Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that enough nowadays? At a place with a strong bent like Google, might silence be interpreted as guilt? Wouldn't it make more sense to pretend to follow the prevailing ideology and then quietly vote how you want at election time?
It actually used to be that way. People were quiet about it. Now people are emboldened to let everyone know how they feel EVERYWHERE. Online forums, chats, comment sections, at work, at the gym, at the store. Its like dang, I already know how inferior you think I am. I really don't need you to let me know that while I'm standing in line at Starbucks.
Google, Amazon, Yahoo, MSN, etc. All far left, radical, social justice warrior companies. I won't buy anything from them. Too liberal/progressive, and intolerant of other views. No thanks.
Lol... What do you do, live in a cave? If you're posting on the internet, you are already using the products of "liberal" companies.
No one denied him his right to do so, nor yourself.
As stated above, you have to deal with the consequences of your words/actions. This employee used an internal board to post this memo and it went out to the entire Google work staff. If he lead a team in the future and it lacked female team members, the women who were passed up could sue for discrimination against Google and it would cost them financially.
Yeah that was just flat out stupid on his part. All that intelligence and no common sense.
Exactly. While I agree Google had a legal right to fire him, I would suggest that people read the actual document (or at least what is available, I've yet to find the whole thing) before making a judgement on whether this is hate speech. I read what I could find and did not anything even close to that, but maybe I missed it. From what I could see, he presents his case with a lot of what appear to be respected studies on gender differences and how this may impact the success of diversity initiatives within Google. I read the media reaction to the manifesto first and was a bit surprised (or not given how the media grabs certain statements and uses them to support their opinion, which happens on both sides), when I saw the actual content - especially the opening statement.
What I would love to see is a real debate on this topic, instead of attacking the author's character, how about attacking the positions and studies put forth in his manifesto? That kind of discourse has pretty much disappeared from our society, and will ulimately keep our society and economy from progressing. This will hurt us all in the end, and probably even more those that these programs were designed to protect. BTW, I am a woman that works in technology, starting in the mid 90's when there really was rampant basis, and literally less than 5 women in senior product management / developer / architect positions in my company of 6,000. The way I earned the respect of my PhD all male staff was to prove that I could do the work and provide value they could not. If I had been a diversity candidate, I dont think I ever would have earned their respect. They would have had to tolerate me, but you cant force someone to respect you.
On the bold, I've read most of it. You can find the entire document at the link below.
I personally didn't think it was "hate speech." Instead, I agree with what Google has said in that it reeked of stereotypes of women in particular.
He said this about women:
Quote:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also
interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.
● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.
● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist
and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
These all perpetuate stereotypes of women. Especially the "neuroticism" which is typical of sexist comments of men for hundreds of years. Many women have been locked in insane asylums due to complaints by the men in their life that they were "neurotic" or suffered from "hysteria."
We also have to note that when women are assertive (I am an assertive woman BTW in my career and have been labeled as follows) they are considered a "b*tch" while men are seen as "strong leaders." Women and girls are often encouraged, to this day to be more "lady like" (people have said this to my 9 year old daughter as I'm also raising her to be assertive and take advantage of her leadership characteristics).
He also said:
Quote:
Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
Women on average are more cooperative
Women on average are more prone to anxiety
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for
status on average
I don't think its right to deny opportunity to anyone because of political affiliation. OTOH, if you want a culture of inclusion, you need to make sure everyone knows that out of pocket comments and affiliation with organizations who doesn't promote inclusion will not be tolerated.
Sometimes, umm, many times I find the democratic party are becoming bullies and very quick to state if you are prolife or you can't preach from the pulpit against certain sins or it will be considered as hate speech. That is almost as bad as what the GOP has going on in the White house.
Politics is not a federally protected class.
For almost 40 years, it has been unlawful for federal employees to ask about political party preference of federal employees and job applicants. A similar law exists of all public and private employers in DC.
I am unaware of any state or municipality within a state that bans political bias. A company may impose their own standards.
What employers/ employees choose to post on internal forums says something about their emotional maturity/ lack thereof.
During the months before the 2012 election several large conservative employers distributed packets to their employees encouraging them to vote for Romney and warned of dire consequences to employees if Romney was not elected. Georgia Pacific, owned by Koch, was one of them. The Koch Bros donated $60 million to defeat Obama and raised $400 million for PACs with the same objective.
This duo chose to sit out the 2017 presidential campaign and instead directed funds to some candidates, in some states.
Last edited by middle-aged mom; 08-08-2017 at 08:18 AM..
No one denied him his right to do so, nor yourself.
As stated above, you have to deal with the consequences of your words/actions. This employee used an internal board to post this memo and it went out to the entire Google work staff. If he lead a team in the future and it lacked female team members, the women who were passed up could sue for discrimination against Google and it would cost them financially.
Also when you work for a company/organization, you agree to follow their policies. Google has a policy on this issue and he violated it.
FWIW our government also has policies against workplace discrimination and language. Practically all larger organizations and companies have similar policies. These do not say that you cannot be prejudiced and speak in stereotypes, but it does mean that you cannot do it at work and you as an employee represent a company and its image. If you are not the image the company wants, they can get rid of you.
Go and find a company that likes stereotypical and discriminatory language in the workplace. There actually are companies that have no issues with it. The evil "left" as you see them have not made you not able to say what you want to say. However, when anyone hears something that they disagree with, they have a right to respond to those words. You all need to put on your big boy pants and deal with it and not blame a mystical evil "left" for you issues.
I think we're talking about different topics. I am speaking about us talking about what we think of google's actions on this board, despite google's constitutional rights to fire who they want. No Recess makes the same comment every time anything related to workplace discrimination is being discussed and he seems to be implying that not only does the company have the right to do it, but us posters have no business even expressing an opinion on it.
Had you tried to understand the context of my post you might not have felt the need to let your big girl panties get in to such a wad.
On the bold, I've read most of it. You can find the entire document at the link below.
I personally didn't think it was "hate speech." Instead, I agree with what Google has said in that it reeked of stereotypes of women in particular.
He said this about women:
These all perpetuate stereotypes of women. Especially the "neuroticism" which is typical of sexist comments of men for hundreds of years. Many women have been locked in insane asylums due to complaints by the men in their life that they were "neurotic" or suffered from "hysteria."
We also have to note that when women are assertive (I am an assertive woman BTW in my career and have been labeled as follows) they are considered a "b*tch" while men are seen as "strong leaders." Women and girls are often encouraged, to this day to be more "lady like" (people have said this to my 9 year old daughter as I'm also raising her to be assertive and take advantage of her leadership characteristics).
For almost 40 years, it has been unlawful for federal employees to ask about political party preference of federal employees and job applicants. A similar law exists of all public and private employers in DC.
I am unaware of any state or municipality within a state that bans political bias. A company may impose their own standards.
What employers/ employees choose to post on internal forums says something about their emotional maturity/ lack thereof.
Also, nothing in the memo was political. It was simply racist and sexist. Interesting how conservatives are quick to label him one of their own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
here's another:
