peisu getting a lifelong job over effectively training up at the time the most comprehensive networking team of computer scientists and electrical engineers to oversee China's telecommunications boom was a pretty sweet gig.

Maybe, maybe not. It seems true that we seem to get a tad more foreigners wanting to do CS in Germany coming from Eastern Europe including Russia than from East and South Asia. But we still have lots of especcially Chinese coming which is related to the fact that we provide free university education even to foreigners. And once they have studied here, they often stay.

Perhaps, but numbers don't lie and neither does economic determinism. As time goes on, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts more women out of China will be seen in the private sector. After all, onc again, whether in CS or in unconventional computing (such as biocomputing and interdisciplinary fields in neuropsych) ... the gender gap is either nowhere near as extreme, or non-existent depending on where you are in the world.

And it would be a staunch denial of history to pretend like that sort of talent is somehow bad for business.

German economy is manufacturing based, not service based. It also consists of a extremely high number of small and medium sized companies, the famous "Mittelstand". The benefits of diversity for global expansion is really not that important for them. If your company, while still exporting into the whole word has only 3 sales people in total, you will nearly always have cultural barriers anyway.

I doubt you can run a multinational with three sales people. Moreover we're not merely talking sales. Anyone can be in sales. We're talking foreign infrastructure and services access, global operations and strategic planning. The lawyers and insurance guys alone is more than three people.

Risk management alone would be about 20, and that's just a single project.

Satinavian:

renegade7:
It seems that the law doesn't actually impose any penalties on companies that fail to meet the 30% target. The law imposes an obligation to make a good-faith effort to attempt to meet that target, but the law doesn't penalize failing to do so. A company will not be fined simply because of a lack of qualified female applicants. As for the specific claims...

There is a penalty if you don't have a convincing strategy to reach the quota. Furthermore, while there is not a penalty if you have not reached the quota yet (the law doesn't force you to fire your existing board), you can't hire a single new board member that is not a women until the quota is fullfilled.

So yes, you are right, there are not companies paying the fines, there are instead companies with lots of empty board seats.

Which companies have empty board seats?

Which companies?

That actually happened several years ago, before the law was actually made. Prior to the law there had been a commitment from the industry to try to avoid a real quota. That is when they tried those tricks

So maybe that's not as relevant now?

Examples?

http://www.zeit.de/karriere/2016-10/frauenquote-fuehrungsposition-arbeitgeber-gleichberechtigung-bewertung-mitarbeiter
http://www.spiegel.de/karriere/gehalt-frauen-in-dax-vorstaenden-verdienen-mehr-als-maenner-a-1170607.html
The latter says 5% higher pay than male collegues over all DAX companies even if less experienced. So it is not just some lone exception.
[/quote]

The latter does say 5% higher pay on average. It says nothing about experience.

The first source argues that the new law is good for the economy and creates better working conditions.

Again, the fines have nothing to do with ability to fill the positions.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/frauenquote-in-aufsichtsraeten-steigt-14595908.html
[/quote]

First: I thought that the Fraktur-style fonts like the one at the header of this news site were considered extremely poor taste in Germany? Anyway.

I still have the same questions: which companies are leaving board seats vacant waiting for women to fill the quotas? The article doesn't say, although it does mention that the law has been successful at the lower levels of management and professional work.

Examples of this happening?

The statistics say so.
As soon as the quota needed to be filled and the female board member percentage of the companies that needed to comply rose, the percentage of other companies started to drop.

Did it really?

And the wage of female board members soared as well. Which means the companies that had to hire women simply headhunted them away from the smaller companies.

That seems like a stretch. The fine, apparently, is at most 50,000 Euros. But a 5% salary raise for these board members amounts to much more than that. And the small companies don't seem to be affected.

Also, it doesn't seem as though the law applies to small companies, only to companies subject to codetermination, which apparently (at least in Germany) means large companies.

That is true.[/quote]

renegade7:

Which companies have empty board seats?

Several of those newspaper articles mention that some companies leave seats open because of the quote. Do you really want me to look up current board compositions of DAX companies now ? If you really want to know the details you can do that yourself.

So maybe that's not as relevant now?

Yes, it is a thing of the past. Still a reaction to the whole quota idea.

The latter does say 5% higher pay on average. It says nothing about experience.

Considering that most of those women are new at these positions while none of the men are new (remember, men can't be hired until the quota is fullfilled), the women do have less experience and still earn 5% more.

First: I thought that the Fraktur-style fonts like the one at the header of this news site were considered extremely poor taste in Germany? Anyway.

I still have the same questions: which companies are leaving board seats vacant waiting for women to fill the quotas? The article doesn't say, although it does mention that the law has been successful at the lower levels of management and professional work.

That is the FAZ, one of the most respectable German newspapers.

Also, while fraktur style is considered old fashioned, it is not associated with the Nazis as the Nazis decided that this kind of style was somehow jewish (they did not really manage to get rid of it because of popularity)

Did it really?

Yes, it did.

That seems like a stretch. The fine, apparently, is at most 50,000 Euros. But a 5% salary raise for these board members amounts to much more than that. And the small companies don't seem to be affected.

There seems to be a misunderstanding

The fine is 50000 Euro for not having a viable plan to reach the quota. But independent from this the law includes a total hiring stop for male board members until the quota is fullfilled. So it is either hiring a women from a small company for a lot of money or leaving the position open until a better female candidate comes.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

No one said it was ... I'm saying your argument isn't backed by historical accounts.

Ok, let us step a bit back and look at my argument.

I claimed that most job applications in IT at this time in Germany come from white males (conveniently including all those Eastern Europeans)

I also claimed that female IT specialists or non white IT specialists with proper qualifications are not cheaper to employ in Germany at this time.

How does your little history excursion about IT in the US and China at a time when Germany was still busy with war damage and also partitioned between both blocks have anything to do with my arguments ? I am not even sure what you want to prove here and i am not argueing against it because i already read in other sources about that strange transition of IT as a female job to a male job in the US.

Perhaps, but numbers don't lie and neither does economic determinism. As time goes on, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts more women out of China will be seen in the private sector.

Did i ever claim otherwise ? No, i didn't. Actually i don't know enough about the Chinese situation to have a well founded opinion. And i also don't see how anything of that relates to my arguments.

And it would be a staunch denial of history to pretend like that sort of talent is somehow bad for business.

Which i never did.

I doubt you can run a multinational with three sales people. Moreover we're not merely talking sales. Anyone can be in sales. We're talking foreign infrastructure and services access, global operations and strategic planning. The lawyers and insurance guys alone is more than three people.

I once worked shortly in a company with less than 10 employees manufacturing and exporting a high precision measument system around the globe including, but not exclusively to India, China, Mexico, Italy, Japan, the US, Argentina and Singapore (and Russia before the sanctions). They still are world leaders for this particular type of measurement with iirc only 2 relevant competitors in the world (one of them is also in Germany). They produce nothing but the tool (well, and improving it and selling upgrades) and the software for it.

That is typical for Germany.

Satinavian:

Ok, let us step a bit back and look at my argument.

I claimed that most job applications in IT at this time in Germany come from white males (conveniently including all those Eastern Europeans)

I also claimed that female IT specialists or non white IT specialists with proper qualifications are not cheaper to employ in Germany at this time.

And I said that had no meaningful bearing on the discussion in the rest of the world. And I proved it. We done? After all, you quoted me with your highly subjective opinion from one part of the world. I argued how that was nonsense in terms of the experiences of people to international trade and the migration of labour. How it is quite literally noy the same experiences when you take other cultures into account.

How the dynamic will change as markets achieve greater transparency of borders.

Fuck all people are going to learn German just so they can live in Germany. Not when they can earn twice the pay cheque in Australia, the UK, Canada, or the U.S. ... using a language they likely already know.

Did i ever claim otherwise ? No, i didn't. Actually i don't know enough about the Chinese situation to have a well founded opinion. And i also don't see how anything of that relates to my arguments.

And yet you're still running your mouth about diversity in the industry. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I cited examples why I think your argument doesn't hold water. You came up with a subjective, yet personal account. I came up with an objective figure, but gave a personal account of someone who is highly exposed to the Asia-Pacific region.

I once worked shortly in a company with less than 10 employees manufacturing and exporting a high precision measument system around the globe including, but not exclusively to India, China, Mexico, Italy, Japan, the US, Argentina and Singapore (and Russia before the sanctions). They still are world leaders for this particular type of measurement with iirc only 2 relevant competitors in the world (one of them is also in Germany). They produce nothing but the tool (well, and improving it and selling upgrades) and the software for it.

That is typical for Germany.

Selling stuff overseas does not a multinational make.

I know a pastoralist that did selective breeding to get his herd fibre microns down to produce fine merino fleeces. He has increased his total volume and total profitability selling to the Chinese and Indian wool traders because he has been riding the demand on his improved product.

He does not run a multinational interest.

Also not 'typical for Australia' ... at the very least, 'typical stockman' here. Regardless, his operation still employed seasonally up to 150 people.

Your point being? Germany is more insulated than Australia. Really didn't need that pointed out ... it's quite clear that they do not attract the same volume of talent. It's almost as if that was the point of my argument. That you do see this diversity of talent from around the world in workplaces that are sufficiently open to trade and international commerce.

He spent one or two days every week showing potential wholesale buyers and investors in/from places like Hong Kong around his operations. All in order to drive up revenue to jumpstart his fine wool trade practice and outlying exactly what needed development on his station in order to achieve premium grade merino fleece. That's a *common* experience of many of our pastoralists. They moonlight as amateur machinists, amateur scientists, amateur inventors, amateur tour guides of their stations, amateur lobbyists to various chambers of commerce/political reps to advocate for the removal or assistance of the barriers to moving large amounts of product, etc...

Now those are our pastoralists ... and they often have degrees studying this shit. Everything from economics, ecology, engineering, scientific land management and advanced animal husbandry. Andthey will cut your throat and kick your pauper arse into a curb if you underestimate them, and they will take on a world of diverse talents, diverse skillsets and knowledge resources both foreign and domestic in order to do so.

I've met with slouch hat wearing pastoralists covered in dust and skin as hard as leather who have talked my ear off of their 'project crop fields' ... whereby they extensively test new irrigation methods to minimize water use, pest control measures, and new breeds of blended stone fruits and how they have analyzed sugar content, acid content, and thoroughly measured cutting growth patterns over a year and the various international fruit or cash crop growers they've talked to and personally exchanged notes with.

We have vintners producing $5 bottles of wine we sell in reject shops that have better buy recommendations than most European vineyard products.

And the reason for that is these people travelled the world, went to university, studied for years and took on a world of information and that is the status quo of doing business in Australia otherwise you might as well dig your own fiscal grave now.

And these people and their breadth of knowledge would put most people I've met in a lab anywhere in the world to shame concerning a specialized area of industry and rigourous testing. Given the impressive holistic degree of experimentation and intimate understanding of ecology and geography.

We're a big collection of islands. Island nations place emphasis on trade and once achieving suitable prosperity easier oversee the increased migration of labour and imported 'brainpower', and this extends to every other industry eventually in turn regardless of cultural barriers to entry... Also water is wet.

Now you might be wondering why I'm bringing up agriculture and scientific land management strategy of all types of industries into this equation? Well, funny thing is ... women in China outnumber men in all the geosciences (something to the tune of 62%?) and that divide is not closing. And there are a whole lot of Chinese women with that understanding of geosciences looking into the Australian agricultural sector ... using their understanding of ecology, geology and topsoil composition to make educated guesses where they should invest in emerging new fields of industry concerning scientific land management and new cash crop markets in the Asia-Pacific.

Also a growth industry where you're going to seea whole lot of women out of China beginning to overturn traditionally white, male industrial sectors...

Food and water security, given aspects of climate change, is kind of the hot button issue at the moment and will be for the next 60 years at least.

Once more ... your piddling little experiences in a small part of the geographic pond do not inform the wider world and what we're seeing in terms of the future labour markets of STEM.

After all, there is a reason a portion of the the University of Sydney's School of Geosciences department looks like this even now...

image

I suspect as situations continue to prove growingly deleterious, you'll see a lot more faces from the wider Asia-Pacific region as people congregate in places like Australia to meet the challenges of food security as we proceed into an uncertain future. A 6 year drought in Australia created food riots from Egypt to India the likes we haven't seen since WW2. What exactly do you think will happen when ENSO-to-La Nina period ends and drought periods grow in severity? When we only have half measures for aquifer recharge like geoengineering 'upside-down weir' projects to prevent wholesale desertification of large areas once suitable for grain production?

As it stands, it will take us 10 years according to people I've spoken to in the flesh to complete drought-proofing Australian agricultural centers. La Nina won't last that long. In fact we missed the critical window for aquifer recharge by about 5 years now and we're not even close to finished. We'll have to wait until the next La Nina event to see aaquifer recharge and begin re-greening swathes of the continent.

I predict you'll see a whole lot more Chinese geoscientists on Australian soil... helping with various projects as the government scrambles for as much talent as it can get its hands on. And that's just one aspect where we'll be importing a lot of brainpower from the rest of the world.

It's a big continent with big problems and only 23 million domestic hands that can make a difference. Naturally we need to look elsewhere to simply do the leg work of direct observation much less actually strategizing and future-proofing the continent. Different culture, different history, different necessities, different workforce. And that workforce is going to looklike a plethora of different teams visiting from throughout the Asia-Pacific who stake a lot of their own national interests in keeping Australia as a potential food bowl to the region.

Geostrategic necessity trumps mysogynistic, racist nonsense that Damore mewls about.

Hell, even back when I was a teacher the government was pushing major geoscience initiatives to young boys and girls in school year groups 6 through 10. As if almost a 'patriotic' industry to especially attract young women into geoscience courses. A finely betwixt elixir of coupling civic duty, scientific curiosity, environmentalism and high commerce buttons pushed in materials produced for high schools and they're still doing it now.

And that simplistic campaign seems to be working pretty well last I checked. So maybe Germany is just fucking up or has other cultural barriers for women in the sciences, because we seem to be having less issues simply through cultivating scientific curiosity in high school. After all, geosciences used to be strongly male dominated (as in one of the worst offenders in terms of the gender gap), but that has been curiously falling for decades now, and in different parts of the world has been entirely reversed.

As I said ... your piddling experience doesn't seem to compare to places I've worked in academia alone ... much less direct industrial sectors. Moreover it's not as if those racial and gender gaps are not being slowly erased simply through immigration alone.

In Australia? I remember participating in crunching and collecting data for the NSW government for analyzing rates of performance for women in high schools nationwide. By looking at preconceptions of school children as to mathematics and scientific endeavours. We asked kids to draw people in particular professions. Ages 7-10. Over two thirds of participants drew a man in a labcoat when we asked them to draw a scientist.

The enculturation of this it turns out begins to impede young women in higher studies.

As it turned out 16 year old females despite more likely scoring higher on standardized mathematics, often felt less secure in their capacity to answer complex math questions than their male counterparts... who were more likely to underperform them with the same tests again, and again, and again. What we found is this enculturation of maths and science performance was irrespective of actual ability... and persisted through one's life in education. That women of superior mathematics capability had an internalized bias against their own capacity to work out solutions that simply did not exist for young men we interviewed. Which went on to colour their own ideas as to what they should study in senior years.

Which is backed up by psychometric data we have experienced in adulthood. That despite women doing better on average in maths testing ... they tend to display a reduced understanding of just that degree of performance to other people. Sabotaging theit own understanding of their abilities.

Which was pretty fucking tragic and started the ball rolling in educational reform. Since then we've been actively trying to fight that in highschools and is slowly making a difference via that. Actively encouraging young women having doubts as to their performance and telling them; "You know... you're scoring really well... you should consider doing advanced math courses for senior grade."

Turns out encouraging high performance leads to better self-esteem, and thus greater confidence is beginning to create a greater receptivity to challenge and excellence in young women in schools...

And the thing is, this is refle3cted in maths testing in Chinese schools ... despite prejudices against women in science, due to things like openly publishing test data for students to read leads to more women understanding just how well they've done and dispelling a lot of misplaced doubt they might of had in themselves.

Say what you like about old communist meritocracy, it is brutally efficient at cutting one's ego down and being very blunt as to your perceived usefulness to the state.

That being said, I don't advocate for the 'naming and shaming' technique of publicly broadcasting test data to dispel people's illusions as to their respective performance, I do agree with dispelling the myths young women start believing themselves about their academic performance. As I said ... the data is in. Women do better than men in maths testing here in Australian schools. Hard math. Not writing (beyond displaying problem solving) ... hard math. And women tend to score roughly 5% higher than their counterparts in high school. It's just they're also far more likely not to take math courses respective to that increased performance.

And it's also one of the key predictors as to the total academic engagement in the physical and natural sciences.

Women ending up doing what they thinjk are 'soft' sciences ... like psychology. Which turns out to have a metric fuck ton of math, and they shred the competition.

In Australia we've achieved a 50.1% natural and physical sciences graduation rate by women. But simply looking at empirical testing of their performance in high school, their performance in tertiary education should be much higher and with a greater academic participation rate with post Masters education.

They really should be more in research. There are economic factors to be sure, but then again if we want the best and brightest we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not giving women their dues. Instead we're losing them to private sector consulting or allied health and the like.

Which isn't really a loss, but it's not contributing as much as they could to the progress of the nation.

And the results were kind of shocking to us. We started doing requests with schools to interview more students. Because young girls scored higher on average in every field relative to STEM in high schools, and yet were five times less likely to study advanced math. We kept asking these young women questions like; "So what are you hoping for once school is over?" A lot of them wanted to go to university, particularly these high scorers ... but we noted a continual disregard as to the extents of their high performance. As if it was indicative that they assumed it wasn't enough for a 'hard science' career ... which was curiously not a quality of the young men we interviewed even if they scored lower than these high-achieving young women.

And this has been known now for awhile for anybody in psychology and education. That women are far more likely to sabotage themselves simply because of that enculturation ... and it turns out the solution is quite simple. Make it plainly known that there is no real obstacles to their academic excellence and their brains are just as useful in working out complex solutions.

It's purely that simple. Start young, then we don't need to worry. The rest will follow.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And I said that had no meaningful bearing on the discussion in the rest of the world. And I proved it. We done? After all, you quoted me with your highly subjective opinion from one part of the world. I argued how that was nonsense in terms of the experiences of people to international trade and the migration of labour. How it is quite literally noy the same experiences when you take other cultures into account.

First you go on page over page about the situation in Australia and now my German viewpoint is not relevant ? Hypocrisy much ?

Now you might be wondering why I'm bringing up agriculture and scientific land management strategy of all types of industries into this equation? Well, funny thing is ... women in China outnumber men in all the geosciences (something to the tune of 62%?) and that divide is not closing. And there are a whole lot of Chinese women with that understanding of geosciences looking into the Australian agricultural sector ... using their understanding of ecology, geology and topsoil composition to make educated guesses where they should invest in emerging new fields of industry concerning scientific land management and new cash crop markets in the Asia-Pacific.

Also a growth industry where you're going to seea whole lot of women out of China beginning to overturn traditionally white, male industrial sectors...

And how is that relevant to the discussion ? So one particular field might turn from male dominated to female dominated in one particular country due to influx from another particular country where it already is female dominated ? Gender domination switches all the time in countries around the world.

Hell, even back when I was a teacher the government was pushing major geoscience initiatives to young boys and girls in school year groups 6 through 10. As if almost a 'patriotic' industry to especially attract young women into geoscience courses. A finely betwixt elixir of coupling civic duty, scientific curiosity, environmentalism and high commerce buttons pushed in materials produced for high schools and they're still doing it now.

Nice. Most of similar initiatives wordwide are far less successfull because school is pretty bad at fighting prejudices that are picked up from parents.

And that simplistic campaign seems to be working pretty well last I checked. So maybe Germany is just fucking up or has other cultural barriers for women in the sciences, because we seem to be having less issues simply through cultivating scientific curiosity in high school. After all, geosciences used to be strongly male dominated (as in one of the worst offenders in terms of the gender gap), but that has been curiously falling for decades now, and in different parts of the world has been entirely reversed.

We are doing such initiatives for decades now and it doesn't help very much. Most STEM fields remain male dominated with exception to nearly all biology variants which remain female dominated and have been for quite some time now.
And in STEM there is no particular wage gap. University jobs and jobs at research institutes are bound by collective bargaining agreements anyway and even in the private sector it is hard to get around our extremely strong unions setting the expectations

Say what you like about old communist meritocracy, it is brutally efficient at cutting one's ego down and being very blunt as to your perceived usefulness to the state.

In my long gone school years i lived through that kind of things, but girls did not perform better in math in those standardised tests.

So, trying to find some newer results i found the OECD school performance measurements
http://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=DEU&treshold=10&topic=PI
http://www.oecd.org/germany/pisa-2015-germany.htm
stating that indeed in most countries boys outperform girls in math in these tests and Germany is not an exception.

But is that only due to self enforcing stereotypes, lack of motivation and self-belief ? Well, a couple of years earlier the OECD investigated that too.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PIF-2014-gender-international-version.pdf
Indeed, a substantial proportion of the difference in mathematics
performance related to gender can be explained by differences in
boys? and girls? self-beliefs and motivation to learn mathematics.
Once these are taken into account, the most able girls
underachieve compared to the most able boys in only a small
set of countries and by a much narrower margin. This does not
mean that if girls? motivation and self-beliefs improved to the extent
that they matched those of boys that they would perform equally
well as boys.

So yes, while that is part of the reason, the OECD does not seem to believe that fixing girls self-esteem and confidence in their math skills would be enough to let them perform as well as boys.
They also always point out that the gap is widest under high performers which would be the most likely to make it a career choice.

Satinavian:

First you go on page over page about the situation in Australia and now my German viewpoint is not relevant ? Hypocrisy much ?

It is when the fact of the matter is that the situation is not shared beyond the German sphere of influence. In fact in places in the world where you do have high migration of talent it seems to be less of an issue. And yeah, we've quite well established people ain't going to move to Germany if they want to make a dollar. As I was saying, you look at something like Oracle's recuitment pool. Mostly foreign labour cued up for the next year. I doubt few industries in Germany could count on such a human resources pool. I can't imagine the skilled labour market is so replete with migrating labour.

I imagine Germany find itself in much the same position as Japan. Even if the government wanted skilled migrants to live there, few are going to learn Japanese to do so.

And sure, you can make the argument that you don't necessarily have to learn German, about half the populace speak English ... but then again when you have high profile politicians screaming how there's too many people not speaking German in Berlin and how that makes him so very angry you gotta wonder just how much you're going to fit in.

The lack of a decent pay cheque on top of having to learn German simply to live there is also not really up to snuff.

And how is that relevant to the discussion ? So one particular field might turn from male dominated to female dominated in one particular country due to influx from another particular country where it already is female dominated ? Gender domination switches all the time in countries around the world.

Well how exactly is it not? If we're talking STEM jobs, geosciences is probably the biggest winning ticket at the moment. There is a metric fuckton of CC related jobs and research initiatives going on out there, and it's not exactly as if they'll be losing any money soon. Sure, Trump cancelling most funding out of the EPA is a blow and leading to a whole lot of labour looking for work elsewhere, but then again it's not like other countries aren't happy enough to fill that void.

As I was saying, some big arse geoengineering and geoscience research stuff going on in Australia over the next 10 years to try to drought-proof and re-green large areas of the continent. Plenty of money to the right people. Moreover geoscience is one of those schools of scientific inquiry that has managed to challenge the gender and race gaps of the past.

Nice. Most of similar initiatives wordwide are far less successfull because school is pretty bad at fighting prejudices that are picked up from parents.

Well actually to this and the other bit you've written, no ... in fact. I can attest to this personally, because we looked into this at DEC. And yeah, you're correct to say that a lot of these prejudices often happen through inattentive parenting, but at the same time a lot of that is simply ignored at schools we found. As I wrote before I remember crunching data and interviewing students when this was a big ticket item about improving education results ... and yeah, we did find conclusive evidence that in Australian schools, women did outperform boys in all fields relatable to STEM but curiously they were much more likely to question their own capabilities despite scoring on average better.

Which is why we ran complementary tests to test childhood preconceptions of gender and jobs and roles concerning the workforce.

Not only are these results heavily predicated on cultural barriers to entry for these positions (which only seems to reinforce the point) we did come away with some pretty sterling evidence that young women in particular seem to be undereastimating their abilities wholesale irrespective of how they actually perform.

This would be okay (kind of?) if the goal was self-improvement, the belief you can do better ... but we didn't actually see that in our interviews. What we did notice is the presumption that their performance wasn't good enough. So much so despite scoring better than their counterparts they would often avoid mathematics courses that young men would elect to do, despite scoring worse than those young women who chose to do more entry level or basic mathematics electives.

And that's not a good sign ... that should be combatted ... because what we found was this enculturation of self-sabotage from pre-high school year brackets was having a long term effect right up until they were leaving school. So I call into question your sources, because frankly even those should come away with an understanding that this is not set in stone. Different educational models and environmental forces are playing a role here.

Moreover we have proof of these environmental forces ... and they're things we should be curtailing. Not pretending aren't a problem.

After all, the Australian education system isn't exactly failing young girls. On average they're beating boys in a range of subjects often considered 'male dominated' at one point or another. But it seems very much that culturally we're not rewarding that excellence, or giving the wrong impression that somehow it's not good enough. No one is giving these young women a 'free ride' ... these are standardized tests. Clearly it's a matter of us not doing enough to curtail whatever underlying prejudices that do exist. We're getting there ... but we're not there yet.

As I was saying before, when looking into this there was plenty of interview data from young women in their senior years who scored incredibly high in maths who were displaying doubts as to their strengths in the subject they decided not to pursue a more challenging mathematics curriculum. The same wasn't seen in young men who score well, but not as well, electing to do the harder mathematics curriculum.

Something's not right there.

And it's particularly galling when it becomes observable in 'First Place in Courses' and 'Second Place' year reviews are published for all the students that scored the best in the state over the year during their Year 12 assessments, and you did routinely see women in General Mathematics courses taking top and second honours.

And yet, women were 5 times less likely to do advanced mathematics courses despite their actual academic performance suggesting so...so many of them should have been taking that Advanced Maths course. As I was saying before, none of this is set in stone. Geosciences is a prime example of that gender gap being an environmental force that did, for the longest while, make it only 1 in 5 in the field were women. Much less so ion terms of anyone not white.

Nowadays? Not the story.

50.1% of natural & physical sciences undergrads being women is a step up compared with any other place in the world. But even then we're still losing them after they achieve their masters. Some go into private sector consultation or education work, and frankly taking their academic measures there as well, that's also unacceptable.

If the goal here is to attract the best and brightest to the research jobs we need, clearly we're not doing enough.

(Edit) Now, naturally, there are some environmental factors to consider. Namely the enculturation that you don't need to do advanced maths in high school to get a degree in the sciences. After all, you can just ace the General Maths course, and the university will not care. Universities tend to break you down and build you back up, anyways. And given that women are typically disinclined to do them ... might simply converse with another woman who just so happens to be studying the sciences or working in the sciences who says; "Pffh. So? I didn't either, relax!"

There are a whole lot of factors that bleed into this, but one thing that was undeniable was that sense of disinclination inspite of actual ability or even one's entertainment and challenge one might get from taking on a harder mathematics education. That inspite of actual ability, women weren't taking these courses due to their sense of adequacy to do them. And this was one of the big things that the federal government made a priority over the last 3 years to address, as it is a very real problem.

I know that well enough that sense of disinclination only at least more in reverse in my situation. I was raised up a year, and the school kept on telling me I should have done more elective sciences and 3U Maths in Y11 ... instead I went with Basic Maths, 3U English, Music & Theatre, Design & Tech, Modern History, Commerce and Religious Studies.

Religious Education was mandatory at that school, being a Catholic PS. I actually enjoyed it, went to a Buddhist temple and the next semester got to read the Bhagavad Gita. So it was actually less religious instruction and more an actual examination of world religions and their sociological and teleological world aspects. Which, you know ... is pretty interesting ... not merely what religions believe but the way they examine reality and existence through certain metaphysical arguments concerning humanity and the relationship to the divine.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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